Read the full judgment text of HCCT 24/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 November 2011 before Deputy High Court Judge G Lam, SC in Chambers.
Arbitration — Injunction to restrain arbitration — Jurisdiction of Hong Kong court — Section 21L High Court Ordinance — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 341) section 2GC and 2AA — UNCITRAL Model Law Article 5 — Concurrent proceedings in arbitration and Mainland courts — Forum non conveniens — Principles governing anti-arbitration injunctions — Vexatious or oppressive proceedings — Equity doctrine to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The dispute concerns a letter of intent related to acquisition of land assets in Zhuhai and related shareholding transfers, with parallel arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong commenced by KB and civil proceedings in Mainland China by SA and others. The Hong Kong Court held it has jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining arbitration under section 21L, rejecting arguments based on The Siskina that injunctions require invasion of legal or equitable rights. The court adopted principles that injunctions restraining arbitration may be granted if continuation of arbitration is vexatious, oppressive, unconscionable, or an abuse of process, but must not cause injustice to the claimant. Applying these principles, the court found the continuation of the Hong Kong arbitration was not vexatious or oppressive given the existence and relative stage of Mainland proceedings, the parties’ conduct, and the consensual arbitration agreement with clause 7.2 contemplating parallel proceedings. The Guangdong Court’s judgment remained undelivered and the stay application there pending. The court declined to grant the injunction, emphasizing the need to respect arbitration autonomy and that there were no exceptional circumstances for interference. Costs were awarded to KB with a certificate for two counsel.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction to grant injunction to restrain arbitration · Principles governing the exercise of injunction power to restrain arbitration · Whether continuation of arbitration is vexatious or oppressive
Outcome: Dismissed the originating summons; injunction to restrain arbitration refused.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases