WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v. CHATWIN ENGINEERING LTD.

WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v. CHATWIN ENGINEERING LTD.

The cumulative effect of common parties, common contractual form, similar size and stage, the same arbitrator, overlapping witnesses and the existence of live allegations of collusion provided sufficient commonality and desirability under s6B to justify ordering the two notices of arbitration to be heard together by the same arbitrator; consolidation will facilitate a just outcome and is unlikely to cause inconvenience or undue delay.

Citation
WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v. CHATWIN ENGINEERING LTD.
Parties
Applicant: WO HING ENGINEERING LIMITED; Respondent: CHATWIN ENGINEERING LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 April 2001
Case Number
HCCT109/2000
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings Under the Arbitration Ordinance (cap.341) / Interlocutory Application for Consolidation Under Section 6 B; Decision in Chambers
Outcome
Application granted: the two notices of arbitration dated 4 and 9 September 2000 are to be heard together by Mr Terence Cleary; costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Arbitrations, Allegations of Collusion and Bad Faith, Pay When Paid Clause, Witness Overlap and Credibility
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Construction Law Civil Procedure Consolidation of Arbitrations Allegations of Collusion and Bad Faith Pay When Paid Clause Witness Overlap and Credibility

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WO HING ENGINEERING LIMITED

Applicant

CHATWIN ENGINEERING LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings Under the Arbitration Ordinance (cap.341) / Interlocutory Application for Consolidation Under Section 6 B; Decision in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the two arbitrations raise common questions of law or fact
  2. 2 Whether the rights to relief arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions
  3. 3 Whether consolidation or hearing together is desirable under s6B Cap.341

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative effect of common parties, common contractual form, similar size and stage, the same arbitrator, overlapping witnesses and the existence of live allegations of collusion provided sufficient commonality and desirability under s6B to justify ordering the two notices of arbitration to be heard together by the same arbitrator; consolidation will facilitate a just outcome and is unlikely to cause inconvenience or undue delay.

Court Disposition

Application granted: the two notices of arbitration dated 4 and 9 September 2000 are to be heard together by Mr Terence Cleary; costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The two notices of arbitration between the applicant and the respondent dated 4 and 9 September 2000 shall be heard together by Mr Terence Cleary.
  • There shall be separate pleadings and one arbitration to be heard together; costs of this application to be paid to the applicant.