Read the full judgment text of HCCT 27/2003 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 28 May 2004 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction law — Contract interpretation — Ad hoc agreements vs. contractual mechanism under Main Contract cl. 54.1 — Arbitration — Challenges to Arbitrator’s award — Factual findings on rates for variation works and painting — Burden of proof on omitted works claim — Leave to appeal application dismissed. The dispute arose from a subcontract between Hop Hing Iron Works and ACG Joint Venture on metal and door works at Chek Lap Kok Airport. The Arbitrator held that ad hoc agreements on variation work rates did not override clause 54.1’s contractual mechanism and were unenforceable for lack of consideration. Alleged agreement on a $200/m rate for painting was rejected as too vague. Clarifications confirmed no error in applying higher rates for stainless steel louvres and corrected earlier miscalculations for painting GMS Channels. The Arbitrator’s factual rejection of claims for omitted works awarded to other subcontractors was reasonable. The Court rejected all grounds and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
Legal issues: Effect of ad hoc agreements on Main Contract cl. 54.1 · Alleged agreed $200/m rate for painting works · Application of $10,211.47/m rate for RHS in stainless steel louvres · Failure to apply agreed painting assessment for GMS Channels · Whether Arbitrator wrongly rejected evidence of omitted works awarded to other subcontractors
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed