Read the full judgment text of CACV 301 /2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 May 2021 before Hon Kwan VP, Yuen JA, Barma JA.
Construction contract dispute — Arbitration award challenged on construction of clause 21.2.1 of Sub-Contract — Court of Appeal upheld Judge’s finding that arbitrator’s construction was erroneous — Clause required strict timely notice of contractual basis for claims — Bauer’s amendment of contractual basis outside notice period precluded — Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal refused — No questions of great general or public importance shown — Contractor’s contention of mixed question of law and fact rejected and contractual interpretation held to be a question of law — Costs ordered against Bauer for unsuccessful leave application — Costs assessed at $323,280. The defendant’s application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to lack of arguable merit and failure to meet thresholds for further appeal. The decision clarifies the strict application of notice provisions in construction contracts and the settled legal approach to contractual construction as a question of law in Hong Kong arbitration appeals.
Legal issues: Questions relating to construction of clause 21.2.1 · Whether the arbitrator’s construction is a mixed question of law and fact
Outcome: The defendant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case