COMTEC COMPONENTS LTD. v. INTERQUIP LTD.

COMTEC COMPONENTS LTD. v. INTERQUIP LTD.

Defendant succeeded in its application; HKIAC's refusal to appoint was based on its interpretation of the law rather than on defendant's conduct; defendant was entitled to maintain its position; plaintiff could have sought appointment under the new law or a court remedy; therefore the normal rule that the unsuccessful party pays costs applies and the order nisi should be made absolute requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Citation
COMTEC COMPONENTS LTD. v. INTERQUIP LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff: Comtec Components Limited; Defendant: Interquip Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 February 1999
Case Number
HCA5749/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Refer Dispute to Arbitration and Stay Proceedings / Application for Referral to Arbitration; Reconsideration of Costs Order
Outcome
Order nisi made absolute; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs; proceedings referred to arbitration and stayed.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause, Stay of Proceedings, Appointment by HKIAC, Statutory Interpretation, Costs of Litigation
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Arbitration Clause Stay of Proceedings Appointment by HKIAC Statutory Interpretation +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comtec Components Limited

Plaintiff

Interquip Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application to Refer Dispute to Arbitration and Stay Proceedings / Application for Referral to Arbitration; Reconsideration of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct justified deviating from the usual rule that costs follow the event
  2. 2 Whether HKIAC's refusal to appoint an arbitrator was caused by the defendant's conduct or by HKIAC's view of the law
  3. 3 Whether section 2AC of Chapter 341 and section 18 of the 1996 Ordinance remove the requirement of signature for an arbitration agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant succeeded in its application; HKIAC's refusal to appoint was based on its interpretation of the law rather than on defendant's conduct; defendant was entitled to maintain its position; plaintiff could have sought appointment under the new law or a court remedy; therefore the normal rule that the unsuccessful party pays costs applies and the order nisi should be made absolute requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Court Disposition

Order nisi made absolute; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs; proceedings referred to arbitration and stayed.

Orders

  • Order nisi made absolute
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the application and the action