MITSUBISHI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. WONG TONG & PARTNERS

MITSUBISHI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. WONG TONG & PARTNERS

On the pleaded facts there was sufficient proximity and foreseeable risk of economic loss to the subcontractor arising from negligent certification by the architect that the subcontractor's claim could not be said plainly to fail; therefore the strike-out application under Order 18 r 19(a) must be dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. WONG TONG & PARTNERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Mitsubishi Corporation; 2nd Plaintiff: Fudo Construction Co. Ltd.; Defendant/applicant: Wong Tong & Partners
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 November 1987
Case Number
HCCL19/1987
Procedural Posture
Construction Negligence (building Contract) / Strike Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 (chambers Hearing)
Outcome
Strike-out application dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Strike Out, Causation, Privity, Certification of Payments
Source Language
en
Tort Contract Construction Law Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Economic Loss Strike Out +3 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mitsubishi Corporation

1st Plaintiff

Fudo Construction Co. Ltd.

2nd Plaintiff

Wong Tong & Partners

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Construction Negligence (building Contract) / Strike Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 (chambers Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an architect owed a duty of care to a subcontractor (2nd Plaintiff) for negligent certification of payments
  2. 2 Whether economic loss to the subcontractor was reasonably foreseeable and causally linked to the alleged negligence
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out under Order 18 r 19(a) on the pleadings alone

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleaded facts there was sufficient proximity and foreseeable risk of economic loss to the subcontractor arising from negligent certification by the architect that the subcontractor's claim could not be said plainly to fail; therefore the strike-out application under Order 18 r 19(a) must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Strike-out application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under Order 18 Rule 19 dismissed