Top court cancels appeal on fourth Taipa-Macau Bridge developer designation

The process of appeal withdrawn by a losing developer for the project of building the Fourth Macau-Taipa Bridge has been decided to be legitimate by the Court of Final Appeal.
On October 15, 2019, the then-Chief Executive Chui Sai On appointed the tender of the project to a conglomerate comprising of China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation, China Railway Construction Bridge Engineering Bureau Group Co., Ltd. and Companhia de Construção e Engenharia Omas, Limitada (Conglomerate A).
Meanwhile, another conglomerate, named Conglomerate B and comprised of Coneer Engenharia e Administração, Limitada and China Road and Bridge Corporation, filed an appeal to the Court of Second Instance seeking the nullification of the tender designation.
Afterwards, the China Road and Bridge Corporation applied to withdraw the appeal. On June 18, 2020, the court approved the application and declared the termination of the appeal. However, the other company in the conglomerate was not pleased about this and filed an appeal to the Court’s Council.
The Court of Second Instance ruled in favor of Coneer, which triggered Conglomerate A to file an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
The top court cited the stipulations in the Commercial Code about a business conglomerate when ruling in favor of Conglomerate A. It states that two or more business entities, when forming a conglomerate, are bound to act in unity.
Legally, the court pointed out that each member entity is mutually connected under the conglomerate. As such, the legal actions taken by the conglomerate were seen and understood to be acts of unity. It is a matter of shared interests, the court added.
China Road and Bridge Corporation’s withdrawal from the legal procedure is a sign that the entity was no longer interested in the ruling and the tender. In this circumstance, the top court did not see how there could be any beneficial result for Coneer even if they had won back the tender.
The top court added that once a legal action is taken under the name of a group, the group should exist throughout the entire procedure. AL