Case (1)
Case (2)

The plaintiff      : Han Yang (Korean Construction Company) 
                                                                   (The Contractor)
The defendant :Saudi Arabian University

The Matter         : Dispute Regarding Administrative Contract Between
                              The Two Parties

      According to an administrative contract between Han Yang and a Saudi university in Riyadh, Han Yang executed the project of establishing the educational zone. Han Yang achieved all its duties and handed over the project both preliminarily and finally, not according to the original contractual dates, but according to later dates imposed on it by the government. A short time after the beginning of the project’s execution, the government ordered Han Yang to re-program the works and re-arrange the due amounts in accordance with the new budget credits as well as the new financial instructions made by the competent Ministry. Consequently, this caused Han Yang great damages.

      Moreover, the government gave Han Yang additional tasks that reached more than 46% of the original contract value . Also, its due amounts – which were not paid to it at the preliminary hand over in 1989 - reached more than  $129 million.

      Han Yang evaluated its loss and damage which were a result of the budget’s inefficiency, causing this delay of its due amounts. Then, the company started a condensed follow-up of its due amounts that should be paid by the defendant (the university who owns the project) because the university was always promising to help it by getting a compensation in accordance with the competent Ministry.

      In September 1996, Han Yang received a letter from the university directing it to re - introduce its demand to the Board of Grievances as the competent court in the kingdom, and that was after its previous promise of solving the problem with the competent Ministry. In March 1997, the claim was presented - on behalf of Han Yang - before the Board of Grievances, and there were (20) hearings during nearly two years.

      In the third hearing, there was a formal plea raised by the audit public control bureau, which represented the financial control in the hearings. It clarified that this kind of claims against the government (administrative contracts) should be presented within five years from the preliminary hand over. The Hajeilan Law Firm refused this, because article no. (4) of pleadings and procedures regulations before the Board of Grievances didn’t mention it - It said :”five years from the date of the right rising up”. Also, the judicial practice in the Board of Grievances itself caused the final hand over (not the preliminary) to be at the date of the right rising up, while the final hand over completed actually in 1993. Thus, the claim was presented in 1997, before completing five years. In addition, the project’s final account which decided the due compensations for Han Yang, wasn’t issued till the end of 1996.

      The judge, after being convinced, stopped the discussion about this formal plea. Then he started to discuss the other aspects of the claim. In the 11th  hearing (in 1998), the two parties (Han Yang and the university) were demanded to present brief memorandums about their responsibility for the delay which caused Han Yang a lot of damage and loss. Thus, Han Yang was sure about the judge’s fairness and concern.

      The formal plea was put aside. The university’s memorandum was a surprise to the judge as it frankly admitted that Han Yang deserved about  $127 million (this was agreed upon by both parties).

      The court admitted that there was no need for Han Yang to introduce additional information or documents in order to prove its right of compensation (for the delay of its due amounts), and that was registered in the hearings’ record.

      In the 20th hearing, there was a big shock when the court announced the claim refusal for the formal plea because that was already settled by the judge since the third hearing, while the subject discussion continued to the 20th hearing within two years.

      The preliminary judgment was pronounced in March 1999 and I (through the Hajeilan Law Firm) introduced an objection in April 1999, but it wasn’t accepted by the competent court in the Board of Grievances. Then, Han Yang, who was sure of its strong and fair evidences, wanted to attain equity. So, it presented a petition to the king in order to review this judgment.