Read the full judgment text of HCCT 24/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 28 January 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Enforcement of Arbitral Award — Setting Aside Application — Procedural Rules under Order 73 rule 10(6A) — Relevance of PRC Law Evidence on Suspension of Award under section 95(2)(f)(ii) Arbitration Ordinance — Late Filing of Expert Evidence — Leave to File Further Evidence — Balancing Delay and Prejudice. The Applicant obtained an Enforcement Order from the Court to enforce a Shanghai Arbitration Commission Award. The Respondent applied to set aside the Enforcement Order primarily on grounds including that the Award was suspended under Mainland (PRC) law. The Respondent’s expert evidence on PRC law was only filed in reply, without leave as required by Order 73 rule 10(6A). The Applicant sought to file further expert evidence in response but did so four months after receiving Respondent’s evidence, shortly before the hearing, prompting objection by the Respondent. The Court held that under the procedural rules, evidence must be filed with the summons, but the Respondent was responsible for her own late filing. The Applicant’s late evidence was allowed to secure just resolution and fairness as it rebutted the Respondent’s late case on suspension under PRC law. The Court rejected the Respondent's claim that such PRC law evidence was irrelevant to the Arbitration Ordinance ground invoked. The Court granted leave to file further evidence, ordered the Applicant to pay costs for the Summons, and fixed procedural steps for cost submissions. This decision emphasizes strict compliance with procedural rules in arbitration enforcement but also the Court’s flexible approach to ensuring substantive justice where late evidence responds to procedural defaults by the opposing party.
Legal issues: Adducing further evidence on PRC law for Setting Aside Application
Outcome: Leave granted for the Applicant to file further evidence; Applicant ordered to pay costs of the Summons; no further evidence from Respondent allowed.
Cites 2 cases