Gabrielle Marie Hotung v. Sean Eric Mclean Hotung and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCCT 76/2004 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 January 2007 before Master de Souza.

Construction and arbitration proceeding under HCCT 76/2004 concerning the matter of Section 26 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341) and Order 73 Rule 3 of the Rules of High Court (Cap. 4). The parties are Plaintiff GABRIELLE MARIE HOTUNG and Defendants SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG and ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG. The judgment was delivered by Master de Souza in chambers on 9 January 2007, following a hearing on 20 December 2006. A corrigendum corrected a sentence clarifying the Plaintiff's reliance on EH for funding and litigation experience related to an application to remove the 1st Defendant as arbitrator. The decision focuses on procedural issues in arbitration-related court proceedings. No substantive determination of legal issues or final disposition is clearly indicated in the provided text.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCCT 76/2004
Court
高等法院原訟法庭
Date09 Jan 2007
JudgeMaster de Souza
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCT 76/2004

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO. 76 OF 2004

_________________________

  IN THE MATTER of Section 26 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341)
  and
  IN THE MATTER of Order 73 Rule 3 of the Rules of High Court (Cap. 4)

BETWEEN

  GABRIELLE MARIE HOTUNG Plaintiff
  and  
  SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG 1st Defendant
  ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG 2nd Defendant

______________________

Coram : Master de Souza in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 20 December 2006

Date of Handing Down Decision :  9 January 2007

_______________

CORRIGENDUM

_______________

Kindly note the following correction in the decision of the above-mentioned case handed down by Master de Souza on 9 January 2007:

The first sentence of paragraph 28 on page 12 should read “As I have found, the Plaintiff has had to turn to EH for funding for the reasons she offered and to draw upon his experience in litigation in seeking to remove the 1st Defendant as arbitrator.”.

Dated this 10th day of January 2007.

  (Ms M. Cheung)
Clerk to Master de Souza
Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 76/2004