Read the full judgment text of HCCT31/2007 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 25 September 2008 before Hon Burrell J.
Construction contract — Limitation of actions — Cause of action accrual date — Contract payment clauses — Striking out application under Order 18, rule 19 — Summary judgment under Order 14A — The plaintiff, a subcontractor, claimed unpaid sums and retention monies more than six years after alleged accrual dates based on contractual payment terms. The defendant relied on Limitation Ordinance Cap. 347 s.4(1), arguing claims were statute barred. The defendant's application to strike out and for summary judgment was refused. The court held that the cause of action accrued at the date of the defendant’s final account on 19 May 2001, not earlier payment dates. Contract provisions on measurement and QS approval were conditions precedent to final payment, so contractual payment clauses must be read contextually. The limitation defence was not obviously sustainable. The defendant’s prior application to determine the issue as a preliminary trial issue was refused, influencing the court to refuse summary judgment now. Outcome: strike out dismissed with costs to plaintiff; no summary judgment order; costs in cause.
Legal issues: Limitation period and cause of action accrual date
Outcome: Defendant's strike out application dismissed with costs to plaintiff; No order made on the Order 14A summons with costs in the cause.