Read the full judgment text of HCCT 3 & 66 of 1996 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 15 June 2000 before Deputy High Court Judge To in Court.
Building and Engineering Contracts — Sub-contracts — Implied Terms — Due diligence and regularity — Whether Clause 25 reinstated principal obligation — Delay — Whether caused by main contractor — Termination — Repudiation — Right to terminate — Common law right preserved despite contractual termination clause — Quantum meruit claims — Contractual damages — Indemnity — Costs. This case concerns the sub-sub-contracts for plumbing and fire services works for the Sky Central Plaza project where Mansion Holdings and Mansion Fire were subcontractors from Tridant. The court held that Clause 25 of the head contract was incorporated by 'back to back' terms, imposing an express obligation on Mansion to proceed diligently and regularly in accordance with programme. Delay was established but causation was not attributable to Tridant's failure to provide documents or site access. Time for completion was not fixed, so the doctrine of time at large was inapplicable. Mansion materially breached by inadequate labour, materials and supervision and by refusing to order materials unless new contracts with Mansion Fire were concluded. Such conduct constituted repudiation. Clause 25 did not exclude the common law right to accept repudiation and terminate without notice. Tridant was entitled to terminate and claim damages assessed on substantial completion costs less contract sums paid. Mansion was not entitled to quantum meruit claims but only contractual damages, given Hong Kong law principles. Mansion Fire was entitled to damages for wrongful termination of the temporary works contract. Indemnity ordered for outstanding consequential claims. Costs reserved for argument. Defendant's appeal was dismissed by Court of Appeal, CACV311/2000 dated 17 July 2001.
Legal issues: Implied terms of due diligence and progession · Whether delays caused by Tridant's actions · Whether implied time for completion rendered at large · Duty to execute work regularly and diligently · Whether Mansion wrongfully refused to order materials (Recantation) · Repudiation and termination · Quantum of damages for Tridant · Mansion's claim on quantum meruit or contract rate · Indemnity · Claims of Mansion Fire for wrongful termination
Outcome: Tridant勝訴，判Mansion Holdings支付損害賠償15,798,893港元並責令賠償一切因違約所致進一步損失；Mansion Holdings及Mansion Fire之反訴部分駁回。Mansion Fire因臨時工程合約被訴獲賠2,242,161.87港元。
Cites 2 cases