Read the full judgment text of CACV 172/2023 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 September 2024 before Hon Kwan VP, Barma JA and Coleman J.
Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Meaning of “dispute arising out of or relating to” an agreement — Whether existence of dispute requires legal claim or assertion of liability against party — Negative declaration awarded by tribunal — Abuse of process and public policy considerations — Court of Appeal dismissed Defendants’ appeal and declined leave for CFA appeal. The dispute concerned a co-investment contract subject to ICC arbitration under Hong Kong law. The Court held that an alleged misrepresentation by representatives without claim against the party does not amount to a dispute conferring arbitration jurisdiction. Further, the arbitrator’s granting of a negative declaration without jurisdiction was contrary to public policy, especially where parties simultaneously pursued court and arbitration claims inconsistently, amounting to abuse of process. The Defendants’ proposed questions, though relevant for the parties, were not of great public importance warranting CFA guidance. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal to CFA was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff. This decision reinforces the settled legal principles on arbitration jurisdiction and public policy grounds concerning abuse of arbitral process.
Legal issues: Whether there is a dispute arising out of or relating to an agreement without a claim against the other party · Whether an award of a negative declaration in the circumstances posited is contrary to public policy due to abuse of process
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case