Read the full judgment text of HCCT 68/2022 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 1 December 2022 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Interim relief — Court’s discretion under section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance — Minimal curial intervention — Duty of confidentiality during arbitration — Concurrent jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal and court — Refusal of ex parte Restraining Order — Policy to prevent duplication of legal costs and conserve judicial resources. The Plaintiff sought a Restraining Order to prevent the Defendant from further disclosure or promotion of information relating to arbitration proceedings and a related product. The Court previously granted an injunction but refused interim relief ex parte relating to the Restraining Order. The tribunal has since been constituted and is empowered to hear applications for interim relief. The Court held that it should decline to grant the interim relief under section 45(4) of the Ordinance, emphasizing the principles of minimal interference with the arbitral process and the tribunal's primary jurisdiction. Allowing the Court to decide the matter would cause unnecessary duplication and expense. The Plaintiff’s 23/11 Summons for an expedited hearing was dismissed with costs to the Defendant. The Court recommended the substantive hearing be vacated and highlighted potential costs consequences for unreasonable insistence on continuing litigation.
Legal issues: Whether the Court should decline to grant interim relief under section 45(4) of the Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome: Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s 23/11 Summons seeking expedited hearing; costs awarded to Defendant
Cites 1 case