Read the full judgment text of HCCT21/1999 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 December 2002 before Hon Burrell J.
Construction law — Quantum meruit — Subcontract termination and takeover — No fixed lump sum or agreed completion date — Incorporation of subcontract terms denied — Payment dispute — Expert assessments of reasonable costs and profit — Counterclaim for liquidated damages, defects, and contra-charges — Court finds no incorporation of original subcontract, no completion date or fixed price agreed — Goarm entitled to quantum meruit payment reflecting reasonable net costs plus profit after a modest adjustment — Counterclaim partially allowed for contra-charges on a split-the-difference basis — Net judgment for plaintiff with interest and costs orders accordingly. The court relied primarily on credible witness evidence, witness absence from defence, and expert reports to determine the fair valuation under quantum meruit, rejecting rigid application of Amen's subcontract terms to Goarm. The outcome reflects a just allocation of liabilities and entitlements absent a formal written contract on fixed terms.
Legal issues: Nature of the agreement between Goarm and Shimizu · Whether a fixed price was agreed · Whether a completion date was agreed · Whether Amen's sub-contract terms bound Goarm · Effect of Form B1 documents
Outcome: Judgment for the plaintiff Goarm Engineering Limited in the sum of $3,169,692 and for the defendant Shimizu Corporation in its counterclaim for $374,569; net amount payable by Shimizu to Goarm is $2,795,123 plus interest. Costs ordered mostly to plaintiff with Shimizu paying 90% of plaintiff's costs on the counterclaim.