Read the full judgment text of HCCT 62/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 5 November 2020 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Enforcement of arbitral award — Setting aside of enforcement order — Scope of submission to arbitration — Multiple agreements with separate jurisdiction clauses — Mandate governed by Taiwanese law with arbitration clause — Pledge governed by Singapore law with Singapore jurisdiction — Tribunal’s findings on invalidity of pledge under Taiwanese law beyond scope of Arbitration Clause — Tribunal’s jurisdictional overreach — Fair hearing — Party’s inability to present case — Tribunal’s surprise application of law contrary to parties’ agreed common ground — Article 146 Taiwan Insurance Act deemed enforcement provision by experts, tribunal held it to be a validity provision without opportunity to respond — Breach of natural justice — Enforcement refused. The case concerns the limits of tribunal jurisdiction in multi-agreement contexts and the procedural fairness obligations in arbitration under Taiwanese and Hong Kong principles. The court held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide Pledge validity reserved to Singapore courts, and the Bank was denied a fair hearing due to unexpected legal findings unsupported by prior party submissions, warranting set aside of enforcement order and costs against Claimant.
Legal issues: Whether the Award dealt with difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration/contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission (s 86 (1)(d)) · Whether the Bank was unable to present its case (s 86(1)(c)(ii))
Outcome: The application to set aside the Enforcement Order is allowed on the grounds under s 86(1)(c)(ii) and s 86(1)(d) of the Arbitration Ordinance.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 3 cases