LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD v. STELUX HOLDINGS LTD

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD v. STELUX HOLDINGS LTD

Leave to appeal is refused because the Arbitrator was not shown to be obviously or seriously wrong: clause 23 is to be applied by reference to the state of the works at the time information was required so a causal link to likely delay must be shown; on the Arbitrator's findings the late information could not have caused delay; the Arbitrator was entitled to prefer one expert's time-slice analysis over another and did not commit technical misconduct by declining further submissions.

Citation
LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD v. STELUX HOLDINGS LTD
Parties
Applicant (main Contractor): Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited; Respondent (employer): Stelux Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 September 2004
Case Number
HCCT29/2004
Procedural Posture
Arbitration and Construction Dispute (interim Arbitral Award) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Award and Alternative Application to Set Aside Award/remove Arbitrator
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application to set aside the interim award and to remove the Arbitrator dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Standard Form Contract Interpretation, Time Slice Delay Analysis, Leave to Appeal From Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness/technical Misconduct, Expert Evidence Assessment
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Extension of Time Standard Form Contract Interpretation Time Slice Delay Analysis +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited

Applicant (main Contractor)

Stelux Holdings Limited

Respondent (employer)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration and Construction Dispute (interim Arbitral Award) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Award and Alternative Application to Set Aside Award/remove Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 23 of the standard form contract entitles contractor to extension of time where an event was only 'likely to cause delay' even if no actual delay occurred
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider 'likely delay' as opposed to actual delay
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator improperly rejected parties' experts and substituted her own approach without giving parties an opportunity to be heard (technical misconduct)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is refused because the Arbitrator was not shown to be obviously or seriously wrong: clause 23 is to be applied by reference to the state of the works at the time information was required so a causal link to likely delay must be shown; on the Arbitrator's findings the late information could not have caused delay; the Arbitrator was entitled to prefer one expert's time-slice analysis over another and did not commit technical misconduct by declining further submissions.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application to set aside the interim award and to remove the Arbitrator dismissed.

Orders

  • Order nisi that Stelux is to have the costs of Leighton's leave application, such costs to be taxed if not agreed