Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Re-measurement

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2022

HANG KEE DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. MING HING CIVIL CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 455
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1724/2018

The Court found no proved oral agreement obliging the Defendant to assign all works; on proper construction the Chinese Agreements obligated only that the Defendant provide 'part' of the works and left allocation to Works Orders and re-measurement under the main contracts; consequently the Defendant did not breach the Sub-Contracts and the Plaintiff failed to prove liability or quantum; the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed.
2 Jul 2019

YING CHEONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. LAM WOO & CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT61/2017

The application for a split trial was dismissed because the issues about the alleged settlement agreement are mixed questions of fact and law and highly fact-sensitive, are not discrete from the remaining issues (including contractual construction and re-measurement), would require consideration of the same evidence and conduct, and the Defendant failed to show exceptional circumstances or special grounds to depart from the general rule of trying all issues together; a split trial would likely duplicate work, increase costs and cause unfair delay to the Plaintiff.
26 Jun 2007

TAM KAI HUNG t/a WAH HING IRON WORKS v. WINSTON AIR-CONDITIONING & ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

TAM KAI HUNG t/a WAH HING IRON WORKS v. WINSTON AIR-CONDITIONING & ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5789/2004

The court held the Plaintiff was entitled to the invoiced sums subject to deduction only for proven insurance contributions (1.5% calculations totalling HK$98,886.30) because the Defendant failed to prove payment of HK$134,938 to Prime Profit and the liquidated damages claim failed; net judgment for Plaintiff was HK$239,943.70 plus interest and costs.
24 Oct 2006

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV113/2006

Item 4 must be construed against the express measurement provisions incorporated into the subcontract: the SMM (as amended by Addendum No.6) fixed the unit for 'extra over toeing-in to bedrock' as per number of piles, the BQs were prepared on a per‑pile basis and special condition (j) re‑measurement related to the quantities as stated (numbers of piles). Consequently there was no contractual basis to award additional payment by linear metres for toeing‑in beyond 1.50m and the judge below was correct to strike out that part of the claim.
27 Mar 2006

W K CHANG v. WAI MAN ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

W K CHANG v. WAI MAN ENGINEERING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7882/2002

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence, found the term 'provisional sum' was understood by both parties to form part of the HK$990,000 contract price, found the plaintiff furnished consideration (or at least a promise to perform) for the agreement, and found insufficient evidence of illegality or fraud; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$243,095 with interest and costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

HANG KEE DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. MING HING CIVIL CONTRACTORS LTD

YING CHEONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. LAM WOO & CO LTD

TAM KAI HUNG t/a WAH HING IRON WORKS v. WINSTON AIR-CONDITIONING & ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) CO LTD

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD

W K CHANG v. WAI MAN ENGINEERING LTD