Read the full judgment text of HCCT 26/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 23 March 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Setting aside arbitral award — Procedural irregularity allegation — Third party participation without consent — Whether failure to apply to compel disclosure constitutes procedural breach — Whether Plaintiff entitled to bring arbitration as contracting party — Burden of proof under s.81 Arbitration Ordinance and Article 34 UNCITRAL Model Law. The Plaintiff sought to set aside an arbitral award dismissing its claim for fees on the basis that it was not the contracting party entitled to arbitrate. The Plaintiff alleged procedural unfairness due to a third party assisting the Defendant without Plaintiff’s consent but failed to make any application within arbitration to address the issue, only making complaints outside the tribunal. The Court held that in the absence of a formal application during arbitration, there was no procedural breach. The Court also affirmed the arbitrator’s factual findings that Plaintiff lacked authority to commence arbitration and ordered that absence of opposition evidence from Defendant does not relieve Plaintiff of proving the grounds for setting aside. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs on indemnity basis.
Legal issues: Conflict of interest and procedural compliance in arbitration · Entitlement to commence arbitration and to payment under the Agreement · Burden of proof and opposition in setting aside application
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on indemnity basis
Cited by 1 case