Read the full judgment text of HCCT 5/2012 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 December 2012 before Hon To J.
Arbitration — Enforcement of Mainland arbitral award — Public policy ground for refusal under section 95(3)(b) Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) — Distinction between actual and apparent bias — High threshold for refusal — Conflict of interest allegation against arbitrator in related arbitration not established — Corruption allegation regarding CIQ Certificate unproven — Principles of finality and comity — Narrow construction of 'contrary to public policy' — Respondent’s application to set aside leave to enforce dismissed with indemnity costs. The applicant and respondent entered a contract for iron ore sale; Poly Resources successfully obtained damages against the applicant due to substandard ore; applicant obtained Mainland arbitration award against respondent for those damages. Respondent challenged enforcement on public policy grounds including apparent bias of arbitrator in related arbitration and corruption implicating the CIQ certificate. The court applied established Hong Kong and international case law emphasizing narrow and strict construction of public policy refusal grounds, requiring violation of fundamental morality and justice conceptions. Apparent bias allegations failed due to lack of evidence that the arbitrator was employed by a conflicting party at the relevant time. Corruption allegations were not connected to the issued CIQ certificate and were not raised before Mainland courts. The court concluded no basis for refusal and dismissed the application with costs.
Legal issues: Whether enforcement of the Mainland arbitral award should be refused on public policy grounds · Whether apparent bias of an arbitrator justifies refusal of enforcement · Whether possible corruption affecting the Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Certificate (CIQ Certificate) constitutes public policy ground to refuse enforcement
Outcome: The respondent’s application to set aside leave to enforce the award was dismissed with indemnity costs.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case