Read the full judgment text of HCCT29/2002 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 28 October 2002 before Hon Ma J in Chambers.
Arbitration — Arbitration Agreement Interpretation — Stay of Proceedings — Arbitration Ordinance Cap. 341 — Clause 25(b) requiring disputes arising from Placement Memoranda contracts to be resolved by arbitration within 14 days — Whether clause constitutes a true arbitration agreement, or merely an option to arbitrate or litigate — Whether arbitration agreement rendered inoperative by time bar — Whether genuine dispute exists — Scope of arbitration agreement covering claims including constructive trust connected to contracts — Stay granted and costs ordered payable by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff (liquidator of FDL) claimed unpaid contract sums from multiple Defendants. The 1st Defendant applied to stay proceedings under the Arbitration Ordinance relying on clause 25(b). The Court determined clause 25(b) was a valid arbitration agreement mandating exclusive resolution by arbitration, rejecting Plaintiff's argument it merely gave an option to arbitrate or litigate. The 14-day time limit did not render arbitration agreement incapable of performance as power exists for arbitral tribunal to extend time under section 2GD. A real dispute existed as to liability and quantum. The court held the disputes fell within the ambit of clause 25(b), which embraced all disputes arising out of or connected with the contracts, including equitable claims like constructive trust. The court ordered the action stayed and claims referred to arbitration. Costs of the stay application were ordered against the Plaintiff.
Legal issues: Is the clause 25(b) an arbitration agreement · Whether the arbitration agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed · Existence of a dispute or difference between the parties · Whether the disputes fall within the ambit of the arbitration agreement
Outcome: The action is stayed and the Plaintiff's claims are referred to arbitration; costs of the stay application awarded against Plaintiff.
Cited by 4 cases