American International Group, Inc and Another v. Huaxia Life Insurance Co Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 3417/2016 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 19 January 2017 before Hon Lam VP, Kwan JA.
程序法 — 仲裁條例第81(4)條 — 上訴許可 — 裁決最終性原則 — 合憲性質疑 — 本案中，原告就高等法院原訟法庭駁回撤銷仲裁裁決申請及拒絕許可上訴的判決，申請上訴許可。申請人援引先例及憲法理由試圖挑戰該條最終裁定之效力，惟未提出具體法律論證支持。法院確認仲裁條例第81(4)條的合憲性及拘束力，拒絕申請，認為其具戰術延誤意味。裁定駁回申請，命申請人支付被告按賠償基準之訴訟費用港幣140,840元，並限制任何口頭聆訊申請。此案彰顯高等法院對於仲裁條例終局性條款的尊重，及對無理拖延策略的拒絕。
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal should be granted despite s.81(4) Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome: 申請上訴許可被駁回
Cites 2 cases
|
HCMP 3417/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 3417OF 2016 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCCT NO 60 of 2015) ________________________
________________________
_______________ JUDGMENT _______________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This is an application by the Plaintiffs for leave to appeal from the decision of M Chan J in the Court of First Instance dismissing an application to set aside an arbitration award. Leave to appeal was refused by the judge on 5 December 2016. 2.By reason of Section 81(4) of the Arbitration Ordinance, the refusal of leave by the judge is final. The constitutionality of that provision has been upheld by this court in China International Fund Ltd v Dennis Lau & Ng Chun Man Architects & Engineers (HK) Ltd [2015] 4 HKLRD 609. 3.Notwithstanding so, the Plaintiffs issued a summons on 7 December 2016 seeking to obtain leave to appeal from this court. In the statement in support of the leave application, Mr Coleman SC, advanced the bare assertions that China International Fund, supra had been wrongly decided and Section 81(4) is unconstitutional. Uncharacteristically, counsel did not expand on these assertions and there is no indication whatsoever as to how it is said that China International Fund, supra, a decision which is binding on us is wrong. He requested for an oral hearing in consultation with counsel’s diaries to argue the issue. 4.As submitted by Mr Ho SC, the summons of 7 December 2016 should be dismissed on this ground alone. This court is not going to grant an oral hearing when an applicant did not even bother put forward any argument (not to mention an argument which is arguable) to support such bare assertions. 5.We are of the view that the application is totally without merit and it smacks as a tactical move to delay the enforcement of the award. We dismiss the application and make an order under Order 59 Rule 2A(8) that no party may request our determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes. 6.We also order the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the Defendant on indemnity basis, and having regard to the Statement of Costs of the Defendant, we fix such costs at $140,840.00.
Mr Russell Coleman SC, instructed by Morrison & Foerster, for the 1st & 2nd plaintiffs Mr Ambrose Ho SC and Mr Jean-Paul Wou, instructed by Deacons, for the defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 3417/2016