BB v. KO

BB v. KO

Extension of time was refused because KO exhibited substantial unexplained delay (more than two years), his stated reasons (focusing on foreign proceedings, change of lawyers, medical issues) were not credible or sufficient, KO failed to disclose necessary facts to substantiate a public policy defence (notably any Hong Kong litigation), the tribunal had considered and rejected KO's unconscionability complaints, and there was no prima facie basis to refuse enforcement on Hong Kong public policy grounds; accordingly the summons to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded to BB.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2661
Parties
Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor: BB; Defendant / Judgment Debtor: KO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 October 2023
Case Number
HCCT7/2020
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings (hcct 7/2020) / Application to Extend Time to Set Aside Enforcement Order and Judgment; Decision
Outcome
Summons dismissed; application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Set Aside Enforcement Order, Champerty and Maintenance, Contingency Fee Agreements, Public Policy Defence to Enforcement, Delay and Prejudice, Abuse of Process, Standards of Review of Arbitral Awards
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Enforcement of Foreign Awards Civil Procedure Public Policy Contract Law International Litigation Extension of Time to Set Aside Enforcement Order Champerty and Maintenance +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BB

Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor

KO

Defendant / Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings (hcct 7/2020) / Application to Extend Time to Set Aside Enforcement Order and Judgment; Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply to set aside an enforcement order and judgment entered in Hong Kong
  2. 2 Whether enforcement of the arbitral award is contrary to Hong Kong public policy by reason of a contingency fee arrangement (alleged champerty/maintenance)
  3. 3 Whether the claimed fees are excessive, unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because KO exhibited substantial unexplained delay (more than two years), his stated reasons (focusing on foreign proceedings, change of lawyers, medical issues) were not credible or sufficient, KO failed to disclose necessary facts to substantiate a public policy defence (notably any Hong Kong litigation), the tribunal had considered and rejected KO's unconscionability complaints, and there was no prima facie basis to refuse enforcement on Hong Kong public policy grounds; accordingly the summons to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded to BB.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • KO to pay BB the costs of the application on an indemnity basis with certificate for Counsel