Read the full judgment text of HCCT 33/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 22 June 2012 before Mr Recorder A Chow, SC.
Arbitration law — Application to set aside arbitral award — Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law — Alleged denial of due process — Whether party was unable to present its case — Two reasons given by arbitrator to reject limitation defence: (1) defence not pleaded; (2) no concrete evidence from factual witnesses on limitation issue — Court held failure to give parties opportunity to address pleading point constituted denial of due process but not the second reason — Court applied relevant authorities including Brunswick Bowling and Pacific China Holdings guiding approach to setting aside awards on procedural fairness grounds — Discretion to refuse setting aside where outcome unchanged — Applicants could have applied to amend but were not given chance by arbitrator — Lack of opportunity to respond on pleading point serious procedural irregularity but no sufficient prejudice found — Court declined to set aside award and dismissed application with costs to Respondents. The judgment confirms the high threshold for setting aside arbitral awards based on denial of opportunity to present case, emphasizes the discretionary nature of such interventions, and clarifies the scope of procedural fairness under the Model Law and PRC law governed arbitrations in Hong Kong.
Legal issues: Application to set aside arbitration award under Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law
Outcome: Application to set aside arbitration award declined; application dismissed with costs to Respondents
Cites 1 case