UDL CONTRACTING LTD v. WATER SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR

UDL CONTRACTING LTD v. WATER SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR

Leave to appeal was refused because the arbitrator did not plainly exceed jurisdiction or commit an obvious error: he lawfully considered the Scheme of Arrangement and the Scheme Administrator's assessment as strongly indicative of the likely net position, limited his determination to interest up to the Effective Date, and there was no demonstrated egregious factual misapprehension warranting leave.

Citation
UDL CONTRACTING LTD v. WATER SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR
Parties
Applicant/claimant in Arbitration: UDL Contracting Limited; Respondent/respondent in Arbitration: Water Supplies Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 August 2008
Case Number
HCCT28/2008
Procedural Posture
Construction & Arbitration Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Interim Arbitral Award
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interest, Set Off, Scheme of Arrangement, Arbitrator Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal, Egregious Error of Fact
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Insolvency Contract Civil Procedure Interest Set Off Scheme of Arrangement Arbitrator Jurisdiction +2 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UDL Contracting Limited

Applicant/claimant in Arbitration

Water Supplies Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Respondent/respondent in Arbitration

Procedural Posture

Construction & Arbitration Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Interim Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by assessing interest and effectively determining set-off under a Scheme of Arrangement
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator relied on an erroneous factual basis that amounted to an egregious error justifying leave to appeal
  3. 3 Whether interest could accrue beyond the Scheme's Effective Date given the scheme's set-off mechanism

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the arbitrator did not plainly exceed jurisdiction or commit an obvious error: he lawfully considered the Scheme of Arrangement and the Scheme Administrator's assessment as strongly indicative of the likely net position, limited his determination to interest up to the Effective Date, and there was no demonstrated egregious factual misapprehension warranting leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • UDL's application dismissed.