Read the full judgment text of HCCT 29/2013 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 19 August 2016 before Hon Anthony Chan J.
Construction contracts — main contract dispute — extension of time — liquidated damages — contract omissions — defective workmanship and materials — contracts administration failures — architect’s role abdication — variation claims — quantum — expert evidence — broad brush approach — defects liability period — contract interpretation — construction project delays — damage claims — contract sum adjustments — non-payment of interim certificates — site clearance claims. Chun Wo was engaged as main contractor for Tsz Shan Monastery project with METTA Resources Limited as employer, acting mostly via Cheung Kong Group entities. Numerous design changes, delays, defective waterproofing and stone works caused disputes. Hsin Yieh Architects & Engineering Ltd (HYA) abdicated their role as independent certifier, effectively controlled by Metta’s representatives. Court found ERI-MC-897 deleted all remaining works including defect rectification obligation, thereby limiting Chun Wo’s liability for defects. Only one EOT claim was upheld. Loss and expense damages awarded. Variations allowed in part on a broad brush basis, with preference for one expert's evidence on valuations. Metta’s claims for liquidated damages reduced accordingly, and partial contra-charges for site clearance and unpaid utilities allowed. Detailed evaluation of numerous claims with extensive expert evidence required a pragmatic approach and highlighted the complexity and cost burden of construction litigation. Court urges better case management and use of single joint experts to simplify future proceedings. Parties to agree outstanding sums for final judgment. Judgment delivered 19 August 2016 by Hon Anthony Chan J in High Court of Hong Kong.
Legal issues: HYA’s abdication of responsibilities · Condition precedent for variation (VO) claims · Notice requirements for EOT claims under SCC-23 · Scope of ERI-MC-897 – omission of remaining works · Entitlement to EOT Claim No 13 (toe wall at EVA) · Damages for loss and expense due to delay · Assessment of valuation of materials on and off site · Valuation and assessment of Variation Order claims · Responsibility for defects including waterproofing and stone works · Validity of Metta’s contra-charge claims for site clearance and unpaid utilities
Outcome: Judgment for Chun Wo for payment of contract sums net of reductions; Metta’s counterclaims for liquidated damages and certain contra-charges allowed in part.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 3 cases