Read the full judgment text of HCCT 27/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 29 October 2019 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Extension of Time (EOT) — Condition precedent notice requirement — Contract construction — Risk allocation for defective building fabric — The Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal against certain legal questions arising from an Interim Award in an arbitration concerning renovation works on a Wanchai building. The three issues were whether the Defendant was entitled to EOT for delay during the KC period, whether the Defendant’s loss and expense claim was time-barred for non-compliance with clauses 28.1 and 28.2 of the Contract, and the proper construction of contract provisions allocating responsibility for window openings and their reconstruction. The Court held the arbitrator’s findings on EOT were not obviously wrong, as factual findings on overlapping delays and liability by the Plaintiff were conclusive. On the time bar question, the Court found the arbitrator properly construed the notice requirements broadly, accepting the Defendant’s letters complied with Clause 28, making the appeal ground untenable. On risk allocation, the Court found the arbitrator reasonably interpreted contract language limiting the Defendant’s design responsibility to removal and making good existing openings, placing risk of fragile and deteriorated building fabric on the Plaintiff. The Court refused leave to appeal on all questions, ordering the Plaintiff to pay costs with certificate for counsel.
Legal issues: EOT Question · Time Bar Question · Risk Allocation Question
Outcome: The Plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal on the three identified questions is refused.
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 1 case