CCECC (H.K.) LTD. v. MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

CCECC (H.K.) LTD. v. MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

The court refused leave to appeal under s.23, refused to remit issues under s.24 and refused removal under s.25, concluding the arbitrator's findings were not plainly wrong and fell within the presumption of finality: practical completion was validly certified on 24 June 1999; SP 8.02 does not modify Clause 23 (SP 5.03 is the amendment); the contractor was entitled to 703 days extension; time was set at large due to the respondent's non-payment; quantum determinations (including fluctuations, site overheads, interest) were within the arbitrator's fact-finding and discretionary remit; costs awarded to respondent.

Citation
CCECC (H.K.) LTD. v. MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff / Claimant in Arbitration: CCECC (H.K.) Limited; Defendant / Respondent in Arbitration / Applicant: Might Foundate Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 August 2001
Case Number
HCCT23/2001
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Applications for Leave to Appeal (s.23), Remission (s.24) and Removal Under S.25
Outcome
Applications under sections 23, 24 and 25 refused; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
Practical Completion, Extension of Time, Time at Large, Loss and Expense, Site Overheads, Fluctuations, Interest, Remission of Awards, Leave to Appeal, Removal of Arbitrator
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Practical Completion Extension of Time Time at Large Loss and Expense +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CCECC (H.K.) Limited

Plaintiff / Claimant in Arbitration

Might Foundate Development Limited

Defendant / Respondent in Arbitration / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Applications for Leave to Appeal (s.23), Remission (s.24) and Removal Under S.25

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Practical Completion certificate of 24 June 1999 was valid
  2. 2 Whether notice requirements (SP 8.02/SP 5.03 and Clause 23) are conditions precedent to extensions of time
  3. 3 Proper method for calculating extensions of time/critical path disputes

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave to appeal under s.23, refused to remit issues under s.24 and refused removal under s.25, concluding the arbitrator's findings were not plainly wrong and fell within the presumption of finality: practical completion was validly certified on 24 June 1999; SP 8.02 does not modify Clause 23 (SP 5.03 is the amendment); the contractor was entitled to 703 days extension; time was set at large due to the respondent's non-payment; quantum determinations (including fluctuations, site overheads, interest) were within the arbitrator's fact-finding and discretionary remit; costs awarded to respondent.

Court Disposition

Applications under sections 23, 24 and 25 refused; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • Refuse leave to appeal under section 23
  • Refuse remission of the award under section 24