Read the full judgment text of HCCT 39/2001 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 2 September 2005 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction law – breach of contract by piling contractor B+B Construction limited liability on defects in piling records and design causing differential settlement in 41-storey blocks at Tin Shui Wai – Block 1 breach of 1:300 tilt specification rendering it unfit for sale and habitation – Block 2 foundations fit for purpose – fraudulent misrepresentation by B+B personnel in piling records found on balance of probabilities – Authority’s remedial and reinstatement works, rescinding offers to flat purchasers, and related costs held reasonable and attributable primarily to B+B’s breach – mitigation efforts upheld – extensive expert evidence on quantum and engineering issues – court prefers Authority’s experts on causation, liability and quantum – liability apportioned 50% to Hsin Yieh Architects & Associates Limited (HYA) on contribution claim – damages awarded to Authority exceeding HK$553 million – cost orders made including parties joined insurer AXA – interest and costs directions given. Keywords: foundation, differential settlement, piling breach, fraudulent misrepresentation, remediation, quantification of damages, causation, mitigation, architectural supervision, contributory liability, construction delay, contractual implied terms.
Legal issues: Reasonableness of remedial works and engineer's conduct · Causation and scope of loss attributable to B+B's breach · Fitness for purpose of foundations and blocks 1 and 2 · Fraudulent misrepresentation in piling records and design calculations · Reasonableness of the Authority's offer to flat purchasers to rescind · Whether the Authority failed to mitigate losses by delaying reinstatement works · Metric of damages and quantum of claims · Liability for contribution by Hsin Yieh Architects & Associates Limited (HYA)
Outcome: Judgment in favour of the Hong Kong Housing Authority against B+B Construction Company Limited for $553,749,915.11; contribution judgment in favor of B+B against HYA for 50% of that sum.
Cites 1 case