Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2219/1991 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 January 1993 before Kaplan J.
Arbitration – enforcement of New York Convention award – CIETAC award – s.44 Arbitration Ordinance Cap 341 – opposition to enforcement on ground that party was unable to present his case under s.44(2)(c) – contract for sale of 2,500 MT of hot dip galvanised steel from Turkey to China – goods found defective on arrival at Haikou – tribunal appointed its own experts under Article 28 of CIETAC Arbitration Rules – expert report concluded galvanised layer was defective at time of delivery – defendants denied opportunity to comment on or rebut expert report before award rendered – whether defendants were prevented from presenting their case – applicable principles of due process under Hong Kong law and New York Convention – CIETAC Arbitration Rules to be interpreted in light of New York Convention and PRC Civil Procedure Law – tribunal's procedural duties to give parties opportunity to challenge expert evidence – whether hearing of 25 April 1990 was substantive or preliminary – burden of proof on defendant – exercise of court's discretion – defendants entitled to wait until enforcement sought before challenging award – public policy defence construed narrowly – appeal dismissed with costs nisi in favour of defendants and certificate for two counsel
Legal issues: Whether Defendants were unable to present their case due to lack of opportunity to respond to tribunal-appointed expert reports · Whether the CIETAC hearing of 25 April 1990 was substantive or preliminary
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; the Master's order setting aside the ex parte enforcement order is upheld, and enforcement of the CIETAC award is refused