Read the full judgment text of HCCT 110/2022 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 23 August 2023 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration law — enforcement of arbitral awards — validity of arbitration agreement — optional arbitration clause — notice of arbitration — service by email under HKAS Online Arbitration Rules — setting aside enforcement order — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) section 86(1)(c). The parties entered into a Loan Agreement and a Supplemental Loan Agreement, with dispute resolution clause conferring on the Applicant an exclusive option to arbitrate or litigate. The Applicant chose arbitration, and an arbitral award was granted. The Respondent applied to set aside the Enforcement Order on grounds of no valid arbitration agreement and denial of opportunity to present his case. The Court held the dispute resolution clause constituted a valid arbitration agreement binding on the Respondent because only the Applicant had the option to decide arbitration or litigation. However, the Court found the Notice of Arbitration was not properly served to the Respondent’s email address as specified in the Supplemental Agreement, invalidating the deemed service under HKAS Online Arbitration Rules. Consequently, the Respondent had no proper notice and no opportunity to present his case. The Court allowed the application to set aside the Enforcement Order and ordered costs to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent on indemnity basis with certificate for Counsel.
Legal issues: Validity of arbitration agreement with optional arbitration clause · Ground of inability to present case due to lack of notice under section 86(1)(c) Ordinance
Outcome: The application to set aside the Enforcement Order is allowed due to lack of proper notice; costs paid by Applicant to Respondent on indemnity basis with certificate for Counsel; an order nisi made accordingly.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases