19 Apr 2024
The appeal was allowed because the March 3, 2023 letter constituted fresh evidence of a post‑decision step crystallising a deduction which, together with the arguable incorporation of back‑to‑back terms and a substantial counterclaim for LAD, raised triable issues; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and leave to defend was granted.
21 Apr 2023
The court held that, on the wording and commercial context of these counter‑indemnities, no broader implied term of rationality limiting the plaintiff's contractual rights under Clauses 4 and 5 was necessary or appropriate; Clauses 4 and 5 provided contractual rights to demand deposits which were validly triggered on the facts, and summary judgment for the plaintiff was therefore appropriate.
30 Sept 2020
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.
18 Jun 2014
The court held that the plaintiff's reimbursement claim under the Employment Ordinance is inextricably connected to the contractual disputes under the subcontracts and therefore falls within the scope of the broadly drafted arbitration clause (clause 18); accordingly the Hong Kong proceedings were stayed pending arbitration and costs were awarded to the successful party on a common fund basis.
3 Mar 2006
The court adjusted certificate payments to reflect actual completion (95% concrete, 80% roof waterproofing) and awarded the plaintiff HK$468,034.80 plus HK$26,000 for an allowed invoice, rejected defendant's claim for reinstatement costs as unreasonable and disproportionate given the defendant's repudiation and failure to mitigate, awarded diminution in value for defects (HK$3,450) and a modest sum for failure to remove nails/screws (HK$10,000), and disallowed other restitutionary claims where either the benefit was not freely accepted or the claim was not properly pleaded.
15 May 2002
In the absence of any defence and on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff's evidence and the surveyor's valuation were accepted; damages were quantified as the payments made by the plaintiff minus the value of work and materials supplied (HK$2,272,944.48) and interest and costs were awarded accordingly.