Read the full judgment text of HCCT 71/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 10 May 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction and arbitration — Jurisdiction — Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609 s.34(1) — Building Contract containing a dispute resolution clause for arbitration (Clause 35) — Separate Warranty deed with express non-exclusive jurisdiction clause submitting disputes to Hong Kong courts (Clause 11) — Whether arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over Warranty claims — Whether general arbitration clause yields to specific jurisdiction clause — Parties anticipated different dispute resolution regimes for Warranty and Building Contract claims — Warranty involves third-party subcontractor not party to Building Contract arbitration clause — Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings — Court held tribunal lacked jurisdiction over Warranty claims and set aside tribunal's determination — Costs awarded to successful party. The case involves careful contractual construction, highlighting that competing jurisdiction clauses in connected agreements should be construed as mutually exclusive where language and context allow. The Fiona Trust presumption that disputes between parties are to be decided by the same tribunal is displaced by clear specific clauses and independent agreements. The Court emphasized commercial rationale and the reasonable expectations of parties, including potential claims involving subcontractors, justifying that warranty claims be litigated in courts rather than arbitrated. The ruling clarifies the deference owed to a party’s chosen dispute resolution mechanism in multi-contract situations and sets a precedent for interpreting multiple jurisdiction agreements within related contracts in Hong Kong construction disputes.
Legal issues: Tribunal jurisdiction over Warranty claims
Outcome: The Court set aside the tribunal’s determination and held the tribunal had no jurisdiction over claims made under the Warranty.
Cited by 1 case