Read the full judgment text of HCCT 31/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 March 2020 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Validity of arbitration agreement — Whether Defendant was a true party to Service Agreement — Construction under PRC and Hong Kong law — Standard of review on jurisdiction — Correctness — Sham agreement allegation — Public policy defence — Arbitration Award enforcement — Sham and illegality — Admissibility of extrinsic evidence — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) s.81 and Article 34 UNCITRAL Model Law — Order 73 RHC. The Plaintiff sought to set aside arbitral awards on grounds that there was no valid arbitration agreement as the Defendant acted as agent for Chen, rendering the Awards enforcement contrary to public policy as a sham. The Court applied a correctness standard limited to true questions of jurisdiction and upheld the arbitrator’s findings that the Defendant was a contracting party in his personal capacity. The court further held that allegations of illegality or sham in the underlying contract did not invalidate the arbitration clause nor justify refusal of enforcement absent clear demonstration of illegality violating Hong Kong public policy. The Plaintiff’s application was dismissed with indemnity costs, and enforcement was granted to the Defendant.
Legal issues: Existence of Arbitration Agreement · Whether enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement and Awards would be contrary to public policy
Outcome: The Plaintiff’s application to set aside the Award is dismissed; the Defendant’s application for leave to enforce the Awards is allowed
Cited by 6 cases · Cites 1 case