Read the full judgment text of CACV 92 & 93/2015 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 24 May 2016 before Hon Cheung JA, Hon Kwan JA, Hon Poon JA.
Arbitration — Setting Aside Award — Article 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) UNCITRAL Model Law — Denial of Due Process — Irregularity — Excess of Jurisdiction — Contractual Dispute over RMB 10 Million Deduction — Deeming Provision — Subrogation — Unjust Enrichment — Pleadings and Issues Scope — Tribunal’s Award Against Wrong Party — Finality of Arbitration — Court’s Discretion. The case concerns disputes arising from an arbitration on the interpretation and application of a share sale agreement and related clauses permitting deduction of RMB 10 million from the consideration payable. CPDH sought to set aside parts of the arbitral award which ordered CPDH, not BPP, to pay RMB 10 million on grounds of irregularity. The Court found that the respondents expressly limited their claim against CPDH to breach of an implied term and that the claim pursuant to the Deeming Provision was only directed against BPP. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering CPDH liable under that provision without basis in the arbitration submissions and pleadings, thereby denying CPDH a fair opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal’s attempt to justify this in a post-award letter was held to exceed jurisdiction and was disregarded. The Court held such breach of due process and excess of jurisdiction constituted a serious irregularity warranting setting aside those parts of the Award. The appeal by respondents was dismissed with costs. The outcome respects the finality of arbitration but safeguards fairness in arbitral procedures.
Legal issues: Setting aside arbitral award due to irregularity and excess of jurisdiction
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; setting aside of parts of arbitral award ordering CPDH to pay RMB 10 million upheld
Cites 1 case