MAK KEE LTD. v. SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD.

MAK KEE LTD. v. SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD.

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal erred by applying the contra proferentem rule prematurely and by deciding scope of the settlement from the confirmation letter alone without properly examining extrinsic evidence and considering whether an implied term should cover the disputed invoices; the judgment below was set aside and the matter remitted for further adjudication applying proper principles of construction and, if necessary, implication of terms.

Citation
MAK KEE LTD. v. SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD.
Parties
Claimant (respondent): MAK KEE LTD.; Defendant (appellant): SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 May 2002
Case Number
HCSA4/2002
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; award below set aside and matter remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for further adjudication
Legal Topics
Compromise Settlement, Parol Evidence Rule, Contra Proferentem, Construction of Agreements, Implied Terms
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Evidence Civil Procedure Contract Interpretation Compromise Settlement Parol Evidence Rule Contra Proferentem Construction of Agreements +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAK KEE LTD.

Claimant (respondent)

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD.

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether five specified invoices were covered by a full and final settlement
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence and pre-contractual lists are admissible to determine scope of a settlement agreement
  3. 3 Whether the contra proferentem rule was properly applied by the Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal erred by applying the contra proferentem rule prematurely and by deciding scope of the settlement from the confirmation letter alone without properly examining extrinsic evidence and considering whether an implied term should cover the disputed invoices; the judgment below was set aside and the matter remitted for further adjudication applying proper principles of construction and, if necessary, implication of terms.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; award below set aside and matter remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for further adjudication

Orders

  • Set aside the judgment awarded in favor of the Claimant in the Small Claims Tribunal
  • Remit the matter to the Small Claims Tribunal for further adjudication and, where necessary, further evidence and findings on background and scope of settlement