Read the full judgment text of HCCT23, 24, 25 & 26/2001 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE judgment was delivered on 6 August 2001 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Construction contract disputes — Practical Completion certificate interpretation — Extension of time notices and calculation methods — Time at large due to employer's payment delay — Loss, expense, fluctuations, interest and damages claims — Leave to appeal arbitrator's award under Arbitration Ordinance sections 23, 24 and 25 — Presumption of finality of arbitral awards and high threshold for intervention — Application to remove arbitrator for lack of confidence in findings rejected — Arbitration award involved 'one-off' issues specific to the contract, requiring no general legal clarification. The High Court applied the PT Dover sliding scale to assess leave to appeal, confirming that arbitrators' factual and mixed law-fact findings may only be disturbed if plainly wrong. Practical Completion was correctly held not to require 100% completion. The arbitrator was correct in holding the notice requirement for an extension of time was not a condition precedent and choosing between conflicting expert methods on critical path analysis. Time was properly found to be at large due to payment delays. No error was demonstrated on claims for loss and expense or site overheads. The application to remove the arbitrator under section 25 was an abuse of process. All applications were refused with costs to the respondent.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal and remission under Arbitration Ordinance · Construction and validity of Practical Completion certificate · Extension of time notice requirements and method of calculation · Time at large due to employer's delay in payment · Arbitrator's failure to address clause 26 termination procedure · Assessment of loss, expenses, fluctuations, interest and general damages · Application to remove arbitrator under section 25
Outcome: Applications under sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Ordinance are refused; costs awarded to respondent.
Cited by 3 cases