Read the full judgment text of HCCT114, 115, 116, 117/1999 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 27 March 2000 before Hon Burrell J.
Construction law — Subcontractor claims — Multiple contracts — Alleged oral agreement for set-off — Whether oral agreement existed — Whether contracts suitable for equitable set-off — Summary judgment principles — Quantum disputes — The plaintiff, subcontractor for six renovation contracts at separate sites between 1996 and 1997, sought summary judgment against the defendant. The defendant claimed an oral agreement in December 1997 to set off monies across all contracts including ongoing works, which the plaintiff denied. The court found no credible evidence of such an oral agreement, rejecting it as inherently unlikely and inconsistent with contemporaneous conduct and evidence from contract management. The distinct nature and separate timings of the contracts negated the existence of an equitable set-off or basis to stay execution of summary judgment. However, disputes on the quantum of amounts due under two contracts were found to be triable issues, necessitating partial judgment for undisputed sums and trial for the disputed balance. The court ordered judgment accordingly with stay on balance litigation pending resolution of related disputes.
Legal issues: Existence of the alleged oral agreement · Set-off and nexus between contracts · Quantum dispute on contracts D and F
Outcome: Judgment granted to the plaintiff for the undisputed sums; disputes on quantum reserved for trial; no stay of execution granted.