Read the full judgment text of HCCT71/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 1 February 2000 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Construction Contract — Subcontract Dispute — Clause 19 Decision — Summary Judgment Application — Proper Construction of a 'Decision' — Arbitration Trigger — The plaintiff served on the defendant a letter dated 2 February 1998 claiming it was a binding 'decision' under clause 19(a) of the subcontract related to disputed payments. The defendant rejected the plaintiff's claim and counterclaimed a larger sum. The court analysed the letter's content and the decision-making process behind it. The court held the letter was not a proper 'decision' as required by clause 19(a) because it failed to address all disputed claims comprehensively and did not show adequate consideration was given to the defendant’s counterclaims. Consequently, the plaintiff’s summary judgment application was refused. The court further considered the role and duties of the decision-maker under clause 19(a), distinguishing it from a mere statement of a bottom-line figure and underscoring the necessity for proper engagement with the dispute's entirety. Costs were ordered in favour of the defendant. The court invited parties to consent to arbitration to resolve the dispute without delay, as the arbitration process had not been triggered due to the lack of a valid decision letter.
Legal issues: Whether the letter dated 2 February 1998 was a 'decision' within clause 19(a)
Outcome: Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment refused; no binding decision under clause 19(a) was found.