SUM MAN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SMART TOP ENGINEERING LTD

SUM MAN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SMART TOP ENGINEERING LTD

The plaintiff's pleaded case was fatally undermined by its own trial evidence showing it terminated the Agreement on or about 19 June 2010; the court found the defendant had not committed repudiatory breaches prior to that date, the plaintiff unlawfully terminated the Agreement, the defendant was entitled to recover sums paid and owed, the defendant failed to prove speculative lost profits, and judgment on the counterclaim for HKD 168,692.70 (HKD 100,000 site expenses + HKD 68,692.70 Wan Chai sum) with interest was ordered.

Citation
SUM MAN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SMART TOP ENGINEERING LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: SUM MAN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 September 2012
Case Number
HCA242/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (construction/demolition) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed. Judgment entered for the defendant on its counterclaim for HKD 168,692.70 with interest and costs orders as set out.
Legal Topics
Repudiatory Breach, Termination for Breach, Measure of Damages, Counterclaim, Site Expenses Dispute, Consent From Building Department, Interest, Costs, Witness Credibility
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Construction Law Building Regulation Damages Law Civil Procedure Repudiatory Breach Termination for Breach Measure of Damages +6 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUM MAN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (construction/demolition) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant committed repudiatory breaches prior to 19 June 2010
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff lawfully terminated the co-operation agreement
  3. 3 Whether the site expenses invoiced by the plaintiff were payable as claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's pleaded case was fatally undermined by its own trial evidence showing it terminated the Agreement on or about 19 June 2010; the court found the defendant had not committed repudiatory breaches prior to that date, the plaintiff unlawfully terminated the Agreement, the defendant was entitled to recover sums paid and owed, the defendant failed to prove speculative lost profits, and judgment on the counterclaim for HKD 168,692.70 (HKD 100,000 site expenses + HKD 68,692.70 Wan Chai sum) with interest was ordered.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed. Judgment entered for the defendant on its counterclaim for HKD 168,692.70 with interest and costs orders as set out.

Orders

  • Judgment for defendant on counterclaim in the sum of HKD 168,692.70.
  • Interest at 8% per annum from date of filing of the counterclaim to date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate.