Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Site overheads

  • 6 Aug 2001

    CCECC (H.K.) LTD. v. MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

    Citation
    CCECC (H.K.) LTD. v. MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT23/2001

    The court refused leave to appeal under s.23, refused to remit issues under s.24 and refused removal under s.25, concluding the arbitrator's findings were not plainly wrong and fell within the presumption of finality: practical completion was validly certified on 24 June 1999; SP 8.02 does not modify Clause 23 (SP 5.03 is the amendment); the contractor was entitled to 703 days extension; time was set at large due to the respondent's non-payment; quantum determinations (including fluctuations, site overheads, interest) were within the arbitrator's fact-finding and discretionary remit; costs aw…

  • 6 Aug 2001

    MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.

    Citation
    MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT24/2001

    Applications for leave to appeal (s.23), remission (s.24) and removal of arbitrator (s.25) were refused because the arbitrator's conclusions were predominantly factual or one‑off contract questions, lacked a plain and obvious legal error, and did not meet the high threshold required to rebut the presumption of finality; arbitrator correctly found Practical Completion certificate of 24 June 1999 valid, held SP 5.03 and SP 8.02 inconsistent so SP 8.02 did not displace Clause 23, granted 703 days extension of time and held time was set at large due to employer non‑payment, and assessed quantum m…