Read the full judgment text of HCCT000010/1993 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 12 July 1993 before The Hon. Mr. Justice Kaplan in Chambers.
Arbitration - Leave to appeal against arbitral award - Jurisdiction - International versus domestic arbitration - Model Law - CIF contract with obligations performed outside Hong Kong - Whether arbitration is international under Article 1(1) of Model Law - Whether parties agreed to treat arbitration as domestic - Estoppel and waiver arguments - Importance of early determination of arbitration regime. The dispute arose from a contract for sale of Cadmium Ingots CIF Rotterdam between two Hong Kong companies. The Court held that performance obligations outside Hong Kong made the arbitration international under the Model Law, which excludes rights of appeal. The defendants were not estopped or found to have waived their right to assert jurisdictional challenges. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal. The judgment underscores the need for parties and practitioners to clarify the arbitration regime at an early stage to avoid procedural pitfalls. The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction on appeal against arbitral award under Model Law
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against arbitral award dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.