Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality of arbitral awards

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2000

FONG ON CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. ABERCAN LTD.

Citation

FONG ON CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. ABERCAN LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT118/1999

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to rebut the strong presumption of finality: the issue was effectively a one-off fact-dependent situation, there was no evidence the point is of recurring commercial importance, and the arbitrator (an experienced lawyer) was not plainly or obviously wrong in holding that an invalid clause 25 notice could, on its construction and on the facts found, operate as an acceptance of repudiation at common law.
29 Mar 2000

ASIA ROCK ART LTD. v. W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

ASIA ROCK ART LTD. v. W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT10/2000

Leave to appeal was refused because the disputed entitlement under clause 29 did not raise a question of law suitable for appellate determination under s.23 and, applying the PT Dover test, the arbitrator's reasoning was not obviously wrong on the face of the award; the issues were primarily factual or contract‑specific and finality of the arbitral award must be respected.
20 Mar 1990

RE P.T. DOVER CHEMICAL CO.

Citation

RE P.T. DOVER CHEMICAL CO.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV155/1989

This was a one-off international case near the top of the spectrum where the presumption of finality is strongest; leave to appeal should be granted only if the arbitrator was 'obviously wrong'; the Court concluded the arbitrator was not obviously wrong in his treatment of avoided loss and betterment and therefore affirmed the High Court's refusal of leave and dismissed the appeal.
30 Jul 1984

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TECHNIC CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TECHNIC CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1429/1984

The court held that the rigid guidelines from Pioneer Shipping for granting leave to appeal apply in Hong Kong; applying those criteria the court refused leave because the first issue did not raise a matter that would significantly add to legal certainty nor showed a strong prima facie that the arbitrator was wrong, and the third issue, although arguable, likewise did not satisfy the tests given the contractual context and the parties' choice of an experienced arbitrator, so leave was refused on both issues.

Hong Kong Case Law

FONG ON CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. ABERCAN LTD.

ASIA ROCK ART LTD. v. W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

RE P.T. DOVER CHEMICAL CO.

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TECHNIC CONSTRUCTION CO LTD