Read the full judgment text of HCCT 72/2024 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 February 2025 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Appeal on points of law — Leave to appeal under Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) s.6(6) — Whether tribunal erred in law in construction of Subcontract and tender documents (Question 1) — Whether valuation decision based on expert evidence is subject to appeal on question of law (Question 2) — Possibility of double recovery in award as ground for appeal — Assessment of delay claims in arbitration — Leave granted on Questions 1 and 3 but refused on 2 and 4. Plaintiff sought leave to appeal a refusal by the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal an arbitral award. The court found it reasonably arguable that the tribunal erred in law on Question 1 regarding contractual construction and on the issue whether double recovery occurred. The court declined leave on Question 2, holding that the arbitrator’s valuation based on expert evidence did not involve an error of law, relying on The Chrysalis principle that multiple judgments on fact and law are permitted. Leave was also refused on Question 4 concerning delay claims due to lack of reasonable prospects of success. Costs were ordered on a split basis, with half paid by Plaintiff for the leave application and remainder reserved. The decision sets important guidelines on when leave to appeal arbitration awards on points of law may be granted under the Ordinance, particularly emphasizing the distinction between factual findings and questions of law in construction and valuation disputes.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal on Question 1 · Leave to appeal on Question 2 · Leave to appeal on double recovery · Leave to appeal on Question 4 (delay claims)
Outcome: Grant leave to appeal on Questions 1 and 3; refuse leave on Questions 2 and 4.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case