WING LEE ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD v. ALLIANCE BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD

WING LEE ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD v. ALLIANCE BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD

Court found on balance of probabilities that Plaintiff paid Chu $350,000 and that the parties agreed at the 18 July 2001 meeting that Plaintiff would advance $350,000 to enable Defendant to discharge wages; Plaintiff was liable under s.43C and entitled to recover the sum under s.43F(1); Defendant failed to prove any additional set-off or counterclaim (including failure to prove service or quantum of several invoices); therefore judgment entered for Plaintiff for net HKD 214,046 plus interest and costs.

Citation
WING LEE ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD v. ALLIANCE BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD
Parties
Claimant (superior Subcontractor): Plaintiff; Subcontractor: Defendant; Principal Contractor: Gammon Construction (Hong Kong) Limited; Intermediate Subcontractor: Thorn Security (Hong Kong) Limited; Superior Subcontractor to Plaintiff / Convenor of Meeting: Sinotech Engineering Limited; Site Subcontractor (to Defendant): Chu Yau Chai; Plaintiff's Manager: Wong Kong Fan; Defendant Director/shareholder: Choi Kin Man Kent
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 March 2006
Case Number
DCCJ2056/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil: Building and Employment Statutory Recovery / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff for HKD 214,046 with interest; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to Plaintiff; order nisi 14 days
Legal Topics
Subcontracting, Unpaid Wages, Employment Ordinance S.43 C and S.43 F, Set Off, Credit and Payment, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Construction Law Employment Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Subcontracting Unpaid Wages Employment Ordinance S.43 C and S.43 F Set Off +2 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Claimant (superior Subcontractor)

Defendant

Subcontractor

Gammon Construction (Hong Kong) Limited

Principal Contractor

Thorn Security (Hong Kong) Limited

Intermediate Subcontractor

Sinotech Engineering Limited

Superior Subcontractor to Plaintiff / Convenor of Meeting

Chu Yau Chai

Site Subcontractor (to Defendant)

Wong Kong Fan

Plaintiff's Manager

Choi Kin Man Kent

Defendant Director/shareholder

Procedural Posture

Civil: Building and Employment Statutory Recovery / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiff paid $350,000 to Chu
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff is entitled to recover $350,000 from Defendant
  3. 3 Terms of agreement reached at dinner meeting on 18 July 2001

Ratio Decidendi

Court found on balance of probabilities that Plaintiff paid Chu $350,000 and that the parties agreed at the 18 July 2001 meeting that Plaintiff would advance $350,000 to enable Defendant to discharge wages; Plaintiff was liable under s.43C and entitled to recover the sum under s.43F(1); Defendant failed to prove any additional set-off or counterclaim (including failure to prove service or quantum of several invoices); therefore judgment entered for Plaintiff for net HKD 214,046 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff for HKD 214,046 with interest; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to Plaintiff; order nisi 14 days

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of HKD 214,046 with interest at judgment rate from date of Writ to date of payment
  • The Defendant's counterclaim dismissed