Read the full judgment text of HCCT 24/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 May 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration enforcement — Non-disclosure to court — Mainland and Hong Kong concurrent enforcement applications — Supplemental Arrangement on Mutual Enforcement — Duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications — Misleading affirmation — Article 7 of SPC Provisions on termination of enforcement proceedings — No automatic suspension upon filing of setting aside or non-enforcement applications — Tribunal's discretion on evidence and hearings — Reasonable opportunity to present case — No breach of natural justice — Public policy refusal of enforcement — Adjournment pending Mainland review — No good reason to delay enforcement. LIN CHIEN-HSIUNG obtained an ex parte enforcement order to enforce a Mainland arbitral award against LIN HSIU-FEN concerning a disputed share transfer agreement. Respondent challenged enforcement citing suspension of the Award in Mainland courts, denial of opportunity to present case, and public policy. The Court found Applicant failed to disclose Respondent’s Mainland setting aside application and misled the Court on Mainland enforcement application, discharging the ex parte order. However, the Award was not suspended under Mainland law, Respondent had reasonable opportunity to present her case before the Tribunal, and enforcement refusal on public policy ground was not established. The Court denied application to adjourn enforcement pending Mainland review. The Enforcement Order was re-granted after hearing both parties, with costs awarded mainly against Respondent.
Legal issues: Material non-disclosure and misleading the court · Whether the Award was suspended under Mainland law · Whether the Respondent was denied the opportunity to present her case · Whether enforcement should be refused as contrary to public policy · Whether enforcement should be adjourned pending Mainland review proceedings
Outcome: Discharge of ex parte Enforcement Order due to nondisclosure and misleading affidavit; subsequently Enforcement Order re-granted inter partes; application to set aside dismissed; Respondent ordered to pay 75% of costs of summons on indemnity basis with counsel certificate.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 2 cases