Read the full judgment text of CACV 263/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 July 2023 before Susan Kwan, Carlye Chu, Maria Yuen.
Arbitration — Enforcement of Mainland arbitral awards in Hong Kong — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) s.92 and s.93 — Prohibition of concurrent enforcement of the same award in Mainland and Hong Kong — Jurisdiction of Hong Kong court to enforce award precluded while Mainland enforcement proceedings ongoing — Distinction between "recognition" and "execution" rejected — Appeal against refusal of leave to challenge setting aside of enforcement order struck out as abuse of process. The Applicant lent RMB530 million to 1st Respondent with 2nd Respondent’s guarantee and obtained an arbitral award from SCIA, upheld by Mainland courts. The Applicant obtained leave in Hong Kong to enforce the Award but enforcement was ongoing in Mainland. Respondents successfully set aside Hong Kong enforcement order on ground of s.93 AO prohibiting double enforcement. Applicant's appeal and leave application refused. The Applicant attempted a new argument distinguishing recognition and execution stages, which the Court of Appeal rejected as new, unmeritorious, and contrary to legislative intent and prior authority. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the frivolous appeal grounds and ordered indemnity costs on a summarily assessed basis.
Legal issues: Construction and application of s.93 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) · Jurisdiction to re-grant HCCT Order after setting aside
Outcome: Respondents’ summons to strike out Grounds 1 to 4 of the Applicant's appeal notice granted; appeal grounds struck out as frivolous and abuse of process.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases