Read the full judgment text of HCCT 108/2003 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 25 May 2006 before Hon Reyes J.
Contract and construction law — Variation and subcontracting — Contractual requirements for written site instructions — Waiver of strict compliance due to practical site conditions — Authorization and valuation of substantial variations, especially change from concealed to surface conduits — Assessment of variation work using expert quantity surveyors with court preferring plaintiff's valuations — Payment disputes and interim payments agreed to stave off strike — Site abandonment instructions by defendant, no repudiation by plaintiff — Counterclaim for defect rectification costs dismissed due to insufficient proof — Implied term for timely documentation rejected — Allegation of insolvency unsupported. Facts involved a sub-subcontract for TVB City project electrical works; contract included general and supplementary conditions regarding variations. The Court found the telephone conversation of 17 March 2001 effectively amended instruction processes. Valuation totalled approximately $7.13 million for variations with $1.26 million owed after deductions. The Court ordered Vinson to pay the judgment amount with interest and costs. Appeal dismissed (CACV224/2006).
Legal issues: Contract formation and terms · Existence and effect of telephone conversation on variation instructions · Variation: change from concealed to surface conduits · Effect and understanding of the 7 May 2002 meeting · Arrangement to assess variation works on 10 May 2002 · Who instructed Kin Shing to leave the site in autumn 2002? · Value of variation works and amount owed to Kin Shing · Entitlement of Vinson to damages for Kin Shing leaving site and defect rectification · Implied term and allegation of Kin Shing's insolvency
Outcome: Judgment for Kin Shing Engineering in amount of $1,258,840.80; Vinson's counterclaim dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases