Read the full judgment text of HCCT 31/2023 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 April 2024 before Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Wong.
Arbitration — Removal of arbitrators — Challenge of arbitrators for apparent bias — Application under section 26 Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609 — Earlier challenge dismissed by HKIAC Proceedings Committee — Applicant seeks to rely on Additional Grounds outside 15-day time limit — Court confirms strict adherence to time limits and applicable rules (UNCITRAL Rules, HKIAC Procedures, Practice Note) — No permission granted to rely on late grounds — Test for apparent bias applied: Fair-minded and informed observer test — Allegations of prejudgment and procedural unfairness insufficient — Tribunal’s discretion over procedural matters noted, including refusal of oral hearing on certain applications — Differences in treatment of delays justified by arbitration context — Language used by arbitrators, even if critical, does not constitute bias — Application dismissed with no order as to costs. The court emphasized that procedural decisions within tribunal’s discretion do not necessitate unanimity of party arguments and that arbitrators may exercise case management robustly without disqualification. No appearance of real possibility of bias was found.
Legal issues: Whether P should be permitted to rely on Additional Grounds for removal · Apparent bias of the Impugned Arbitrators and DL · Whether refusal to hold an oral hearing on procedural applications breached Article 17(3) UNCITRAL Rules · Whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s procedural decisions deprived P of a reasonable opportunity to present its case · Whether P was treated unequally compared to D in respect of document production and costs · Whether the language used by the Arbitral Tribunal evidenced bias · Whether the Impugned Arbitrators' request for parties’ lawyers to act professionally implied bias
Outcome: Dismissal of Amended Originating Summons
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case