Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Defective works

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2023

WELL CONTROL LTD v. SIN WAI KEUNG t/a WAI HAO ENGINEERING TRADING CO

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1461
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5661/2019

Court held that plaintiff failed to prove actionable misrepresentation; most alleged defects were not substantiated and the admitted defects were remediable; defendant had not evinced an intention not to carry out remedial works; earlier extensions waived reliance on prior deadlines; plaintiff was not entitled to terminate on 5 March 2019 and must pay defendant outstanding sums of HK$312,500; defendant failed to prove the 4th Quotation claim.
7 Jan 2022

SMARTEK E & M ENGINEERING (HK) LTD v. WIN WIN WAY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 32
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5104/2017

Credibility and contemporaneous documents established plaintiff left site with defective and incomplete works and failed to provide required substantiation; final account was not finalised and defendant never acknowledged or made the alleged part payment that could revive limitation; the causes of action for each VO accrued on the invoice dates in 2010 and are therefore time‑barred; further, defendant is entitled to equitable set‑off for costs incurred in rectifying defects (net HK$530,800), so plaintiff's claim is dismissed and costs awarded to defendant on an indemnity basis.
26 Jul 2021

COLMAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LTD v. MINMETALS CONDO (HONG KONG) ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2184
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT36/2018

The Contract incorporated the drawings and technical specifications relevant to the Plaintiff's subcontract works but did not incorporate the main contract's or MC's full General or Special Conditions; the Contract is a remeasurement contract based on flat area so unit rates in the schedules govern valuation of variations (not weight-based measurement); many of the Plaintiff's variation claims fail for liability or for lack of substantiation; most contra charges claimed by the Defendant fail for lack of sufficient evidence though specified discrete amounts were allowed where supported by evid…
3 Jun 2021

CONVERGE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. MOUNT KELLY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT72/2018

The court found the defendant's evidence not credible and that the joint expert established any defects were minor and inexpensive to rectify; the alleged water seepage and extensive screeding cracks were unproven and the major rectification costs claimed were caused by the defendant's redesign and amalgamation of premises rather than the plaintiff's works. Consequently the plaintiff was entitled to the unpaid contract balance of $1,813,689.80 and the defendant's counterclaim succeeded only for minor rectification costs of $16,800; indemnity costs to plaintiff were ordered.
26 May 2021

ON PROFIT DESIGN LTD v. MAC SEDATION CENTRE LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 561
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2645/2020

The court found triable issues on whether the Additional Quotation was agreed and on the defendant's equitable set-off defences arising from alleged late completion and defective works; accordingly the court refused full summary judgment, granted unconditional leave to defend on HK$372,997 and conditional leave to defend on HK$211,249.50 subject to interim payment within 21 days, and reserved costs.
22 Aug 2019

SUN CHEONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KING FU, HO FU, KI FU & KA FU BUILDINGS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2076
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT27/2010

On the evidence the Owners failed to prove most alleged defects attributable to the Plaintiff during the contract and defects liability period; only 118 foreign objects observed in 2009 were attributable to plaintiff and should have been removed; defective concrete claims were dismissed as unreliable and untimely expert evidence; defective waterproofing and defective sealing claims were established; allowed parts of counterclaim to be set off against Plaintiff's outstanding contract sum; costs awarded largely to Plaintiff (80%).
20 Apr 2015

A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD

Citation

A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ876/2014

Court found defendant caused/prevented delay to Phase 1 by late confirmation of sanitary fittings and shop drawings and by conduct causing rescheduling so time for Phase 1 was rendered at large and the 35 day delay was reasonable; although contract construed to require Phase 2 to commence immediately after Phase 1, the parties agreed (and defendant failed to rebut) commencement on 16 February 2013 so Phase 2 completed within 45 days; defendant proved some defects but only nominal damages HKD1,000 were provable; judgment entered for plaintiff for HKD501,060 (DCCJ 1559/2013) and HKD118,300 (DCC…
20 Apr 2015

A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD

Citation

A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1559/2013

Judge accepted plaintiff's contemporaneous emails and oral evidence that defendant delayed confirmation of sanitary fittings and shop drawings and caused rescheduling; applied prevention principle so time for Phase 1 was at large and the 35-day delay did not attract liquidated damages; although contract construed to require Phase 2 to commence immediately after Phase 1, the parties in fact agreed to start Phase 2 on 16 Feb 2013 so no LDs for Phase 2; defects found were minor and awarded nominal damages of HK$1,000 which set off against plaintiff's claim; judgments granted for plaintiff for th…
4 Mar 2011

LIANG JIAN XING v. JINGO INTERIORS DESIGN LTD

Citation

LIANG JIAN XING v. JINGO INTERIORS DESIGN LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5986/2008

The completion date was validly varied by mutual agreement to 11 November 2008 (evidenced by construction programs, communications and a meeting), so no liquidated damages were payable; the defendant was liable for specified defective works and the court quantified reasonable rectification costs (HK$42,550) but the defendant was entitled to contractual payments (including HK$13,500 under the Design Agreement and various VO sums), yielding a net judgment for the defendant of HK$52,851.82; costs awarded by departure from usual rule (order nisi for 75% in favour of defendant).
12 Feb 2010

JETS TECHNICS LTD v. T.O.P. CONTRACTING LTD

Citation

JETS TECHNICS LTD v. T.O.P. CONTRACTING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT43/2008

Judge accepted Jets' entitlement to the certified sum of $1,111,000, preferred Jets' experts and market-based rates, assessed TOP's counterclaim for defective work at $20,000 (principally for additional supports in Area D and minor repairs in Area B), and allowed TOP liberty to deduct that sum from retention monies; costs and interest were awarded accordingly.