Read the full judgment text of HCCT 26/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 16 February 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration - Setting aside of arbitral award - Serious irregularity - Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) section 81 and Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law - Order 73 rules on procedure - Failure to specify grounds or serve affidavits timely - Article 5 of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2013) - Alleged unauthorized third party participation - Plaintiff failed to make any timely application to tribunal to require disclosure or challenge third party involvement - Arbitrator’s findings on identity and jurisdiction upheld - No grounds for setting aside - Costs on indemnity basis awarded to Defendant. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings by Writ incorrectly under Order 73, then transferred correctly by summons. The Originating Summons failed to specify valid grounds of serious irregularity and compliance requirements were breached. The Plaintiff alleged a third party lawyer assisted the Defendant without disclosure, breaching Article 5 of the Arbitration Rules. The Plaintiff did not apply promptly to the tribunal to require disclosure or exclude the third party. The arbitrator’s factual and legal conclusions stand, and no jurisdictional or procedural defect meriting setting aside was shown. The court dismissed the application and ordered costs against the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
Legal issues: Setting aside arbitral award for serious irregularity
Outcome: The Plaintiff’s application to set aside the arbitral award is dismissed.
Cites 2 cases