Read the full judgment text of HCCT 110/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 15 December 2000 before Hon Burrell J.
Arbitration — Removal of Arbitrator due to Conflict of Interest — Costs — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap.341) — Court of First Instance This case involves an application to remove an arbitrator, Mr Hubert Woo, under an arbitration agreement due to his undisclosed close personal and professional relationship with the respondents’ representative and expert witness, Mr B.W. Choy. The applicants were unaware of this relationship when agreeing to Mr Woo's appointment. Upon discovery, a court application was made resulting in the removal of Mr Woo and continuation of arbitration with a new arbitrator appointed by consent or nomination. The court held that the costs arising from the wasted arbitration expenses due to the removal must be borne by the respondents, but since the parties agreed to adopt prior pleadings and procedural steps, such costs would be limited. As to the costs of the originating motion, the court apportioned costs, awarding the applicants costs incurred before 20 October 2000 and ordering the respondents to bear half of the applicants’ costs thereafter, reasoning that a conditional offer by the arbitrator to step down was not accepted and a realistic part of the motion was properly abandoned at hearing. The court emphasized the importance of perceived impartiality of an arbitrator and rejected setting aside the arbitration agreement itself, limiting relief to removal of the conflicted arbitrator. The arbitration will proceed with a newly appointed arbitrator and prior procedural steps preserved.
Legal issues: Costs Liability for Arbitration Costs Thrown Away · Costs Liability for Originating Motion
Outcome: Arbitrator Mr Hubert Woo removed; arbitration to continue with a new arbitrator appointed by consent or nomination. Costs orders made with respondents liable for arbitration costs thrown away and partial costs of the originating motion.