LAI TING KWONG v. WUI LOONG SCAFFOLDING WORKS CO LTD

LAI TING KWONG v. WUI LOONG SCAFFOLDING WORKS CO LTD

Clause 6 was ambiguous and construed not to make time of payment essential; one-day late payment did not entitle plaintiff to terminate; plaintiff repudiated by ceasing work from 27 Dec 2013 so forfeited retention; plaintiff was nonetheless entitled to the assessed 4th interim payment of $143,487; defendant entitled to recover part of day-worker costs leading to judgment for defendant $22,832; net award payable to plaintiff $120,655 plus interest and costs nisi.

Citation
LAI TING KWONG v. WUI LOONG SCAFFOLDING WORKS CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Case Number
DCCJ1748/2014
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (scaffolding Subcontract) / Trial Judgment (deputy District Judge)
Outcome
Judgment for defendant on its re-amended counterclaim in the sum of $22,832; judgment for plaintiff on his counterclaim to counterclaim in the sum of $143,487; after set-off defendant to pay plaintiff net sum $120,655 with interest; costs nisi in favour of plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Time of the Essence, Termination for Breach, Retention Money, Repudiatory Breach, Implied Terms, Set Off, Voluntary Payment/recovery, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Construction Law Equity Remedies Time of the Essence Termination for Breach Retention Money Repudiatory Breach +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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (scaffolding Subcontract) / Trial Judgment (deputy District Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time for payment was of the essence permitting termination for one-day late payment
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff validly terminated the subcontract and was entitled to damages including loss of profit and retention money
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff was in repudiatory breach by ceasing work

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 6 was ambiguous and construed not to make time of payment essential; one-day late payment did not entitle plaintiff to terminate; plaintiff repudiated by ceasing work from 27 Dec 2013 so forfeited retention; plaintiff was nonetheless entitled to the assessed 4th interim payment of $143,487; defendant entitled to recover part of day-worker costs leading to judgment for defendant $22,832; net award payable to plaintiff $120,655 plus interest and costs nisi.

Court Disposition

Judgment for defendant on its re-amended counterclaim in the sum of $22,832; judgment for plaintiff on his counterclaim to counterclaim in the sum of $143,487; after set-off defendant to pay plaintiff net sum $120,655 with interest; costs nisi in favour of plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment for defendant against plaintiff in the sum of 22832 HKD
  • Judgment for plaintiff on counterclaim to counterclaim in the sum of 143487 HKD