BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. A TECH M & E ENGINEERING LTD

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. A TECH M & E ENGINEERING LTD

On the evidence the court found two binding lump‑sum sub‑contracts were formed based on the amended quotations and parties' conduct; absence of unit rates/breakdown did not defeat contractual certainty in the circumstances; BeSpark repudiated the contracts by termination and A‑Tech was entitled to the value of work done at contract prices (HKD 1,472,522.53 net) plus damages for loss of profit calculated at 7.5% of the remaining contract value (HKD 1,523,402.83), totaling HKD 2,995,925.36, with interest and costs.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3024
Parties
Plaintiff: BeSpark Technologies Engineering Limited; Defendant: A-Tech M & E Engineering Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Case Number
HCCT65/2019
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Civil Counterclaim / Judgment Following Trial
Outcome
BeSpark's claim dismissed by abandonment; judgment entered for A‑Tech on counterclaim in the total sum of HKD 2,995,925.36; interest and costs awarded to A‑Tech.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Repudiatory Breach, Quantum Meruit, Loss of Profits, Certainty of Terms, Interim Payments
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Construction Law Remedies / Damages Formation of Contract Repudiatory Breach Quantum Meruit Loss of Profits Certainty of Terms +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BeSpark Technologies Engineering Limited

Plaintiff

A-Tech M & E Engineering Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Civil Counterclaim / Judgment Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties formed two lump‑sum sub‑contracts based on amended quotations
  2. 2 Whether essential terms (unit rates/breakdown) were missing such that contracts were void for uncertainty
  3. 3 Proper remedy for work performed pre‑termination (value at contract prices vs quantum meruit)

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the court found two binding lump‑sum sub‑contracts were formed based on the amended quotations and parties' conduct; absence of unit rates/breakdown did not defeat contractual certainty in the circumstances; BeSpark repudiated the contracts by termination and A‑Tech was entitled to the value of work done at contract prices (HKD 1,472,522.53 net) plus damages for loss of profit calculated at 7.5% of the remaining contract value (HKD 1,523,402.83), totaling HKD 2,995,925.36, with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

BeSpark's claim dismissed by abandonment; judgment entered for A‑Tech on counterclaim in the total sum of HKD 2,995,925.36; interest and costs awarded to A‑Tech.

Orders

  • BeSpark to pay A‑Tech HKD 2,995,925.36
  • Interest on that sum from 8 April 2019 to 30 September 2022 at rate of prime + 1% per annum