Tactful Construction & Engineering (HK) Ltd v. Univic Engineering Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 57/2016 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 July 2019 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction law — Contract dispute — Recovery of costs — Counterclaim for extra costs — Court found no extra or additional costs beyond contract rate were incurred by Defendant. Defendant’s claim for damages disallowed due to lack of pleading or evidence. Plaintiff’s original claim largely successful with $2,154,473.28 awarded from $3,618,314.70 claimed after disallowance and abandonment of certain claims. Costs awarded to Plaintiff on indemnity basis. Interest awarded on judgment sum at enhanced rates post-sanctioned offer refusal under Order 22 rule 24. Plaintiff entitled to enhanced interest on costs. Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim allowed; Defendant’s counterclaim dismissed; costs and interest orders favourable to Plaintiff issued.
Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim allowed in the sum of $2,154,473.28; Defendant’s counterclaim disallowed; Plaintiff entitled to costs on an indemnity basis from 28 September 2018; interest allowed on judgment sum at specified rates.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCCT 57/2016 [2019] HKCFI 1712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 57 OF 2016 ______________
______________ Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers Dates of Parties’ Written Submissions: 24 June 2019 & 4 July 2019 Date of Decision: 9 July 2019 ______________ D E C I S I O N ______________ 1.Since handing down of the Judgment on 20 June 2019, the parties have made further submissions on the draft judgment order, the “extra costs” allowed on the Counterclaim, and on costs. 2.The parties are in agreement that despite the Court allowing the Defendant “extra costs” incurred for completion of the Works at CH -18 - 6, since the contract rate allowed by the Court in the Judgment was $4,643.10, there were in fact no extra or additional costs incurred by the Defendant as pleaded. The Defendant’s “extra costs” are accordingly nil. 3.The Defendant has argued that it should be allowed nominal damages, or damages to be assessed. Since there was no such pleading in its Counterclaim, nor any evidence adduced or argument made at trial for any other direct loss caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to complete the Works, no such claim is allowed. 4.The Plaintiff’s original claim under the Statement of Claim is $3,618,314.70. In the Judgment, the Court disallowed the Plaintiff’s costs for the Couplers, which was for the sum of $99,000. The Plaintiff abandoned 3 claims in the Scott Schedule. The sum allowed to the Plaintiff is accordingly $2,154,473.28, compared to its claim of $3,618,314.70. 5.The Plaintiff has substantially succeeded on its claim, and the Defendant has recovered nothing in its Counterclaim. There is no reason to deprive the Plaintiff of its entitlement to the costs of the original action and of the Counterclaim. 6.A sanctioned offer of $1.8 million was made by the Plaintiff on 30 August 2018, but was not accepted by the Defendant. Having considered the provisions of Order 22 rule 24, and in the absence of any evidence of any unreasonable conduct of the Plaintiff with regard to the giving or refusing to give information for the purposes of enabling the sanctioned offer to be evaluated, I allow interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 4% above judgment rate from 28 September 2018 until the date of judgment, and at judgment rate from the date of service of the Writ until 27 September 2018, and from the date of judgment until payment. 7.I further allow costs of the action and the Counterclaim to the Plaintiff on indemnity basis from 28 September 2018, and enhanced interest on those costs at half the rate of the enhanced interest from 28 September 2018.
Mr Liu Chin Yu, instructed by Chow & Partners, for the plaintiff Messrs SK Wong & Co, for the defendant | ||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 57/2016