PETER LEUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. TAI POON COMPANY LIMITED

PETER LEUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. TAI POON COMPANY LIMITED

At the date of the writ there was no dispute in existence to attract a mandatory stay under section 6 of the Arbitration Ordinance; accordingly the action proceeds in court, summary judgment was appropriate for the sums certified except where a triable issue existed as to the contractual price for plumbing and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PETER LEUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. TAI POON COMPANY LIMITED
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Peter Leung Construction Company Limited; Defendant/appellant: Tai Poon Company Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 May 1985
Case Number
CACV45/1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract and Arbitration) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Deputy Judge's Decision on Summary Judgment and Stay
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and judgment of Deputy Judge varied
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Stay for Arbitration Under S.6, Architect's Certificates and Valuations, Quantum Meruit, Written Instruction Requirement, Leave to Defend
Source Language
en
Contract Law Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Construction Law Summary Judgment Stay for Arbitration Under S.6 Architect's Certificates and Valuations Quantum Meruit +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Leung Construction Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Tai Poon Company Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract and Arbitration) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Deputy Judge's Decision on Summary Judgment and Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a dispute existed at the commencement of proceedings to justify a stay under section 6 of the Arbitration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate for the amounts claimed in the architect's certificate
  3. 3 Whether the Architect/Quantity Surveyor could validly issue a revised certificate (38R) after commencement of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

At the date of the writ there was no dispute in existence to attract a mandatory stay under section 6 of the Arbitration Ordinance; accordingly the action proceeds in court, summary judgment was appropriate for the sums certified except where a triable issue existed as to the contractual price for plumbing and drainage (quantum meruit), and unconditional leave to defend was required in respect of that $1 million item while the plaintiff remains entitled to the balance certified (rounded to $6.2 million).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and judgment of Deputy Judge varied

Orders

  • Defendant/Employer granted unconditional leave to defend as to $1,000,000
  • $1,000,000 to be repaid by the Plaintiff/Main Contractor to the Defendant/Employer