Read the full judgment text of HCCT 1/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 17 February 2009 before Deputy High Court Judge Westbrook, SC.
Construction contract dispute concerning entitlement to extensions of time (EOT) and the levying of liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs). Plaintiff main contractor claimed an 84-day EOT due to delays caused by defendant developer's instructions, including change to lightweight block walls and demolition of parapet walls. Defendant counterclaimed for LADs for failure to complete by contractual date. Key legal issues included compliance with condition precedent of notice under GCC 23, whether defendant was estopped from enforcing notice requirement, whether court had power to revise Architect's grant of EOT, and whether LADs required an Architect's Certificate of Non-Completion (CNC). Court held plaintiff partially complied with notice requirements entitling it to 24-day extension, but not for later delays. Defendant was not estopped. Court has power to review Architect's EOT decision and granted 84 days in total. Held that Architect's certificate is a condition precedent for LADs, court lacks power to issue or waive certificate, and without such certificate defendant's LAD claim fails. Judgment entered for plaintiff; LAD counterclaim dismissed; interest and costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal issues: Plaintiff's entitlement to extension of time for delays · Compliance with notice condition precedent in GCC 23 · Defendant estoppel from relying on notice condition precedent · Court's power to re-open and revise Architect's grant of extension of time · Requirements for levying liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs) · Court's power to issue or waive the Architect’s certificate (CNC) · Whether court should issue or waive certificate if it has power
Outcome: Plaintiff granted judgment for claimed sum; counterclaim for LADs dismissed; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs
Cites 1 case