Read the full judgment text of HCCT 20/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 10 June 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Contract interpretation — Design and supply of steel formwork and hydraulic system for precast viaduct segments — Alleged defects in formwork system including deformation, hydraulic system failure and geometrical issues — Whether defects caused by Defendant’s breach — Expert joint report concluding limited defects attributable to Defendant, most defects due to mishandling and lack of maintenance by Plaintiff — Plaintiff failed to challenge expert evidence by cross-examination or clarification — Subcontract scope limited Defendant’s duty of supervision and maintenance to installation and normal wear and tear — Additional formwork and tools procured by Plaintiff not justified by proven defects — Defendant’s counterclaim for unpaid sums and additional works allowed — Costs awarded to Defendant. The Court emphasized the necessity of expert evidence for technical disputes and the Plaintiff’s burden of proof. The judgment clarified the proper scope of contractual duties related to design, supply, maintenance, and supervision in complex construction subcontract settings. The Plaintiff’s claims were mostly rejected, with only minimal damages awarded, while Defendant’s counterclaims succeeded. Costs and interest submissions were ordered to be filed following the judgment.
Legal issues: Whether the Formwork System supplied by Defendant was defective · Interpretation and scope of Defendant’s duty to supervise and maintain under Subcontract clauses 4.4, 5.4, and 5.9 · Whether alleged defects in hydraulic system and geometry cart (Scheduled Claims G and H) were attributable to Defendant’s breach · Whether Plaintiff's acquisition of additional formwork and hydraulic tools was justified by defects · Validity of Defendant's Counterclaim for unpaid sums and additional works
Outcome: Plaintiff’s claims largely dismissed save nominal sum allowed; Defendant’s counterclaim allowed in full; costs awarded to Defendant.
Cited by 2 cases