Read the full judgment text of CACV 224/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 2 May 2007 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Sakhrani J.
Construction contract dispute — subcontractor claimed variation payments for additional and varied works against intermediate employer — dispute over calculation method for variations to conduit works, compliance with contractual variation procedures, and charges for certain items — experts produced joint and supplementary reports — trial judge found for Plaintiff subcontractor and awarded $1,258,840.80 plus interest — Defendant appealed challenging variation calculation, waiver of clause 3.2 compliance, entitlement to certain charges, and seeking retrial — Court of Appeal upheld expert valuation method as legitimate due to lack of challenge at trial; confirmed that Defendant waived strict contract clause 3.2 requirements; accepted Plaintiff’s entitlement to charges where no cross-examination was taken; refused retrial as speculative and due to Defendant’s poor trial representation — Appeal dismissed affirming judgment as fair and lawful.
Legal issues: Validity of calculation for variation in conduits · Waiver of strict compliance with contract clause 3.2 · Entitlement to charge for items listed as outstanding information · Whether retrial should be ordered on disputed items not raised at trial
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; Trial judge’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff upheld