Read the full judgment text of HCCT 34/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 28 May 2020 before Hon K Yeung J in Chambers.
Injunction — Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Good arguable case — Material non-disclosure — Urgency and secrecy — Ex parte application — Commercial dispute concerning charterparty hire — Plaintiff obtained ex parte Mareva injunction restraining defendant from disposing assets in aid of UK arbitration proceedings — Defendant contended no good arguable case on basis that Termination Settlement Agreement settled unpaid hire and UK Arbitration lacked jurisdiction — Court held plaintiff has good arguable case that TSA covers only prospective loss and unpaid hire remains outstanding — Jurisdiction challenge rejected, as UK Arbitration capable of producing enforceable award and jurisdiction issues to be resolved by tribunal — Urgency and secrecy for ex parte application deemed justified despite UK injunction already in place — Alleged material non-disclosure limited to prior telephone communications disputed and marginally material, insufficient to justify discharge of injunction — Court exercises discretion to continue injunction and orders costs to plaintiff. This case affirms principles on jurisdictional challenges to arbitration and standards for grant and continuation of Mareva injunctions in arbitration contexts.
Legal issues: Whether P has demonstrated a good arguable case · Jurisdiction of UK Arbitration Tribunal · Urgency and secrecy for ex parte application · Material non-disclosure by plaintiff in ex parte application
Outcome: HK Injunction continued in terms of the Continuation Summons
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases