Read the full judgment text of CACV 263/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 June 2025 before Hon Kwan VP, Chu VP and K Yeung J.
Arbitration enforcement — section 93 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) prohibits enforcement in Hong Kong where enforcement proceedings are ongoing on the Mainland for the same award; the applicant’s attempt to enforce concurrently in Hong Kong was barred as double enforcement is prohibited (Shenzhen Kai Loong test applied). The refusal of leave to appeal the setting aside of the enforcement order was upheld, the court finding no unfair process or fundamental legal error in the refusal decision. The applicant’s arguments that the Set Aside Order was made without jurisdiction and that the time limitation for enforcement under Hong Kong law should be effectively extended to 18 years by combining limitation periods were rejected. Attempts to relitigate struck out grounds were deemed abuse of process. Indemnity costs awarded to respondents due to conduct of appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Legal issues: Validity of Refusal of Leave Decision under section 93 AO · Jurisdiction to appeal the Set Aside Order without leave · Distinction between recognition and enforcement under section 93 AO · Limitation period application for enforcement of Mainland awards
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondents’ costs on indemnity basis.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case