Z v. A AND OTHERS

Z v. A AND OTHERS

The court held that the parties' use of the term 'China' was ambiguous as to whether it meant Mainland China only or included Hong Kong; because the parties agreed to ICC arbitration and the ICC Court is empowered by Article 14(1) to fix the place of arbitration, the ICC Court validly fixed Hong Kong as the seat; the Arbitrator therefore correctly applied Hong Kong procedural law and had jurisdiction to decide the matters submitted to him; the application to set aside the Partial Award was dismissed.

Citation
Z v. A AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Z; 1st Respondent: A; 2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent; 3rd Respondent: 3rd Respondent; 4th Respondent: 4th Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 January 2015
Case Number
HCCT8/2013
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge to Partial Award / Hearing Under Arbitration Ordinance S34 and Article 16 Model Law; Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Seat of Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Agreement, Contract Construction, Choice of Law, Enforcement
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure International Enforcement Seat of Arbitration Jurisdiction Arbitration Agreement Contract Construction +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z

Applicant

A

1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent

3rd Respondent

3rd Respondent

4th Respondent

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge to Partial Award / Hearing Under Arbitration Ordinance S34 and Article 16 Model Law; Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ICC Court and the sole arbitrator validly fixed Hong Kong as the seat/place of arbitration under the ICC Rules
  2. 2 Whether the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the disputes in ICC Arbitration Case No 18228/CYK
  3. 3 Construction and meaning of the term 'China' in the arbitration clauses (Mainland China or including Hong Kong)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the parties' use of the term 'China' was ambiguous as to whether it meant Mainland China only or included Hong Kong; because the parties agreed to ICC arbitration and the ICC Court is empowered by Article 14(1) to fix the place of arbitration, the ICC Court validly fixed Hong Kong as the seat; the Arbitrator therefore correctly applied Hong Kong procedural law and had jurisdiction to decide the matters submitted to him; the application to set aside the Partial Award was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside the Arbitrator's Partial Award dated 19 February 2013 dismissed
  • Applicant to pay the Respondents' costs of the application on an indemnity basis (order nisi)