Read the full judgment text of HCCT52/2001 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 26 June 2002 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Construction and Arbitration Law — Arbitration agreement — Validity and scope — Whether arbitration clause in consultant’s letter applies to disputes beyond fees — Held: such an arbitration agreement exists covering broader scope of disputes. — Arbitration Ordinance Cap.341 s.6(1) — Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance Cap.71 s.15(1) — Applicability to consumer contracts — Whether defendant was dealing as consumer — Held: defendant acted in course of business as residential developer, thus not a consumer, so arbitration agreement enforceable. — Procedural outcome: application by architect-engineer for stay of proceedings granted. The defendant did not successfully rebut the presumption that the arbitration clause governs the dispute. The 1999 letter merely varied fee arrangements and did not revoke arbitration. Court recognized that jurisdictional disputes are for the arbitral tribunal. Order granted to stay proceedings pursuant to arbitration agreement.
Legal issues: Existence and scope of arbitration agreement · Applicability of section 15(1) of Cap.71 to arbitration enforcement
Outcome: Application for stay of proceedings granted under section 6(1) of Cap.341