Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scope of arbitration agreement

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2023

李明實 AND OTHERS v. ACE LEAD PROFITS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 193
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA597/2021

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Trust Shares claim relates to an Overarching Trust distinct from the DoTs; the DoTs were not pleaded or relied upon so they do not form the focus of the present dispute; the court correctly applied the Polytec approach to identify the focus of the dispute; related case management stay arguments depend on the same flawed premise; accordingly leave is refused. The court granted an extension of time to file a defence until final disposal of any renewed leave application and made costs o…
24 May 2022

BEST FIELD INC v. TRIANGULAR FORCE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1641
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA913/2021

The arbitration clause in the Written Agreement is wide enough to cover disputes arising from the later oral agreement concerning monetisation of the shares; the plaintiff's pre-action letters and defendant's silence did not amount to clear and unequivocal waiver or election to litigate; therefore the action should be stayed and the dispute referred to arbitration under s20 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609).
24 May 2021

G v. S

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT62/2020

The application to set aside the Enforcement Order is dismissed. The Specific Performance Order is not being pursued by G and need not be enforced; the Marketing Costs Order, the Alternative Relief Order and the Costs and Fees Order fall within the scope of the arbitration clause in the 2018 Agreement, are not contrary to public policy, are severable from the Specific Performance Order and leave is granted to enforce those parts of the Mainland Award in Hong Kong. An order nisi for costs on an indemnity basis with certificate for one counsel is made.
19 Oct 2011

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (H.K.) CO LTD

Citation

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (H.K.) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1836/2011

Leave to appeal was refused because the court agreed with Saunders J that the parties impliedly chose German law in the MOU to govern the arbitration agreement, that choice is effective despite the seat in Shanghai, the arbitration clause is therefore valid and the dispute falls within the MOU so the stay to arbitration should be maintained; the plaintiff's arguments were not reasonably arguable.
19 Jan 2005

YUEN CHONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. NGO KEE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

YUEN CHONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. NGO KEE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3761/2004

The court found that practical completion of the Sub-Contract works occurred on 19 July 2003, that the subsequent works instructed on 25 July 2003 were therefore a separate contract, and that Clause 22 applies only to disputes arising out of the Sub-Contract; accordingly the arbitration clause did not cover the Plaintiff's claim and the Defendant's application to stay and refer to arbitration was dismissed.
29 Jan 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 First Instance
Case number

HCA2946/2001

Clause 4 applies only to disputes about the difference in contract price occasioned by variation works where the parties have failed to agree the difference; disputes about whether a binding agreement was reached and claims characterised as retention monies or outstanding original-work sums are not within that arbitration scope and are matters for the court, so the defendant's application for a stay is dismissed.
12 Dec 1988

SABERU CO LTD v. MARUBENI INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CO LTD

Citation

SABERU CO LTD v. MARUBENI INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3244/1988

The recital and express wording of the 1980 Agreement incorporated the terms of the First Principal Agreement, including the broad arbitration clause 14(2); the tortious claim and alleged breaches arise out of or in connection with the 1980 Agreement and thus fall within the arbitration clause; the plaintiff's failure to identify the Brunei law alleged also weakens any contention that the tort claim lies outside arbitration; accordingly the action must be stayed under s6A.

Hong Kong Case Law

李明實 AND OTHERS v. ACE LEAD PROFITS LTD AND ANOTHER

BEST FIELD INC v. TRIANGULAR FORCE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LTD

G v. S

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (H.K.) CO LTD

YUEN CHONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. NGO KEE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

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

SABERU CO LTD v. MARUBENI INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CO LTD