Read the full judgment text of HCCT 4/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 April 2019 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Construction contract dispute over subcontractor's claims for additional payment for unforeseen ground condition variations. The Plaintiffs, main contractors for the MTRC project, subcontracted diaphragm wall works to the Defendant. The Defendant claimed entitlement to additional payment based on variations under Clause 21 notice provisions and valuation under Clause 19 of the Sub-Contract. The court held the notice requirements in Clause 21—comprising timely notice of intention and detailed notice with the contractual basis—are strict conditions precedent. The Defendant's failure to strictly comply with Clause 21.2 invalidated entitlement to claims on a new contractual basis ('like rights'), rendering the Arbitrator's allowance of such claims legally incorrect. On valuation, the court accepted the Arbitrator's methodology valuing variation by cost plus overheads and profits, including notional costs for plant not actually used, as a fair, reasonable contractual valuation within the permissible range of arbitral decisions. The appeal was therefore allowed on the notice compliance issue and dismissed on the valuation issue. Costs were awarded 50-50 to the Plaintiffs and Defendant respectively.
Legal issues: Notice compliance under Clause 21 · Valuation of variation under Clause 19
Outcome: Appeal allowed on the first question of law concerning notice compliance; appeal dismissed on the second question of law concerning variation valuation.
Cites 1 case