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.
Arbitration — Enforcement of Arbitral Awards — Public Policy — Validity of Loan Agreements — Jurisdiction and Governing Law — Serious Irregularity — Adequacy of Reasons for Award. The case concerns enforcement of two arbitral awards made by the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission relating to loan agreements between parties H and L. The Respondent challenged enforcement on grounds that the Awards addressed disputes beyond the arbitration submission, that the Loans were not genuinely made to him, and alleged illegality under Hong Kong and PRC law. The Court found no support that the Awards exceeded arbitration scope. It held that public policy under section 95 of the Arbitration Ordinance was narrowly construed and did not permit review of merits, underlying transaction, or allegations of illegality not raised in arbitration. The Tribunal’s findings that PRC law governed and that Loan Agreements were valid were upheld; the Respondent’s claim of failure of the Tribunal to give reasons was dismissed, relying upon authorities requiring only sufficient reasons for parties to understand decisions. The Mainland supervisory court had rejected the Respondent’s parallel challenge, a determination to which the Court gave due weight. The Respondent’s application to set aside enforcement was dismissed with indemnity costs awarded to the Applicant.
Legal issues: Whether the Awards dealt with a difference beyond the scope of the submission · Whether enforcement of the Awards would be contrary to public policy · Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons for the Awards
Outcome: The Respondent’s application to set aside the Enforcement Orders was dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case