Read the full judgment text of HCCT 19/2014 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 19 December 2014 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609 s 34 — Definition and scope of Products in purchase agreement — Whether arbitrator has jurisdiction over disputes involving parts not listed in Exhibit to Agreement — Broad arbitration clause interpretation — Commercial contract construction principles — Whether mutual written agreement existed to include Parts as Products — Whether arbitrator exceeded scope of reference. VK Holdings and Panasonic Eco Solutions entered a purchase Agreement including an arbitration clause covering "any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with the Agreement." Supply of additional parts (Parts) outside the specified Products in the Agreement led to a dispute on arbitrator jurisdiction. The arbitrator found he had jurisdiction. VK applied to set aside that award. The Court held no mutual written agreement existed to add Parts to Products but the broad arbitration clause nonetheless gave jurisdiction over disputes closely connected to the Agreement. Parties had agreed to refer Item 1 and Item 2 of Parts to arbitration, not limited solely to Item 2 as initially stated. Application dismissed with costs on indemnity basis against VK. This affirms the broad approach to arbitration clauses and supports commercial efficacy by avoiding fragmented dispute resolution.
Legal issues: Arbitrator's jurisdiction under s 34 of Arbitration Ordinance · Whether Parts were added to Products by mutual written agreement · Scope of reference to arbitration concerning Item 1 and Item 2
Outcome: Application to set aside the interim award dismissed; arbitrator has jurisdiction
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 1 case