Read the full judgment text of HCCT000007/1992 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 29 June 1992 before The Hon. Mr. Justice Kaplan in Chambers.
Arbitration—Article 9 of the Model Law—Jurisdiction of Hong Kong High Court to grant interim measures of protection—Whether Mareva injunction qualifies as such measure—Court holds Article 9 permits interim relief before or during arbitration proceedings—Mareva injunction aimed at preventing dissipation of assets is within scope—Parties were Hong Kong companies but dispute classified as international as substantive obligations were to be performed outside Hong Kong—Court relied on travaux preparatoire, commentary, and commission reports confirming wide scope of Article 9 measures—Confirmed similarities of court's jurisdiction under Model Law and Arbitration Ordinance for interim injunctions in arbitration—Decision noted, without deciding, that jurisdiction differs for arbitrations seated outside Hong Kong—English Court of Appeal decision on related issue pending House of Lords consideration—Order granted ex parte on 19 June 1992 continued on 29 June 1992 with defendant absent—Jurisdictional issue conclusively addressed in favour of plaintiff's application.
Legal issues: Whether a Mareva Injunction is an 'interim measure of protection' under Article 9 of the Model Law
Outcome: The Mareva injunction was continued and the court confirmed it had jurisdiction under the Model Law to grant such interim measures of protection.