Read the full judgment text of HCCT 101/2003 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 22 April 2004 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction and Arbitration — Contractual Variation — Valuation under GCC Clause 61 — Interpretation of clause 61(c) and proviso — Whether Surveyor must take account of contractual constraints and how original Bill of Quantities rates are constructed in valuing variations — Whether Standard Method of Measurement significantly influences valuation — Arbitrator’s Interim Award challenged by Applicant on construction errors and inconsistency — Court upholds Arbitrator’s reasoned approach applying established principles favoring sensible commercial results — Contractual constraint of Named Suppliers is relevant non-extraneous factor — Variation valuation may be based on the structure of original rates (supplier price plus profit) — No indication that valuation based on internal contractor pricing methods is forbidden — SMM acknowledged as relevant but may have limited influence; component-based valuation rejected as unreasonable for whole product — Application of prior authorities like Henry Boot distinguished on factual bases — Leave to appeal refused, motion dismissed.
Legal issues: Proper construction of GCC 61 clause 61(c) and proviso · Whether the Standard Method of Measurement (SMM) has influence in valuation under GCC 61
Outcome: Refuse leave to appeal; Applicant’s Notice of Motion dismissed