必瘦站企業管理咨詢(深圳)有限公司 v. JINGO INTERIORS DESIGN LTD AND ANOTHER

必瘦站企業管理咨詢(深圳)有限公司 v. JINGO INTERIORS DESIGN LTD AND ANOTHER

On the evidence the Shenzhen Company had not achieved completion by 18 September 2009 (numerous proved defects and omissions: skirting, flooring, missing furniture, reception/logo works, electrical/controls, etc.). The Guarantee did not make referral to Shenzhen Arbitration Commission a condition precedent to D1's liability. Therefore D1, as guarantor, was liable to pay the liquidated damages of RMB510,000 under the Guarantee; interest and costs were also awarded.

Citation
必瘦站企業管理咨詢(深圳)有限公司 v. JINGO INTERIORS DESIGN LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (P); 1st Defendant (guarantor): 1st Defendant (D1); Contractor/co‑defendant: Shenzhen Company
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Case Number
DCCJ5343/2009
Procedural Posture
Contract (building and Construction) / Guarantee Enforcement / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff. 1st Defendant (D1) liable under the Guarantee.
Legal Topics
Liquidated Damages, Practical Completion, Breach of Contract, Guarantor Liability, Contract Interpretation, Jurisdiction Clause, Costs and Interest
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Building and Construction Guarantee Law Arbitration Clause Remedies (damages and Interest) Liquidated Damages Practical Completion Breach of Contract +4 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (P)

Plaintiff

1st Defendant (D1)

1st Defendant (guarantor)

Shenzhen Company

Contractor/co‑defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract (building and Construction) / Guarantee Enforcement / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether renovation works were completed on the agreed completion date (18 September 2009) (practical completion)
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant (guarantor) is liable under the Guarantee absent referral to or award by the Shenzhen Arbitration Commission
  3. 3 Whether the Guarantee and Implementation Contract require arbitration as a condition precedent to enforcement of the Guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Shenzhen Company had not achieved completion by 18 September 2009 (numerous proved defects and omissions: skirting, flooring, missing furniture, reception/logo works, electrical/controls, etc.). The Guarantee did not make referral to Shenzhen Arbitration Commission a condition precedent to D1's liability. Therefore D1, as guarantor, was liable to pay the liquidated damages of RMB510,000 under the Guarantee; interest and costs were also awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff. 1st Defendant (D1) liable under the Guarantee.

Orders

  • 1st Defendant to pay Plaintiff RMB510,000.
  • Interest on RMB510,000 from 9 November 2009 at 4% per annum until date of judgment.