D Mondo Limited v. Yau Chiu Wing also known as Edmund Yau and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 18/1994 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 12 December 1995 before Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Civil procedure — Interim payment under Order 29 — Contract dispute involving interior design and renovation — Plaintiff claimed undisputed sum due under contract price and agreed extras — Defendants disputed balance, claiming overpayment and damages — Court approved plaintiff's quantification approach starting from contract price and undisputed extras — Defendants' claims deferred to trial stage — Court ordered interim payment for undisputed amount plus interest at 10% from date of contract — Costs ordered nisi in favour of plaintiff. The judgment provides that undisputed sums should not be withheld pending trial if supported by evidence, and confirms interim payment as appropriate procedural relief under Order 29. The plaintiff’s claim for an interim payment of $146,783.31 plus accrued interest was granted, with costs reserved by an order nisi.
Legal issues: Interim payment under Order 29 · Costs entitlement
Outcome: Plaintiff's summons for interim payment under Order 29 granted; order nisi for costs in favour of plaintiff.
|
HCCT000018/1994 Con. & Arb. List No. 18 of 1994 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ______________
______________ Coram: Hon Mr Justice Findlay, in Chambers Date of hearing: 8 December 1995 Date of handing down of judgment: 12 December 1995 ______________ JUDGMENT ______________ 1. The plaintiff is an interior designer and contractor. Between July and August 1993, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants to redesign and renovate a flat in Homantin. 2. The plaintiff has issued a summons claiming judgment under Order 14, or an interim payment under Order 29, in respect of the amount that, the plaintiff alleges, is indisputably due by the defendants. This is the summons before me. 3. Mr Beaumont has argued that I should not consider this now for various reasons; in effect, saying that this is not the appropriate time. I am satisfied, however, that, if a sum is due to the plaintiff, which is not disputed by the defendants, there is no reason why the plaintiff should be kept out of this money until trial. 4. The position taken by the plaintiff may be summarised in the following table -
5. On the other hand, the defendants say that the plaintiff has already been overpaid. Their view is reflected in the following table -
6. In my view, the plaintiff's general approach is right. That is, one starts from the contract price, which is not in dispute. To this, one adds the extras that are not in dispute. On the basis of the following table, the extras not in dispute amount to $164,971.31
7. This makes a total of $1,457,771.31, from which should be deducted the sum of $950,000 already paid, leaving a balance of $507,771.31. From this must be deducted the claims by the defendants. I am not prepared at this stage to examine these closely to see if they are justifiable. They are certainly arguable, and that is sufficient at this stage. This leaves a balance due to the plaintiff, which the defendants cannot dispute, of $146,783.31. This is my calculation -
8. To this must be added interest at 10%, a rate which Mr Beaumont did not challenge, from 19 November 1993 to the date of this judgment. I leave this to be parties to calculate. If there is any difficulty about this, the parties may seek directions. 9. I think it is more appropriate to order the payment of the amount due to the defendants to the plaintiff as an interim payment under Order 29. Accordingly, I so order. 10. As to costs, it seems, on the face of it, that the plaintiff is entitled to costs, and I make an order nisi accordingly. Representation: Mr Anthony Houghton, instructed by Messrs Tsang Chan & Wong for the plaintiff. Mr Ben Beaumont, instructed by Messrs Ng & Shum, for the defendants.
|