Read the full judgment text of HCCT107/1999 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 January 2000 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Construction law — Arbitration — Consolidation or concurrent hearing of arbitrations — s.6B Arbitration Ordinance (Cap.341) — Common questions of law and fact — Interrelated claims on delay, liquidated damages, and indemnity — Back to back contract clauses — Evidence from same architect for all contracts — Prematurity objection rejected — Cost and efficiency considerations. Chun Wo Building Construction Ltd applied for the three arbitrations relating to construction contracts to be heard concurrently under s.6B. The 1st respondent opposed on grounds of insufficient commonality; the 2nd respondent on prematurity; the 3rd respondent consented. The Court found substantial common legal and factual issues, particularly delay and indemnity claims, common terms and architect’s role, and held that consolidation or concurrent hearing was appropriate. Prematurity objection was dismissed in light of sufficient issue identification. Costs were ordered against the 1st and 2nd respondents. Orders granted to hear the arbitrations concurrently.
Legal issues: Application to consolidate arbitration hearings under s.6B of the Arbitration Ordinance · Prematurity of application for consolidation
Outcome: Order granted to hear the three arbitrations concurrently under s.6B Arbitration Ordinance; order nisi for costs in favor of the applicant against the 1st and 2nd respondents.