Read the full judgment text of HCCT 2/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 February 2014 before Deputy High Court Judge Burrell.
Construction dispute — Sub-contract — Oral contract terms — Payment rates — Contract termination — Delay and performance issues — Daywork rates claims — Quantum measurement — Contra-charges — Evidence admissibility — Hearsay and opinion — Non-appearance of witness — Court preferred main contractor's version of oral agreement terms limiting scope and applying 3.95% discount on rates. No binding February 2002 dayworks agreement existed; specific March 2002 dayworks agreement accepted. Plaintiff’s 2003 final account preferred over Blue & Yellow drawings introduced later for quantum basis. Termination was justified by repudiatory breaches but technically wrongful due to procedural defect. Plaintiff liable for most contra-charges claimed. Valid claim for extra works recognized though quantum remains unresolved. Mr Law’s witness statement admitted subject to weight given to hearsay; no adverse inference drawn against HKC for Mr Poon’s absence. Outcome includes finding on liability issues with quantum hearing to follow if required.
Legal issues: Terms of the June/July 2001 oral agreement · Terms of the February 2002 agreement · Terms of the March 2002 agreement · Amount of work completed by the plaintiff · Breach of agreements and termination validity · Plaintiff’s liability for contra-charges · Validity of plaintiff’s geotextile and armour rock claim · Reliability and admissibility of Mr Law Siu Man’s evidence · Non-appearance of Mr Neville Poon and adverse inference
Outcome: Court found HKC’s version of the June/July 2001 oral contract terms substantially correct. No February 2002 agreement found but accepted specific March 2002 agreement. 2003 final account preferred for measuring work done. Termination was substantively justified but technically wrongful. Plaintiff liable for most contra-charges. Valid claim for geotextile and armour rock recognized.
Cites 3 cases