Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Time at large

  • 20 Apr 2015

    A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD

    Citation
    A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ876/2014

    Court found defendant caused/prevented delay to Phase 1 by late confirmation of sanitary fittings and shop drawings and by conduct causing rescheduling so time for Phase 1 was rendered at large and the 35 day delay was reasonable; although contract construed to require Phase 2 to commence immediately after Phase 1, the parties agreed (and defendant failed to rebut) commencement on 16 February 2013 so Phase 2 completed within 45 days; defendant proved some defects but only nominal damages HKD1,000 were provable; judgment entered for plaintiff for HKD501,060 (DCCJ 1559/2013) and HKD118,300 (DCC…

  • 20 Apr 2015

    A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD

    Citation
    A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1559/2013

    Judge accepted plaintiff's contemporaneous emails and oral evidence that defendant delayed confirmation of sanitary fittings and shop drawings and caused rescheduling; applied prevention principle so time for Phase 1 was at large and the 35-day delay did not attract liquidated damages; although contract construed to require Phase 2 to commence immediately after Phase 1, the parties in fact agreed to start Phase 2 on 16 Feb 2013 so no LDs for Phase 2; defects found were minor and awarded nominal damages of HK$1,000 which set off against plaintiff's claim; judgments granted for plaintiff for th…

  • 29 Sept 2006

    RIDGID PLUMBING LTD v. YEE SHUN HUNG t/a JUNIC CONSTRUCTION CO

    Citation
    RIDGID PLUMBING LTD v. YEE SHUN HUNG t/a JUNIC CONSTRUCTION CO
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT19/2005

    The court found (1) no contra-charge is due because the parties had agreed the duct-laying rates included any required petroleum tape wrapping; (2) time on the subcontract was at large and Ridgid was liable only for a limited proportion of the overall delay (10 days) after assessing expert evidence and causation among many subcontractors; (3) Junic was not entitled to be indemnified for main-contract liquidated damages because the subcontract was not back-to-back and such liability was not within Ridgid's reasonable contemplation; and (4) Ridgid was liable only for prolongation costs quantifi…

  • 26 Jul 2006

    CHUN WO FOUNDATIONS LTD v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD

    Citation
    CHUN WO FOUNDATIONS LTD v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV293/2005

    The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the plaintiff had substantially completed the piling by 31 January 2000 and had satisfied contractual/Building Authority submission obligations; the ALA survey did not establish a causal link between any alleged out-of-tolerance piles and subsequent pile cap design amendments or delay; the extensive delay before superstructure works was attributable to the defendant's actions and circumstances, and the defendant failed to prove damage causally caused by the plaintiff, therefore the defendant's counterclaim and appeal fail.

  • 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.

  • 12 Mar 2004

    AOKI CORPORATION v. HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

    Citation
    AOKI CORPORATION v. HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT110/2003

    The court refused Aoki leave to appeal because none of the grounds raised demonstrated that the Arbitrator was obviously or seriously wrong under the Swire principles; the Arbitrator lawfully rejected the penalty, time-at-large, omission/prevention and architect duty arguments. The Arbitrator's correction under AO s.19 was effective and, under AO s.2GG, judgment for the corrected net award (Sum Z) was to be entered for HKIE, but all enforcement applications were to be returnable before the same judge to allow consideration of the Japanese rehabilitation scheme and to give appropriate comity-b…

  • 3 Jul 2003

    THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF REPULSE BAY TOWERS v. BOLTON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

    Citation
    THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF REPULSE BAY TOWERS v. BOLTON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT105/2002

    Leave to appeal was refused because the court found no strong prima facie case that the arbitrator was wrong: the arbitrator's construction of Article 3 was a reasonable interpretation, her findings on Clause 30(5)(a) and the validity of PAL's appointment were logical, and the determinative finding that time was rendered at large by contract-specific special provisions (SP/6E, SP/26F and the deletion of Clause 23(1)(f)) meant the arbitrator's overall conclusion was not appealable under the P.T. Dover scale and the presumption of finality.

  • 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…