W v. CONTRACTOR

W v. CONTRACTOR

The interim injunction granted by the arbitrator was interlocutory in substance and did not constitute an "award" within the meaning of Schedule 2 permitting an appeal on a question of law; accordingly leave to appeal under section 6 was not available and the application for leave was dismissed; costs awarded to the Main Contractor on an indemnity basis.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1452
Parties
Plaintiff / Employer (respondent in the Arbitration): W; Defendant / Main Contractor (claimant in the Arbitration): CONTRACTOR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 May 2024
Case Number
HCCT103/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Under Schedule 2 Section 6 of the Arbitration Ordinance (challenge to Tribunal Interim Measure) / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Measures, On‑demand Bond, Leave to Appeal, Enforcement of Tribunal Orders, Jurisdiction, UNCITRAL Model Law
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Construction Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Interim Measures On‑demand Bond Leave to Appeal Enforcement of Tribunal Orders +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Plaintiff / Employer (respondent in the Arbitration)

CONTRACTOR

Defendant / Main Contractor (claimant in the Arbitration)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Under Schedule 2 Section 6 of the Arbitration Ordinance (challenge to Tribunal Interim Measure) / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal's interim injunction constituted an "award" for the purposes of Schedule 2 enabling an appeal on a question of law
  2. 2 Proper construction of "claim" under Article 17A(1)(b) Model Law in relation to jurisdiction to grant interim measures
  3. 3 Proper status quo and merits test for restraining a valid demand under an on‑demand bond pursuant to Article 17/17A Model Law

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction granted by the arbitrator was interlocutory in substance and did not constitute an "award" within the meaning of Schedule 2 permitting an appeal on a question of law; accordingly leave to appeal under section 6 was not available and the application for leave was dismissed; costs awarded to the Main Contractor on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the application for leave (including all reserved costs) to be paid by the Employer to the Main Contractor on an indemnity basis.