Read the full judgment text of CACV 387/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 June 2022 before Peter Cheung, Maria Yuen, Anderson Chow.
Arbitration — multi-tier dispute resolution clauses — pre-arbitration negotiation requirement — whether compliance constitutes jurisdiction or admissibility — Art 34(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) UNCITRAL Model Law — condition precedent to arbitration — distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility recognized in UK, Singapore, Australia, US, and Hong Kong jurisprudence — tribunal's decision on prematurity and pre-arbitration steps is generally final and not reviewable by court — parties’ intention governs scope of arbitration and question whether pre-arbitration procedural requirements relate to tribunal's jurisdiction or claim admissibility — court adopts generous construction favoring arbitration — no basis to set aside arbitral award for non-compliance with negotiation step where parties intended tribunal to decide question — dismissal of appeal with costs.
Legal issues: Distinction between admissibility and jurisdiction under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) · Whether an arbitral award can be set aside under Art 34(2)(a)(iv) for failure to comply with pre-arbitration conditions
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs to D
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases