30 Aug 2018
MAEDA KENSETSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA also known as MAEDA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. BAUER HONG KONG LTD
- Citation
- [2018] HKCFI 2001
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCCT4/2018
Leave to appeal was granted on questions 2 (Clause 21 notice compliance) and 4 (valuation of variation) because those questions are of sufficient general importance or are at least open to serious doubt; leave was refused on questions 1 (idling deduction) and 3 (founding levels/variation) because the Arbitrator's constructions were not shown to be 'obviously wrong' on the evidence and law.