Read the full judgment text of HCCT 58/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 19 December 2023 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Enforcement — CIETAC award — Re-arbitration ordered by Mainland Court under Article 61 Arbitration Law due to procedural defect — Scope of re-arbitration limited to examination of two pieces of evidence — Mainland Court terminates enforcement proceedings in Mainland but does not set aside award — Whether original award remains valid and binding for enforcement in Hong Kong. Applicant G commenced CIETAC arbitration against Respondent X alleging fraud in disposal of company interests. Original Award issued in favour of G for RMB 660 million. Mainland Court ordered re-arbitration limited to procedural defect found. New Award confirmed original damages. Respondent X opposed enforcement in Hong Kong citing termination of Mainland enforcement and re-arbitration. Court held Mainland law provisions on termination of enforcement and setting aside proceedings do not invalidate or suspend award per se. Award remains binding and enforceable notwithstanding re-arbitration limited in scope. Authorities confirm award is not nullified by remission or limited re-arbitration. Hong Kong Court dismissed opposition, allowed G’s enforcement application with costs. No further stay or adjournment granted despite delay and new challenges. Enforcement allowed on indemnity costs basis.
Legal issues: Validity and enforceability of arbitral award after re-arbitration ordered by Mainland Court
Outcome: G’s application to enforce the Award is allowed; X’s application for stay or adjournment of these enforcement proceedings is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case