Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Final account

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2024

CHOI KEI LTD v. DAVID DECORATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1737
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3882/2021

The Acceptance Letter and contemporaneous quotations and dealings did not contain clear or unambiguous words creating a condition precedent or pay-when-paid term; the parties agreed prices for additional works (including at the 23 October 2019 site meeting); there was insufficient pleading or evidence of any customary ‘payment on account’ practice and no pleaded counterclaim for alleged contra-charges — accordingly Defendant's defences failed and judgment was entered for Plaintiff for HK$2,624,155.55 with interest and costs.
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.
29 Jun 2020

CHEVALIER (ALUMINIUM ENGINEERING) HONG KONG LTD v. SUN PROPERTIES CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1313
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT63/2017

The Direct Payment Agreement, if any, was supplemental to and subject to the Main Contract and Sub-Contract; the Sub-Contract special provisions (notably clause 10.05 SP excluding any monetary claim for omissions and the amended clause 28 excluding additional payment for extensions of time) precluded the Contractor's claims for omitted works, abortive design costs and prolongation costs; there was no proved Agreed Final Account; consequently the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed and the Defendant's counterclaim for overpayment was allowed.
8 Nov 2019

LINGNAN UNIVERSITY (formerly known as LINGNAN COLLEGE) v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW614/1997

Having assessed all evidence and applied the onus of proof, the court concluded the Applicant had proved on the balance of probabilities a real debt and admitted the Applicant as a proving creditor for the revised amount of HK$9,194,047.44.
20 Jun 2019

TACTFUL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING (HK) LTD v. UNIVIC ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT57/2016

The 24/1 email together with the attached bill of quantities constituted a counter-offer that the Plaintiff accepted by commencing work with knowledge of its terms; therefore the contract rates are those set out in the 24/1 BQ. The Defendant failed to prove that SK rates applied or that the Plaintiff abandoned the contract as pleaded; the Plaintiff is not entitled to the EF coupler claim for lack of proof; the Defendant failed to prove rectification costs but proved extra costs for completion of 48m of works which are allowed on the counterclaim.
21 Sept 2017

WIN WIN WAY CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD v. JUDEA CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WIN WIN WAY CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD v. JUDEA CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT37/2016

The court applied the general rule that a plaintiff discontinuing a claim must pay the defendants' costs, refused to carve out costs of preparing accounts because plaintiff failed to show those costs were not wasted or sufficiently linked to inevitable proceedings, and declined to award indemnity costs because the plaintiff's case was not shown to be so unmeritorious or egregious to justify indemnity; plaintiff granted leave to withdraw stay and discontinue, with costs to the defendants taxed if not agreed, but costs incurred by defendants after 16 August 2017 for trial preparation were disal…
23 Mar 2016

ARS ENGINEERING LTD v. SKYFORCE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

ARS ENGINEERING LTD v. SKYFORCE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2552/2014

The court found there are serious disputed issues of fact and law (including applicability of rates, whether joint assessments were provisional, alleged implied terms, and whether payment extinguished claims) that require trial; accordingly both the plaintiff's application for final judgment and the strike out application were dismissed and the matters remain for trial.
14 Jan 2016

WING BO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DISCREET LTD

Citation

WING BO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DISCREET LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA146/2015

The 2014 Agreement and reports constituted binding independent review and assessment only as to the limited items expressly within their scope (new rates for blockwork and internal/external finishes and certain formwork quantities); they did not amount to a final and binding determination of the overall final account or abrogate Clause 35. A prima facie arbitrable dispute therefore remained within the wide ambit of Clause 35 and the mandatory stay under s20 of the Arbitration Ordinance was ordered; the master's refusal to stay was set aside and proceedings stayed for arbitration with costs to…
18 Aug 2015

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 held Metta failed to discharge the burden of establishing litigation privilege over the photos and that Categories M (quotations), N (all photos including cores), O (final drawings) and P (payment information since file A107) are relevant and necessary for discovery and must be disclosed without waiting for final accounts; selective waiver of privilege in respect of photos is not permitted.
10 Aug 2015

FORTUNE LINK ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

FORTUNE LINK ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2929/2012

Court found no binding Final Account Agreement on 7 June 2012 because the documents and emails were drafts and unsigned; separately, on construction of the subcontract and related correspondence VQ007 was a valid variation (or in the alternative the Defendant expressly/impliedly agreed to pay the assessed VQ007 price) and the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff a total of HK$326,765.28 together with costs.