Read the full judgment text of HCCT28/2002 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 December 2002 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Arbitration enforcement — Jurisdiction to order security — Application under Order 73 rule 10A and section 44 Arbitration Ordinance — Interpretation of section 44(2)(f) and rule 10A — Preliminary challenge to arbitration award annulled in Indonesia — Whether court may order security for enforcement sum and costs — Exercise of discretion — Consideration of merits and ease of enforcement. KBC, holding a US$282 million arbitration award against Pertamina, sought security for enforcement and costs pending substantive challenge hearing. Pertamina argued rule 10A did not cover subsection (f) of s.44(2), limiting court’s jurisdiction. The court rejected this, ruling rule 10A applies to entire s.44(2), harmonizing enforcement security powers. On merits, the court found the challenge's primary ground (award annulled by Indonesian courts) lacked weight as Indonesian law did not govern the arbitration; preliminary view favored KBC. Considering enforcement risks, timing, and existing protections such as injunctions, the court declined to order security for the main claim. However, given the defendant’s opposition and associated legal costs, the court granted security for costs of HK$3 million, with specified payment conditions. The costs of the summons were ordered to be in the cause.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction to order security under Order 73 rule 10A and section 44(2)(f) · Exercise of the court's discretion to order security
Outcome: Application for security on the enforcement claim refused; security for costs ordered.