Read the full judgment text of HCCT 96/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 26 July 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Setting aside arbitral award — Section 81 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) — Article 34 Model Law — Whether tribunal’s failure to deal with key issues or give sufficient reasons justifies setting aside — Public policy — Due process and natural justice — Calculation of annual sales value (ASV) dispute under pharmaceutical distribution agreement — Rollover Arrangement of inventory sales value — Tribunal’s reasoning on essential issues sufficient — Failure to expressly address some subsidiary issues not a denial of natural justice — Minimal judicial intervention in arbitration — No grounds to set aside award — Costs awarded against applicant. LY applied to set aside an arbitral award terminating a distribution agreement based on alleged failure to meet sales targets. LY alleged Tribunal failed to deal with key contractual issues, including validity of the Rollover Arrangement, powers of Joint Review Committee, and obligations upon assignment. The Court held that the award must be read generously and commercially in context; the Tribunal’s findings on ASV calculation and the Rollover Arrangement clearly showed that it dealt with the essential issues. Absence of express findings on some subsidiary points amounted at most to errors of law, not breach of natural justice or public policy. The Court refused to order suspension of proceedings under Article 34(4) as no grounds to set aside existed. LY’s application was dismissed with indemnity costs. The decision reinforces the narrow and serious nature of grounds for setting aside awards under Hong Kong law and the policy of minimal curial intervention in arbitration proceedings.
Legal issues: Whether tribunal's failure to deal with all key issues constitutes ground to set aside award under section 81 · Whether the Award failed due process and public policy by insufficient reasons or failure to deal with key issues · Whether suspension under Article 34(4) should be ordered
Outcome: The application to set aside the arbitral Award is dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases · Cites 3 cases