剔除申索判決是否構成最終判決？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LIMITED v CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LIMITED - 法院：香港終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ - 判決日期：2007年5月31日 ### 案情摘要 申請人與答辯人簽訂了一份土木工程分包合約，負責在北大嶼山公路項目中打入64根樁柱並安裝現澆混凝土樁。合約規定，樁柱必須按現場勘測和工程師要求，在一定深度「嵌入」基岩。這是一份重新計量合約 (re-measurement contract)，雙方明確同意重新計量方法應遵循香港政府土木工程標準計量方法 (Hong Kong Government Standard Method of Measurement for Civil Engineering Works, SMM)，除非另有明確規定。然而，本案的工程量清單 (Bills of Quantities, BQ) 並未按照SMM的第9.09條和第9.14條為每個0.50米深度分段單獨列項，也沒有為每個深度分段指定單價，而是只有一個單一的BQ項目，導致雙方就額外工程的付款產生爭議。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為：終審法院是否應受理針對剔除申索的判決提出的上訴？以及合約中的工程量清單條款應如何解釋，特別是關於基岩嵌入工程的額外付款。申請人認為，由於合約是重新計量合約，法院應將工程量清單中列明的單價解釋為每1.50米深度的付款率，並推斷出每0.50米深度的付款率，以使其與SMM條款兼容。 ### 判決理由 終審法院合議庭駁回了申請人的上訴許可申請。法院裁定，剔除申索的判決不屬於《終審法院條例》第22(1)(a)條所指的「最終判決」，因為剔除申請的駁回會使所有爭議繼續存在，不符合「申請測試」 (applications test) 的最終性要求。其次，法院認為本案涉及的是一個特定個案問題，而非具有重大普遍性或公共重要性的法律觀點。合約中的工程量清單條款明確規定了額外工程的固定付款金額，並未暗示該金額受限於特定深度。法院不接受申請人提出的將單價解釋為按深度分段計費的建議，認為這將需要對工程量清單條款進行全面改寫，而這並非合約解釋的範疇。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗關於上訴許可申請中「最終判決」定義的案例，包括： - First Pacific Bank Ltd v Robert H P Fung [1990] 1 HKLR 527 - Wai Hung Stationery Co v HKSAR [1998] 2 HKC 229 - B+B Construction Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc [2001] 1 HKLRD 1 - Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co Ltd (2003) 6 HKCFAR 222 這些案例確立了「申請測試」 (applications test) 作為判斷判決是否最終的標準，即申請的結果必須最終解決訴訟或相關爭議。本案的裁決遵循了這些先例，強調終審法院不傾向於擴大其當然上訴的司法管轄權。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院駁回了申請人的上訴許可申請，並命令申請人支付訟費。法院維持了下級法院剔除申請人申索的決定。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港終審法院在處理上訴許可申請時，對「最終判決」的嚴格解釋，特別是對於剔除申索的判決。它強調，只有當判決最終解決了訴訟或相關爭議時，才符合當然上訴的條件。此外，本案也提醒合約雙方，即使合約引用了標準計量方法，但實際的工程量清單條款若與標準方法不符，仍將以合約的明文規定為準，法院不會通過解釋來重寫合約條款。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LIMITED v CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LIMITED - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ - Date of Judgment: 31 May 2007 ### Factual Background The applicant and respondent entered into a civil engineering sub-contract for driving 64 pile shafts and installing cast-in-situ concrete piles for the Lantau Expressway project. The contract required piles to be properly secured or "toed-in" into the bedrock at a certain depth. This was a re-measurement contract, and the parties expressly agreed that the re-measurement method should follow the Hong Kong Government Standard Method of Measurement for Civil Engineering Works (SMM), unless otherwise stated. However, the Bills of Quantities (BQ) in this case did not itemize each 0.50m depth band separately for toeing-in work, nor did it specify a dollar rate for each band, unlike SMM §§9.09 and 9.14. Instead, there was only a single BQ item, leading to a dispute over payment for additional work. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues were: whether the Court of Final Appeal should grant leave to appeal against a decision striking out a claim, and how the BQ item concerning extra payment for toeing-in into bedrock should be construed. The applicant argued that since it was a re-measurement contract, the court should interpret the stated rate in the BQ item as a payment rate for each 1.50m depth, and by extrapolation, for each 0.50m depth, to align with the SMM provisions. ### Ratio Decidendi The Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court ruled that a decision striking out a claim does not constitute a "final judgment" under section 22(1)(a) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, as the dismissal of such an application leaves everything in contention, failing the "applications test" for finality. Secondly, the Court found that the case presented a case-specific problem rather than a point of law of great general or public importance. The BQ item clearly stipulated a fixed amount for extra work without suggesting it was limited to a particular depth. The Court rejected the applicant's proposed interpretation, stating it would require a wholesale re-writing of the BQ terms, which is beyond the scope of contractual interpretation. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited several precedents regarding the definition of "final judgment" in applications for leave to appeal, including: - First Pacific Bank Ltd v Robert H P Fung [1990] 1 HKLR 527 - Wai Hung Stationery Co v HKSAR [1998] 2 HKC 229 - B+B Construction Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc [2001] 1 HKLRD 1 - Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co Ltd (2003) 6 HKCFAR 222 These cases established the "applications test" as the standard for determining finality, where the outcome of the application must finally dispose of the action or relevant issue. The present ruling followed these precedents, emphasizing that the Court of Final Appeal is not in favour of enlarging its jurisdiction for appeals as of right. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs. The decision of the lower courts to strike out the applicant's claim was upheld. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the strict interpretation of "final judgment" by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in leave to appeal applications, particularly concerning strike-out decisions. It emphasizes that an appeal as of right is only available when the judgment finally disposes of the action or relevant issue. Furthermore, the case highlights that even if a contract refers to standard measurement methods, the express terms of the Bills of Quantities will prevail if they deviate from the standard, and courts will not rewrite contractual terms through interpretation. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.