Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Loss and expense

  • 16 Sept 2019

    N v. C

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2292
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT3/2019

    The court held the arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity: the Agreement on Entitlement and the ex‑contract agreement were in play on the pleaded case and evidence, the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to address those issues, and the tribunal's finding that contractual time limits and entitlement issues fell away by reason of the parties' agreement/ex‑contract compromise was within the tribunal's powers. The plaintiff's application to set aside or remit the award was dismissed.

  • 18 Aug 2006

    HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD v. HENBLE LTD

    Citation
    HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD v. HENBLE LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT23/2005

    Court held LOA cl.5(a) was not a penalty, accepted entitlement to unpaid interim payments and retention, allowed 76 days extra time (18 days for revised manhole/ELS, 45 days for water main connection, 13 days for A/C plinths/louvres), disallowed claims where notice requirements were not met, allowed loss and expense under GCC11(6) for specified events totalling 1,161,891.28 HKD, allowed reimbursement of an 18,000 HKD valuation report, awarded defendant liquidated damages for 58 days (1,740,000 HKD) which were set-off against plaintiff's sums, resulting in net judgment of 3,283,393.28 HKD to p…

  • 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…

  • 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
    HCCT25/2001

    Court refused leave to appeal under section 23, refused to remit under section 24 and refused removal under section 25 because the arbitrator's determinations were primarily factual or contract‑specific, did not disclose plain or obvious legal error warranting interference, and met the standards for reasoned awards; specific holdings upheld include validity of Practical Completion certificate dated 24 June 1999, inconsistency found between SP5.03 and SP8.02 such that SP8.02 did not operate as a condition precedent to extensions, award of 703 days extension of time and finding that time was se…

  • 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
    HCCT26/2001

    The court refused leave to appeal and remission and refused removal because the challenged findings were predominantly factual, contract-specific or technical expert assessments for which the arbitrator (an experienced non‑legal construction arbitrator) was entitled to deference; the applicant did not establish a strong prima facie case of plain error or exceptional circumstances necessary to override the statutory presumption of finality; no rebuttal of the arbitrator's application of legal principles (including inconsistency of SPs, contra proferentem and time‑at‑large tests) warranted inte…

  • 22 Dec 1992

    THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

    Citation
    THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT1/1992

    The court refused to adopt strained constructions or wholesale incorporation of main contract payment clauses into the nominated sub-contracts and declined to imply broad indemnity/equivalent-payment terms (Implied Terms B and D). The court did imply a narrowly expressed obligation (Implied Term E, reformulated to: that the Contractor should not hinder or prevent the Sub-contractor from carrying out the Sub-contract works in accordance with the Sub-contract) and applied the employer's prevention principle (Wells). On the agreed facts the Defendant had, by action or by being put in the positio…