Read the full judgment text of HCCT000118/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 16 March 1999 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay, in Chambers.
Construction of contractual supplementary agreement — Road construction contract delays — Whether paragraph (2) of Schedule 1 in SA3 operates generally or only in connection with paragraph (1) — Court held paragraph (2) operates only for the purposes of paragraph (1) — The natural reading of Schedule 1 as a whole shows the paragraphs are interdependent and relate solely to establishing a new date for substantial completion — Arbitrator's decision upheld as correct or at least reasonable — Leave to appeal refused — Costs awarded to respondent. The case concerns interpretation of text setting out conditions and exceptions to completion dates and their consequences on certificates of completion. The court emphasized reading the schedule holistically and noted that a construction treating paragraph (2) as independent would be artificial and unsupported by contract language. The main contract's entire agreement clause also supported this reading.
Legal issues: Construction of SA3 Schedule 1 paragraph (2)
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused