Read the full judgment text of HCCT 27/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 18 February 2021 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Setting aside arbitral award — Jurisdiction — Party to arbitration agreement — Proper notice — Estoppel. AB Engineering applied to set aside an arbitral award made under an arbitration clause in an agreement between CD and Bureau. The Court found Bureau and AB Engineering are distinct legal entities; AB Engineering was not a party to the Agreement, so no valid arbitration agreement existed between AB Engineering and CD. The Court held notices directed at Bureau did not constitute proper notice to AB Engineering under Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law. The Court rejected CD’s estoppel argument that AB Engineering was precluded from denying jurisdiction due to employees’ email conduct, finding no submission or participation in the arbitration by AB Engineering. Consequently, the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction over AB Engineering, the Award was set aside, and CD was ordered to pay costs to AB Engineering.
Legal issues: Whether AB Engineering is party to the Agreement and thus subject to the arbitration agreement · Whether AB Engineering was given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings and appointment of arbitrator · Whether AB Engineering is estopped from denying the arbitration agreement or application to set aside the Award
Outcome: Application to set aside the arbitral award granted; Award set aside for lack of jurisdiction over AB Engineering
Cited by 1 case