Read the full judgment text of HCCT 33/2013 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 29 October 2014 before Hon Chow J.
Arbitration — Enforcement of Mainland arbitral award — Leave to appeal — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) section 84 and 92 — High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) section 14 — Construction of Master Agreement — Application to prior purchase orders — Consideration for variation — Admissibility of negotiation evidence. The applicant sought to enforce a Mainland arbitration award pursuant to section 92 of the Arbitration Ordinance and Order 73, rule 10(1)(d). The respondent applied to set aside the enforcement order. The court dismissed the respondent’s application but granted leave to appeal. The court held the respondent required leave to appeal and exercised discretion to grant it, considering the reasonable prospect of success and legislative policy favoring enforceability. The court concluded the Master Agreement governed certain prior purchase orders to the extent applicable, with mutual agreement to arbitration constituting sufficient consideration. The court clarified that subjective intention evidence during negotiation is inadmissible in contractual construction, but the objective common purpose may be considered. Leave to appeal was granted accordingly.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal from decision on enforcement of Mainland Award · Construction and applicability of Master Agreement to prior Purchase Orders · Admissibility of negotiation evidence in construction of Master Agreement
Outcome: Granted leave to appeal against the refusal to set aside the enforcement order.