Shenzhen City Tong Ying Foreign Trade Corporation Ltd. v. Alps Co. Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 82/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 April 2001 before Hon Chung J in Chambers.
Arbitration enforcement — Mainland award — Conflicting expert opinions on mainland law — Application to set aside judgment for enforcement — Procedural issue of adjournment to cross-examine experts — Defendant seeks adjournment to resolve factual disputes relating to mainland law experts' opinions, Plaintiff opposes as delaying tactic — Court finds no delay tactic, balances prejudice between parties — Adjournment granted. The case concerns enforcement of a mainland arbitration award dated 30 April 1997 under Arbitration Ordinance, Cap 341 sections 2GG and 40B. The judgment dated 10 August 2000 was challenged by the Defendant. The court held that cross-examination of experts is necessary to resolve conflicting factual expert disputes on mainland law, and the Defendant's request for adjournment was justified. Prejudice to Plaintiff was deemed less than prejudice to Defendant from refusal of adjournment as enforcement was sought after nearly 3 years. The application for adjournment was granted accordingly.
Legal issues: Adjournment for cross-examination of expert witnesses
Outcome: Defendant's application for adjournment granted.
Cites 1 case
|
HCCT000082/2000 HCCT 82/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Chung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 3 April 2001 Date of Decision: 3 April 2001 ____________ D E C I S I O N ____________ 1. This is the Defendant's application to set aside the Judgment dated 10 August 2000 for the enforcement of a mainland arbitration award. The arbitration award upon which this application is based was dated 30 April 1997 (slightly less than 3 years from the date of the Originating Summons therein). This application was originally fixed for hearing on 8 December 2000 but that hearing was adjourned to enable the Defendant to file and serve expert opinion on mainland law in response to the Plaintiff's expert opinion. 2. By today's hearing, conflicting expert opinions have been filed and served respectively by both parties. I raised the point with counsel and asked them how the conflicting expert opinions relating to mainland law (which in essence is a matter of fact) can be properly resolved on paper. Plaintiff's counsel submitted that in such a case, the Defendant will fail in this application because it is unable to discharge the burden of proof cast upon it in an application of this kind. 3. Having heard this argument, defence counsel (after taking instructions from the Defendant) asks for an adjournment to enable the expert(s) to attend court and be cross-examined. This application is opposed by the Plaintiff on the ground that it is a delaying tactic. 4. I have considered the circumstances of this case and do not find that the Defendant is employing a delaying tactic in seeking this adjournment. 5. In any event, the Plaintiff only seeks to enforce the arbitration award some 3 years after it was made. Any prejudice to the Plaintiff likely to be caused by the adjournment of today's hearing would be less than the prejudice likely to be suffered by the Defendant if the application for an adjournment was refused. 6. For the above reasons, I will grant the adjournment sought.
Representation: Mr Bernard Mak, instructed by Messrs Li & Partners, for the Plaintiff Mr Lawrence Ng, instructed by Messrs Koo & Partners, for the Defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 82/2000