Read the full judgment text of HCCT75/2007 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 14 March 2008 before Burrell J.
Arbitration — Section 25 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341) — Removal of arbitrator and setting aside awards — Interlocutory discovery orders — Definition of 'award' — Procedural directions distinguished from awards — Agency findings by arbitrator — Allegations of misconduct — Reliance on 'secret evidence' and burden of proof reversal — Stringent test for removal — Mere errors of law or fact insufficient for misconduct. The appellant Gingerbread Investments Limited sought to set aside the arbitrator's order for discovery and to remove the arbitrator for misconduct following an interlocutory ruling ordering discovery of documents from the appellant's parent and subsidiary companies. The court found that the order for discovery was procedural and not an award under section 25(2), hence not subject to setting aside. On the removal application under section 25(1), the court applied the stringent test requiring a real likelihood of unfairness, which was not met in this case. The alleged misconduct of relying on undisclosed evidence and reversing the burden of proof was held to be a mere error of law or an arguable inference insufficient for removal. The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent Wing Hong Interior Contracting Limited.
Legal issues: Whether the arbitrator’s interlocutory order for discovery constitutes an award · Whether the arbitrator misconducted himself in finding agency based on alleged 'secret evidence' and reversal of burden of proof
Outcome: The originating motion to set aside the directions and remove the arbitrator is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case