Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Defects liability

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2023

JOHNSON CONTROLS HONG KONG LTD v. WANGLE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 568
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV454/2021

The Court held the contract was not an all‑inclusive lump sum; the contract scope was defined by the 2nd Quotation and LOI including specific exclusions and limits (eg cutoff dates, capped testing/commissioning man‑days, payment structure tied to FSD inspection). Interim payments certified by the plaintiff's project manager and subsequent payments supported the factual finding that the defendant had completed contract works by 3 September 2015. Work performed after that date was properly found to be variations entitling defendant to the VOs and materials claims; plaintiff failed to prove enti…
31 Aug 2021

JOHNSON CONTROLS HONG KONG LTD v. WANGLE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2560
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2239/2016

The court accepted contemporaneous interim payment certifications and payments as establishing that the defendant had completed all work within the contract by 3 September 2015; plaintiff failed to prove the late, unpleaded assertions (all-inclusive contract, provisional certification, common understanding re double-handling) and causal links to Gammon contra charges or Link-Foong rectification costs; conversely, contemporaneous documents and communications established that much extra work was instructed as variations and defendant was entitled to the VOs sums and materials reimbursement, les…
6 Dec 2017

UNISTRESS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TOP DOLLARS DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

UNISTRESS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TOP DOLLARS DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT29/2017

The Bond is a double (conditional/default) bond requiring the beneficiary to prove first breach by the contractor and secondly damages to sustain a claim; Unistress has locus to apply to restrain Top Dollars because the Bond's operation is not autonomous from the underlying contract and the Contract stipulated the bond form; there are serious issues to be tried on the extent of breach and quantum of damages; the balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction pending trial. Accordingly the interlocutory injunction was continued until trial or further order and costs were ordered in t…
9 Aug 2007

LUK KA MING t/a TIN MUK ENGINEERING CO v. YKK AP HONG KONG LTD

Citation

LUK KA MING t/a TIN MUK ENGINEERING CO v. YKK AP HONG KONG LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3516/2004

Plaintiff's claims for the outstanding balance and for variation payments were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove that the main contractor had paid the defendant (a prerequisite under the payment and retention clauses) and failed to substantiate the variation claim with proof that any extra payment received corresponded to the variation claim; defendant's counterclaims failed for lack of particulars and causation except for reimbursement of the employee compensation insurance premium which was proved and awarded.
25 Apr 2003

AMERY CONSTRUCTION WATER PROOFING CO LTD v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

AMERY CONSTRUCTION WATER PROOFING CO LTD v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16179/2001

Although the plaintiff had not complied with the contract requirement to complete rectification works to the Architect's satisfaction making the action premature on the basis pleaded, the interim certificate dated 20 December 2000 nevertheless created a debt for the certified sum; the court accepted the QS final account of 19 March 2003 as reflecting the parties' accounts and, applying Order 15 Rule 2(4), gave judgment for the balance of HK$186,367.49 in favour of the plaintiff while reserving costs and interest for further hearing.
23 Jan 2002

PING KAI ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. HONG KONG TEAKWOOD WORKS LTD.

Citation

PING KAI ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. HONG KONG TEAKWOOD WORKS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT2/2001

The defendant failed to comply with the unless order by providing inadequate particulars; no affidavit or cogent evidence explained the failure; the failure was treated as intentional and contumelious and therefore the sanction in the unless order (striking out the specified parts and paragraph 2 of the Prayer) was imposed with costs to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
9 May 1988

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CONRPORATION v. HOPEWELL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CONRPORATION v. HOPEWELL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP634/1988

Clause 136 requires an architect's decision as a condition precedent for reference to arbitration; where such a decision exists the arbitrator has jurisdiction to reopen, review and revise the architect's decisions (including amounts paid), but where no such decision under clause 136 has been made the arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter.
23 May 1984

CONCORDE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. COLGAN CO LTD

Citation

CONCORDE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. COLGAN CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL36/1984

Condition 30(4)(a) of the Standard Form imposes a fiduciary obligation on the Employer to appropriate retention monies into a separate trust account for the Main Contractor; the Employer cannot avoid that obligation by relying on unsubstantiated or speculative claims for deductions; accordingly the Court will grant the interim mandatory injunction and permit the claimant to amend to seek declarations and orders to set up the trust pending trial.