MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.

MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.

Court refused leave to appeal under section 23, refused to remit under section 24 and refused removal under section 25 because the arbitrator's determinations were primarily factual or contract‑specific, did not disclose plain or obvious legal error warranting interference, and met the standards for reasoned awards;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff / Claimant in Arbitration: CCECC (H.K.) LIMITED; Defendant / Respondent in Arbitration: MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 August 2001
Case Number
HCCT25/2001
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 23, Application for Remission Under Section 24 and Application to Remove Arbitrator Under Section 25
Outcome
Applications under sections 23, 24 and 25 refused; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Remission of Award, Practical Completion, Extension of Time, Time at Large, Loss and Expense, Quantum Assessment, Removal of Arbitrator, Reasoned Award, Costs
Source Language
en
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Remission of Award Practical Completion Extension of Time +6 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CCECC (H.K.) LIMITED

Plaintiff / Claimant in Arbitration

MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Defendant / Respondent in Arbitration

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 23, Application for Remission Under Section 24 and Application to Remove Arbitrator Under Section 25

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Practical Completion certificate dated 24 June 1999 was valid and what "practical completion" means under contract SP provisions
  2. 2 Whether notice under clause 23 and SP 8.02 was a condition precedent to entitlement to extensions of time
  3. 3 Proper method of calculating extensions of time and credibility of competing experts' critical path analyses

Ratio Decidendi

Court refused leave to appeal under section 23, refused to remit under section 24 and refused removal under section 25 because the arbitrator's determinations were primarily factual or contract‑specific, did not disclose plain or obvious legal error warranting interference, and met the standards for reasoned awards; specific holdings upheld include validity of Practical Completion certificate dated 24 June 1999, inconsistency found between SP5.03 and SP8.02 such that SP8.02 did not operate as a condition precedent to extensions, award of 703 days extension of time and finding that time was set at large due to employer's non‑payment, and discretionary quantum assessments were within...

Court Disposition

Applications under sections 23, 24 and 25 refused; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • Applications under section 23 refused
  • Application for remission under section 24 refused