Read the full judgment text of HCCT19/2005 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 29 September 2006 before Hon Burrell J.
Construction contract dispute — plumbing subcontractor (Ridgid) claimed underpayment from main contractor (Junic) on a new housing project for the Hong Kong Housing Authority. Main issues were a disputed contra-charge for pipe wrapping, delay liability, and damages including liquidated damages and prolongation costs. The court found no contra-charge should apply as the contract rates included any tape wrapping work, which was not required by the employer. Regarding delay, the subcontract lacked fixed completion dates, extension, or liquidated damages clauses, and was not back-to-back with the main contract. The court held time was at large and Ridgid liable for only 10 days of delay out of overall 209 days disputed. Junic was not entitled to liquidated damages or indemnity for such damages but was entitled to prolongation costs for the delay period, assessed on expert evidence pro-rated for 10 days. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, reducing the claim by the amount of prolongation costs attributable to the delay. Costs were reserved with a nisi order in favor of the plaintiff.
Legal issues: Contra-charge · Delay liability · Damages for delay
Outcome: Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,538,965 with a costs nisi order in their favor to be taxed if not agreed.