Read the full judgment text of HCCT000015/1999 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 10 September 1999 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Arbitration — Construction contract dispute resolution — Dispute Review Panel decisions — Final and binding nature within contract terms — Time limit for arbitration referral — Section 2GD of Arbitration Ordinance — Extension of time for arbitration notice — Interpretation of contract clause requiring referral within 90 days — The applicants sought leave to appeal two questions of law arising from an arbitrator's award that allowed the respondent to challenge Panel decisions by defence or counterclaim and granted an extension of time under s.2GD. The court held that the Panel's decisions are final and binding if not referred to arbitration within the stipulated 90-day period, and no reopening by defence or counterclaim is permitted thereafter under the contract. The court disagreed with the arbitrator's construction of the clause and emphasized the ordinary meaning of 'but not otherwise'. On extension of time, the court found the respondent's late notice was due to miscalculation and did not satisfy the statutory test requiring circumstances beyond the parties' reasonable contemplation. The court granted leave to appeal on both legal questions and ordered costs in the cause. The respondent later appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal.
Legal issues: Whether a Dispute Review Panel decision is binding and conclusive if not referred to arbitration within 90 days · Whether the arbitrator properly applied the statutory test under section 2GD(5)(a) of the Arbitration Ordinance to extend time for arbitration notice
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted on two questions of law; costs of this application ordered as costs in the cause