Read the full judgment text of HCCT 59/2023 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 June 2025 before Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Wong.
Arbitration law — Setting aside partial final award — Without prejudice privilege — Procedural fairness — Apparent bias — Infra petita — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) s.81 and Order 73 (Cap 4A) — UNCITRAL Model Law arts 34(2)(a)(iii), 34(2)(a)(iv), 34(2)(b)(ii) — HKIAC Rules Articles 22.2, 22.3 — 2020 IBA Rules Article 3.8 — Tribunal’s approach to ‘without prejudice’ privilege (WPP) in arbitration — Three privilege applications by Plaintiffs — Tribunal deferred WPP determination initially, eventually determined substantially prior to evidentiary hearing — Plaintiffs complained procedural unfairness, bias, prejudgment, uneven treatment, and improper deferral of breach of non-compete clause to Phase 2 — Court held Tribunal’s procedural handling proper, granting parties ample opportunities, appropriately refusing late request to appoint independent privilege expert — No breach of natural justice or unfair treatment found despite Tribunal’s limited reference to Defendant’s witness evidence prior to Plaintiffs’ witness statements — Prejudgment claim rejected as Tribunal expressly disavowed binding findings in privilege ruling and conducted full merits assessment in PFA — Allegations of apparent bias from Tribunal’s exposure to ‘without prejudice’ materials dismissed on basis of Tribunal’s experience, independence, procedural safeguards, and legal duties — Infra petita ground on deferral of breach of non-compete issue denied since further disclosure was warranted and no finality agreement was abrogated — Overall, no serious irregularity, prejudice or violation of public policy to justify setting aside the Partial Final Award — Costs ordered against Plaintiffs on indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel granted.
Legal issues: Procedural fairness in determination of without prejudice privilege · Natural justice and equal treatment in the privilege ruling · Prejudgment and apparent bias from privilege rulings · Apparent bias from Tribunal’s exposure to without prejudice documents · Infra petita ground for deferring breach of non-compete obligation to Phase 2
Outcome: The AOS is dismissed. Ps do pay the costs of the AOS to Defendant on indemnity basis with a certificate for 2 counsel.
Cites 4 cases