Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of contract clauses

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2023

EMPLOYER v. CONTRACTOR

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2911
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT22/2023

The Court refused leave because on the face of the Award the arbitrator applied established principles to the contract clauses, his factual findings and valuation choices were open to a reasonable view and not obviously wrong or plainly wrong, the common trenches and related works were properly treated as variations materially affecting progress so GCC63 permitted costs, and GCC50(5) did not bar prolongation costs given contractual exceptions; the high statutory threshold for leave was not met.
13 May 2010

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT13/2010

The court refused leave to appeal because, applying the 'obviously wrong' standard, the arbitrator was entitled to infer a completion date from the works programme despite lack of formal notification and was entitled to construe the ambiguous phrase 'rate of works' in SSC 24 so as not to bar recovery of prolongation costs; those conclusions were not obviously wrong.
12 Sept 2008

SZE KUNG YEE v. LAM KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

SZE KUNG YEE v. LAM KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1620/2008

There are serious questions to be tried as to ownership of the shares, the true loan period under the third extension agreement and whether interest repayment was suspended; because damages would be inadequate to the plaintiff (sale would destroy the company's business) but adequate to the defendants, the interim injunction should be continued until trial or further order; fortification of the plaintiff's undertaking is not required given sufficient asset value under defendants' control.
25 Nov 2002

LARGE LAND INVESTMENTS LTD. v. CHEUNG SIU KWAI PANSY

Citation

LARGE LAND INVESTMENTS LTD. v. CHEUNG SIU KWAI PANSY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV145/2002

The Court allowed the appeal because the Purchaser had not unequivocally elected to affirm the contract and had not waived its right to rescind for defective title; the Vendor had expressly undertaken in the contract (Clause 13) to give good title and could not rely on prior knowledge or the addendum, and by answering the late requisition substantively the Vendor waived reliance on the contractual time bar, entitling the Purchaser to repayment of deposits with interest and a lien.
15 Feb 2000

China International Water & Electrical Corporation v. The Secretary for Justice

Citation

China International Water & Electrical Corporation v. The Secretary for Justice
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT136/1998

The Arbitrator was in clear error in construing clause 50(1)(c)(iii) to cover delay after a specialist subcontractor had ceased work; such post-termination delay can, depending on circumstances, constitute "special circumstances" under clause 50(1)(b)(xi); accordingly the court grants leave to appeal and remits the matter to the Arbitrator for further consideration.
23 Feb 1990

GRANDWIDE LTD v. BONAVENTURE TEXTILES LTD

Citation

GRANDWIDE LTD v. BONAVENTURE TEXTILES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5920/1989

The appeal is allowed and the summary judgment is set aside because there are genuine triable factual issues — applicability of the de minimis rule, waiver/estoppel and whether there was substantial interference with possession — which cannot properly be resolved on the affidavits and photographs alone; clause 9 relates to outgoings and possession is to be determined at completion under clause 21, therefore summary judgment was not appropriate.
20 Sept 1985

THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED v. WHARF PROPERTIES LTD.(formerly HARBOUR CITY LTD.)

Citation

THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED v. WHARF PROPERTIES LTD.(formerly HARBOUR CITY LTD.)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV28/1985

The Court found arguable disputes as to construction of clauses 54 and 57 and whether the 1 March 1982 letter constituted notice to commence; those disputes fall within the scope of the arbitration clause and justify referral to arbitration and a stay, and the appeal against the judge's grant of unconditional leave to defend was misconceived and not competent.
6 Feb 1985

SMART SHOES LTD v. SO KA KING AND ANOTHER

Citation

SMART SHOES LTD v. SO KA KING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10394/1983

Court held that Clauses 8 and 9 required the seller to make technicians available (installation at buyer's expense) and a final start/test only became the seller's obligation after installation; the seller was not given the opportunity to comply, the defects were minor and foreseeable in used machinery and did not render the goods unmerchantable, therefore plaintiff was entitled to the balance of the price, interest and costs and the defendant's counterclaim failed.