Read the full judgment text of HCCT 6/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 24 July 2019 before Hon Coleman J.
Arbitration — Construction contracts — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) — Serious irregularity — Procedural fairness — Jurisdiction — Remission of arbitration awards — Notice requirements under GCC 27 and 28 — Domestic arbitration — Challenge to arbitral awards on grounds of procedural irregularity — Parties’ pleaded cases — Scope of remission — Finality of arbitration. The dispute arose from a construction contract between P and M, which incorporated arbitration clauses. M claimed financial entitlements including site overheads and insurance costs. The arbitral tribunal’s First Award included sums for disputed site expenses and insurance costs based on documents (the September Letter and November Breakdown) purported as notices under GCC clauses. P challenged, alleging procedural unfairness as M had not pleaded or relied on such notices, depriving P of an opportunity to contest. The Court found serious irregularity and remitted the matter for reconsideration with strict limits on submissions, but the Arbitrator in the Second Award exceeded his remit, admitted new unpleaded issues, and denied P a reasonable opportunity to respond, sustaining the injustice and procedural defect. The Court set aside the relevant award paragraphs and refused further remission, noting parties’ pleaded cases and evidence must govern arbitral proceedings and that amendment or reopening evidence was necessary if new issues were advanced. Costs were awarded to P. This case highlights the strict limits on court intervention in arbitration to safeguard fairness while preserving finality and the importance of adherence to procedure, pleadings, and court directions in arbitral remission processes.
Legal issues: Whether the Arbitrator exceeded his powers in the remission procedure · Whether P was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case in arbitration
Outcome: The Court set aside paragraphs 169, 170, 172, 174 and 175 of the First Award and paragraphs 15 to 29 of the Second Award, declaring them to be of no effect.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case