MILICICH & CO LTD v. LAM GEOTECHNICS LTD

MILICICH & CO LTD v. LAM GEOTECHNICS LTD

On the contractual documents and factual background a reasonable person would conclude the parties agreed a continuing subcontract for the term of the main contract (covering nine further trawl events) at a lump sum price per event between Lam and Milicich & Company Limited; Dr Milicich was not contracted personally; MCL was not justified in withholding deliverables and Lam was entitled to a mandatory injunction which is made final; interlocutory injunction against Dr Milicich personally is discharged; MCL succeeds on its counterclaim and is awarded quantified damages of HKD 330,527 plus interest; costs orders as set out in judgment.

Citation
MILICICH & CO LTD v. LAM GEOTECHNICS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (hca158); Defendant (hca1766): Lam Geotechnics Limited; 1st Defendant (hca158): Maria Justine Milicich; 2nd Defendant (hca158); Plaintiff (hca1766): Milicich & Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 2005
Case Number
HCA1766/2002
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (subcontract) With Claims for Injunction and Damages / Final Judgment (8 July 2005)
Outcome
Judgment entered for Milicich & Company Limited on its counterclaim for quantified damages; mandatory injunction against MCL made final; interlocutory injunction against Dr Milicich discharged; Lam's remaining claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Subcontract Interpretation, Withholding of Deliverables, Repudiation and Acceptance, Quantum of Loss and Loss of Profits, Costs and Injunction Undertakings
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Equity (injunctions) Damages Civil Procedure Subcontract Interpretation Withholding of Deliverables Repudiation and Acceptance Quantum of Loss and Loss of Profits +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Geotechnics Limited

Plaintiff (hca158); Defendant (hca1766)

Maria Justine Milicich

1st Defendant (hca158)

Milicich & Company Limited

2nd Defendant (hca158); Plaintiff (hca1766)

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (subcontract) With Claims for Injunction and Damages / Final Judgment (8 July 2005)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subcontract was a per-event lump sum contract or a continuing subcontract for the term of the main contract
  2. 2 Whether the contract was with Dr Milicich personally or with Milicich & Company Limited
  3. 3 Whether withholding of samples and data (deliverables) was justified

Ratio Decidendi

On the contractual documents and factual background a reasonable person would conclude the parties agreed a continuing subcontract for the term of the main contract (covering nine further trawl events) at a lump sum price per event between Lam and Milicich & Company Limited; Dr Milicich was not contracted personally; MCL was not justified in withholding deliverables and Lam was entitled to a mandatory injunction which is made final; interlocutory injunction against Dr Milicich personally is discharged; MCL succeeds on its counterclaim and is awarded quantified damages of HKD 330,527 plus interest; costs orders as set out in judgment.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for Milicich & Company Limited on its counterclaim for quantified damages; mandatory injunction against MCL made final; interlocutory injunction against Dr Milicich discharged; Lam's remaining claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for Milicich & Company Limited for HKD 330,527 with interest at prime rate plus 1% from date of filing of the counterclaim until judgment and thereafter at the judgment rate until payment
  • Mandatory injunction against Milicich & Company Limited made final (delivery of samples and data to Lam)