Read the full judgment text of HCCT 34/2008 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 December 2008 before Hon Reyes J.
Arbitration — Extension of time — Application to set aside arbitration Award and enforcement order almost 9 years after Award — Whether credible non-receipt of notices — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341) — Order 73, Rule 5 — Postal service issues claimed by Mr. To — Agreement clause deeming notices sent by post as valid — Court held delay was excessive and explanation not credible given number of notices sent and postal improvements — Application refused — Finality of arbitration proceedings emphasized. Mr. To and Sheenluxe entered development agreement including arbitration clause. Arbitration Award in 1999 favored Sheenluxe. Mr. To claimed ignorance of Award and enforcement order until 2008 due to poor mail delivery. Court rejected excuse considering volume of notices and improved system post-2006. Under Arbitration Ordinance and judicial authority, court declined to extend time for setting aside Award due to lack of cogent reason and finality principle. Application dismissed accordingly.
Legal issues: Extension of time to set aside arbitration award
Outcome: Mr. To’s application for extension of time and to set aside the Award and enforcement Order is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case