Read the full judgment text of HCCT 53/2015 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 12 October 2016 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609 — Validation of arbitration agreement under PRC law — Arbitration clause referring to HKIAC Rules without expressly naming HKIAC — Whether HKIAC is valid arbitration institution — Parties' conduct constituting supplemental agreement — Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal — Distinction between jurisdictions and applicable contracts — Tribunal composition — Appointment of arbitrators by HKIAC Council versus Chairman — Procedural fairness and waiver of objections. The Claimant and Respondent entered a joint venture contract governed by PRC law with arbitration provision referring to HKIAC Rules. Disputes arose over steam supply and JV Company dissolution, leading to arbitration. The Respondent challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement under PRC law, tribunal jurisdiction over claims, and tribunal composition due to appointment procedures. The Court held that the arbitration agreement is valid as HKIAC can be identified from the Rules and parties' agreement; the tribunal had jurisdiction over the claims as the Claimant is distinct from the JV Company and the PRC proceedings; and the tribunal composition was proper with no procedural unfairness shown. The applications to set aside the Award and enforcement Order were dismissed with costs awarded to the Claimant.
Legal issues: Validity of the arbitration agreement under PRC law · Arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction over the claims · Validity of tribunal composition and appointment of arbitrators
Outcome: Respondent’s applications to set aside the Order and the Award dismissed; costs awarded to the Applicant on an indemnity basis with a certificate for 2 Counsel.
Cites 1 case