Read the full judgment text of HCCT 8/2013 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 January 2015 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Place of arbitration — Whether Arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear dispute where ICC Court fixed Hong Kong as seat though parties' agreements referred to “China” as arbitration venue — Interpretation of contracts — Arbitration Ordinance s 34 and UNCITRAL Model Law Article 16 — ICC Rules Article 14(1) — The disputes arose under two agreements containing arbitration clauses referring to arbitration in “China” under ICC Rules. The ICC Court exercised its power under Article 14(1) to fix Hong Kong as the place of arbitration due to lack of clear agreement between parties on exact venue. The Applicant challenged jurisdiction on basis Hong Kong not agreed place, arguing “China” means Mainland China only. The Court held the challenge was a true jurisdictional question and reviewed it de novo. The Court construed “China” to include Hong Kong as part of China legally and geographically. No clear, unequivocal agreement on arbitration seat was shown, so ICC Court’s decision to fix Hong Kong was valid and binding under the parties’ agreement to ICC Rules. The Arbitrator’s jurisdiction was confirmed, as was validity of tribunal constitution and appointment. The Court emphasized narrow scope of judicial review under s 34 to questions of jurisdiction only, not merits. Disputes about validity of arbitration clauses or party status are for arbitration stage or setting aside proceedings. The Applicant’s subsequent concession meant only seat question remained for decision. The Court also addressed expert evidence on enforcement issues in Mainland China and Hong Kong, preferring the practical and legal effect that Hong Kong seat awards are enforceable. Consequently, the application to set aside the Award was dismissed with costs on indemnity basis against Applicant.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction of Arbitrator over the dispute
Outcome: Application to set aside the Arbitrator’s Partial Award is dismissed; the Arbitrator has jurisdiction.
Cited by 1 case