Read the full judgment text of HCCT 4/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 August 2018 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) — Leave to appeal questions of law — Construction contract dispute involving MAEDA Corporation and China State Construction Engineering (Plaintiffs) against Bauer Hong Kong Limited (Defendant) — Four questions of law identified: (1) interpretation of '24 hour idling deduction' clause in Sub-Contract Schedule of Prices; (2) compliance with notice conditions under Clause 21 of Sub-Contract for claims for additional payments; (3) determination of founding levels for diaphragm walls and whether subsequent excavation amounts to variation; (4) valuation of variation work including equipment costs not actually incurred — Court confirmed the high threshold for leave to appeal and the need to respect parties’ choice of arbitration and experience of Arbitrator — On idling, court upheld Arbitrator's interpretation that the 24 hour deduction applies cumulatively — On the notice conditions under Clause 21, court found the Arbitrator’s decision open to serious doubt given strict compliance required and allowed leave — On founding levels, court found no obvious error in Arbitrator’s findings and refused leave — On valuation of variation, court found court is open to serious doubt due to inclusion of unincurred equipment costs, granting leave to appeal — Costs of leave application reserved to appeal.
Legal issues: Idling deduction interpretation · Compliance with notice conditions in Clause 21 · Founding levels and variation under the Sub-Contract · Valuation of variation at cost
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted on questions 2 (notice compliance) and 4 (valuation of variation); leave refused on questions 1 (idling interpretation) and 3 (founding levels). Costs of leave application reserved to the appeal.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case