Read the full judgment text of HCCT 83/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 2 February 2001 before Hon Burrell J.
Arbitration — Enforcement of mainland arbitration award — Section 44(3) Cap.341 and public policy grounds for refusal — Alleged oral overriding agreement not disclosed to arbitrators — Court's discretion in admitting oral evidence on enforcement summons — Procedural requirements under Order 73, rule 10, section 6A — Threshold for refusal of enforcement must be compelling reasons beyond ordinary grounds — Application to set aside enforcement refused. The defendant challenged enforcement of a China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission award claiming the existence of a confidential oral overriding agreement made prior to arbitration. The court found the agreement inherently unusual, undocumented, undisclosed in arbitration, and raised only after losing arbitration, thereby doubting its existence. The court declined to admit oral evidence, underscoring that such hearings are exceptional and that affidavit evidence suffices in usual cases. Citing Hebei Import & Export Corporation v. Polytek Engineering Company Limited, the court emphasized that refusal on public policy grounds is a residual remedy requiring compelling reasons. The defendant failed to meet this threshold. Consequently, the court refused to set aside the enforcement order and ordered costs to the plaintiff.
Legal issues: Applicability of s.44(3) Cap.341 on public policy grounds · Whether to admit oral evidence on the existence of the overriding agreement
Outcome: Application to set aside enforcement orders refused; enforcement granted
Cites 1 case