Ng Cheuk Hang v. Wams Design Ltd

DCCJ 171/2018

[2020] HKDC 800

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 171 OF 2018

---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

Before:  His Honour Judge Harold Leong in Court

Dates of Hearing: 1-5 June 2020

Date of Judgment:  17 September 2020

Date of Corrigendum:  13 January 2022

---------------------------

CORRIGENDUM

---------------------------

Please note the following amendment(s) in the Judgment handed down on 17 September 2020:-

1.  Paragraph 3 should be amended to read as “There were subsequent meetings and email correspondence when various conceptual design was developed, and then the contracting agreement was signed on 15 December 2016 (“the Quotation”).  There were subsequent revisions of the Quotation but there was no dispute that the final version came to HK1.76M.”

2.  Paragraph 6 should be amended to read as “From time to time, any variation or update of the design like new purchases would be dealt with by the defendant issuing “variation orders” with price quotations for the plaintiff to sign.  There was no dispute that Variation Orders 1 to 22 were all paid for (being part of the total sum paid).”

3.  Page 18, paragraph 77A to be added after paragraph 77 to read as “Under cross examination, the plaintiff’s expert, Mr Samuel Wong, admitted that he had only looked at “overcharged” items.  The defendant’s expert, Mr Patrick Lau, however, has looked at all items under the Quotation (Trial Bundle E, pages 1213-1225) (as per order by Master David Chan on 12 February 2019, Trial Bundle A pages 62-64).  Mr Lau has identified 3 items that were undercharged, namely items 6.9, 12.11 and 12.26 which came to HK$13,749.  There was no contrary opinion or evidence so the court would accept such claims.”

4.  Paragraph 92 should be amended to read as “The remaining items on VO26 concerned the false ceiling and the lightings within.  I am of the view that these charges are not all appropriate.”

5.  Page 22, paragraphs 94A and 94B to be added after paragraph 94 to read as: “94A.                     Although the design elements of the false ceiling should not be charged again separately, both experts agreed that there was “undercharging” regarding the length of the light troughs (items 9 and 10 of VO26) so there should be some upwards adjustments: HK$43,650 as assessed by Mr Wong and HK$118,350 as assessed by Mr Lau.  It was not disputed that parts of the false ceiling had double light troughs and others had a single light trough.  Mr Wong methodology of measurement was that he simply measured the linear footage without consideration of whether there were double or single light troughs.  Mr Lau’s methodology, on the other hand, catered for the double trough areas where he applied twice the price for those parts.  Mr Lau’s methodology was clearly more logical and is accepted by the court. 

94B.  Thus the sum due under VO26 should be HK$(3,370 + 4,500 +4,500 + 118,350) = HK$130,720”

6.  Paragraphs 95 and 96 should be amended to read as: “95. I would therefore calculate the net balance due from the defendant to the plaintiff as in the following table:-

	Description	Amount HK$
1.	Agreed price of the Quotation	1,760,000
2.	Agreed “overcharging” (paragraph 25 above)	(81,970)
3.	“Undercharging” items (paragraph 77A above))	13,749
4.	VO1 – VO22	996,979
5.	VO23	12,910
6.	VO24	17,940
7.	VO25	300
8.	VO26 (paragraph 94B above)	130,720
9.	Agreed previous payments	(2,712,269)
10.	Drain grating (paragraph 55 above)	(1,600)
11.	Wall tiles (paragraph 56 above)	(14,495)
12.	Refund of Porro furniture (paragraph 54 above)	(132,852)
	Net due:	(10,588)

96.   I would order the sum of HK$10,588 be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.”

Mr Forest Fong Lum Hoi, instructed by Hau, Lau, Li & Yeung, for the plaintiff

Mr Yan Kwok Wing, of Fung Wong Ng & Lam LLP Solicitors, for the defendant