American International Group, Inc and Another v. Huaxia Life Insurance Co Ltd

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 1^st & 2^nd plaintiffs

Mr Ambrose Ho SC and Mr Jean-Paul Wou, instructed by Deacons, for the defendant