Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Global claims

  • 17 Jan 1997

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV79/1996

    The Court held that the arbitrator improperly departed from the parties' agreed "guillotine" procedure in respect of global claims: where parties have agreed finality at a hearing an arbitrator cannot reserve quantification by inviting further particulars so as to give a party a second bite; accordingly the rubbish removal claim must be remitted to the arbitrator to reconsider only on the existing material and the orders remitting the three other global claims must be quashed; leave to appeal was granted on the construction of clauses 73 and 76 and on the exercise of discretion to award compo…

  • 17 Jan 1997

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV81/1996

    The court held by majority that the arbitrator improperly departed from the parties' agreed 'guillotine' procedure by reserving final determination of global claims and permitting further evidence, constituting misconduct warranting intervention: global claims presented without necessary particulars must not be revived by post-award supplementation and should be dismissed or reconsidered consistent with Crosby; accordingly remittals ordered in favour of Shimizu for three global claims were quashed and the rubbish removal claim was remitted to the arbitrator with direction to reconsider on exi…

  • 22 Mar 1996

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1169/1995

    The court dismissed the Government's applications for leave to appeal (insufficient strong prima facie legal error) and refused most remission requests, but exercised its s.24 discretion to remit limited matters to the arbitrator: (1) to re-calculate and fix the precise deduction for 5% site overheads (Ground 2) and (2) to reconsider and quantify specified global/quantum matters raised by Shimizu (three identified matters) where the arbitrator had found liability but declined quantification. The court held the arbitrator had jurisdiction to award compound interest and his exercise of discreti…

  • 22 Mar 1996

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2892/1995

    The Court refused leave to appeal on the principal legal grounds because no strong prima facie error was shown and the matters would not materially clarify Hong Kong commercial law; remission under s.24 was granted only where there was procedural unfairness or an inadvertent unfinished task by the arbitrator (site overheads deduction and specified Shimizu quantification issues), but otherwise the Court declined to re-open factual findings or correct ordinary arbitral errors. The arbitrator may reserve decisions, invite further submissions and correct oversights; only limited remissions were w…

  • 22 Mar 1996

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2895/1995

    The Court dismissed the Government's applications for leave to appeal on the valuation of prolongation and on the arbitrator's exercise of discretion to award compound interest (no strong prima facie case of legal error); most of the Government's remission grounds failed because they amounted to disputes about factual or accounting judgments or were not exceptional so as to override finality; however the Court found sufficient basis to remit limited matters to the arbitrator — (1) to determine properly the deduction for 5% site overheads paid under variations for items 1A-1 and 1A-2 and (2) o…