Read the full judgment text of CACV 387/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 31 August 2022 before Cheung JA, Yuen JA, Chow JA.
Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Pre-arbitration condition precedent — Whether an arbitral tribunal’s determination on whether parties have fulfilled a procedural requirement (such as attempting negotiation) before arbitration is subject to court review under Articles 34(2)(a)(iii) and/or (iv) of the UNCITRAL Model Law — The Court of Appeal held that the court’s jurisdiction to set aside an arbitral award on jurisdictional grounds under Article 34 depends on parties’ intention and agreement as to what disputes fall within the submission to arbitration. The distinction between objections to admissibility and to jurisdiction is critical. The pre-arbitration procedural requirement was held to be an admissibility issue to be decided by the tribunal, and its determination is not subject to court review under Article 34(2)(a)(iii). The Plaintiff’s proposed appeal involved essentially a disagreement over the construction of the arbitration agreement clauses and did not raise a question of great general or public importance. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused to uphold the legislative policy promoting arbitration finality and limiting court intervention. Plaintiff ordered to pay costs of HK$80,380.
Legal issues: Whether an arbitral tribunal’s determination on a pre-arbitration condition precedent is subject to court review under Articles 34(2)(a)(iii) and/or (iv) of the UNCITRAL Model Law
Outcome: Plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case