LEONG IAT CHEONG t/a ART WORK v. SIU HUNG SANG t/a HONG KONG FRANCK SIU DESIGN & CONCEPT

HCA 14147/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 14147 OF 1998

____________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. In this action, the plaintiff claims against the defendant for $348,400 being the balance of contract fees for interior decoration work the plaintiff had carried out for the defendant at No. 5 Isola Bella, Sai Kung, New Territories. The plaintiff's case is this. Pursuant to several contracts made by the parties between the end of December 1997 and mid-May 1998, the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant as a subcontractor to carry out the interior decoration work at the location, at the total price of $735,737. The defendant was the principal contractor for those work. Of the agreed price, the defendant had only paid the plaintiff a sum of $351,152, leaving a balance of $384,585. Subsequently, the plaintiff agreed to revise the outstanding sum to $348,400. But the defendant has failed to pay the revised sum at all. Hence the present proceedings were commenced.

2. In its defence and counterclaim, the defendant made the following allegations: that the plaintiff was engaged as a subcontractor to carry out the decoration work and the defendant would pay the plaintiff according to the labour cost and material expenses actually incurred; that in or about mid-June 1998, the defendant had duly paid the plaintiff a sum of $351,152, being the labour cost and material expenses incurred by the plaintiff in performing part of the work; that upon payment of the above sum, the parties agreed orally that the plaintiff should carry out the remaining part of the decoration work at the fixed price of $348,400; and that, however, the plaintiff had failed to complete the remaining work on about or before the end of June 1998. As a result, the defendant has suffered loss and damage, including loss of profit in the sum of $600,000 and labour costs and material expenses in the sum of $1 million. That forms the basis of the counterclaim.

3. At the trial before me, the defendant is absent and therefore, there is no evidence to substantiate any of his allegations in the defence and counterclaim.

4. The plaintiff himself has given evidence. In brief, he confirms the particulars of his claim as set out above. He also confirms that the work which the defendant was engaged to perform had been duly performed and completed. He had received no complaint whatsoever from the defendant in relation to delay or incompletion of the work or anything at all.

5. The 2nd witness of the plaintiff is Mr Chan Chung-hon, who is and was at all material times the plaintiff's works supervisor. He actually worked for the project in question. He also confirms that the work the plaintiff was obliged to perform had been duly completed and there was no complaint whatsoever from the defendant. The defendant being absent, there is no evidence to contradict any of them.

6. Having carefully considered the matters, I accept the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness. There is no evidence to contradict them. I note that apart from the bare allegations in the defence and counterclaim, the defendant has failed to give particulars in its defence on the delay, and the resultant loss and damage allegedly suffered. His witness statement is none better. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved its claim. I will therefore enter judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $348,400 with interest at the judgment rate from the date of writ to payment and costs. I would also dismiss the defendant's counterclaim with costs.