Read the full judgment text of HCCT 52/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 13 November 2020 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Setting aside arbitral award — Time limit for challenge under Article 34(3) of UNCITRAL Model Law and section 81 of Arbitration Ordinance — Whether Court has jurisdiction to extend 3-month limitation period — Deemed receipt of award by email — Validity and parties to arbitration agreement. The case concerns an originating summons issued by Applicants to set aside an arbitral award dated 21 May 2020 administered by HKIAC. Applicants argued delay in applying to set aside was excusable due to non-receipt or late receipt of Award; sought retrospective extension of time. Respondent contended statutory 3-month period elapsed; no jurisdiction for extension; no good reason for delay. The Court emphasized the importance of finality and the short 3-month period and refused to extend time, finding Applicants received Award on time by operation of arbitration rules and Ordinance. The evidence offered by Applicants to rebut receipt presumption was unconvincing. On merits, 2nd and 3rd Applicants were parties to arbitration agreement despite the clause specifying "both parties" refers to Respondent and 1st Applicant only; arbitration agreement governed by Hong Kong law given seat and HKIAC administration, not PRC law. The challenge on foreign element under PRC law failed. The originating summons and extension summons were dismissed with costs on indemnity basis.
Legal issues: Court’s jurisdiction to extend time to set aside arbitral award · Deemed receipt of arbitral award by email · Validity and scope of the arbitration agreement
Outcome: The originating summons and summons for extension of time are dismissed with costs payable by the Applicants to the Respondent on an indemnity basis.
Cites 2 cases