P1 AND ANOTHER v. D

P1 AND ANOTHER v. D

The court refused leave because the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the judge applied the correct legal tests, considered procedural and bias complaints together, found no evidentiary basis that the Tribunal was unconsciously or apparently biased by exposure to WPP material, correctly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5584
Parties
1st Plaintiff: P1; 2nd Plaintiff: P2; Defendant: D
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 November 2025
Case Number
HCCT59/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 81 Arbitration Ordinance Challenging Setting Aside of Partial Final Award / Summons for Leave to Appeal (decision on Paper)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Apparent Bias, Unconscious Bias, Privilege Expert Appointment, Leave to Appeal, Public Policy, Setting Aside Arbitral Award
Source Language
en
Arbitration Civil Procedure Evidence Appellate Procedure Conflict of Interest Without Prejudice Privilege Apparent Bias Unconscious Bias +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P1

1st Plaintiff

P2

2nd Plaintiff

D

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 81 Arbitration Ordinance Challenging Setting Aside of Partial Final Award / Summons for Leave to Appeal (decision on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s81 AO
  2. 2 Whether exposure of the arbitral tribunal to without prejudice privileged material gave rise to apparent or unconscious bias
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in its approach to procedurally-related complaints and bias complaints and the applicable test

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the judge applied the correct legal tests, considered procedural and bias complaints together, found no evidentiary basis that the Tribunal was unconsciously or apparently biased by exposure to WPP material, correctly treated the Tribunal's assurances and the materiality/context of WPP as relevant, and concluded the scientific literature and the question of appointing an expert did not establish any arguable error warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The summons for leave to appeal is dismissed
  • Plaintiffs to pay Defendant's costs of the summons on an indemnity basis with a certificate for two counsel, to be taxed if not agreed