Read the full judgment text of HCCT 44/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 March 2014 before Deputy High Court Judge Burrell.
Construction law - Contract interpretation - Implied terms - Lump sum contracts - Substantial completion - Defective work - Measure of damages - Court view - Expert evidence. The plaintiff company contracted with the defendant for major renovations at 28 Windsor Heights following prior works at neighbouring properties. The defendant disputed the quality and extent of works and the amount claimed. Key issues included whether implied terms as to materials, workmanship, safety, and provision of certificates formed part of the contract, and whether substantial completion was achieved. The court found implied terms as to quality unnecessary given express benchmarks; safety was implied; no implied term for provision of documents. The work was substantially complete despite defects, entitling plaintiff to payment subject to deductions. Defects such as excessive marble joint widths and curtain wall structural inadequacies were established; damages were assessed on a proportionate basis. The defendant's counterclaim for extensive rectification costs was largely unsupported. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for $483,944 after adjustments. Further submissions on costs were directed.
Legal issues: Implied terms in renovation contracts · Application of substantial completion doctrine in lump sum contracts · Evaluation and assessment of defects and appropriate damages
Outcome: Judgment for the plaintiff in the net sum of $483,944 (claim less counterclaim).
Cites 1 case