ALDO TRADING LTD v. PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD

ALDO TRADING LTD v. PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD

On the evidence the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Partner's workmanship caused the claimed defects and losses; intervening factors (lack of ventilation, works by other contractors, failure to use guarantees) and inconclusive expert tests defeated causation, and the true contracting party for the counterclaim was Mr Charlie Lee so liability on the counterclaim lies against him.

Citation
ALDO TRADING LTD v. PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action): ALDO TRADING LIMITED; Defendant (original Action): PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LIMITED; Plaintiff (counterclaim): PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LIMITED; 1st Defendant (counterclaim): ALDO TRADING LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): CHARLIE LEE CHUN KEE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Case Number
HCA1199/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction/contract / Judgment (court of First Instance, 13 December 2007)
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants in the original action; counterclaim allowed in part against the 2nd defendant (Charlie Lee) for unpaid sums.
Legal Topics
Defective Workmanship, Waterproofing, Flooring Installation, Privity of Contract, Causation, Damages, Counterclaim, Expert Evidence, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Construction Property Civil Procedure Evidence Defective Workmanship Waterproofing Flooring Installation +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALDO TRADING LIMITED

Plaintiff (original Action)

PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LIMITED

Defendant (original Action)

PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LIMITED

Plaintiff (counterclaim)

ALDO TRADING LIMITED

1st Defendant (counterclaim)

CHARLIE LEE CHUN KEE

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction/contract / Judgment (court of First Instance, 13 December 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Partner carried out work in a good and workmanlike manner or defectively
  2. 2 Whether alleged dampness and crumpling of floors were caused by Partner's workmanship or by intervening events/other parties
  3. 3 Identity of the contracting party (privity) and by whom a judgment should be entered on the counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Partner's workmanship caused the claimed defects and losses; intervening factors (lack of ventilation, works by other contractors, failure to use guarantees) and inconclusive expert tests defeated causation, and the true contracting party for the counterclaim was Mr Charlie Lee so liability on the counterclaim lies against him.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants in the original action; counterclaim allowed in part against the 2nd defendant (Charlie Lee) for unpaid sums.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants in the original action with a costs order nisi against the plaintiff.
  • Judgment on the counterclaim against the 2nd defendant (Charlie Lee Chun Kee) for $812,980.49 plus interest to be agreed between the parties.