Shandong Hongri Acron Chemical Joint Stock Co Ltd v. Petrochina International (Hong Kong) Corporation Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCCT 45/2009 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 25 January 2011 before Hon Saunders J.

This ruling concerns the enforcement of an arbitration award under case HCCT 45/2009 between SHANDONG HONGRI ACRON CHEMICAL JOINT STOCK COMPANY LIMITED and PETROCHINA INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) CORPORATION LIMITED heard in the High Court of Hong Kong SAR. The judgment delivered on 25 January 2011 by Hon Saunders J addresses corrections (corrigenda) to the official ruling text, clarifying typographical errors such as proper wording and dates related to the arbitration award. No substantive legal issues or determinations are addressed in this corrigenda ruling. No representation details, legal issues, or procedural history were specified. The ruling was finalized on 25 January 2011, with corrigenda issued on 22 February 2011.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCCT 45/2009
Court
高等法院原訟法庭
Date25 Jan 2011
JudgeHon Saunders J
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCT 45/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO. 45 OF 2009

____________

 

IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AWARD

____________

BETWEEN

  SHANDONG HONGRI ACRON CHEMICAL
JOINT STOCK COMPANY LIMITED
Applicant/
Creditor

and

  PETROCHINA INTERNATIONAL
(HONG KONG) CORPORATION LIMITED
Respondent/
Debtor
____________

Before: Hon Saunders J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 21 January 2011

Date of Ruling: 25 January 2011

______________

CORRIGENDA

______________

Please note the following corrigenda in the Ruling of the above-mentioned case handed down on 25 January 2011:-

  Page 3, between
line (M) and line (N)
“That order had risen” should be substituted by “That order had arisen”

 
  Page 6, between
line (J) and line (K)
“require Shandong Hongri 3,810.578 tonnes of sulphur” should be substituted by “require Shandong Hongri to return 3,810.578 tonnes of sulphur”

 
  Page 12, between
line (C) and line (D)
“a final award award he may not revised” should be substituted by “a final award award he may not revise it”

 
  Page 13, between
line (C) and line (E)
“it was no statement on the rules as to which version shall prevail I proceed on the basis that it is a view of CIETAC that both versions are identical” should be substituted by “and there was no statement in the rules as to which version shall prevail I proceed on the basis that it is the view of CIETAC that both versions are identical”

 
  Page 14, line (K) “30 March 2009” should be substituted by “30 March 2010”

 
  Page 15, between
line (P) and line (Q)
“the right to comment on the applications were made by PetroChina” should be substituted by “the right to comment on the applications that were made by PetroChina”

 
  Page 17, between
line (D) and line (E)
“no material nondisclosure of the application by PetroChina” should be substituted by “no material nondisclosure and the application by PetroChina”  

Dated the 22nd day of February 2011.

  (Vicky Wong) (Ms.)
  Clerk to The Hon. Saunders J