Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim payment certificate

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2021

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. GOLDEN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 839
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1433/2019

The Letter of Nomination created a binding contract between Bespark and Golden Concept; Bespark assumed the rights and obligations of the contemplated Sub‑Contract, approved the draft and performed under it so formal execution was not essential; there was no clear unequivocal promise or reliance amounting to estoppel or waiver preventing Golden Concept from enforcing the requirement to execute the Sub‑Contract; clause 9 preserved that Golden Concept was not liable to Bespark despite making direct payments; accordingly specific performance compelling Bespark to execute the Sub‑Contract was ord…
31 Mar 2021

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. GOLDEN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 839
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2238/2019

The Letter of Nomination constituted a binding agreement between Bespark and Golden Concept; Paul Y was not a party to the Letter. Bespark had by conduct accepted the terms of the draft Sub-Contract and could not avoid executing it. Clause 9 of the Letter precluded Golden Concept from assuming liability to Bespark despite having paid directly. Consequently Bespark’s claims against Golden Concept were misconceived; Golden Concept was entitled to specific performance ordering Bespark to execute the formal Sub-Contract and the actions were dismissed.
22 Jun 2010

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/2010

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial judge's approach: the defendant's counterclaim addressed the same defects as the deductions in IPC 6, the defendant failed to establish legitimacy of the IPC 6 deduction as a set-off against IPC 4, and the trial properly assessed the counterclaim at $20,000 to be deducted from retention. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for $1,111,000 and the alleged IPC6 deduction does not reduce that award.
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.

Hong Kong Case Law

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. GOLDEN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. GOLDEN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD

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

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