Read the full judgment text of CACV 31/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 13 June 2011 before Hon Kwan JA.
Procedure — Arbitration — Enforcement — Security for Costs — Appeal — Foreign Arbitration Award — Order 59 rule 10(5) — New York Convention — Concurrent Obligations — Specific Performance — Jurisdiction to Order Security for Costs—IIn an appeal concerning enforcement of a CIETAC arbitration award, the appellant Hongri sought to overturn an order requiring it to return goods before payment. The respondent Petrochina sought security for costs on appeal due to Hongri's foreign residence and alleged lack of merits. The Court of Appeal considered whether it had jurisdiction and should exercise discretion to order security for costs despite international arbitration policy principles under the New York Convention prohibiting more onerous enforcement conditions on foreign award creditors. The Court found jurisdiction but exercised discretion to decline security, applying the overriding objective to promote enforcement of international arbitration awards without additional burdens on award creditors. The sums paid into court by respondent were not regarded as appellant’s assets for offsetting costs. The appeal's merits were deemed reasonably arguable but not overwhelmingly strong such that the discretion was balanced accordingly. The Court dismissed the security application and ordered respondent to pay costs of the security proceedings to appellant.
Legal issues: Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction and should exercise discretion to order security for costs in an appeal concerning enforcement of a foreign arbitration award · Whether Hongri's sums paid into court count as assets for offsetting security for costs · Assessment of merits in deciding security for costs
Outcome: Application for security for costs dismissed
Cites 2 cases