Read the full judgment text of HCCT131/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 13 September 2001 before Recorder G. Li S.C. in Chambers.
Construction arbitration — Interpretation of subcontract clauses — Whether 'the Architect' in subcontract refers to main contract Architect or Respondent — Court holds question is specific to subcontract with no substantial effect on party rights; leave refused. — Whether provisional quantities clause precludes extension of time for quantity increases — Clause 6.05 interpreted as effective to exclude extensions based on provisional quantity increases; no strong case to overturn arbitrator. — Application to remit award for arithmetical error in 'other delays' rejected; no procedural mishap shown. — Application for leave under Arbitration Ordinance s.23 refused. — Costs ordered against applicant. The dispute concerned contractual interpretation and procedural thresholds for judicial review of arbitration awards under the Arbitration Ordinance in the context of building contract sub-subcontracts.
Legal issues: Proper construction of the role or identity of the Architect · Construction of paragraph 6.05 of the Preliminaries regarding provisional quantities
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal refused on both questions of law; application to remit award refused; order nisi for applicant to pay respondent's costs.