Read the full judgment text of HCCT 11/2008 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 June 2008 before Mr Recorder Fok, SC in Chambers.
Construction and Arbitration — Consultancy Agreement — 5% bonus clause for variations — Meaning of 'variation' under the Consultancy Agreement — Whether works under supplemental agreements for Zones 5D and 5E constitute variations — Summary judgment application — Whether triable issue exists — Interpretation of variation clause remains ambiguous — Requirement of factual and expert evidence for proper construction — Order 14 summary judgment refused. The Plaintiffs provided landscape consultancy services for soft landscape works at the Venetian Macao covering Zones 5A, 5B, and 5C initially under a Consultancy Agreement, claiming a 5% bonus on variation amounts. The Defendant engaged in supplemental agreements extending the work to Zone 5D and Zone 5E, disputed as not constituting variations under the Consultancy Agreement. The court held that the word 'variation' in the bonus clause might be ambiguous: it could either refer solely to variations under clause 6.2(a) CMIs or also include supplemental agreements under clause 21.6(a). The court ruled that this issue raises a triable question requiring factual and possibly expert evidence and therefore summary judgment is inappropriate. Leave to defend was granted to the Defendant, with directions for further pleadings. Costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal issues: Meaning of 'variation' under the Consultancy Agreement
Outcome: Summary judgment refused; Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend the action
Cites 1 case