Wo Hing Engineering Ltd. v. Tyco Engineering & Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd.

Read the full judgment text of HCCT 40/1999 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 8 November 2000 before Hon Burrell J.

Construction and arbitration proceedings concerning contract costs, credit variations, and profits were heard before Hon Burrell J in the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR. Key financial figures were amended under the slip rule, correcting costs to 31 August 2000, credit variation, and resulting profit calculations. The court determined the total sum payable by the defendant to the plaintiff to be $4,783,102.00. The judgment clarifies the calculation of costs and adjustments inclusive of labour and fee projections, and confirms the shortfall in reasonable profit as part of the financial determinations.

Outcome: Judgment made in favor of the Plaintiff with consequential financial awards

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCCT 40/1999
Court
高等法院原訟法庭
Date08 Nov 2000
JudgeHon Burrell J
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCT000040M/1999

HCCT 40/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
NO.40 OF 1999

-------------

BETWEEN
WO HING ENGINEERING LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
TYCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LIMITED Defendant

-------------

Coram: Hon Burrell J in Court

Dates of Hearing: 11, 12, 14, 15, 18-21 and 25 September 2000

Date of Written closing submissions received: 6 October 2000

Date of Written replies received: 10 and 30 October 2000

Date of handing down judgment: 8 November 2000

------------------------------

CORRIGENDUM

------------------------------

I have agreed to make two corrections under the slip rule to the figures in the judgment as follows :

(i) On page 22, the figure at (g)(iii) should be $3,686,000.

(ii) The corrected consequential arithmetic at (g)(iii) should therefore be $73,919,354.

The consequential adjustment to the figures between pages 22 and 28 are as follows :

Page 22(i) to (iv) :

(i) Cost to 31 August 2000
External 72,230,354.00 (agreed)
Internal 5,200,000.00
(ii) Projected costs to completion
External See below
Internal 175,000.00
77,605,354.00
(iii) Less credit variation 3,686,000.00 (agreed)
73,919,354.00
(iv) Add labour 1,150,000.00 (agreed)
75,069,354.00

Page 25 lines J and K now read :

"The equivalent figure from paragraph (g) was $75.07 million (a profit of $8.03 million)".

Page 26 lines B and C now read :

"The final figure is therefore $76,569,354.00. Taking the latest certified work done figure of $83,100,000.00, the profit is $6,530,646.00".

Line F reads :

"There is a difference of $1,779,354.00."

Page 27 line S reads :

"The total sum to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of these proceedings is $4,783,102.00".

Page 28 reads :

$ $
(i) Shortfall in reasonable profit on Olympic Towers 1,779,354.00
(ii) Net value of 3% fee 2,400,000.00
113,940.00 2,286,060.00
4,065,414.00
(iii) Agreed claim for seconded staff 717,688.00
4,783,102.00

Page 29 reads :

(i) In the sum of $4,065,414.00. ....

Dated the 14th day of December 2000

(M.P. Burrell)
Judge of the Court of First Instance