Read the full judgment text of HCCT 48/2009 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 12 July 2011 before Hon Saunders J.
Construction contract dispute concerning subcontractor payments under the HKHA refurbishment contract. Plaintiff, Mr Tai, an oral subcontractor under Many Harvest (SFK’s subsidiary), claimed entitlement to completion payments for various batches and specific works orders under an alleged oral agreement and the 2000 settlement agreement. The court examined the existence of the oral contract, SFK’s assumption of liability, timing of Mr Tai’s subcontracting capacity, entitlements to disputed works orders, and claimed deductions by SFK for liquidated damages, barralastic coating, and a $2 million sum. The court rejected the oral contract claim due to lack of credible evidence and commercial implausibility, and found that Mr Tai ceased builder’s works at batch 164 with credible contemporaneous records. Entitlement to payment for disputed works orders and temporary hoardings was denied. The court accepted Mr Tai’s claim for all conveyance work. It held SFK could not deduct liquidated damages or barralastic coating amounts without express contractual provision and declared clause 3(B) of the settlement agreement concerning $2 million deductions void for uncertainty. The plaintiff’s entitlements were confined to undisputed work performed and payments under the settlement agreement. Judgment reserved on costs and arithmetic calculation of owed sums.
Legal issues: Whether Mr Tai and Many Harvest entered into an oral agreement entitling Mr Tai to the final payments for batches 108-136 · Whether SFK assumed liability to pay Mr Tai for batches 108-136 under the settlement agreement · Date and batch when Mr Tai ceased to be a builder’s works sub-contractor · Entitlement to payment for two disputed works orders under batch 137 · Entitlement to payment for five works orders in respect of temporary hoardings (soil debris warehouse) · Entitlement to payment for Trade 19 ‘Conveyance’ work · Right of SFK to deduct liquidated damages from payments to Mr Tai under the settlement agreement · Right of SFK to deduct for barralastic coating dispute · Validity and enforceability of clause 3(B) of the settlement agreement providing for deduction of remaining HK$2 million
Outcome: Mr Tai’s claims based on the oral contract and builder’s works after batch 164 fail. He is entitled to payment for conveyance work. SFK is not entitled to deduct liquidated damages or barralastic coating sums from Mr Tai. Clause 3(B) HK$2M deduction provision is unenforceable.
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 1 case