Read the full judgment text of HCCT15/2001 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 July 2002 before Hon Burrell J.
Construction contract — Sub-contract termination — Failure to obtain architect approval of shop drawings — Breach going to root of contract — Reasonableness of termination — Multiple rejected submissions and failure to comply with architectural requirements — Defendant’s defences rejected — Quantum of damages for cost overrun, wasted expenditure, and indemnity for liquidated damages — Interest awarded on nisi basis. The plaintiff, main contractor for a Peak development, terminated the defendant’s sub-contract for window and door installation due to failure to obtain required shop drawing approvals and non-compliance with architect instructions. The defendant persistently submitted unacceptable designs contravening contract specifications, including failure to provide aluminum folding and sliding doors and use of split mullions in place of one-piece. The court held the termination lawful and reasonable given notices and non-response. Defences of no adverse comment, change of design intent, readiness to perform, and conditional agreement were rejected for lack of evidence, improper pleading, or misinterpretation. Damages awarded included $500,000 excess cost for new subcontractor completion, $47,708 for wasted tendering costs, indemnity for employer’s liquidated damages claim, and interest on a nisi basis. Costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal issues: Plaintiff's right to terminate the sub-contract · Reasonableness of termination · Validity of defendant’s defences · Quantum of damages
Outcome: The plaintiff’s entitlement to terminate was upheld; the defendant ordered to pay damages and costs.