Read the full judgment text of HCCT 46/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 June 2012 before Hon Au J.
Arbitration — Contractual dispute over manufacture and development of board and card games — Whether arbitrator failed to consider amended damages claim — Court holds failure to consider statutory declaration’s amended claim was error of law — Whether arbitrator erred in construction of contract obligations beyond manufacture of initial 2,000 units — Court finds arbitrator failed to consider entire agreement including long term investment and business plan clauses — Whether arbitrator erred by not addressing consequential damages claim based on Venture Capital Clauses — Court holds arbitrator should have considered consequential loss from failure to secure venture capital and listing — Whether arbitrator erred in dismissing misrepresentation claim due to failure to identify representation and misconstrued evidence from party’s email — Court finds error in law and lack of adequate reasoning — Appeal allowed in part; Award remitted for reconsideration on identified points, including damages quantum and misrepresentation, with no prejudice to arbitrator’s conclusions on merits after reconsideration; Costs order made for successful appellant.
Legal issues: Failure to consider amended claim for damages · Construction of Wah Tong's obligation to manufacture beyond 2,000 pieces · Failure to consider Venture Capital Clauses in consequential damages claim · Error in dismissing misrepresentation claim
Outcome: Appeal allowed in part; Award remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration with the court’s opinion on questions of law.
Cites 4 cases