Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Defects

  • 19 Aug 2016

    CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD

    Citation
    CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT29/2013

    The court found on the evidence that HYA had abdicated its independent duties due to Metta/CK interference; ERI-MC-897, read in context and SP-2.03/SCC-15, validly omitted all remaining works in the contractor's scope including obligations to rectify known defects, and therefore many of Metta's defect counterclaims were rejected; only limited EOTs were awarded (25 days for MS-1 and 51 days for MS-2) and corresponding loss and expense and materials entitlements to the contractor were assessed; Metta was entitled to reduced LD and certain contra-charges. The court applied a pragmatic broad-brus…

  • 6 Aug 2010

    WOON LEE (HK) CO LTD v. HOLYROOD LTD

    Citation
    WOON LEE (HK) CO LTD v. HOLYROOD LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT4/2009

    The judge rejected the owner's evidence as unreliable, drew an adverse inference from the failure to call the authorised person, accepted the contractor's evidence on variations, completion and valuations, implied a term that the owner would not hinder performance, found the owner repudiated Contract C by barring access and failing to pay, held the contractor lawfully terminated and is entitled to recover contract sums, agreed variations, interest and loss of profits; the owner's counterclaim for defects was dismissed for failure to prove causation and responsibility.

  • 1 Feb 2008

    SAN FAI CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD v. TSANG, FUSON

    Citation
    SAN FAI CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD v. TSANG, FUSON
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3133/2004

    Contemporaneous correspondence and conduct established that San Fai had substantially completed the works by early 2003 and the maintenance/payment period commenced then; Tsang failed to prove the alleged defects or their causation and therefore could not withhold payment or succeed in counterclaim; plaintiff entitled to the unpaid balance with interest and costs.

  • 18 Feb 2003

    KOT CHI KIU t/a KONG TONG INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO. v. SPEED TOP CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

    Citation
    KOT CHI KIU t/a KONG TONG INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO. v. SPEED TOP CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6165/2002

    The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff for $700 under the Tai Tong contract because the defendant produced no evidence to justify the deduction; other claimed deductions which raised factual disputes (notably the Mercury contract) could not be resolved on an O.14 summons and the defendant was granted leave to defend on the 2nd and 3rd contracts, additional works, and $1,261.20 under the Mercury contract; costs were limited to dates of settlement and interest awarded as specified.

  • 16 Jun 1988

    SAINT TROPEZ FASHION MAKERS (a firm) v. HIGH FASHION GRAMENTS LIMITED

    Citation
    SAINT TROPEZ FASHION MAKERS (a firm) v. HIGH FASHION GRAMENTS LIMITED
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA6080/1986

    The court found for the plaintiff: defendant failed to prove the alleged overcharges, late delivery and defects; key documentary and testimonial evidence relied on by defendant was fabricated or lost and the plaintiff's witnesses were preferred, therefore defendant's setoff and counterclaim were dismissed and judgment entered for the plaintiff for HK$330,447.26 plus costs.