Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Fluctuations

  • 31 Jul 2002

    DIXIE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. VERNALTEX CO. LTD. t/a WING WO ENGINEERING CO.

    Citation
    DIXIE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. VERNALTEX CO. LTD. t/a WING WO ENGINEERING CO.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT71/1999

    The contract was construed against Wing Wo's submissions: fluctuations were included in sums payable (paylists and matrix support) and variation deductions were straight 20% or 29% not additional to the 36% management fee; rectification was not available because Wing Wo failed to prove the written instrument did not reflect the common intention beyond reasonable doubt; in the Tolo Highway claim although an oral agreement to 42% was found factually, Wing Wo could not recover for alleged underpayment because their long acquiescence and Dixie's reliance made it inequitable to allow recovery (wai…

  • 31 Jul 2002

    DIXIE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. VERNALTEX CO. LTD. t/a WING WO ENGINEERING CO.

    Citation
    DIXIE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. VERNALTEX CO. LTD. t/a WING WO ENGINEERING CO.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT11/2000

    The court construed the 1996–1999 contract in favour of Dixie: fluctuations were included in sums payable and variation deductions were straight 20% or 29%. The court refused Wing Wo's plea for rectification. On the 1992 Tolo Highway claim the court found there was an oral agreement (or conduct) effecting a 42% deduction and, in any event, Wing Wo was equitably barred by waiver/promissory estoppel from recovering the alleged overpayment. Judgments were entered for Dixie in the consolidated actions and for Dixie (the defendant) in Action No.73/1999.

  • 31 Jul 2002

    DIXIE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. VERNALTEX CO. LTD. t/a WING WO ENGINEERING CO.

    Citation
    DIXIE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. VERNALTEX CO. LTD. t/a WING WO ENGINEERING CO.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT35/2000

    On construction of the contract and consideration of the factual matrix and contemporaneous conduct the court found fluctuations were included in payments and variation deductions were straight 20% or 29% not additional to the 36% management fee; rectification was not available to Wing Wo; on the Tolo Highway contract the court found an oral variation to 42% was proved and that Wing Wo was barred from recovering the alleged overpayment by reason of waiver (and/or estoppel) given long acceptance and reliance.

  • 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…