Read the full judgment text of HCCT 34/2016 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 23 February 2017 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Enforcement — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) ss 84, 86 — Application to set aside leave to enforce arbitral award — Grounds considered: inability to present case, scope of arbitration submission, public policy, just refusal, material non-disclosure — Respondents argued failure to admit Mainland judgment evidence and lack of PRC law approval invalidated the PAC and Award — Court held Arbitrator had discretion over evidence, Respondents had fair opportunity to present case — Scope of arbitration broadly construed; chairman appointment issue within terms — Public policy to refuse enforcement is narrowly construed and limited to Hong Kong considerations; no ground shown to refuse — Just refusal and forum non conveniens arguments based on PRC law and enforcement deferred to Mainland courts, not for Hong Kong to refuse enforcement — Non-disclosure of monetary payment and Mainland court proceedings irrelevant to leave application — Applications to set aside leave dismissed; supplemental order to specify timeframe granted. The dispute involved a share purchase agreement and related contracts (PAC and Addendum C) concerning a Fujian JV Company with differing views on validity under Mainland law and governance arrangements. The court supported arbitration policy favoring speed and reduced technicality, dismissed challenges below threshold of serious procedural defects, and emphasized the separate jurisdictional role of Mainland courts. Costs ordered against Respondents on indemnity basis. Supplemental order directs the 1st Respondent to amend JV Company Articles within 7 days.
Legal issues: Whether the Respondents were unable to present their case · Whether the Award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission · Whether enforcement of the Award should be refused on ground of public policy · Whether enforcement of the Award should be refused on ground that it would be just · Whether the Award should be set aside for material non-disclosure
Outcome: The 1st and 3rd Respondents’ application to set aside the Order granting leave to enforce the Award was dismissed; the application was entertained despite delay; the application to strike out U's supplementary order application was dismissed; the court granted the supplementary order.
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 4 cases