Read the full judgment text of HCCT000101/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 2 August 1999 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Arbitration — Contract disputes under piling contract — Leave to appeal under Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341) — Section 23 appeal on question of law arising out of award — Requirements for leave to appeal — Distinction between questions of law and findings of fact — Exercise of discretion in costs — Allegations of arbitrator misconduct — Natural justice — Arbitrator’s role in assessing expert evidence — Contractual interpretation — Method statement uncertainty — Common fund costs order. The applicant challenged the arbitrator’s awards on multiple grounds, including alleged errors of law, misconstruction of contract terms, and procedural misconduct. The court found that the alleged grounds concerned findings of fact, exercises of discretion, or non-reviewable issues rather than questions of law arising out of the award as required by section 23. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial intervention in arbitration awards and declined to re-hear the factual evidence or exercise discretion on the merits. Allegations of breach of natural justice were rejected as the arbitrator acted within fair process considering the evidence. The arbitrator’s conclusions on the contractual method statement and expert evidence were factual assessments properly within his province. A costs order on a common fund basis was a discretionary matter not giving rise to a legal question. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused on all grounds. The applicant was ordered to pay costs. No sentencing involved.
Legal issues: Appropriateness of leave to appeal on question of law · Alleged breach of natural justice by arbitrator · Decision on uncertain contractual method statement · Costs order on common fund basis
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused on all grounds; costs ordered nisi against applicant