Contract Administration | Famteck Engineering Ltd V Yeung Hiu Chong T/a Finetec Metal Works
Added on 2022-09-07
12 Pages2801 Words27 Views
Running head: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION1
FAMTECK ENGINEERING LTD v YEUNG HIU CHONG T/A FINETEC
METAL WORKS - [2015] HKCU 2159
DISTRICT COURT
Deputy District Judge Eric Tam in Court
DCCJ 577/2013
16-17, 20-24 July and 11 August 2015, 17 September 2015
Building and Construction -- Construction -- Sub-contracting -- Whether part of contract
between parties -- Breach -- Entitlement to terminate
Mr Ivan Cheung, instructed by Wong & Associated, for the plaintiff Mr Vincent Li, instructed by
Lui & Law, for the defendant
Deputy District Judge Eric Tam
II. Introduction
1. This claim is considered to be bought by a plaintiff against the defendant for a certain
sum of HK$437,423.95 of damages for breach of construction contract and there had
been counterclaims which were for the sum of HK$662,265.00.
2. The plaintiff or the complainant was considered to commence the action in order to
recover the losses that had been caused due to the breach for the project which was
known as the Extension Development at North Satellite Concourse of the international
airport of Hong Kong and in this project the plaintiff or the complainant had been a
subcontractor and along with such the defendant or the respondent had been sub-sub-
contractor who was involved with the Project.
FAMTECK ENGINEERING LTD v YEUNG HIU CHONG T/A FINETEC
METAL WORKS - [2015] HKCU 2159
DISTRICT COURT
Deputy District Judge Eric Tam in Court
DCCJ 577/2013
16-17, 20-24 July and 11 August 2015, 17 September 2015
Building and Construction -- Construction -- Sub-contracting -- Whether part of contract
between parties -- Breach -- Entitlement to terminate
Mr Ivan Cheung, instructed by Wong & Associated, for the plaintiff Mr Vincent Li, instructed by
Lui & Law, for the defendant
Deputy District Judge Eric Tam
II. Introduction
1. This claim is considered to be bought by a plaintiff against the defendant for a certain
sum of HK$437,423.95 of damages for breach of construction contract and there had
been counterclaims which were for the sum of HK$662,265.00.
2. The plaintiff or the complainant was considered to commence the action in order to
recover the losses that had been caused due to the breach for the project which was
known as the Extension Development at North Satellite Concourse of the international
airport of Hong Kong and in this project the plaintiff or the complainant had been a
subcontractor and along with such the defendant or the respondent had been sub-sub-
contractor who was involved with the Project.
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION2
III. Facts
3. It had been found that during July 2007 the plaintiff was considered to be invited to the
defendant in order to submit tender for a certain kind of supply comprising of the
installation of security as well as fire shutters for a Project which was upon the defendant
that had been prepared as well as submitted by the quotations for the sub-contract works
which would be for the consideration of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also received three
quotations that were relating to that given by the defendant.
4. The sub-contract agreement was considered to be dated on 16th of September 2008, which
was also understood as the Sub-contract Agreement, and the plaintiff was considered to
be engaged and involved with the Gammon Construction Limited which was also the
primary constructor. They were considered to install the security as well as the fire
shutters for the International Airport of Hong Kong for the project where the terms and
conditions had been contained.
5. The plaintiff had provided another sub-sub-contract documents to the defendant on the
31st of March 2009 and such had not been signed by the defendant.
6. It was considered to be the case of plaintiff that such sub-sub-contracts were considered
to be binding on all the parties. The defendant or the respondent had denied such kind of
claim and alleged in defence for the agreement to be reached written partially as well as
orally in about the month of September 2008.
7. The plaintiff had terminated such an Agreement on the 17th of July 2009 and alleged that
there had been several breaches that had been committed by the defendant or the
respondent.
IV. Court’s Reasoning
III. Facts
3. It had been found that during July 2007 the plaintiff was considered to be invited to the
defendant in order to submit tender for a certain kind of supply comprising of the
installation of security as well as fire shutters for a Project which was upon the defendant
that had been prepared as well as submitted by the quotations for the sub-contract works
which would be for the consideration of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also received three
quotations that were relating to that given by the defendant.
4. The sub-contract agreement was considered to be dated on 16th of September 2008, which
was also understood as the Sub-contract Agreement, and the plaintiff was considered to
be engaged and involved with the Gammon Construction Limited which was also the
primary constructor. They were considered to install the security as well as the fire
shutters for the International Airport of Hong Kong for the project where the terms and
conditions had been contained.
5. The plaintiff had provided another sub-sub-contract documents to the defendant on the
31st of March 2009 and such had not been signed by the defendant.
6. It was considered to be the case of plaintiff that such sub-sub-contracts were considered
to be binding on all the parties. The defendant or the respondent had denied such kind of
claim and alleged in defence for the agreement to be reached written partially as well as
orally in about the month of September 2008.
7. The plaintiff had terminated such an Agreement on the 17th of July 2009 and alleged that
there had been several breaches that had been committed by the defendant or the
respondent.
IV. Court’s Reasoning
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION3
8. The issues that were considered to be determined by the court were to understand the
terms of the contract which had been entered between the plaintiff or the complainant
against the defendant and whether there had been an existence of sub-sub-contract as
such had been defined under the Statement of Claim which had formed a part of the
contractual agreement between that of the plaintiff as well as the defendant. In addition to
such it would also be determined that whether the defendant or the respondent had been
in breach of the said contract and whether the plaintiff had the right or authority to
terminate the contract.
9. It had been observed through the case of Honer Engineering Ltd v Hing Fat Machinary &
Electrical Engineering Co Ltd, DCCJ 3397/2012 that the party had a case which was
considered to be inherently plausible or it could be implausible. However, it could be
understood through the case of Lee Fu Wing v Yan Po Ting Paul [2009] 5 HKLRD 513
that the party’s credibility to assess would be considered to be taken into account and
whether such was considered to be plausible or implausible or whether the party’s case
was considered to be in a material way which would be contradicted through other
evidence which might be disputable or indisputable. In addition to such, it was also to be
determined that the witness would have been discredited due to one or more of the
matters that were considered to give evidence in order to use the above tests. This was
considered to be relevant to all the assessment of the overall credibility and along with
such the demeanour of the witness would also be considered to be taken into
consideration. This particular dicta was considered to be specifically cited with the
approval that was relating to the approval by that Court of Appeal in the case of Ageas
Insurance Company (Asia) Ltd v Lam Hau Wah Inneo, CACV65/2014 (unreported, 9
8. The issues that were considered to be determined by the court were to understand the
terms of the contract which had been entered between the plaintiff or the complainant
against the defendant and whether there had been an existence of sub-sub-contract as
such had been defined under the Statement of Claim which had formed a part of the
contractual agreement between that of the plaintiff as well as the defendant. In addition to
such it would also be determined that whether the defendant or the respondent had been
in breach of the said contract and whether the plaintiff had the right or authority to
terminate the contract.
9. It had been observed through the case of Honer Engineering Ltd v Hing Fat Machinary &
Electrical Engineering Co Ltd, DCCJ 3397/2012 that the party had a case which was
considered to be inherently plausible or it could be implausible. However, it could be
understood through the case of Lee Fu Wing v Yan Po Ting Paul [2009] 5 HKLRD 513
that the party’s credibility to assess would be considered to be taken into account and
whether such was considered to be plausible or implausible or whether the party’s case
was considered to be in a material way which would be contradicted through other
evidence which might be disputable or indisputable. In addition to such, it was also to be
determined that the witness would have been discredited due to one or more of the
matters that were considered to give evidence in order to use the above tests. This was
considered to be relevant to all the assessment of the overall credibility and along with
such the demeanour of the witness would also be considered to be taken into
consideration. This particular dicta was considered to be specifically cited with the
approval that was relating to the approval by that Court of Appeal in the case of Ageas
Insurance Company (Asia) Ltd v Lam Hau Wah Inneo, CACV65/2014 (unreported, 9
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.