Read the full judgment text of HCCT 25/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 8 March 2007 before Deputy High Court Judge To in Chambers.
Construction and arbitration proceedings — Limitation defence under Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 — Whether retention money under two sub-contracts was time barred — Defendant as main contractor, Plaintiff as sub-subcontractor — Express contract terms specify retention release after retention period — Plaintiff claimed retention withheld beyond six years — Defendant applies to strike out for being frivolous and statute barred — Plaintiff replies with three grounds: implied term deferring payment until defect completion, verbal global settlement, and written audit confirmations as acknowledgments — Court holds implied term rejected due to express contract terms and no necessity — Verbal global settlement held arguable to postpone cause of action accrual — Audit confirmations held to be signed acknowledgements reviving limitation period — Court declines Order 14A summary determination for lack of particularity — Striking out granted for frivolous pleadings only — Costs ordered in favour of Plaintiff.
Legal issues: Whether the implied term exists that retention money is only due after all defects completion · Whether the verbal global settlement agreement postponed the limitation period · Whether the written Audit Confirmations constituted a valid acknowledgement of debt to revive limitation
Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim substantially allowed; certain paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Reply struck out as frivolous; Defendant’s summons dismissed except for partial striking out