Read the full judgment text of HCCT 39/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 29 March 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) — Section 2 of Schedule 2 — Section 100 transitional provision — Domestic arbitration — Implied provision — Consolidation of arbitrations — Construction contracts — Bridge defects. The Employer entered into contracts with a Consultant, Contractors and a Subcontractor for bridge construction. Defects were discovered post-completion, leading to related arbitration claims under separate contracts. The Court considered whether the arbitration clause in the 2002 Agreement impliedly provided for domestic arbitration so as to engage section 2 of Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Ordinance under transitional section 100. The Court held that incorporation by reference to the 1993 HKIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules constituted implied provision for domestic arbitration. Previous authorities did not preclude implication under section 100. The Court further held that the arbitration between the Employer and Consultant should be consolidated with the ongoing consolidated arbitration involving the Contractors and Subcontractor, given the common questions of law and fact and the intertwined claims. The Consultant's arguments for sequential or stayed hearing were rejected. Costs were awarded against the Consultant. The Court left procedural management of the consolidated arbitrations to the arbitrator.
Legal issues: Whether section 2(1) of Schedule 2 applies to the Agreement · Whether consolidation of the 1st Arbitration with the Consolidated Arbitration is appropriate
Outcome: Order granted to consolidate the 1st Arbitration with the Consolidated Arbitration; costs awarded against the Consultant
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case