Read the full judgment text of CACV 235/2013 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 15 August 2016 before Hon Lam VP, Kwan JA and Barma JA.
Arbitration — Setting aside arbitral awards — Article 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) UNCITRAL Model Law — Procedural fairness — Whether tribunal’s refusal to allow inspection of documents or to stay arbitration pending criminal proceedings denied fair hearing — Tribunal raising issue not in pleadings (Sale of Goods Ordinance) — ICC Rules of Arbitration — Expansion of terms of reference. This appeal concerned the plaintiff’s challenge to a final arbitral award dismissing its claims and awarding damages to the defendants along with costs. The plaintiff contended that the arbitral process was unfair due to the tribunal’s refusal to allow inspection and refusal to stay proceedings, invoking Article 34(2)(a)(ii), and further argued under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) that the tribunal decided issues beyond the submission to arbitration by applying the Sale of Goods Ordinance without proper jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed that applications to set aside arbitral awards focus on fairness of the process, not the correctness of decisions. Procedural rulings by the tribunal are subject only to review for serious procedural unfairness, not merits. It held that the plaintiff had been given ample opportunity to present its case, and the tribunal’s decisions were not shown to be seriously unfair. The tribunal was also properly authorized under ICC Rules to raise new issues, and the plaintiffs were heard before such issues were decided. The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded on an indemnity basis to the defendants.
Legal issues: Application of Article 34(2)(a)(ii) regarding refusal of inspection application · Application of Article 34(2)(a)(ii) regarding refusal of stay pending criminal proceedings · Application of Article 34(2)(a)(iii) concerning tribunal raising issues beyond terms of reference
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants’ costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis
Cited by 3 cases