Private Company "Triple V" Inc. v. Star (Universal) Co. Ltd. and Another

Private Company "Triple V" Inc. v. Star (Universal) Co. Ltd. and Another

There was prima facie evidence of disputes with the 1st Defendant requiring appointment of an arbitrator; it was arguable that the 2nd Defendant was party by agency so the 2nd Defendant was treated as bound for the purpose of appointment but may challenge jurisdiction before the tribunal under Article 16 with court review available; accordingly Mr. Robin Peard was appointed sole arbitrator for both disputes and costs were ordered: indemnity basis against 1st Defendant and standard taxation against 2nd Defendant.

Citation
Private Company "Triple V" Inc. v. Star (Universal) Co. Ltd. and Another
Parties
Plaintiff: Triple V Inc.; 1st Defendant: Star (Universal) Co. Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Sky Jade Enterprises Group Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 1995
Case Number
HCCT46/1994
Procedural Posture
Application for Appointment of Arbitrator Under UNCITRAL Model Law / Arbitration Ordinance (cap. 341) / Interlocutory Judgment on Amended Summons for Appointment of Arbitrator
Outcome
Application granted in part: appointment of arbitrator; parties to each arbitration: Plaintiff and 1st and 2nd Defendants; costs awarded as set out below.
Legal Topics
UNCITRAL Model Law, Arbitration Agreement, Jurisdiction, Agency, Estoppel, Costs Allocation, Appointment of Arbitrator
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure International Law UNCITRAL Model Law Arbitration Agreement Jurisdiction Agency +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Triple V Inc.

Plaintiff

Star (Universal) Co. Ltd.

1st Defendant

Sky Jade Enterprises Group Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Appointment of Arbitrator Under UNCITRAL Model Law / Arbitration Ordinance (cap. 341) / Interlocutory Judgment on Amended Summons for Appointment of Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Art 11(3)(a) of the UNCITRAL Model Law for disputes under two contracts
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant is a party to the contracts by virtue of agency or estoppel
  3. 3 Whether disputes are arbitrable and sufficiently ripe for appointment of an arbitrator

Ratio Decidendi

There was prima facie evidence of disputes with the 1st Defendant requiring appointment of an arbitrator; it was arguable that the 2nd Defendant was party by agency so the 2nd Defendant was treated as bound for the purpose of appointment but may challenge jurisdiction before the tribunal under Article 16 with court review available; accordingly Mr. Robin Peard was appointed sole arbitrator for both disputes and costs were ordered: indemnity basis against 1st Defendant and standard taxation against 2nd Defendant.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: appointment of arbitrator; parties to each arbitration: Plaintiff and 1st and 2nd Defendants; costs awarded as set out below.

Orders

  • Mr. Robin Peard is appointed sole arbitrator in relation to each of the two disputes.
  • The parties to each arbitration are the Plaintiff (Triple V Inc.) and the 1st and 2nd Defendants (Star (Universal) Co. Ltd. and Sky Jade Enterprises Group Ltd.).