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