Read the full judgment text of HCCT39/2003 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 September 2003 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Construction and arbitration proceedings — performance bond and counter indemnities — interpretation of indemnity and deposit clauses — plaintiff seeks immediate payment or deposit under counter indemnities — defendants argue normal indemnity rules apply delaying payment till liability established; court rejects this — plain words and commercial context support immediate payment — deposit clause interpreted as permitting payment upon occurrence of either of two situations; no ambiguity found — court accepts plaintiff's undertaking to hold sums in client account pending final outcome — judgment for plaintiff for bonded sum and partial legal costs — references American Home Assurance Co. v. King Pacific International Holdings Ltd [2001] 3 HKC 673 for similar interpretation.
Legal issues: Construction of indemnity clause (Clause 1) · Construction of deposit clause (Clause 4)
Outcome: Judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants for the bonded sum and partial legal costs
Cited by 1 case