A v. B

A v. B

The arbitrator failed to address and give understandable reasons for rejecting the central pleaded limitation defence (Paragraph 7.5); that omission created a real risk of substantial injustice and offended fundamental notions of justice such that enforcement would be contrary to public policy, but the defect was remediable; accordingly the court remitted the award to the arbitrator under Article 34(4), stayed the setting aside proceedings for 90 days, and made an order nisi for costs in favour of A.

Citation
A v. B
Parties
Plaintiff: A; Defendant: B
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 June 2015
Case Number
HCCT40/2014
Procedural Posture
Arbitration / Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Article 34 of the Model Law (remission Sought)
Outcome
Award remitted to the arbitrator for consideration of the limitation defence; setting aside proceedings stayed for 90 days; order nisi for costs in favour of A
Legal Topics
Limitation, Award Reasons, Setting Aside, Remission, Enforcement
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Public Policy Contract Law Civil Procedure Limitation Award Reasons Setting Aside Remission +1 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Plaintiff

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration / Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Article 34 of the Model Law (remission Sought)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with a central limitation defence (Paragraph 7.5)
  2. 2 Whether failure to address the limitation defence amounts to a breach of due process/public policy sufficient to set aside the award
  3. 3 Whether the proper remedy is setting aside or remission to the tribunal under Article 34(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator failed to address and give understandable reasons for rejecting the central pleaded limitation defence (Paragraph 7.5); that omission created a real risk of substantial injustice and offended fundamental notions of justice such that enforcement would be contrary to public policy, but the defect was remediable; accordingly the court remitted the award to the arbitrator under Article 34(4), stayed the setting aside proceedings for 90 days, and made an order nisi for costs in favour of A.

Court Disposition

Award remitted to the arbitrator for consideration of the limitation defence; setting aside proceedings stayed for 90 days; order nisi for costs in favour of A

Orders

  • Remit the award to the arbitrator pursuant to Article 34(4) for consideration and such action as the arbitrator thinks appropriate concerning Paragraph 7.5
  • Stay these setting aside proceedings for 90 days to allow the arbitrator to act, with liberty to apply thereafter