Facts:

Oceanic Interiors Limited (“Oceanic”) is a Hong Kong-based interior design and fit-out contractor. In January 2015, it entered into a written contract (“the Contract”) with Skyline Properties Limited (“Skyline”) to renovate a commercial building in Central, Hong Kong.

1. Work Timeline and Quality Issues

   • Oceanic commenced renovation work in March 2015.

   • By October 2015, Skyline began to complain that the flooring materials used in the lobby and several offices were porous and easily stained.

   • Oceanic insisted that the flooring was of merchantable quality and in compliance with contractual specifications. However, Skyline redid portions of the flooring themselves and deducted part of Oceanic’s payment in December 2015.

2. Negotiations and Partial Settlement

   • Oceanic disputed any liability for additional costs.

   • The parties engaged in prolonged negotiations from February 2016 through October 2017. Oceanic believed these talks might lead to a settlement covering the cost of redoing the lobby floor. Ultimately, no formal settlement agreement was reached.

   • In May 2018, Skyline made a written acknowledgment stating that Oceanic had some responsibility for defects, but Skyline believed it “still needed to ascertain the full extent of the damage”.

3. Second Dispute: Water Leakage

   • Meanwhile, Oceanic discovered that Skyline unilaterally replaced a portion of the piping system in the building without notifying Oceanic, causing disruptions to Oceanic’s subsequent work. Oceanic claimed Skyline’s interference led to water leakage problems.

   • By January 2019, Skyline had refused to pay the remaining contract sums, citing both (a) the alleged substandard flooring, and (b) the water leakage.

4. Proceedings

   • Oceanic served a final demand letter in August 2021, seeking payment for outstanding work under the Contract.

   • Skyline ignored the demand, and Oceanic started formal legal proceedings in September 2022 in the Hong Kong High Court.

5. Defence and Limitation Argument

   • In Skyline’s statement of defence (dated January 2023), Skyline argues Oceanic’s claims are time-barredunder the Limitation Ordinance, as more than six years have passed since the alleged breaches in 2015.

   • Skyline further claims that no valid standstill agreement was ever in place, and pure negotiations do not suspend or extend limitation.

Question:

1. From what date(s) might the cause(s) of action for breach of contract reasonably be said to accrue under Hong Kong law?

2. Can Oceanic rely on either the prolonged negotiations (February 2016–October 2017) or the written acknowledgment(May 2018) to extend or stop the running of the limitation period?

3. How might the water leakage dispute and the unpaid contract sums differ in terms of when time starts to run? Does the timeline differ for a debt claim (unpaid sums) versus a defective work claim (flooring)?

4. What practical steps could Oceanic have taken to protect itself from missing the limitation deadline—especially while the negotiations were ongoing?

5. Under what circumstances might the court exercise its discretion to allow an otherwise time-barred claim to proceed?

6. If the court ultimately finds Oceanic’s claim time-barred for the flooring work, might Oceanic still proceed with the unpaid contract sums claim? Could partial time-barring occur if only some claims are out of time?