Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasons for award

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2022

LY v. HW

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT96/2021

Leave to appeal was granted because the intended appeal was not devoid of reasonable prospects: the issues involved mixed questions of law and fact and interpretation of the Award which lie in a zone where appellate circumspection applies, and the Court concluded the Decision had to be read as a whole and had applied the correct legal principles; accordingly leave was appropriate though interference would require established misdirection or similar defects.
30 Apr 2021

H v. L

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT50/2020

The Court dismissed the respondent's summons to set aside the Enforcement Orders because the Tribunal lawfully applied PRC law, considered and rejected the respondent's defences, the respondent had waived or failed to raise PRC‑law illegality before the Tribunal (and the supervisory court had refused to set aside the awards), alleged errors of fact or law and complaints about reasons do not amount to public policy grounds to refuse enforcement under section 95, and therefore enforcement is not contrary to Hong Kong public policy; costs awarded to applicant on an indemnity basis.
4 Jun 2014

ARIMA PHOTOVOLTAIC & OPTICAL CORPORATION v. FLEXTRONICS COMPUTING SALES AND MARKETING (L) LTD

Citation

ARIMA PHOTOVOLTAIC & OPTICAL CORPORATION v. FLEXTRONICS COMPUTING SALES AND MARKETING (L) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV194/2012

Paragraph 255 of the award was an adequate reason for the quantum of Counterclaim E in the context of the arbitration because the plaintiff did not adduce contrary evidence, cross-examine on quantum or make submissions challenging the amount; therefore there was no failure to give reasons and the Article 34(2) Model Law grounds were not engaged; appeal dismissed and indemnity costs awarded to the respondent.
6 Aug 2001

MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.

Citation

MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT26/2001

The court refused leave to appeal and remission and refused removal because the challenged findings were predominantly factual, contract-specific or technical expert assessments for which the arbitrator (an experienced non‑legal construction arbitrator) was entitled to deference; the applicant did not establish a strong prima facie case of plain error or exceptional circumstances necessary to override the statutory presumption of finality; no rebuttal of the arbitrator's application of legal principles (including inconsistency of SPs, contra proferentem and time‑at‑large tests) warranted inte…

Hong Kong Case Law

LY v. HW

H v. L

ARIMA PHOTOVOLTAIC & OPTICAL CORPORATION v. FLEXTRONICS COMPUTING SALES AND MARKETING (L) LTD

MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.