Read the full judgment text of HCCT 38/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 11 March 2024 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Enforcement — Interim orders — Anti-suit injunction — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) — Model Law Articles 17, 34 — Whether interim orders are 'awards' — Whether grounds for setting aside awards apply to interim orders — Whether anti-suit injunction enforceable against non-parties — Scope of arbitration clause — Public policy. The applicant G and respondent N entered a Securities Purchase Agreement subject to arbitration in Hong Kong. After an arbitration tribunal issued interim anti-suit injunctions restraining G from pursuing proceedings against non-party subsidiaries in Shenzhen, the tribunal's order was enforced in Hong Kong under s.61 of the Arbitration Ordinance. G sought to set aside enforcement on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to deal with submissions, and public policy. The Court held that the Interim Order was a procedural interim measure, not a final award; thus, setting aside grounds under s.81 and Model Law Article 34 did not apply. The restricted enforcement regime under s.61 does not permit wide judicial review, reflecting legislative intent to promote quick and efficient arbitration. The arbitrator properly dealt with issues relating to non-parties and the arbitration clause's scope. No substantial injustice was shown. The application to set aside was dismissed with costs ordered to N on indemnity basis.
Legal issues: Nature and enforcement of interim arbitration orders · Grounds to set aside enforcement of interim orders
Outcome: Summons to set aside enforcement of the Interim Order dismissed; G ordered to pay N’s costs on indemnity basis with certificate for 2 Counsel.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 3 cases