Shenzhen Honeycomb System Co. Ltd v. Hct Technologies (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 20/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 27 November 2020 before Hon Anthony Chan J.
Arbitration enforcement — Application under section 92 of Arbitration Ordinance for leave to enforce an arbitration award dated 20 June 2017 — Respondent’s late application to adduce further evidence declined — Allegation of forgery of Agreement containing arbitration clause previously rejected by Mainland court — Court notes limited role in enforcement applications and directions for only one round of evidence — Late additional evidence unexplained and risks delay to proceedings — Court allows enforcement hearing to proceed and will hear costs separately.
Legal issues: Admission of further evidence at late stage
Outcome: The application by the Respondent to adduce further evidence is declined.
Cites 1 case
|
HCCT 20/2019 [2020] HKCFI 3020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 20 OF 2019 _______________________
______________________
__________________
________________ D E C I S I O N ________________ 1.These are my reasons, succinctly stated, for declining this 11th hour application by the Respondent (HCT) to adduce further evidence for the hearing of the Applicant’s (SHS) Summons filed on 14 May 2019 for leave to enforce an arbitral award dated 20 June 2017 (Award) against it. 2.Firstly, the issue of forgery alleged by HCT in respect of the Agreement which contained the arbitration clause was raised before and rejected by the Mainland court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction: see exhibit JZ-18 to the 3rd Affirmation of Jin Zhe. I see no basis for re-opening the issue. 3.Secondly, bearing in mind in particular that the time limit imposed by an unless order against HCT to file its evidence had expired on 27 October 2020, the lateness of the additional evidence has not been properly explained. The alleged accidental chat with Ms Li, invites more questions than answered: see para 4 of the 6th affirmation of Qu Zeyang exhibited as YXM-6 to the 7th affirmation of Yan Xianming. For instance, why did HCT fail to make contact with Ms Li prior to the alleged change meeting. 4.Thirdly, bearing in mind the limited scope of the court’s role in an enforcement application (see HKCP 2021, [73/10/4]) and the directions that there be only 1 round of evidence, I see no adequate justification for the further evidence by way of the 5th affirmation of Qu exhibited as YXM-4. 5.Finally, the Summons is to be heard on 2 December 2020. Allowing this 11th hour application would inevitably lead to adjournment of the hearing by reason of SHS’s right to reply to the additional evidence. The Award was obtained some 3 ½ years ago. Such delay is unacceptable. 6.I shall hear the parties on costs.
Mr Paul Wong, instructed by LIMS Solicitors, for the Applicant Mr Bob Yan of Yan Lawyers, for the Respondent |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 20/2019