Read the full judgment text of HCCT 73 OF 2003 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 September 2003 before Hon Sakhrani J.
Arbitration — statutory arbitration — Solicitors (Professional Indemnity) Rules — Legal Practitioners Ordinance — Section 26(2) of Arbitration Ordinance — Jurisdiction of the Court — Whether Court may set aside arbitration agreement involving questions of fraud under section 26(2) of Arbitration Ordinance. The claimant, a solicitor, claimed indemnity under the Solicitors (Professional Indemnity) Rules following a judgment against his firm for professional negligence. The respondent refused indemnity on exclusions related to fraudulent acts by an employee. The claimant referred the dispute to arbitration pursuant to rule 13 of the Rules, which provides for arbitration by a single arbitrator appointed by agreement or failing that by the President of the Law Society. The claimant then applied to the Court under section 26(2) of the Arbitration Ordinance to set aside the arbitration agreement on the basis that fraud was involved. The Court held that the arbitration constituted a statutory arbitration under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and rule 13 of the Rules. Section 2AB of the Arbitration Ordinance excludes section 26 from application to statutory arbitrations. The Court relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in English Schools Foundation & Another v. Bird which held that subsidiary legislation having legislative effect includes the Rules made under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. Accordingly, the Court held it had no jurisdiction under section 26(2) to grant relief sought by the claimant and dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction under section 26 of the Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome: Claimant's application dismissed; court held it has no jurisdiction under section 26 of the Arbitration Ordinance for statutory arbitration