Read the full judgment text of HCCT 4/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 25 June 2019 before Hon Coleman J in Chambers.
Arbitration enforcement — Validity of arbitration agreement — Proper notice of arbitration proceedings — Scope of arbitration authority — Set Aside Application dismissal — Mareva injunction continuation — Costs awarded on indemnity basis. The plaintiff sought enforcement in Hong Kong of a SIAC arbitration award made in Singapore against a defendant who challenged the validity of the arbitration clause, proper notice of proceedings, and arbitrator’s jurisdiction. The defendant alleged forgery of the relevant SPA and improper service at the contractual address. The Court found the arbitration agreement valid and binding, proper notice was given through the Shanghai Address and emails, and the Award was within the agreed arbitration scope. The defendant’s failure to file evidence and his withdrawal of applications led the Court to dismiss the set aside application. The Mareva injunction was continued to prevent dissipation of assets pending enforcement. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis reflecting the defendant’s unmeritorious resistance. Key interlocutory summonses were dismissed or continued as appropriate. The Enforcement Order was made final.
Legal issues: Validity of arbitration agreement · Proper notice of arbitration · Scope of arbitration and jurisdiction
Outcome: The defendant’s Set Aside Application is dismissed; Enforcement Order becomes final; Injunction Order continued; costs awarded to plaintiff on indemnity basis.
Cited by 2 cases