Read the full judgment text of HCCT 68/2003 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 13 March 2007 before Mr Recorder Kwok SC.
Contract Law — Construction Contracts — Sub-contract performance — Time of the essence clause — Requirement for Engineer’s approval of drawings — Delays in design approval and site availability — Lawful termination of contract for breach — Calculation of damages including value of work done, prolongation costs, and loss of profit. The Government’s Water Works Department engaged Gammon for a project, sub-contracting down to Watfield for crane installation under a contract supplemental to CEL-Jebsen contract. Watfield required Engineer-approved drawings to proceed and had stipulated timelines. Jebsen failed to provide timely approved drawings and notified programme dates, causing delays. Watfield gave notices making time of essence and terminated the contract after non-compliance. Court held Watfield’s termination lawful given Jebsen’s contractual breaches and absence of approved drawings. Court applied principles from Hudson’s formula for damages on prolongation and disruption. Recommended damages awarded to Watfield were $1,919,465 plus interest, with dismissal of Jebsen’s claim. Costs ordered nisi in defendant’s favor.
Legal issues: Lawfulness of termination of JW Contract
Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim dismissed; counterclaim by Defendant allowed
Cites 1 case