Read the full judgment text of HCCT 51/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 14 September 2011 before Hon Sakhrani J.
Construction law — Subcontract payment disputes — Collateral agreements — Interim payment application — Burden of proof on plaintiff to establish likelihood of judgment for substantial sum — Oral collateral agreement alleged between plaintiff and defendant contractor to pay for outstanding electrical works if subcontractor (TYH) failed to pay — Defendant denies collateral agreement, relying on a supplemental agreement allowing but not obligating direct payments — Substantial disputes of fact exist requiring trial to resolve — Plaintiff also claims unjust enrichment in alternative, but claim fails as benefit received by defendant arose under contractual obligation to TYH — Court dismisses application for interim payment — Costs ordered against plaintiff — The case establishes the high threshold for interim payment, the importance of contemporaneous documents, and the limitation on unjust enrichment claims where contractual payment obligations exist in subcontract chains.
Legal issues: Existence and enforceability of the collateral agreement · Claim in unjust enrichment
Outcome: The plaintiff’s summons for interim payment was dismissed; the court was not satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff would obtain judgment at trial for a substantial sum.
Cites 3 cases