Read the full judgment text of HCCT 113/2022 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 12 June 2023 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Enforcement of LCIA Award — Application to set aside enforcement order out of time — Extension of time discretion — Tribunal’s procedural powers — Virtual hearing — Procedural fairness. The Applicant sought enforcement of an LCIA Award of 5 September 2022. The Court granted leave to enforce on 3 January 2023 with 14 days from service for the Respondent to apply to set aside the Enforcement Order. The Respondent’s delayed application to extend time to set aside was refused, having regard to the short delay, reasons for delay, and prejudice to Applicant. The Respondent challenged the validity of the arbitration hearing procedure, contending that the tribunal erred in holding a fully virtual hearing rather than the semi-virtual hearing agreed in PO 3. The Court held the tribunal had wide discretion under s.34(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance and LCIA Rules to determine procedural matters in the absence of party agreement, and that the fully virtual hearing was a fair and reasonable exercise of discretion balancing expedition and fairness, especially given the pandemic-related travel difficulties. Remote hearings are now commonplace, and no unfairness sufficient to set aside enforcement arose from hearing format or cross-examination by video link, as the Award relied primarily on documentary evidence. The application to set aside enforcement out of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Applicant on an indemnity basis.
Legal issues: Extension of time to apply to set aside Enforcement Order · Validity of virtual hearing procedure in arbitration · Prejudice from virtual hearing affecting ability to cross-examine witness
Outcome: Summons dismissed; extension of time to set aside Enforcement Order refused
Cites 1 case