A v. B1 AND ANOTHER

A v. B1 AND ANOTHER

The court dismissed the applications to set aside both the Partial Award and the Costs Award because the Tribunal complied with the HKIAC Rules Article 43 EDP process sufficiently to afford the claimant a fair opportunity to be heard; any deficiencies were minor or waived; the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction nor manifestly fail to deal with essential issues; its reasons were adequate; and the Costs Award was within the Tribunal's broad discretion under AO s74 and Article 34 to assess and reduce costs without a court‑style taxation or full breakdown.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2444
Parties
Plaintiff: A; 1st Defendant: B1; 2nd Defendant: B2
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Case Number
HCCT153/2024
Procedural Posture
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Under Arbitration Ordinance (cap 609) and Article 34 UNCITRAL Model Law; Enforcement of Arbitral Costs Award / Substantive Hearing and Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Awards and Enforcement Summons
Outcome
Dismissal of claimant's applications to set aside the Partial Award and the Costs Award; enforcement of the Costs Award granted
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards (ml 34 / AO S81), HKIAC Rules Article 43 Early Determination Procedure, Natural Justice and Right to Be Heard, Jurisdictional Limits of EDP, Assessment of Arbitral Costs and Tribunal Discretion (ao S74), Waiver of Procedural Objections
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Public Policy in Arbitration Setting Aside Arbitral Awards (ml 34 / AO S81) HKIAC Rules Article 43 Early Determination Procedure Natural Justice and Right to Be Heard +3 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 10 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Plaintiff

B1

1st Defendant

B2

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Under Arbitration Ordinance (cap 609) and Article 34 UNCITRAL Model Law; Enforcement of Arbitral Costs Award / Substantive Hearing and Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Awards and Enforcement Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal complied with HKIAC Rules Article 43 when invoking and conducting the Early Determination Procedure
  2. 2 Whether claimant was denied opportunity to present its case (ML 34(2)(a)(ii))
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal exceeded the scope of the EDP or its jurisdiction (ML 34(2)(a)(iii))

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the applications to set aside both the Partial Award and the Costs Award because the Tribunal complied with the HKIAC Rules Article 43 EDP process sufficiently to afford the claimant a fair opportunity to be heard; any deficiencies were minor or waived; the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction nor manifestly fail to deal with essential issues; its reasons were adequate; and the Costs Award was within the Tribunal's broad discretion under AO s74 and Article 34 to assess and reduce costs without a court‑style taxation or full breakdown.

Court Disposition

Dismissal of claimant's applications to set aside the Partial Award and the Costs Award; enforcement of the Costs Award granted

Orders

  • 1st Originating Summons (HCCT 113/2024) to set aside Partial Award dismissed
  • 2nd Originating Summons (HCCT 153/2024) to set aside Costs Award dismissed