L v. B

L v. B

The Court found the Respondent's challenge was not manifestly valid and the corrections were arithmetic and within the Tribunal's power; given the risk of delay, lack of full disclosure and apparent delaying tactics, the Court exercised its discretion under Order 73 r10A and the Convention to require security;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
L v. B
Parties
Applicant: L; Respondent: B
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 May 2016
Case Number
HCCT41/2015
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Arbitration Award / Application to Set Aside Leave to Enforce and Application for Security After Leave to Enforce Granted
Outcome
Application to set aside leave adjourned for 4 months on condition security provided; otherwise application to set aside dismissed and Applicant entitled to enter judgment in terms of the Award
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Setting Aside Arbitration Award, Security for Enforcement, Recognition Under New York Convention, Stay/adjournment of Enforcement
Source Language
en
Arbitration Civil Procedure International Enforcement Contract Law Fiduciary Duties Enforcement of Arbitral Award Setting Aside Arbitration Award Security for Enforcement +2 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 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Applicant

B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Arbitration Award / Application to Set Aside Leave to Enforce and Application for Security After Leave to Enforce Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the award is manifestly invalid
  2. 2 Whether Hong Kong enforcement should be adjourned pending Bahamian challenge
  3. 3 Whether and what security should be ordered for enforcement and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the Respondent's challenge was not manifestly valid and the corrections were arithmetic and within the Tribunal's power; given the risk of delay, lack of full disclosure and apparent delaying tactics, the Court exercised its discretion under Order 73 r10A and the Convention to require security; accordingly the application to set aside was adjourned for 4 months on condition that the Respondent provides security of HK$41,600,000 within 21 days, failing which the set-aside application will be dismissed and the Applicant may enter judgment in terms of the Award; costs to be paid by the Respondent on an indemnity basis with counsel's certificate.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside leave adjourned for 4 months on condition security provided; otherwise application to set aside dismissed and Applicant entitled to enter judgment in terms of the Award

Orders

  • Respondent to provide security of HK$41,600,000 by payment into court or other security acceptable to Applicant within 21 days of decision
  • If security not provided within 21 days the application to set aside the Order is dismissed and Applicant may enter judgment in terms of the Award