Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Co Ltd v. China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 7/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 January 2019 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration enforcement — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) s 95 — Application to refuse enforcement of arbitral award — Grounds for refusal not established — Award not set aside or suspended — Prior 6-month stay of execution expired — No imminent judgment affecting payment entitlement — Speculative foreign exchange concerns rejected — Set off raised by third party HH on Mainland — No justification for further stay — Application dismissed with costs to CZ. The court emphasised the importance of upholding judgment creditor rights absent clear legal grounds for delay. Costs ordered against unsuccessful applicant.
Legal issues: Enforcement of arbitral award under s 95 Arbitration Ordinance · Whether to grant further stay of execution of the arbitral award
Outcome: Application for further stay of execution dismissed; costs to be paid by CZ
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCCT 7/2018 [2019] HKCFI 68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 7 OF 2018 ______________
______________
______________ Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers (open to public) Date of Hearing: 7 January 2019 Date of Decision: 7 January 2019 ___________________ D E C I S I O N ___________________ 1.None of the grounds set out in s 95 of the Arbitration Ordinance for refusing enforcement of the arbitral award has been shown to exist. The Award against CZ has not been set aside or suspended by a competent authority. 2.Despite the 6 months’ stay of execution granted in July 2018, CZ has not been able to show that a judgment of a competent authority will be handed down in the fixed foreseeable future, whereby BS’s entitlement to payment from CZ under the Award would be affected. From experience, there may be further delay of 12 months at least from the conclusion of the trial until judgment is handed down, and then, the conclusion of any further appeal. 3.There is no good reason why as judgment creditor, BS’s right to enforce the Award should be further delayed and prejudiced. The fact that CZ may not be able to recover any payment from BS in Hong Kong due to foreign exchange control is only speculative at the moment. 4.Any set off raised on the Mainland is raised not by CZ which is not only jointly but severally liable to pay under the Award, but by HH. 5.The argument of double recovery will only arise in the event that HH succeeds in obtaining a judgment against BS, and BS seeks to recover from either HH or CZ the full amount BS recovers from CZ under the Award (or which HH sets off from any judgment sum in its favour on the Mainland). 6.For all these reasons, the application for further stay of execution is dismissed, with costs to be paid by CZ.
Mr Julian Cohen, instructed by FitzGerald Lawyers, for the plaintiff Mr Christopher Chain and Ms Stephanie Hung, instructed by Wellington Legal, for the defendant | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 7/2018