Converge Design and Construction Co Ltd v. Mount Kelly International Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 72/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 June 2021 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Interest on judgment sum — Sanctioned offers — Rates of interest — Costs interest — Order 22 rule 24. The Plaintiff obtained judgment against the Defendant. The Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim lacked evidential basis and did not respond to Plaintiff’s sanctioned offers. The Court rejected Defendant's claim of complex liability and quantum issues. The Defendant was ordered to pay enhanced interest at 5% above the judgment rate on the judgment sum from 29 June 2019 to the date of judgment, interest at prime plus 1% from writ service until 28 June 2019, and judgment rate thereafter until payment. Interest on costs was awarded at half the enhanced interest rate. The Defendant was also ordered to pay costs of this interest application. The Court found the rate and orders fair and just in light of the parties' conduct and pleadings.
Legal issues: Interest payable on judgment sum · Interest on costs
Outcome: Defendant ordered to pay enhanced interest on judgment sum, interest on costs, and costs of the application for interest.
Cited by 3 cases
|
HCCT 72/2018 [2021] HKCFI 1908 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 72 OF 2018 ____________________
____________________ Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J Dates of Written Submissions: 17, 24 and 28 June 2021 Date of Ruling: 30 June 2021 ___________ R U L I N G ___________ 1.In the Judgment handed down on 3 June 2021, this Court directed submissions to be filed on the interest payable by the Defendant on the judgment sum awarded. 2.Having read the parties’ written submissions, my finding is that the Defendant should pay:
3.The date from which enhanced interest is awarded should be the latest date by which the Defendant could have accepted the Plaintiff’s 1st sanctioned offer. That offer was made after the 1st case management conference which was held on 30 May 2019. I do not accept that there are “complex issues on liability and quantum”, as alleged by the Defendant. The Defence and Counterclaim was made without evidential basis, as apparent at trial and as pointed out in the Judgment. The expert report only supported and highlighted the lack of evidence. If the Defendant had, on receipt of the 1st sanctioned offer, considered that it required any particular information to evaluate and respond to the offer, it could have asked for same but it failed so to do. There was no response at all to the sanctioned offer. 4.Having regard to the issues raised in the pleadings, the entire lack of evidence to substantiate the Defence and Counterclaim as pleaded, the manner of conduct of the Defence including the lack of response to the sanctioned offers, the amount of the sanctioned offer and the judgment sum awarded, there is nothing unjust in ordering the costs and other consequences provided for in Order 22 rule 24, and I consider that 5% above judgment rate is a fair and just rate. 5.The Defendant is to pay the costs of this application for interest.
Mr Adrian Leung, instructed by Wong & Lawyers, for the plaintiff Mr Desmond Leung and Mr Adrian TY Wong, instructed by MB Kemp LLP, for the defendant |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 72/2018