CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. LAU CHI LUN t/a CHI HUNG CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. LAU CHI LUN t/a CHI HUNG CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO

On the evidence the Defendant did not contractually guarantee that the walls would be waterproof; his obligation was confined to painting waterproof material supplied by the Plaintiff and he lacked control over the materials. The Plaintiff failed to prove defective workmanship or to establish primary facts allowing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. LAU CHI LUN t/a CHI HUNG CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2010
Case Number
HCA1480/2008
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (construction Sub Contract) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; judgment for Defendant on counterclaim
Legal Topics
Sub Contracting, Waterproofing, Defective Workmanship, Implied Terms, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Witness Statements, Costs
Source Language
en
Contract Law Tort Construction Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Sub Contracting Waterproofing Defective Workmanship +4 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (construction Sub Contract) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 The relevant terms of the sub-contract (whether Defendant guaranteed waterproofing)
  2. 2 Whether Defendant is liable for water leakage absent an express guarantee (defective workmanship/negligence)
  3. 3 Appropriate relief including counterclaim and costs

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Defendant did not contractually guarantee that the walls would be waterproof; his obligation was confined to painting waterproof material supplied by the Plaintiff and he lacked control over the materials. The Plaintiff failed to prove defective workmanship or to establish primary facts allowing an inference of negligence (res ipsa loquitur). Consequently the Plaintiff's claim fails; judgment entered for the Defendant on his counterclaim for the unpaid sum with interest; costs ordered against the Plaintiff (90% of Defendant's costs).

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; judgment for Defendant on counterclaim

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed
  • Judgment for Defendant on counterclaim for outstanding payment of $497,425.35 with interest at judgment rate from date of writ