Read the full judgment text of CACV 106/2008 & CACV 197/2008 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 11 June 2009 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Hartmann JA.
Arbitration — Enforcement of Mainland arbitration award — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341) — Sections 2GG, 40B and 40E — Appeal against enforcement orders — Refusal of enforcement on public policy grounds — Impossibility of performance — Jurisdiction — Remittal to arbitral tribunal — Specific performance — Court procedure. Applicant, a PRC company, sought enforcement in Hong Kong of a CIETAC arbitration award seeking specific performance and related payments against appellants, Hong Kong companies of the Eton group. The appellants resisted enforcement, claiming impossibility of performance due to restructuring and completion of land development, and contended the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce or remit the award. The Court of Appeal emphasized the limited role of the court in enforcement proceedings, focused on mechanistic registration of the award rather than merits. The appellants’ restructuring was self-inflicted, and no legal basis existed to refuse enforcement on public policy grounds due to impossibility. The court held no jurisdiction to remit the award back to CIETAC for further directions. Risk of contempt proceedings for non-performance was dismissed as fanciful. The appeals against enforcement orders were dismissed, with enforcement orders maintained and no remittal allowed.
Legal issues: Refusal of enforcement on grounds of impossibility of performance · Jurisdiction to remit award back to CIETAC for further directions · Risk of contempt proceedings for non-performance
Outcome: Appeals dismissed; ex parte enforcement orders upheld.
Cited by 2 cases