Read the full judgment text of HCCT000055/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 July 2001 before Hon Burrell J.
Contract law — Construction and professional services — Fee calculation and quantum meruit — Liability for site supervision fees — Implied terms of payment — Agency and personal liability — Illegality defence — Counterclaim for damages — Interpretation of contracts and letters of estimate — Buildings Ordinance provisions — Authority of signatories in contracts. The plaintiff, a structural engineering firm, claimed unpaid fees totaling over $2.8 million for design and site supervision services rendered between 1993 and 1998. The court held that the plaintiff's fees on the Lockhart Road project should be calculated as 0.8% of the total construction cost subject to adjustment, applying a quantum meruit method. The 1st defendant was found liable for supervision fees, rejecting defences of implied 'pay when paid' terms, agency exemption, and illegality under the Buildings Ordinance, noting the late enactment of sanction provisions and no objection from regulatory authorities. The contract sum for the Bonham Road project was reduced by $100,000 on plaintiff's concession. Most claims for additional works outside fixed price contracts were upheld except one disallowed item. The court did not find personal liability of Mr Ip, the 2nd defendant, on the basis of oral warranties, emphasizing proper identification of the contracting entity as a limited company. On counterclaim, several claims for alleged negligence and administration costs were largely rejected except for a structural design issue at Bonham Road, allowing a reduced amount of $150,000. Interest was awarded at prime plus 1% from the date of writ. The plaintiff recovered a net judgment of approximately $2.2 million with costs awarded accordingly, while the 2nd defendant was awarded costs against the plaintiff.
Legal issues: Calculation of plaintiff's fee on Lockhart Road project · Liability of 1st Defendant for Classes A & C supervision fees · Agreement on reduction of contract sums for Bonham Road project · Entitlement to additional works fees despite fixed price contracts · Personal liability of Mr Ip (2nd Defendant)
Outcome: Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant for $2,364,313; judgment for 1st defendant against plaintiff on counterclaim for $150,000; net sum due to plaintiff $2,214,313; 1st defendant to pay costs to plaintiff; 2nd defendant to be awarded costs against plaintiff.