Read the full judgment text of HCCT 9/2023 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 July 2024 before Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Wong.
Arbitration — Setting Aside Award — Proper Notice — 2018 HKIAC Expedited Procedure — Scope of Arbitration — Public Policy — Due Process — Corporate Service of Documents — Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609 s.81 — UNCITRAL Model Law Article 34(2)(a)(ii) — HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules Articles 3 and 42. The Plaintiff, a Mainland container manufacturer, challenged an HKIAC arbitral award made against it in favour of the Californian Defendant, alleging lack of proper notice, procedural irregularities, that the Award exceeded the scope of arbitration, and breach of natural justice. The Court held the service of arbitral documents complied with Article 3 of the 2018 HKIAC Rules, effective as to the last known contact information including email and fax, and that the plaintiff failed to adduce credible evidence rebutting the presumption of receipt. The Defendant was under no obligation to request revocation of the Expedited Procedure despite increase in claim quantum. The Tribunal acted fairly in admitting further submissions concerning relief, within the arbitration scope. The use of ‘without prejudice’ communications by Defendant as evidence was not established as improper or unjust. The applications to set aside the Award and to amend were dismissed, while the unopposed extension of time was granted. The Plaintiff ordered to pay costs to the Defendant on an indemnity basis. No procedural defect or public policy breach was found sufficient to set aside the Award.
Legal issues: Proper Notice Ground · Public Policy Ground: Appropriateness of Expedited Procedure · Public Policy Ground: Alleged Failure to Notify the Tribunal of Plaintiff’s Lack of Proper Notice · Public Policy Ground: Use of ‘Without Prejudice’ Communications as Evidence · Due Procedure Ground / Scope of Arbitration Ground
Outcome: The Plaintiff’s application to set aside the Award (Section 81 Application) and Amendment Application were dismissed. The extension of time for the Section 81 Application was granted.
Cites 5 cases