Read the full judgment text of CACV 1120/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 17 April 2002 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Ma J.
Civil law – Contract – Breach of subcontract – Methodology for damages assessment – Whether damages should be based on actual additional costs plus 3% contractual fee or an enhanced profit margin – Evidence on projected external costs – Whether speculative or ascertainable – Loss of business opportunity claim – Insufficient evidence – Appeal allowed on damages quantum – Remission ordered for fresh assessment – Cross-appeal on loss of business dismissed – Costs ordered in favour of plaintiff. Defendant Tyco repudiated subcontract by failing to finance works, plaintiff Wo Hing completed the works itself. Trial judge awarded damages based on 10% profit approach not in line with compensatory principle which requires plaintiff be placed as if contract performed with recovery limited to actual losses net of contract fee. Projection of external costs to completion based on purchase orders found speculative and unreliable for present determination; final costs ascertainable only upon final accounts. Loss of business opportunity claim dismissed for lack of evidence. Appeal court set aside damages quantum, dismissed cross-appeal, and remitted matters to trial court for reassessment based on actual costs and receipts applying formula of 3% fee plus shortfall between costs and 97% of contract price. Order nisi for costs made in favour of plaintiff save as increased by cross-appeal.
Legal issues: Appropriate assessment of damages for breach of contract · Assessment of projected external costs to completion · Loss of business opportunity claim
Outcome: Set aside the amended judgment on quantum; dismissed cross-appeal on loss of business claim; remit to trial judge for fresh determination of actual costs and receipts and consequent damages calculation
Cites 1 case