Read the full judgment text of HCCT 41/2023 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 10 September 2024 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Enforcement of arbitral award — Arbitrator disclosure duties — Alleged apparent bias — Public policy defence — Leave to appeal — The Respondents opposed enforcement of a Mainland arbitral award alleging nondisclosure by the arbitrator of relationships with companies associated with the Applicant, resulting in apparent bias and breach of public policy. The Court gave significant weight to the supervisory Shenzhen Court’s ruling that there was no breach of PRC law or SCIA Rules and no bias. Applying the test of the reasonable and informed third-party observer, the Court found no real risk of bias nor a sufficient link between the arbitrator’s associations and influence on the award. The Court dismissed the challenge but granted leave to appeal on the wider legal question of the scope of arbitrator disclosure duties under Article 12 of the Model Law and Cap.609 s.25(1), recognizing the legal importance of this principle for Hong Kong arbitration practice. Costs were reserved to the appeal. The Judgment emphasises the high threshold for setting aside enforcement on bias grounds and the need for objective evidence beyond inconsistencies in arbitrator disclosures.
Legal issues: Arbitrator's disclosure duties and risk of bias · Leave to appeal on arbitrator's disclosure duty scope
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted; original enforcement Decision upheld; no arguable case of real risk of bias; application to set aside enforcement refused.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 2 cases