The employer awarded the main contract for the project to Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited (HC). On October 22, 2015, the defendant was appointed subcontractor in the design, delivery, manufacture and installation of the façade wall, skylight, pre-moulded ceramic façade system and LED lighting and related work (subcontracting) and on April 18, 2016, an official contract was signed between HC and the defendant (subcontract). Members of a consortium can structure their relationships in a variety of ways, including the use of joint and non-industrial enterprises, limited partnerships and contracting and contracting agreements. In all cases, it is important for a consortium to be organized at an early stage to maximize its chances of obtaining a tendering process and, if successful, to provide the work efficiently and cost-effectively. According to the Court of Justice, the confidentiality agreement makes it clear that the parties are not bound by a current or future contract, with the exception of the continuation and continuation of negotiations on the applicant`s participation as a specialized subcontractor proposed in the tender for the main contract. The Tribunal found that the negotiations between the parties regarding the conditions for the applicant`s participation and appointment as a subcontractor and the applicant`s work after the subcontracting to the defendant were not clearly related to the fact that a binding sub-order had been concluded. This work was ultimately part of the ongoing process of due diligence and analysis of the defendant`s offer with respect to the appropriateness of the applicant`s appointment as a subcontractor. In the recent case of Redland Precast Concrete Products (China) Ltd/Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd, HCCT 35/2018, the court had to decide whether there was a contract between the applicant and the defendant, as the defendant agreed to appoint the applicant as a subcontractor for work work for a project. The applicant submitted that he had entered into a pre-auction agreement with the defendant that if the defendant were to work on the subcontracting, the defendant would outsource the work on the plaintiff.
The defendant disputed the absence of such an agreement. The Court found that no such agreement could be inferred from the documents cited by the applicant attesting to such an agreement or the conduct of the parties. This agreement contains any obligation and agreement between the parties regarding the purpose of this agreement and brings together all discussions, negotiations and, if necessary, prior agreements between them, with the exception of the prior agreement reached between them on 24 May 2000. The applicant intended to enter into a subcontracting and/or agreement between the applicant and/or the defendant regarding the part of the subcontracting works identified as the design, supply and delivery of the prefabricated concrete parts (works) to be incorporated into the façade curtains that form part of the exterior façade system of the subcontracting plants.