Read the full judgment text of CACV 338/2018 & CACV 431/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 27 March 2019 before Hon Lam VP, Cheung and Yuen JJA.
Civil procedure — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) — Appeals on questions of law — Leave to appeal — Schedule 2 section 6 — Standard terms vs one-off contracts — Correct test for leave — Contract interpretation — Schedule of Rates valuation dispute — Arbitration award construction — Jurisdiction to appeal leave decision — Commercial contracts — Window hinge replacement works under housing estate contracts — Principles of contractual construction — High Court Ordinance Cap. 4 section 14AA. The plaintiffs, contractors engaged under multiple housing estate maintenance contracts, challenged the arbitrator's award valuing window hinge replacement works only by Rates 1 to 3 of a Schedule of Rates, excluding Rates 4 and 5 relating to repair items. The Judge refused leave to appeal on the arbitrator's award, applying the 'obviously wrong' test suitable for one-off contracts. The plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining leave to appeal that refusal decision, which the defendant appealed without leave. Held: the defendant's appeal against the leave decision was dismissed as incompetent for lack of leave and absence of statutory provision for such appeal. The appeal by plaintiffs on the merits was dismissed. The Court emphasized the importance of deference to arbitrators on questions of contractual construction where the award addressed the issues with detailed reasoning, and held the 'obviously wrong' test appropriate for these contracts given their one-off nature. The appeal court found no plain error in the Judge's application of the test or understanding of the arbitration award. Costs orders nisi were made accordingly.
Legal issues: Test for granting leave to appeal under Arbitration Ordinance Cap. 609 Sch. 2 s.6 · Interpretation of Schedule of Rates (SOR) in valuation of window hinge replacement works · Competency and jurisdiction of appeal against leave to appeal decision under Arbitration Ordinance · Weight to be given to arbitrator’s contractual interpretation in leave application
Outcome: Both appeals are dismissed. CACV 431/2018 dismissed as incompetent; CACV 338/2018 dismissed on merits.
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 4 cases