According to YunTing Law Firm’s case report dated 21 June 2024, Li Shu participated in the YunTing team representing a China Railway group company in a construction contract dispute with a hot-spring development company in Jiangxi. Following first-instance and appeal proceedings, the appellate court dismissed both parties’ appeals and upheld the original judgment.
Background and issues
The dispute concerned part of the construction work on a hot-spring resort project that began in late 2014. Disagreements arose over construction payments, idle-work losses, force majeure losses and contractual penalties. The contractor sought unpaid amounts, related losses and expenses, late-payment penalties and priority rights over the construction proceeds. The developer counterclaimed for losses arising from construction delays.
Other issues included the starting date for interest, responsibility for late completion and the allocation of appraisal and travel expenses. The lengthy project involved delayed drawings, incomplete geological investigations and the effects of the pandemic. The evidence was extensive, and some disputed items lacked direct confirmation from the developer.
Judgment
The source states that the first-instance court ordered the developer to pay RMB 96,534,227.88 in outstanding construction payments, RMB 700,000 for force majeure losses and additional expenses, and corresponding contractual penalties for late payment. It recognised the contractor’s priority rights over the proceeds of the construction work it had performed. The developer was also ordered to pay RMB 367,728.50 in appraisal and travel expenses, with court fees allocated between the parties.
Both parties appealed. The contractor sought additional construction payments and compensation that had not been allowed at first instance. The developer sought to overturn the judgment in full, avoid payment and obtain contractual penalties from the contractor. The appellate court rejected both appeals. It found that some factual findings at first instance were unclear but did not affect the outcome, and therefore upheld the judgment. This outcome does not mean that all of the contractor’s claims or appeal requests were granted.
Approach to the case
The team examined the contractual provisions, construction records and cost calculations for 22 disputed items. Where direct confirmations were unavailable, it used supporting evidence such as meeting minutes, commendation letters and WeChat group messages, together with construction practice and comparable arrangements on the same project, to substantiate losses, completed work and payment claims.
Tables, mind maps and data charts were used to explain the facts, evidence and calculations for each item. On appeal, the team addressed the opposing party’s arguments individually and defended the construction payments, related losses and priority rights recognised at first instance.
Practical observations
Long-running construction disputes require a clear connection between contract terms, performance, project records and calculations. Where signed confirmations are incomplete, other mutually supporting evidence should be organised carefully. Multiple disputed items should be presented with separate legal bases and evidential chains. This was a team matter; this account focuses on Li Shu’s professional involvement.
Source: YunTing Law Firm’s official website, published on 21 June 2024. The amounts and procedural outcome are taken from that report.