Read the full judgment text of HCCT 25/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 25 May 2021 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards — Arbitration Ordinance section 93 — Concurrent enforcement applications — Requirement that enforcement proceedings on Mainland be completed or concluded before enforcement in Hong Kong — Prevention of double enforcement — Ex parte applications — Duty of full and frank disclosure — Setting aside enforcement order for failure to disclose ongoing Mainland enforcement proceedings and objections — Mainland enforcement proceedings held to be ongoing at time of application — Enforcement Order set aside — Costs ordered against Applicant. The Applicant applied ex parte to enforce a Shenzhen arbitral award in Hong Kong while enforcement proceedings on the Mainland remained ongoing and unresolved objections were pending. The Respondents applied to set aside the Enforcement Order on grounds including concurrent Mainland enforcement and material non-disclosure. The Court found that under section 93 of the Arbitration Ordinance, enforcement in Hong Kong cannot be granted while Mainland enforcement continues, to avoid double enforcement or recovery. The Court further found the Applicant failed to disclose material ongoing Mainland enforcement matters, breaching the duty of full disclosure. Accordingly, the Enforcement Order was set aside, and the Applicant ordered to pay indemnity costs. This case underscores the strict requirements preventing dual enforcement and the importance of full disclosure in ex parte enforcement applications.
Legal issues: Enforcement of arbitration awards under section 93 of the Arbitration Ordinance · Material non-disclosure in ex parte enforcement application
Outcome: Enforcement Order set aside
Cites 2 cases