Read the full judgment text of HCCT 23/2015 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 14 March 2016 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration – Enforcement of arbitral award – Application to set aside leave to enforce award granted by Hong Kong High Court – Allegation of fraud and forgery of contractual documents underlying award – Whether enforcement may be refused on public policy ground under s 44(3) Arbitration Ordinance Cap 341 – Public policy ground to be narrowly construed and requires high threshold of real prospect of success in showing award obtained by fraud – Court does not re-examine merits or underlying transaction – Failure by respondent to provide sufficient evidence of forgery or to specify statutory grounds in summons is abuse of process – Prior Malaysian court and arbitral tribunal decisions upholding award given due weight – Application dismissed; respondent ordered to pay indemnity costs. This case emphasizes the limited scope for refusing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on public policy grounds and the importance of procedural compliance in applications to set aside leave to enforce awards.
Legal issues: Public policy ground to refuse enforcement under s 44(3) · Abuse of process in summons to set aside the order
Outcome: Application to set aside order granting leave to enforce arbitral award dismissed.
Cites 2 cases