Read the full judgment text of HCCT 24/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 24 May 2021 before Hon G Lam J in Chambers.
Arbitration — multi-tier dispute resolution clause — pre-arbitral negotiation and CEO referral as procedural condition precedent — distinction between arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and claim admissibility — section 81 Arbitration Ordinance and Art 34 UNCITRAL Model Law — scope of setting aside arbitral awards — Company C challenged partial arbitral award on jurisdiction ground alleging failure to comply with CEO negotiation step under clauses 14.2 and 14.3 of Cooperation Agreement — Court held that such a procedural requirement goes to admissibility rather than jurisdiction — distinction supported by international academic writings and case law — failure to comply with condition precedent to arbitration does not negate tribunal’s jurisdiction but is for the tribunal to determine as a procedural/ admissibility matter — contractual pre-arbitration steps can be enforced by the tribunal through procedural orders or dismissal for inadmissibility — Art 34(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) grounds for setting aside the award did not apply as award did not exceed submission scope nor breach agreed arbitration procedures — Court dismissed application to set aside award and ordered indemnity costs against Company C. The judgment promotes finality, efficiency and party autonomy in arbitration and cautions against expanding court interference with arbitral awards on procedural grounds.
Legal issues: Distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility in arbitration · Scope of setting aside under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) of Model Law / section 81
Outcome: Company C’s originating summons to set aside the arbitral award was dismissed
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 2 cases