Read the full judgment text of HCCT 47/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 13 May 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Setting Aside of Arbitration Awards — Fraud and Concealment — Public Policy — Time Limit for Setting Aside — Article 34(3) of UNCITRAL Model Law — Whether Fraud Vitiates Award — Whether Extension of Time Permitted — Whether Costs Award Properly Made — Allegations of Unauthorized Delegation to Third Parties — Whether Concealed Evidence Material to Outcome — The case concerns shareholder disputes in AW and AW BJ arising from the aborted DGCM Transaction and related share transfer agreements giving rise to two arbitrations with conflicting awards on misrepresentation claims. AW Group contended Award 1 should be set aside for fraud by W/PY concealing relevant WeChat communications, which was held not to meet the requisite test for fraud or materiality, as Tribunal 1 had fully considered relevant facts and found no misrepresentation or falsity of shareholding representations. The Costs Award was upheld as Tribunal 1 properly exercised discretion and was functus officio on liability findings. Allegations of improper delegation of award writing to unauthorized third parties were rejected due to lack of evidence. The court held the mandatory 3-month limitation under Article 34(3) of the Model Law and section 81 of the Ordinance cannot be extended even in cases of alleged fraud, and AW Group’s nearly one-year delay in applying was unjustified and amounted to waiver of their rights to challenge. Application to set aside was accordingly dismissed with costs awarded against AW Group. The decision underscores the strictness of the statutory time limits for setting aside arbitration awards in Hong Kong and the high threshold for proving fraud or procedural impropriety absent clear evidence.
Legal issues: Whether the Award was obtained by fraud and deliberate concealment as alleged · Whether the Costs Award should be set aside for failure to deal with the issue of concealment of evidence · Whether enforcement of the Award would be contrary to public policy · Whether extension of time should be granted
Outcome: The application by Originating Summons issued on 10 June 2021 is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 4 cases