Case Document

100%

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

______________

	IN THE MATTER of an arbitration between Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Company Limited, Applicant and Heihe Longjiang Chemical Company Limited, 1^st Respondent and China Zenith Chemical Group Limited, 2^nd Respondent
	and
	IN THE MATTER of an application under Sections 84 and 92 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) of the Laws of Hong Kong for leave to enforce an arbitral award

______________

BETWEEN
	BAOSTEEL ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY LIMITED	Plaintiff/ Applicant
	and
	CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LIMITED	Defendant/ Respondent

______________

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.