Read the full judgment text of HCCT 125/2024 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 December 2025 before Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Wong.
Construction law — Arbitration — Stay of proceedings — Costs — Indemnity costs — Arbitration clause requiring completion or termination and consent before arbitration — Plaintiff prematurely commenced court proceedings — Defendant successfully obtained stay in favour of arbitration — Court orders indemnity costs against Plaintiff. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings against Defendant contrary to a clear arbitration agreement under subcontracts linked to a construction project at Hong Kong International Airport. The arbitration clause (GC 18) required arbitration only after completion or termination of the main works and written consent of the Defendant. The Defendant applied for a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration, which was granted shortly before the substantive hearing. The Plaintiff initially resisted the stay application and sought to litigate prematurely claiming the clause was null and void. The court held that the arbitration agreement was binding, found no unreasonable conduct by the Defendant, and rejected Plaintiff’s hardship argument as insufficient to rewrite the contract. The court relied on established authorities endorsing indemnity costs for unsuccessful challenges to arbitration agreements to further civil justice reform objectives. Consequently, costs of the stay summons were awarded on an indemnity basis against the Plaintiff, including reserved costs and costs of submissions.
Legal issues: Costs order on stay application in favour of arbitration
Outcome: Plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the Summons to Defendant on an indemnity basis.
Cites 1 case