MAEDA KENSETSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA also known as MAEDA CORPORATION 1st Plaintiff (1st Respondent in the Arbitration) v CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff (2nd Respondent in the Arbitration)

Read the full judgment text of CAMP 154/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 29 September 2021 before Hon Kwan VP and Barma JA.

Arbitration — Appeal — Leave to appeal questions of law under Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) Schedule 2 — Conditions for leave: questions of general importance or special reason — Construction contracts — Notice requirements and valuation of cost-plus variations — Question whether notice of claims under Clauses 21.1 and 21.2 complied with and whether valuation should exclude unincurred equipment costs — Judge granted leave to appeal only on 2nd and 4th questions, finding both of general importance and serious doubt on Arbitrator’s decisions — Defendant sought leave to appeal that grant to Court of Appeal but application dismissed as moot and without reasonable prospect of success — Procedural economy emphasised — Costs on indemnity basis awarded to plaintiffs. The substantive appeal on two legal questions proceeded in the Court of First Instance, with judgment allowing appeal on the 2nd question but dismissing the 4th, and a further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The judge’s exercise of discretion as to leave to appeal on legal questions under Arbitration Ordinance was upheld. Defendant’s application deemed an abuse of process leading to waste of court and party resources.

Legal issues: Leave to appeal on legal questions under Arbitration Ordinance

Outcome: Defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed