Read the full judgment text of HCCT 16/2016 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 10 August 2016 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Construction of arbitration agreement — Whether arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction over claim for balance of payment under interconnected contractual relationship including Master Agreement, MOU, Guarantees, and MCSA containing arbitration clauses — Procedural defect in identifying arbitration clause in Notice of Arbitration — Whether can be cured — The Claim concerns a balance of payment for Goods supplied under a Master Agreement partly oral and partly in writing, with later agreements containing arbitration clauses governing mutual claims and set-offs. The Claimant relied on clause 8 of the MCSA, which provides arbitration for any dispute arising out of or in connection with the MCSA. The Defendant challenged jurisdiction, arguing that the arbitration clause in the MCSA should not extend to disputes from the Master Agreement, and that the arbitration clause in the MOU was not identified in the NOA. The Court applied objective interpretation principles, confirming that the arbitration clauses in the MCSA and MOU are broadly drafted and cover disputes connected to the commercial relationship including the Master Agreement. Procedural defects in the NOA were ruled to be curable and did not affect substantive jurisdiction. The absence of an arbitration clause in the Master Agreement does not preclude arbitration under later agreements. The tribunal's jurisdiction was upheld, the challenge dismissed, and costs awarded to the successful claimant on an indemnity basis with two counsel certificates.
Legal issues: Tribunal's jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement · Validity of arbitration agreement and scope of disputes covered · Effect of failure to specifically identify arbitration clause in NOA
Outcome: The Court confirms the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction over the Claim by M against L. L’s application for a declaration that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case