Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of arbitrator

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2021

GD v. HY

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3900
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT76/2021

Clause 15 of the Loan Agreement required any amendment or variation to be in writing signed by the Parties as defined (GD, HY, SD, AEHL and HYL). The 5th Extension Letter, containing the arbitration clause, was not signed by all defined Parties and therefore did not validly vary the dispute resolution clause; consequently there was no valid arbitration agreement between GD and HY and the Enforcement Order based on the Emergency Award was set aside.
9 Mar 2005

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TAK TAI BUILDING v. LEUNG YAU BUILDING LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TAK TAI BUILDING v. LEUNG YAU BUILDING LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/2004

The arbitrator's decision was a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction, not an award on the merits; therefore article 16(3) applied permitting a direct application to the Court of First Instance without leave under section 23, rendering the applicant's originating motion for leave under section 23(2) misconceived; appeal dismissed with costs.
28 Jun 2004

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TAK TAI BUILDING v. LEUNG YAU BUILDING LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TAK TAI BUILDING v. LEUNG YAU BUILDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT24/2004

Leave to appeal was refused because, although the arbitrator erred in holding the jurisdictional plea was late and that the counterclaim constituted submission to jurisdiction, the Interim Award was nonetheless supportable on alternative grounds not attacked successfully by the applicant—specifically that the parties by their conduct at the preliminary meeting referred to the written Clause 35 (s2AC(2)(d)/(e)) and thus formed a written/ad hoc arbitration agreement—so the applicant failed to show the arbitrator was obviously wrong or that the errors would substantially affect the parties' righ…
27 May 2004

CHINA INSURANCE (HOLDINGS) CO LTD v. CHINA LINK CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

CHINA INSURANCE (HOLDINGS) CO LTD v. CHINA LINK CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV306/2003

The arbitration award was valid because the proceedings and hearings were properly conducted between the parties before the arbitrator and the transfer of insurer's business did not render the award a nullity; additionally China Link is estopped from challenging the identity of the enforcing party because it represented it had received no notice of transfer and agreed not to contest China Insurance's enforcement, and that representation was acted upon.
2 Jul 2003

NIPPON KOKAN KOJI KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. KENON ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

NIPPON KOKAN KOJI KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. KENON ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3973/2002

Clause 21.1 is ambiguous and, construed in context, is a mediation clause and not an arbitration clause; there is no valid arbitration agreement obliging Kenon to refer the disputes to arbitration; therefore the court will not stay the proceedings to arbitration and grants Kenon's declaration; NK3's stay applications are dismissed.
22 Apr 2003

CHINNEY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. PO KWONG MARBLE FACTORY LTD

Citation

CHINNEY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. PO KWONG MARBLE FACTORY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT92/2002

Leave to appeal refused because the issue was closer to the presumption of finality (top half of the P.T. Dover scale), the court adopted the test whether there was a clear obvious error of law and concluded no such error existed—the arbitrator permissibly found Certificate No.29 evidenced earlier payments and his arithmetic and retention reasoning were not obviously wrong.
13 Nov 2002

KEN FORWARD ENGINEERING LTD. v. WELTIME HONG KONG LTD.

Citation

KEN FORWARD ENGINEERING LTD. v. WELTIME HONG KONG LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV321/2002

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to adduce or properly present the critical evidence of solicitor negligence at the hearing, had actual or constructive awareness of the delay, proceeded on an impecuniosity basis, and the proposed grounds of appeal lack any realistic prospect of success or do not demonstrate the arbitrator was plainly wrong; further, jurisdictional objections were not timely raised.
26 Jun 2002

LIU MAN WAI AND ANOTHER v. CHEVALIER (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

LIU MAN WAI AND ANOTHER v. CHEVALIER (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2002

Clause 4 only provides for arbitration where there has been a failure to agree the adjustment of price consequent upon variations; the plaintiff's claim is based on an allegation that an agreement as to quantum existed and therefore falls outside the arbitration clause so the court correctly refused a stay.
5 Dec 2000

HEALTHY SUN LTD. v. KEN FORWARD ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

HEALTHY SUN LTD. v. KEN FORWARD ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT97/2000

The court refused leave because the plaintiffs failed to show the arbitrators were plainly wrong; clause 35 required a joint appointment including RICS(HK Branch) which had ceased to exist so the contractual appointment mechanism was inoperable and recourse to s12 of the Arbitration Ordinance to secure appointment by HKIAC was proper; the unpaid interim architects' certificates gave rise to an arbitrable dispute.
10 Aug 1998

CHARTERYARD INDUSTRIAL LTD. v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BO FUNG GARDENS

Citation

CHARTERYARD INDUSTRIAL LTD. v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BO FUNG GARDENS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP897/1998

Article 11 of the HKIAC Rules did not expressly confer power to make ex parte injunctions; absent statutory or clear consensual authority the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant the ex parte injunction, rendering the award void and requiring leave to enforce to be set aside. Separately, the arbitrator's procedural failures, usurpation of a separate arbitration, unjustified unless order and refusal to disclose materials justified removal for reasonable loss of confidence; replacement arbitrator to be appointed under section 27 if parties do not agree.