Read the full judgment text of HCCT 61/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 June 2020 before Deputy High Court Judge Whitehead SC.
Arbitration enforcement — Material non-disclosure in ex parte applications — Arbitration award enforcement — Section 89(2)(d) and (f) Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) — Limited Partnership Agreements clauses on award satisfaction — Application to set aside enforcement order granted. The dispute arose from arbitration proceedings in California resulting in an award directing payment of over USD9 million to the Applicants. The Respondent sought to set aside an ex parte enforcement order in Hong Kong on grounds that the award was not yet binding and owing to material non-disclosure by the Applicants. The court found that the Applicants' affidavit deliberately omitted the critical clause from the award requiring absence of an application to vacate or correct before enforcement, thus misleading the court. The omission constituted deliberate material non-disclosure, depriving the judge of full consideration. The court discharged the enforcement order and ordered the Applicants to pay the Respondent's costs. The court did not address other arguments on enforceability due to the findings on non-disclosure.
Legal issues: Material non-disclosure in ex parte application
Outcome: Enforcement Order dated 29 October 2019 discharged due to material non-disclosure.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case