Read the full judgment text of HCCT 73/2017 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 19 March 2018 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration enforcement — Arbitration Ordinance, Cap 609 — Application to set aside enforcement order — Procedural compliance — Requirement to specify grounds in summons — Section 89(2)(f) and 89(5) — Award not set aside or suspended — No application made for setting aside or suspension — Failure to disclose viable cause — Costs on indemnity basis awarded. The case concerns the enforceability in Hong Kong of a Dubai ICC arbitration award and an application by the 2nd Defendant to set aside an order granting leave to enforce. The court held that procedural requirements under Arbitration Ordinance and case law require that grounds to set aside must be clearly set out in the summons. Section 89(2)(f) applies only if the award has been set aside or suspended, which was not the case here. No application for setting aside or suspension was made despite ample time. The 2nd Defendant failed to specify grounds and disclosed no viable cause. The application was dismissed, with indemnity costs against the 2nd Defendant, affirming the public policy goal of supporting enforcement of arbitration awards in line with the New York Convention obligations.
Legal issues: Application to set aside enforcement order under s.89 Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome: Application by the 2nd Defendant to set aside the Order dated 9 January 2018 is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases