P v. M

P v. M

The court held that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and failed to comply with the scope and procedure of the remission directed by the earlier judgment, resulting in continued serious irregularity and substantial injustice; it was inappropriate to remit again, so paragraphs 169,170,172,174 and 175 of the First Interim Award and paragraphs 15–29 of the Second Interim Award were set aside and declared of no effect, and costs were ordered for P against M.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1864
Parties
Plaintiff: P; Defendant: M
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Case Number
HCCT6/2019
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings; Challenge to Arbitral Awards Under Arbitration Ordinance (cap 609) and Model Law Article 34 / Originating Summons Hearing on Application to Set Aside/declare Parts of Arbitral Awards of No Effect (judgment)
Outcome
Parts of both interim arbitral awards set aside and declared of no effect; court declines further remission
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Remission of Award, Notice Requirements Under Contract (gcc 27, 28), Conditions Precedent, Finality of Awards, Costs
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Construction Contract Contract Law Civil Procedure Serious Irregularity Remission of Award Notice Requirements Under Contract (gcc 27, 28) Conditions Precedent +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Plaintiff

M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings; Challenge to Arbitral Awards Under Arbitration Ordinance (cap 609) and Model Law Article 34 / Originating Summons Hearing on Application to Set Aside/declare Parts of Arbitral Awards of No Effect (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers or failed to follow agreed/arbitral procedure by deciding on a basis not pleaded by the claimant (M)
  2. 2 Whether the respondent (P) was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case (serious irregularity/substantial injustice)
  3. 3 Scope of the remission ordered by the court and whether the arbitrator exceeded that scope on reconsideration

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and failed to comply with the scope and procedure of the remission directed by the earlier judgment, resulting in continued serious irregularity and substantial injustice; it was inappropriate to remit again, so paragraphs 169,170,172,174 and 175 of the First Interim Award and paragraphs 15–29 of the Second Interim Award were set aside and declared of no effect, and costs were ordered for P against M.

Court Disposition

Parts of both interim arbitral awards set aside and declared of no effect; court declines further remission

Orders

  • Paragraphs 169, 170, 172, 174 and 175 of the First Interim Award set aside and declared of no effect
  • Paragraphs 15 to 29 of the Second Interim Award set aside and declared of no effect