Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Defects liability period

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2021

CHEUNG KWOK KEUNG t/a WAI PAK IRON WORK CO v. CHEUNG KWOK HUNG t/a KWOK HUNG IRON WORK

Citation

[2021] HKDC 464
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4654/2018

Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving his re-measurement assessment; in absence of adequate evidence the court adopted defendant's assessment to meet justice. The court found the alleged 15% profit retention and alleged 10% DLP trade practice were not proven and rejected defendant's deductions; the alleged unfulfilled works were outside the contract scope; there was no agreement between plaintiff and the principal contractor to complete within 60 days and no liability for indemnity or delay. Consequently judgment entered for plaintiff for the balance of HK$334,312.81 plus interes…
22 Aug 2019

SUN CHEONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KING FU, HO FU, KI FU & KA FU BUILDINGS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2076
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT27/2010

On the evidence the Owners failed to prove most alleged defects attributable to the Plaintiff during the contract and defects liability period; only 118 foreign objects observed in 2009 were attributable to plaintiff and should have been removed; defective concrete claims were dismissed as unreliable and untimely expert evidence; defective waterproofing and defective sealing claims were established; allowed parts of counterclaim to be set off against Plaintiff's outstanding contract sum; costs awarded largely to Plaintiff (80%).
19 Aug 2016

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD

Citation

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT29/2013

The court found on the evidence that HYA had abdicated its independent duties due to Metta/CK interference; ERI-MC-897, read in context and SP-2.03/SCC-15, validly omitted all remaining works in the contractor's scope including obligations to rectify known defects, and therefore many of Metta's defect counterclaims were rejected; only limited EOTs were awarded (25 days for MS-1 and 51 days for MS-2) and corresponding loss and expense and materials entitlements to the contractor were assessed; Metta was entitled to reduced LD and certain contra-charges. The court applied a pragmatic broad-brus…
26 Mar 2007

MAN LEE E & M ENGINEERING CO LTD v. THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

MAN LEE E & M ENGINEERING CO LTD v. THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT77/2006

Burrell J held that (1) the writ as to retention money was not premature because the defects liability period had expired and the client had signed off such that the final 5% became due; (2) no triable issue of an effective pay-when-paid clause was demonstrated for Order 14 purposes because Clauses 6(1) and 6(2) were crossed out with the plaintiff's chop and there was no contemporaneous objection or earlier pleading by the defendant; and (3) the valuation of variations remained a triable issue so conditional leave to defend Items 7-9 was granted on the defendant paying $500,000 into court, wi…
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.
6 Mar 1992

ON LEE GENERL CONTRACTORS v THE GARDEN CO. LTD

Citation

ON LEE GENERL CONTRACTORS v THE GARDEN CO. LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA330/1992

The court found that disputed issues of contractual construction (Clause 15) and the existence and scope of defects existed such that it was not readily and immediately demonstrable that the defendants had no grounds to dispute the certificates; those disputes fell within the parties' arbitration agreement and therefore summary judgment was refused and a stay for arbitration was granted.
24 May 1988

HENRY BOOT FAR EAST LTD v. FAR EAST CONSORTIUM LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HENRY BOOT FAR EAST LTD v. FAR EAST CONSORTIUM LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2189/1986

Court found on facts that Shine validly assigned the sub-contract and the benefit of the guarantee to the joint venture (Boot and Shine), that Airedale waived prior consent, that FEC had actual or constructive assent and was effectively the alter ego of Airedale, and therefore the assignment did not discharge the guarantee; completion occurred on probabilities in December 1984 and retention monies were payable; judgment entered against FEC for five dishonoured cheques, retention money and $6,500 costs, interest and costs to be determined.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHEUNG KWOK KEUNG t/a WAI PAK IRON WORK CO v. CHEUNG KWOK HUNG t/a KWOK HUNG IRON WORK

SUN CHEONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KING FU, HO FU, KI FU & KA FU BUILDINGS

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD

MAN LEE E & M ENGINEERING CO LTD v. THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD

CHUN WO FOUNDATION LTD v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD

ON LEE GENERL CONTRACTORS v THE GARDEN CO. LTD

HENRY BOOT FAR EAST LTD v. FAR EAST CONSORTIUM LTD AND ANOTHER