Read the full judgment text of HCCT 22/2023 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 13 November 2023 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Construction and valuation disputes under a civil engineering contract — Application for leave to appeal against partial arbitral award — Interpretation of GCC 61(1)(b) and (c) regarding valuation basis for varied armored cables — Whether arbitrator was obviously wrong in his choice of clause and valuation approach — Interpretation of GCC 63(d) and GCC 50(5) regarding claims for prolongation costs caused by utility diversion works and exclusion of delay caused by dilatory utility undertakings — Threshold for grant of leave under Arbitration Ordinance Schedule 2 section 6 — Deference to arbitral findings on factual matters — Application dismissed. The Plaintiff challenged the arbitrator’s use of GCC 61(1)(c) not (b) in valuing cable variations and preference for the Defendant’s expert valuation consistent with contract philosophy. The Court found the arbitrator’s approach was correct and not obviously wrong. The Plaintiff also challenged the arbitrator’s award of prolongation costs relating to common trenches and utility diversion works asserting exclusions under GCC 63(d) and full compensation under GCC 50(5). The Court held that delays from variations involving additional utility works were compensable and GCC 63 provides an exception to GCC 50(5). The arbitrator’s careful factual findings and contract construction were upheld. Application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal issues: Construction and valuation under GCC 61(1)(b) and (c) · Interpretation and application of GCC 63(d) and GCC 50(5) in relation to utility diversion and prolongation costs
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases