China-tech Engineering (Int’l) Ltd. v. Jet Haven Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 98/2003 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 12 July 2006 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction and arbitration proceedings concerning a sub-contracting dispute between China-Tech Engineering (Int’l) Ltd. and Jet Haven Ltd. China-Tech claimed $1,427,613.50 for outstanding work on two projects, which Jet Haven disputed, alleging no agreed sum for variation orders and defectiveness in the work, counterclaiming for costs of remedial work. Jet Haven failed to appear at trial, and China-Tech proved its claim through witness evidence. The court accepted China-Tech's entitlement to the claimed amount, rejected the defendant's counterclaim, and ordered judgment in favour of China-Tech with interest and costs, except no order for costs concerning a summons to adduce a witness statement late. The case illustrates the importance of clear proof and attendance in construction contract disputes.
Outcome: Judgment for China-Tech for $1,427,613.50; interest awarded; Jet Haven’s counterclaim dismissed.
|
HCCT 98/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 98 OF 2003 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Hon Reyes J in Court Date of Hearing: 12 July 2006 Date of Judgment: 12 July 2006 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ 1.China-Tech was Jet Haven's ELV system sub-contractor on 2 projects, one at Ma On Shan (MOS), the other at Kau To Shan (KTS). China-Tech claims a balance of $1,427,613.50 said to be outstanding from Jet-Haven in respect of work on the MOS and KTS projects. 2.By its pleading, Jet Haven denies liability. It contends that the parties never agreed a sum for the 2 projects and their variation orders. Jet Haven further disputes certain variations claimed by China-Tech, arguing that such constituted part of China-Tech's originally agreed work. 3.Jet Haven also says that work done by China-Tech was defective. Jet Haven counterclaims for $1,193,236.08. Jet Haven contends that such amount represents what it had to pay another sub-contractor to remedy China-Tech's defective work. 4.Jet Haven did not appear at trial. China-Tech accordingly proceeded to prove its case by calling 3 witnesses. 5.On the basis of the evidence of those witnesses, I am satisfied that China-Tech is entitled to its claimed amount. 6.I accept China-Tech's case in relation to variation work. I accept that any work defects were subsequently rectified by China-Tech to Jet Haven's satisfaction. 7.I do not accept that Jet Haven had to engage an alternative sub-contractor to remedy China-Tech's work. 8.In those premises, there will be judgment for China-Tech for $1,427,613.50. Interest will run on that amount from date of writ to today at 1% over Hong Kong prime rate. Thereafter, interest will run on the judgment sum at the judgment rate until payment. Jet Haven’s counterclaim is dismissed. 9.China-Tech will have the costs of this action, save that there will be no order in respect of the costs of its Summons to adduce the witness statement of Leung Chi Kai Mintis out of time. Costs are to be taxed if not agreed.
Mr Herbert Y. F. Leung, instructed by Messrs T. K. Cheng & Co., for the Plaintiff Defendant in person – absent |