Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Payment disputes

  • 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…

  • 15 Aug 2014

    GUANGDONG SILK GROUP FORTUNE CO., LTD v. CENTOPERCENTO LTD

    Citation
    GUANGDONG SILK GROUP FORTUNE CO., LTD v. CENTOPERCENTO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1990/2012

    The court held the defendant raised a bona fide and arguable defence supported by documentary and circumstantial evidence (emails, debit notes, written agreement, prior dealings) such that the defence was not a sham or merely shadowy; accordingly the conditional payment into court was unjustified and the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend; the appeal was allowed and costs were reserved in favour of the defendant.

  • 27 Jun 2000

    CHUNG FAI ENGINEERING CO. (a firm) v. MAXWELL ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

    Citation
    CHUNG FAI ENGINEERING CO. (a firm) v. MAXWELL ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA10631/1996

    The court found there was no back-to-back/pay-when-paid term, the 18 July 1996 supplementary agreement was valid and not procured by economic duress, the $2.05m cheque was not conditional, and the termination on 12 August 1996 was wrongful because material delays were caused by lack of power/water and supplier delays; accordingly Maxwell was entitled to judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid work in the sum of $6,071,000 plus interest and costs.

  • 7 Sept 1998

    WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v. PEKKO ENGINEERS LTD.

    Citation
    WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v. PEKKO ENGINEERS LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA5561/1996

    On the balance of probabilities the court found plaintiff's sub-standard workmanship was a significant cause of the dripping defects, which prevented issuance of a practical completion certificate; therefore retention and the withheld 50% of variation works under the Ming Pao agreement were not payable. The Modification Contract was separate with clear written payment terms (50% deposit, remainder within 30 days after completion) so plaintiff was entitled to HK$17,500. The "back to back" wording in the H.K. Shipyard and YCK contracts was not sufficiently clear to create a condition precedent…