Read the full judgment text of HCCT 29/2004 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 10 September 2004 before Hon Reyes J.
Arbitration — Construction contract disputes — Extension of time (EOT) entitlement under standard form building contract, cl.23 — Whether entitlement requires actual delay or mere likelihood suffices — Whether Arbitrator erred in rejecting parties' agreed time slice delay assessment method without further submissions — Allegations of technical misconduct — The High Court refused leave to appeal the Arbitrator's interim award, holding the Arbitrator reasonably construed cl.23 to require actual delay or a finding that delay was likely when the information was necessary. Leighton's claim for EOT due to late tender information was rejected on factual findings that the information was not necessary at the time and did not cause delay. The court endorsed the Arbitrator's reasoned preference for one expert's time slice approach over another's, rejecting claims of technical misconduct. Costs in favor of Stelux were ordered against Leighton. Outcome: Appeal refused; costs awarded to Stelux.
Legal issues: Interpretation and application of Main Contract cl.23 on EOT entitlement · Requirement to consider 'likely delay' separately · Alleged technical misconduct in rejecting the time slice delay method without further submissions
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; Arbitrator not found seriously wrong or guilty of technical misconduct.
Cites 1 case