Read the full judgment text of HCCT 57/2016 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 June 2019 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction contract dispute over payment rates and completion of subcontracted drainage works in Kai Tak Development. The Plaintiff subcontracted to lay HDPE pipes and claimed payment based on a bill of quantities (BQ) received in a 24 January 2015 email with all-inclusive rates. The Defendant contended Plaintiff should be paid at lower rates aligned with a former subcontractor SK. The Court found the 24/1 Email and BQ to constitute the binding agreement on rates, rejecting Defendant’s assertion on SK’s rates due to lack of evidence. Interim payment certificates with differing rates were provisional and did not alter the contract rates. The Plaintiff’s claim for costs of EF Couplers failed due to lack of contractual inclusion and proof. The Defendant’s counterclaim alleging Plaintiff abandoned part of the works succeeded only in relation to 48 meters of pipes to the pumping station, which Plaintiff did not complete due to material and site access issues beyond its control. The Defendant’s claim for costs of rectifying defective works was disallowed for failure of proof. Judgment ordered on agreed contractual rates and partial counterclaim allowance. Parties directed to submit draft judgment and costs submissions.
Legal issues: Contractual rates applicable under the Sub Contract · Claim for costs of EF Couplers · Counterclaim for failure to complete the Works · Counterclaim for defective works and costs of rectification
Outcome: Contractual rates as per the 24/1 BQ are upheld; Plaintiff’s claim allowed on that basis with allowance for reduced sum. Plaintiff not entitled to EF Coupler costs. Defendant’s counterclaim partially allowed only for extra costs due to Plaintiff’s non-completion of 48m connecting pipes to pumping station; counterclaim for defective works disallowed.
Cites 2 cases