Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substantial completion

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2020

CHEUNG KEE FUNG CHEUNG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. PERMANENT INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT8/2016

Because the arbitral tribunal found the defendant acted under a genuine but mistaken belief and did not make a finding of fraud or oppressive conduct, the court would not award indemnity costs; the appropriate order was that the defendant pay the costs of the court proceedings on the usual party-and-party basis with a certificate for Counsel.
27 Sept 2019

鄺裕成經營大成工程公司 v. 卓賢科務有限公司

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1286
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3804/2013

Court found plaintiff had substantially completed chiller No.3 by 11 May 2012 and the defendant failed to prove an oral deadline made time of the essence; therefore defendant repudiated the contract by evicting plaintiff and plaintiff was entitled to payment and agreed wasted/preparatory sums while defendant's defect counterclaims were largely unproven and only nominal damages were awarded to defendant; judgments entered accordingly.
8 Jul 2016

FORTUNE LINK ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

FORTUNE LINK ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2929/2012

Leave to amend was granted; pre-judgment interest awarded from 28 December 2009 (invoice date plus 14 days) at HSBC best lending rate plus 1% per annum; the Defendant's summons for partial costs or issue-based apportionment dismissed and costs follow the event; the Plaintiff's non-compliant sanctioned-letter of 12 February 2014 was treated as a Calderbank offer and, because the Defendant unreasonably rejected it, indemnity costs were ordered to run from the date of rejection (17 February 2014); the Defendant must pay party-and-party costs before 17 February 2014 and indemnity costs thereafter…
4 Mar 2014

HO KWAI CHUN t/a MULTIPLE DESIGN v. WONG KING MAN

Citation

HO KWAI CHUN t/a MULTIPLE DESIGN v. WONG KING MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT44/2011

The court found the benchmark for materials and workmanship was the neighbouring Nos 26 and 27 works, the '5 or 6 star hotel' phrase was not an incorporated contractual term, the 5% design fee formed part of the contract and was payable, the project was substantially completed by end of December 2010 and the plaintiff was entitled to the contract balance subject to quantified deductions for defects which were assessed by the court rather than wholesale reinstatement; net judgment for the plaintiff was entered after set‑off of counterclaim damages.
29 Apr 2011

PINK BOX LTD v. HENG WAH (HONG KONG) DECORATION CO LTD

Citation

PINK BOX LTD v. HENG WAH (HONG KONG) DECORATION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4302/2008

The Quotation was the binding contract and no proven oral variation altered the completion date; the Plaintiff proved only specific defects (locks, double‑side cabinet glass, super graphic light box, missing 5 sqm glass) and reasonable remediation costs for those items, but not the full sum claimed; the Defendant was entitled to the unpaid balance less assessed damages; the Plaintiff had not validly terminated the contract and had not wholly denied the Defendant a reasonable opportunity to rectify such that all damages would be barred.
26 Jul 2006

CHUN WO FOUNDATIONS LTD v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

CHUN WO FOUNDATIONS LTD v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV293/2005

The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the plaintiff had substantially completed the piling by 31 January 2000 and had satisfied contractual/Building Authority submission obligations; the ALA survey did not establish a causal link between any alleged out-of-tolerance piles and subsequent pile cap design amendments or delay; the extensive delay before superstructure works was attributable to the defendant's actions and circumstances, and the defendant failed to prove damage causally caused by the plaintiff, therefore the defendant's counterclaim and appeal fail.
30 Jun 2006

HECTIC INTERIOR DESIGN LTD t/a JP INTERIOR DESIGN & CONTRACTING v. WONG CHING KAI, ANGUS t/a ESSENCE INDUSTRIAL CO

Citation

HECTIC INTERIOR DESIGN LTD t/a JP INTERIOR DESIGN & CONTRACTING v. WONG CHING KAI, ANGUS t/a ESSENCE INDUSTRIAL CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5689/2004

The court held the Works Contract was substantially complete on 27/5/2004; defects were minor in proportion to the contract price and did not prevent occupation. Plaintiff was entitled to the contract balance subject to deduction for the reasonable cost to defendant of completing defects caused or left unremedied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's removal of the glass wall constituted acceptance that replacements were substandard and increased the defendant's remedial costs, for which plaintiff was liable. Damages were measured by the reasonable cost to complete the glass wall (HK$41,218.00) a…
15 Aug 2005

CHUN WO FOUNDATION LTD v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

CHUN WO FOUNDATION LTD v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT84/2000

The court found the piling works were substantially complete by 31 January 2000, the architect and BA certifications made payment obligations due, Dorro was not entitled to liquidated damages (time was effectively at large or excused by employer/BA acts) and Dorro failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the piles were out of tolerance in a way that caused remedial works and loss; therefore judgment entered for plaintiff for the certified sums plus interest and the counterclaim dismissed.
16 Mar 1999

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AOKI CORPORATION

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AOKI CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT118/1998

The arbitrator correctly construed Schedule 1 of SA3 so that paragraph (2) operates only for the limited purpose of paragraph (1); on that construction the engineer was not entitled to list the works in paragraph (2) as outstanding works under the main contract; the arbitrator's decision was not plainly wrong and therefore leave to appeal is refused.