Read the full judgment text of HCCT 14/2008 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS judgment was delivered on 22 July 2008 before Deputy High Court Judge Lisa Wong, SC.
Arbitration — Challenge to appointment of Presiding Arbitrator under Arbitration Ordinance Cap. 341 and UNCITRAL Model Law — Allegations of apparent bias and partiality — Relationship between arbitrator and legal representatives of a party — Duty to disclose under Article 12 — Objective fair-minded and informed observer test — Tribunal decision-making procedure — Proper mechanism for arbitrator’s rejection of challenge under Article 13 — International arbitration context and small arbitration community in Hong Kong — Court found no justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence — Application dismissed — Costs ordered against challenging party. The dispute involved claims and counterclaims relating to agreements on CDMA PCS Terminal development and sales between South Korean applicant and PRC respondent. The applicant challenged the appointment of the presiding arbitrator on grounds of nondisclosure of relationship with respondent’s solicitors, refusal to answer questions, and alleged bias in handling procedural matters. The court held that the arbitrator's social and professional relationship with the solicitor was customary within the arbitration community and was not disqualifying. Non-disclosure prior to appointment was not required as it could imply inappropriate bias. The arbitrator's conduct during interlocutory applications and his procedural handling of the challenge complied with the arbitration rules and standards. The application to remove the arbitrator was dismissed. Costs were ordered in favour of the respondent party.
Legal issues: Apparent bias and duty of disclosure under Article 12 of the Model Law · Duty to disclose relationship prior to appointment · Whether Mr Yang’s refusal to answer detailed questions about his relationship with Mr Moser indicated bias · Impartiality and independence in the handling of interlocutory applications · Proper procedure for rejecting a challenge under Article 13 of the Model Law
Outcome: Application dismissed; Mr Yang’s appointment confirmed
Cited by 1 case