Read the full judgment text of HCCT000016/2001 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 23 October 2001 before Hon Burrell J.
Construction Law — Arbitration — Interpretation of contract terms — Meaning of 'claim' in Supplementary Agreement — Whether arbitrator's definition of 'claim' was plainly wrong — Contractual rate dispute over payment for filling volume — Appropriateness of compound interest award. Wellead Construction claimed approximately $130 million from Zen Pacific Civil Contractors arising from subcontract works under a major MTR project. The arbitrator awarded about $12 million to Wellead. Zen Pacific sought leave to appeal on nine issues. The court evaluated the arbitrator's interpretation of 'claim' requiring substantial initiation such as arbitration or outside consultant involvement, rejecting a rigid approach. The court found no error on the arbitrator's detailed factual and legal assessments in issues except issue 6 where the arbitrator wrongly treated an original contract rate as extrinsic evidence and varied it improperly and issue 9 on compound interest was within discretion. The appeal on issue 6 was allowed reducing the award; issue 9 appeal dismissed; other appeals refused. Costs ordered mostly against Zen Pacific.
Legal issues: Interpretation of 'claim' in the Supplementary Agreement · Implied terms in the contract · Application of the 'claim' definition to issues 3, 5, 7 & 8 · Dispute over filling volume and payment (Issue 4) · Contractual rate for Item 21 of the Adjusted Items (Issue 6) · Appropriateness of compound interest rate awarded (Issue 9)
Outcome: On issues 2, 6 & 9: leave granted; issue 2 withdrawn; issue 6 appeal allowed with award reduction; issue 9 appeal dismissed. On issues 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8: leave refused.