Read the full judgment text of HCCT 48/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 August 2006 before Hon Reyes J in Chambers.
Construction law — Sub-contracts — Arbitration agreements — Whether arbitration clause in the main contract applies to sub-contract disputes — Interpretation of contract clauses about substitution of parties — No clear wording to extend arbitral rights between sub-contractor and main contractor — Refusal to rectify contract without irrefragable evidence. AP City engaged HKC as main contractor for residential development; HKC subcontracted WH-SCG JV Limited. WH-SCG claimed unpaid sums under the sub-contract. HKC sought to stay the court action to refer disputes to arbitration under the main contract’s conditions, which included an arbitration clause. The court analyzed the wording of Particular Conditions clause 1, rejecting the argument that WH-SCG and HKC were parties to the arbitration agreement by virtue of substitution mechanisms. Arbitration was not an obligation or liability undertaken but a dispute resolution means. The court declined to read the arbitration clause so as to bind WH-SCG and HKC without clearer language, and rejected the request for rectification due to inadequate evidence. Outcome: HKC’s stay application dismissed; costs to be determined.
Legal issues: Whether the arbitration clause in Conditions cl. 35 applies to disputes between WH-SCG and HKC
Outcome: HKC’s application to stay proceedings and compel arbitration dismissed
Cited by 1 case