Read the full judgment text of HCCT000075A/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 15 June 2001 before Hon Burrell J.
Contract Law — Construction and arbitration — Government maintenance contract — Subcontract clause requiring financial proof and sub-sub-contract agreements — Clause 17 effect on contract validity — Non-compliance within specified 10-day period — Whether contract void or voidable — Waiver of time limit and extension of time — Time made of essence again — Adequacy of $20 million overdraft facility demonstration — Importance of sub-sub-contractors' written undertakings — Court held clause 17 creates a voidable right to terminate exercised by LSY after extensions — City's failure to provide adequate overdraft and subcontract documentation justified lawful termination — Poor performance issue not decided as liability decided on clause 17 — Cost order nisi against plaintiffs given. The judgment clarifies principles on timing, waiver, and contractual termination rights for non-compliance with conditions precedent in large-scale subcontracts.
Legal issues: Legal effect of clause 17 in subcontract · Adequacy of overdraft facility under clause 17(i) · Compliance with clause 17(ii) regarding sub-sub-contractors
Outcome: LSY's termination of the subcontract was lawful due to CT's persistent non-compliance with clause 17; repudiation was not wrongful.