Read the full judgment text of HCCT23, 24, 25 & 26/2001 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 6 August 2001 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Construction contract — Practical Completion — Meaning and certificate validity — Extention of time — Notice requirements under contract clauses SP 5.03 and SP 8.02 — Inconsistency and condition precedent issues — Time at large due to employer non-payment — Quantum of damages — Loss and expense, site overheads, fluctuations, interest and general damages — Standards for leave to appeal arbitration award — Finality and supervisory jurisdiction — Remission under Arbitration Ordinance sections 23 and 24 — Removal of arbitrator under section 25 — High threshold for court intervention in arbitration awards. Might Foundate Development Limited applied for leave to appeal and to remit parts of an arbitration award made by Mr Colin Wall in a building contract dispute with CCECC (H.K.) Limited. The High Court reviewed detailed contract provisions, factual findings, expert evidence, and legal principles governing arbitral awards and court powers of supervision. The court confirmed the arbitrator’s findings on Practical Completion as consistent with contract terms, rejected the requirement of written notice as a precondition to extension of time, upheld the chosen expert’s calculation method, agreed that time was set at large due to employer’s non-payment, and found no error warranting leave to appeal or remission on quantum and other claims. The court emphasized the importance of finality in arbitration and refused to remove the arbitrator, dismissing the applications and ordering costs to the respondent.
Legal issues: Whether the arbitrator erred in the interpretation of Practical Completion · Whether a written notice is a condition precedent under Clause 23 for extensions of time · Whether the arbitrator erred in the method of calculating extension of time · Whether time was set at large due to employer’s non-payment · Whether the arbitrator erred in the assessment of loss and expense claims under Clause 24 · Whether arbitrator erred in awarding site overheads without accounting for double recovery · Whether arbitrator erred in awarding fluctuations without proper evidence or correct construction · Whether arbitrator erred in granting interest at 11.26% · Whether arbitrator erred in general damages assessment for lack of evidential burden · Whether different tests apply for remission under sections 23(2)(b) and 24 Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome: Applications under sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Ordinance refused; leave to appeal not granted; arbitrator not removed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case