WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD

The court refused leave to appeal because, applying the 'obviously wrong' standard, the arbitrator was entitled to infer a completion date from the works programme despite lack of formal notification and was entitled to construe the ambiguous phrase 'rate of works' in SSC 24 so as not to bar recovery of prolongation costs; those conclusions were not obviously wrong.

Citation
WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD
Parties
Applicant (respondent in Arbitration): Wing Hong Construction Limited; Respondent (claimant in Arbitration): Tin Wo Engineering Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 May 2010
Case Number
HCCT13/2010
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceeding / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 23(3)(b) Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Clauses, Leave to Appeal Arbitral Award, Retention Monies, Completion Date, Prolongation Costs, Extension of Time
Source Language
EN
Construction Law Arbitration Contract Law Interpretation of Contract Clauses Leave to Appeal Arbitral Award Retention Monies Completion Date Prolongation Costs +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wing Hong Construction Limited

Applicant (respondent in Arbitration)

Tin Wo Engineering Company Limited

Respondent (claimant in Arbitration)

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceeding / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 23(3)(b) Arbitration Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tin Wo was entitled to release of the second moiety of retention monies absent issue of Certificate of Making Good Defects under SSC 22
  2. 2 Whether absence of a formally notified completion date barred Tin Wo from claiming prolongation costs and whether SSC 24 precluded compensation for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave to appeal because, applying the 'obviously wrong' standard, the arbitrator was entitled to infer a completion date from the works programme despite lack of formal notification and was entitled to construe the ambiguous phrase 'rate of works' in SSC 24 so as not to bar recovery of prolongation costs; those conclusions were not obviously wrong.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused
  • Order nisi that Wing Hong Construction Limited must pay Tin Wo Engineering Company Limited's costs of the proceedings, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed