Read the full judgment text of CACV 113/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 15 March 2007 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Chu J.
Civil Procedure — Appealability of striking out orders — Application test vs order test — Striking out part of claim interlocutory and not appealable as of right under section 22(1)(a) of Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. Contract Interpretation — Bills of Quantities, Standard Method of Measurement (SMM), Particular Preamble — Whether general principles established applicable to all re-measurement contracts — Court holds decision confined to particular bespoke subcontract, not general application. Contract Interpretation — Meaning of 'min' (minimum) in construction contract — Whether risk of work beyond minimum falls on contractor — Court holds phrase in subcontract assigns such risk to subcontractor as required work below minimum unacceptable; excess to be remeasured. Questions of Public Importance — Court declines to grant leave to appeal on basis that matters are not of great general or public importance due to specific nature of contract. Background: Plaintiff’s claim for extra over work for toeing-in piles struck out in part and appeal dismissed by High Court. Plaintiff sought leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal; application refused. Legal issues concern appealability of interlocutory orders, contractual interpretation of construction contract documents. Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed. No final appellate change to construction contract interpretation or procedural stance on interlocutory strikeout orders.
Legal issues: Whether the strikeout order was interlocutory or final · General application of construction principles regarding Bills of Quantities, SMM and Particular Preamble · Interpretation and significance of 'min' in construction contract descriptions · Whether the matter engaged a question of great general or public importance
Outcome: Appeal to Court of Final Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused