Read the full judgment text of HCCT 32/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 August 2012 before Hon Au J.
Arbitration — application to set aside arbitral award under Article 34(2) of UNCITRAL Model Law — dispute over quantum of damages under Counterclaim 5 for breach of warranties in business sale agreement — plaintiff contended tribunal awarded damages without proper evidential or legal basis and contrary to procedural rules — tribunal accepted unchallenged witness evidence and awarded full claimed amount — court held arbitral awards to be read in context and that reasoning required is proportional to complexity and nature of arbitration — absence of detailed reasoning does not amount to jurisdictional or procedural defect or public policy breach — plaintiff’s failure to challenge evidence or seek interpretation fatal to case — application dismissed — costs awarded to defendant on indemnity basis. The case illustrates the limited judicial review of arbitral awards, especially on merits, and the importance of contesting evidence in arbitration proceedings rather than post-award challenges.
Legal issues: Whether the arbitral tribunal provided a reasoned award on the quantum of Counterclaim 5 · Whether the alleged absence of detailed reasoning breaches Article 34(2)(a)(iii), (iv) and (b)(ii) of the Model Law
Outcome: Application to set aside the arbitral award dismissed
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case