Attorney
General v Shimizu Corporation [1996] HKCFI 499 |
||
Keywords/summary | ||
Assessment
of damages - construction
law - total cost method of assessment - global claim -
construction law - apportionment of damage - duty to assess damages -
Chaplin v Hicks/best estimate rule applied |
||
The issue | ||
The
claimants, Shimizu, had submitted a total cost/global claim for delay
and disruption in respect of a part of the works. The arbitrator,
however, held that progress was only affected by employer's breach in
part of the relevant section of work, the effect of which was that
apportionment of the total cost claim would be required. He said that: |
||
".. I am satisfied that Shimizu did suffer some disruption to the Tower, in particular delay to the construction of SD2" [stair drum 2] .....but that it ceased, or should have ceased, to have effect by L6... I am unable to quantify the effect of disruption to stair drums to L6 and I do not think that in the circumstances it is encumbent (sic) upon me to estimate a figure for disruption ... when the Tower disruption claim is presented as a global claim. Accordingly the disruption claim for the Tower fails." |
||
Shimizu
relied on the following cases, submitting that the arbitrator was under
a duty to assess damages/make an apportionment of the total cost claim: Chaplin
v. Hicks [1911] 2 K.B. 786 (6.10); Penvidic
Contracting Co. Ltd. v. International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. 53 DLR
(3d) 748 (6.14) and Thompson
v. Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) [1984] QB 405 (6.24-6.26).
As to whether the arbitrator was correct in holding that he was not
obliged to make an assessment Leonard J stated that: |
||
"Being
satisfied that Shimizu did suffer some disruption to the Tower, in
particular delay to the construction of SD2 [stair drum], but that it
ceased, or should have ceased, to have effect by L6, the Arbitrator was
under a duty to assess quantum. He declined to do so on the basis
that calculations were lacking. He could have either found a figure,
doing his best on the material available or invited the further
assistance [see missing
evidence] of the parties. Having
found a right he could not deny a remedy. I have already rejected
the suggestion that the Arbitrator was bound to make a final
adjudication on all matters pursuant to an alleged agreement between the
parties. Just as the Arbitrator indicated that he was going to seek
further written submissions in relation to Items 1A-20 and 1A-21, he
was entitled to invite written submissions to assist him in a
calculation of quantum in regard to the matters which Shimizu seeks
to have remitted. The quantum of the disruption to the Tower will be
remitted to the Arbitrator for further consideration. In addition to any
submissions which may be made to him by the parties, it may be that he
will decide to hear further evidence." |
||
Note up and Comment |
||
The decision of Leonard J was overturned on appeal. The HKCA said that the judge had been wrong to remit the case for assessment since there had been an agreement between the parties to implement a "guillotine procedure" in order to bring finality to the proceedings. An enquiry as to damages/further opportunity to comment was not appropriate and would have caused prejudice to the A.G: Attorney General v Shimizu Corporation [1997] HKCA 529 Comment: If the effect of the guillotine was to prevent any further enquiry as to damages or opportunity to comment then the arbitrator should have assessed Shimizu's entitlement on the basis of the available evidence: see missing evidence and Tai Hing Cotton Mill. The only alternative open to the arbitrator would have been to make an apportionment "however rough and ready the result" - see liability cases and the "Apportionment Cases" referred to therein. Note in particular the extract from Golden Hill Ventures v Kemess Mines and the approach to assessment therein. |
||
Copyright Stewart Dunn except:
Extracts from transcripts of HK court
judgments published by HKLII are copyright of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region Government.
|