Read the full judgment text of HCCT 15/2010 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 29 June 2011 before Hon Saunders J.
International commercial arbitration — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 341), Article 34 UNCITRAL Model Law — Application to set aside arbitral award challenged on procedural fairness grounds — Procedural timetable requiring exchange of pre-hearing submissions simultaneously departed from by Tribunal permitting sequential submissions disadvantaging PCH on Taiwanese law issue — Tribunal’s refusal to admit additional foreign authorities denying PCH fair opportunity to present case — Late and unresponded submissions on Hong Kong law issue excluded PCH’s right of reply — Tribunal relied on new New York authorities not presented by parties — Court found multiple breaches of Article 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) — Review of discretion under Article 34(2) in setting aside award emphasising pro-enforcement bias but upholding fairness — Court rejected narrow test favoring enforcement despite serious violation — On facts, breaches caused procedural unfairness affecting likelihood of different outcome — Award set aside accordingly — Costs ordered against Respondent.
Legal issues: Procedural fairness in Taiwanese law issue · Refusal to admit additional Taiwanese law authorities · Opportunity to respond to submissions on Hong Kong law
Outcome: The application to set aside the arbitral award was granted in part; violations of Article 34(2) were established and the discretion was exercised in favour of setting aside the award.
Cites 1 case