THRESHOLD CONSULTANTS LTD v. BOOST INVESTMENTS LTD

THRESHOLD CONSULTANTS LTD v. BOOST INVESTMENTS LTD

Boost failed to discharge the burden of proof on breach and causation: the project programmes were estimates not contractual deadlines; Threshold provided tender/DD drawings in time and responded to numerous client queries; no expert evidence established professional breach; many delays and abortive costs were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 415
Parties
Plaintiff and 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Threshold Consultants Limited; Defendant and Plaintiff (counterclaim): Boost Investments Limited; 2nd Defendant: Au Man Yi Kitty
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Case Number
HCCT58/2017
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for Threshold; Boost’s counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Consultancy Agreement, Implied Terms, Duty of Care of Consultants, Delay and Causation, Collateral Warranty/personal Guarantee, Set Off, Damages, Authorised Person
Source Language
en
Contract Law Construction Law Professional Negligence Company/director Liability Building Regulation Consultancy Agreement Implied Terms Duty of Care of Consultants +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Threshold Consultants Limited

Plaintiff and 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Boost Investments Limited

Defendant and Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Au Man Yi Kitty

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Threshold breached implied contractual terms and duties of care
  2. 2 Whether Threshold failed to provide fit-for-purpose detailed design drawings by alleged dates
  3. 3 Whether Threshold refused to provide consultancy services after 29 March 2017

Ratio Decidendi

Boost failed to discharge the burden of proof on breach and causation: the project programmes were estimates not contractual deadlines; Threshold provided tender/DD drawings in time and responded to numerous client queries; no expert evidence established professional breach; many delays and abortive costs were attributable to contractor or Boost decisions; no express personal undertaking by Ms Au — therefore counterclaim dismissed and Threshold entitled to fees claimed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Threshold; Boost’s counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for Threshold against Boost for HK$1,018,250 with interest at prime plus 1% per annum from date of writ to date of judgment
  • Judgment dismissing Boost’s counterclaim against Threshold and Ms Au