Read the full judgment text of HCCT 54/2017 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 26 January 2018 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) — Construction of contracts and Schedule of Rates — valuation of work orders for replacing window hinges — whether only Rates 1 to 3 apply or Rates 1 to 5 — leave to appeal against arbitral award on question of law under Schedule 2 s 6(1)(b) — threshold for leave: decision is 'obviously wrong' or question 'of general importance' and 'at least open to serious doubt' — distinction between ironmongery and fittings vs repairs sections in Schedule of Rates — Arbitrator finds replacement involves incidental works covered by Rates 1 to 3 only, rejecting separate valuation of removal and refixing as repair works — construction of contract applying principles in Arnold v Britton — question not shown to be obviously wrong or open to serious doubt — Award specific to contracts prior to 2014, with amended contract terms thereafter excluding Rates 4 and 5 — not a question of general importance warranting leave — application dismissed with costs to Defendant.
Legal issues: Whether the arbitral tribunal’s valuation of Relevant Works under Rates 1 to 3 only was correct · Whether the question raised is of general importance justifying leave to appeal
Outcome: Plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to Defendant
Cited by 6 cases · Cites 1 case