Read the full judgment text of HCCT 59/2017 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 18 April 2018 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Enforcement of arbitration award — Application to set aside leave to enforce — Arbitration Ordinance Sections 84, 92, 93 and 95 — No arguable grounds for refusal of enforcement — Enforcement of Mainland award — Partial satisfaction of award — Application withdrawn in Mainland court — Court holds enforcement can proceed in Hong Kong to extent unsatisfied — Application dismissed with indemnity costs. The applicant sought enforcement in Hong Kong of an arbitration award involving Mainland proceedings. The respondent applied to set aside the enforcement order, relying on grounds under Section 95 of the Arbitration Ordinance. The court held that the Arbitration Ordinance sets exclusive grounds for refusal and that the first hearing can immediately dispose of unarguable applications. The respondent failed to show any ground to refuse enforcement. The court further noted that enforcement of Mainland awards is governed by Sections 84, 92, and 93 and partial satisfaction does not preclude enforcement of the unsatisfied part. The Mainland enforcement application was withdrawn with leave of the Mainland court; enforcement in Hong Kong was proper. The application to set aside was dismissed with costs on indemnity basis.
Legal issues: Enforcement and setting aside of arbitration awards
Outcome: Application to set aside the order granting leave to enforce the award dismissed with costs.