Learn more about our comprehensive legal services.
Advising our clients on different opportunities and challenges of the industry.
Developing a unique culture, which blends traditional client care with modern technology and working practices since 1851.
Stay up to date on the latest news and legal insights.
News & Insights
In the recent case of Milestone Builder Engineering Ltd v Yau Kwok Contracting Ltd, HCMP 143/2020, the Plaintiff, Milestone, applied for an injunction to restrain the Defendant (YK) from presenting a winding up petition against it based on a statutory demand served on it by YK for HK$4.987 million for unpaid interim payments under a construction sub-contract. The Court refused to grant the injunction, holding that Milestone had failed to establish a bona fide dispute on the alleged debts. It also rejected Milestone’s argument that the statutory demand was bound to fail because the disputed debt arose from the sub-contract which contained an arbitration clause covering disputes relating to the debts, since Milestone had shown no present intention of instituting arbitration proceedings against YK.
By a contract between the Employer and Milestone (Main Contract), Milestone was the main contractor for alteration and addition works. Under a sub-contract between Milestone and YK (NSC), YK became a nominated sub-contractor in respect of mechanical ventilation & air conditioning and electrical installation works. There were three other nominated sub-contractors on the Project, responsible for different types of construction work.
The debts stated in the Statutory Demand (Alleged Debts) concerned interim payments (NSC IP-18, IP-19, IP-20 and IP-21) plus interest owed by Milestone to YK pursuant to the NSC. There was no dispute that Milestone had not made all or any part of those payments.
Under the NSC Clause 33.1, payment for work done by YK was to be made in accordance with the following mechanism:-
(1) The Quantity Surveyor under the Main Contract (QS) was to calculate the amount owing to each nominated sub-contractor in each Interim Certificate, which was to be issued to Milestone by the Architect under the Main Contract (Architect).
(2) Milestone was then required to pay to each nominated sub-contractor, including YK, the amount included in such Interim Certificates, less any amount properly deductible.
(3) The payment was required to be made to each nominated sub-contractor within 14 days of Milestone receiving payment from the Employer.
(4) If Milestone withheld an amount due to YK and failed to satisfy the Architect that it had good cause for so doing, the Architect was required under clause 29.8 of the Main Contract to issue a certificate to that effect and the Employer would be entitled, but not obliged, to pay that amount to YK direct.
On 5 March 2019, the Architect issued a notice of default to Milestone pursuant to the Main Contract (Notice of Default), stating that it had committed the following defaults (Milestone’s Defaults):-
(1) Not proceeding regularly and diligently with works under the Main Contract despite the Architect’s warning letters;
(2) Persistent failure to complete the external façade lighting control and programming to specification requirements, causing material detriment to the Employer; and
(3) Refusal or persistent failure to comply with the Architect’s written notices requiring procurement of specified materials and proprietary products for timely completion of the Main Contract works.
Upon certification from the Architect, on 23 March 2019, the Employer served on Milestone a written notice to end its employment under the Main Contract (Notice of Determination). By operation of NSC Clause 38.1, upon determination of the Main Contract, the NSC was also terminated at the same time.
YK repeatedly demanded Milestone to make payments. However, almost five months after service of the Notice of Determination, Milestone alleged that no outstanding payment was due to YK and instead alleged that because YK had caused delay and was in default, a balance of HK$11,121,000 was owed from YK. In particular, it alleged that YK was “provisional liable” for 224 days of delay (between 11 August 2018 – 23 March 2019) and hence liquidated damages of HK$15,680,000 (Alleged YK LD).
Between 10 September 2019 and 9 October 2019, YK repeatedly denied that it had caused or contributed to Milestone’s Defaults, and stressed that Milestone had not given any notice of default to YK pursuant to NSC Clause 36. On 30 September, Milestone responded that:-
(1) the Employer had set-off HK$12,110,000 as liquidated damages, so it did not receive full payment for NSC IP 18 – 21; and
(2) Milestone had submitted a claim for extension of time (EOT) and requested the Architect to identify the cause of delay. It would thus pay YK only if:
(a) Milestone had received payment from the Employer, or
(b) delay was proven not to be YK’s responsibility.
Milestone argued that there were bona fide disputes between them and YK because:-
YK argued that there was no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because:-
The Court held that Milestone had failed to discharge its burden of demonstrating a bona fide dispute on the Alleged Debts because:-
Milestone submitted that YK’s intended petition based on the Statutory Demand was bound to fail and an injunction should be granted because Milestone clearly disputed the Alleged Debts which arose out of the NSC which contained an arbitration clause, the scope of which covered the disputed debts.
The Court said that as made clear in the recent Court of Appeal judgment in But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC  4 HKLRD 85 and in Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte Ltd  5 HKLRD 646 the Court retains a discretion under the insolvency legislation which should not be exercised only in one way by reason of the factor of arbitration, although considerable weight should be given to this factor. An insolvency petition would not be dismissed or stayed because of the mere existence of an arbitration agreement, when the debtor has no genuine intention to arbitrate. To show a genuine intention to arbitrate, the debtor must have taken the steps required under the arbitration clause to commence the arbitration process and file an affirmation showing this. A formal notice of arbitration must leave the recipient in no doubt of the applicant’s intention to resort to arbitration, and that some action is required of the recipient.
Milestone relied on its current arbitration with the Employer over Milestone’s consolidated EOT claims. However, the Court said that that dispute simply had no connection with YK’s entitlement to NSC IP 18 – 21 owed by Milestone. Further, if Milestone really thought that YK’s debts were “hotly disputed”, it could have applied to join YK to the arbitration with the Employer, seeking a declaration of non-liability in respect of YK’s debts, and then applied for a stay pending that arbitration. Although the Statutory Demand was served almost 9 months ago, Milestone had not taken any steps to initiate any of the dispute settlement procedures under NSC GC Clause 42 and, the Court said, had clearly failed to demonstrate any genuine intention to arbitrate vis-à-vis YK. The mere existence of an arbitration clause in the NSC could not prevent YK from exercising its statutory right to petition for winding up Milestone on the ground of insolvency. At most, Milestone’s conduct amounted to reserving its position pending the resolution of its EOT claim under the arbitration between itself and the Employer.
In this case, the Court held that if Milestone did not exercise its right of deduction of NSC IP from YK under Clause 33.1(10), it would be liable to pay YK according to the NSC IP. Whether Clause 33.1(10) is wide enough to exclude a common law right of set-off is not discussed in the judgment. It is a matter of interpretation of the NSC.
In Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd v. Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd  A.C. 689, the House of Lords decided that the common law right of set-off can only be excluded by way of clear unequivocal words in the contract.
The present judgment did not mention whether the NSC used was the Hong Kong Standard Form for Nominated Sub-Contract. Assuming that it was (as appears from the clauses cited), Clause 41 thereof provides as follows:-
“Contractor’s power to recover damages etc.
(1) The Contractor may make any deduction authorised by the Sub-Contract or at law including without limitation, deductions for costs, damages, debts, expenses or other sums for which the Sub-Contractor is liable to the Contractor from amounts due to the Sub-Contractor.
(2) It is a condition precedent to the Contractor’s right of deduction under clause 41(1) that he gives a notice to the Sub-Contractor by special delivery stating the amount of the deduction and the reason for it at least 7 days before making the deduction.”
One may wonder whether the outcome of the case would have been different if Milestone had relied on Gilbert Ash and complied with Clause 41 mentioned above.
Subscribe to Publications
Sign up for our regular updates covering the latest legal developments, regulations and case law.
For media enquiries please contact us at email@example.com.
Tel: +852 2825 9211
Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)