Read the full judgment text of HCCT 23/2005 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 18 August 2006 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction Contract; Extension of Time (EOT); Liquidated Damages (LD); Loss and Expense Claims; Penalty Clause; Prevention Principle; Notice Requirements; Subcontractor Attribution; Indemnity Claims HSIN CHONG作為主承包商在31 Tin Hau Temple Road住宅項目中，遭遇地下設施阻塞需變更排水設計及深度施工，導致項目延遲。雙方爭議圍繞延時扣款與損失補償。法院判斷LOA cl.5(a)非罰金條款，認可承包商就部分變更及政府延遲獲予合計76天的EOT及時間寬限。雖然部分索賠因通知期限逾期被拒，部分損失按GCC 11(6)合理核定。水務部門延誤責任歸屬甲方代理分包商而非承包商。法院否定防止原則可排除違約金請求。Henble要求承包商對業主訴訟費用承擔責任不成立。最終判決承包商淨得332萬餘元；違約金174萬作相抵，費用由承包商負責。
Legal issues: Interpretation and enforceability of LOA cl.5(a) as penalty clause · Entitlement to Extension of Time (EOT) and time allowances · Whether LOA cl.5(a) precludes claims for loss and expense under GCC 11(6) · Reasonable time requirement for claiming loss and expense · Attribution of delay caused by subcontractor to principal · Application of prevention principle on liquidated damages · Indemnity claim by Henble against Hsin Chong for Owners' claims
Outcome: Hsin Chong獲判淨得款項3,283,393.28元，Henble獲判違約金174萬，雙方相抵後由Henble支付差額。Henble對承包商不獲賠償損失及費用。訴訟費用由Hsin Chong承擔。
Cited by 4 cases