Read the full judgment text of HCCT 50/2020, HCCT 51/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 April 2021 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Enforcement of arbitral awards under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) following awards by the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission for loan repayments under a series of loan agreements. The Respondent challenged enforcement on grounds that the awards exceeded the arbitration submission and that enforcement would contravene Hong Kong public policy due to alleged invalidity and illegality of the loans under Hong Kong and PRC law. The Court held that no issue arose demonstrating excess jurisdiction. The public policy challenge was rejected as the scope of public policy to refuse enforcement is narrow and the Court cannot review merits or substitute factual or legal findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had validly applied PRC law as governing law and found the Loan Agreements enforceable. The Respondent had failed to prove illegality or invalidity sufficient to refuse enforcement. The supervisory court at the seat of arbitration had dismissed the Respondent’s setting aside application on similar grounds, to which the enforcement court gave significant weight. Alleged insufficiency of reasons in the Awards did not amount to failure to deal with issues causing substantial injustice. The Court dismissed the Respondent’s application to set aside enforcement orders in both proceedings, ordering costs be paid on indemnity basis.
Legal issues: Whether the Awards dealt with a difference beyond the scope of the submission · Whether enforcement would be contrary to public policy · Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons for the Awards
Outcome: Application to set aside enforcement orders dismissed; enforcement granted
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case