Read the full judgment text of HCCT000135/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 16 March 1999 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay, in Chambers.
Arbitration — Extension of time claim — Interim award challenged — Whether arbitrator bound by pleaded case or entitled to adopt expert approach and invite submissions — Discretion and fairness in arbitration procedure — Leave to appeal against arbitration award refused — No error shown — No general legal question of importance. The Secretary for Justice (representing HKG) sought leave to appeal an interim arbitration award relating to time saved on dredging and rockfill works claimed by Aoki Corporation, alleging the arbitrator erred by finding fewer days saved than pleaded. The arbitrator, using his expert knowledge, adopted a novel approach comparing original and revised designs, invited further submissions and made a reasoned decision. The High Court found arbitration procedure is flexible, and the arbitrator acted fairly without requiring further evidence. The presumption of finality in arbitration was strong, and no obvious legal error was demonstrated. Leave to appeal was refused, and HKG was ordered to pay Aoki's costs. The judgment emphasizes the special procedural and substantive flexibility accorded to expert arbitrators and the high threshold for appellate interference in arbitration awards.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction and approach of arbitrator to pleaded cases · Whether leave to appeal against interim arbitration award should be granted
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; HKG ordered to pay Aoki’s costs.