Read the full judgment text of HCCT 76/1996 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 21 February 2006 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction of Bills of Quantities (BQs) – Interpretation of payment terms for pile toeing-in beyond 1.5 m – Whether item 4 of BQs 5 and 10 requires fixed unit rate per pile or re-measurement per excess length under SMM §9.14 – Contractual clause cl.1(j) stipulating usage of unit rates with quantities to be re-measured but excluding price fluctuation – Court holds fixed unit rate per pile applies, excluding proportional measurement per length. Subcontractor's risk allocation and commercial arrangement implicitly respected. Proposed re-amendment seeking additional variation claims disallowed due to expiry of limitation period and estoppel by acceptance of payment in satisfaction. Court striking out claim for excess payment beyond fixed amount and refusing further amendments. Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed subsequently. Outcome: Defendant’s strike-out succeeds; Plaintiff’s claim for $7.9 million excess toeing-in payment rejected; re-amendment disallowed.
Legal issues: Construction of item 4 of BQs 5 and 10 · Admissibility of proposed re-amendment and new cause of action
Outcome: COFEL's strike-out application succeeds; Sam Woo’s application to re-amend dismissed.
Cited by 1 case