Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside arbitration award

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2017

CHINA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. MANDECLY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. MANDECLY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT53/2010

The court would have acceded to the application for security for costs against CPDH despite the delay because CPDH was an overseas company with insufficient evidence of permanent Hong Kong assets or central management to negate enforcement risk; delay did not produce sufficient prejudice to refuse security; costs of the main proceedings were ordered to follow the event in favour of CPDH, but CPDH was ordered to pay Tsoi's costs of the security application; costs to be taxed if not agreed.
19 Jan 2017

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC AND ANOTHER v. HUAXIA LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

Citation

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC AND ANOTHER v. HUAXIA LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3417/2016

The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal because the applicants failed to advance any arguable basis to challenge the binding Court of Appeal authority upholding section 81(4); the summons was without merit and tactical, the court declined to allow an oral hearing, and awarded indemnity costs to the defendant fixed at $140,840.00.
5 May 2016

L v. B

Citation

L v. B
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT41/2015

The Court found the Respondent's challenge was not manifestly valid and the corrections were arithmetic and within the Tribunal's power; given the risk of delay, lack of full disclosure and apparent delaying tactics, the Court exercised its discretion under Order 73 r10A and the Convention to require security; accordingly the application to set aside was adjourned for 4 months on condition that the Respondent provides security of HK$41,600,000 within 21 days, failing which the set-aside application will be dismissed and the Applicant may enter judgment in terms of the Award; costs to be paid…
19 Jan 2016

W v. P

Citation

W v. P
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT55/2015

The application to set aside the partial final award was dismissed because the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the price adjustment claim within the reference, W had adequate opportunity to present its case in writing and orally, W failed to identify material evidence or prejudice that would have affected the outcome, and the challenge was an attempt to revisit the merits rather than show a valid ground to set aside the award.
25 Jun 2014

ASTRO NUSANTARA AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS

Citation

ASTRO NUSANTARA AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP835/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because Astro had no reasonable prospect of success: the Singapore Court of Appeal held the arbitration awards were made without jurisdiction, and that finding undermined any attempt to enforce corresponding judgments in Hong Kong; Mimmie Chan J did not err in exercising her discretion to grant an unconditional stay after considering that finding and the prospects of First Media succeeding in setting aside the Hong Kong judgment.
12 Apr 2012

ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V. AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS

Citation

ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V. AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT45/2010

Leave to appeal was granted because the garnishee advanced new jurisdictional arguments and authorities (not addressed in the original hearing) that could lead an appellate court to revisit the exercise of discretion; a stay of execution was granted because the appellate court must consider these fresh arguments and there is a realistic prospect that the decision may be altered, and because the lower court had not been adequately assisted previously; costs were reserved to the appellate court.
30 Nov 2011

SHANDONG HONGRI ACRON CHEMICAL JOINT STOCK CO LTD v. PETROCHINA INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) CORPORATION LTD

Citation

SHANDONG HONGRI ACRON CHEMICAL JOINT STOCK CO LTD v. PETROCHINA INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT45/2009

The court must apply the mechanistic approach to convert the arbitral award into judgment; the respondent's resistance was unjustified and extended proceedings unnecessarily; absent special circumstances the respondent must pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis for the specified summonses; a certificate for two counsel is appropriate.
12 Apr 2011

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT41/2010

The Court set aside the ex parte enforcement order and refused enforcement because the minimalist account of the Shangri‑la mediation created a real risk of apparent bias under the Porter test; the Respondents did not waive the complaint by continuing the arbitration; the Xian Intermediate Court's dismissal did not estop the Respondents from raising Hong Kong public policy objections; public policy against enforcing awards tainted by apparent bias overrides finality.
8 Dec 2008

SHEENLUXE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TO HO SUM EDDY

Citation

SHEENLUXE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TO HO SUM EDDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1000/2008

Reyes J dismissed the debtor's long‑delayed and unmeritorious application to set aside the award; that dismissal constituted final determination of the application so there was nothing to prevent restoration of the bankruptcy petition; because the debt was not seriously disputable the court would make the usual bankruptcy order with costs against the debtor.
29 Aug 2006

SUEN WAH LING t/a KONG LUEN CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO v. CHINA HARBOUR ENGINEERING CO (GROUP)

Citation

SUEN WAH LING t/a KONG LUEN CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO v. CHINA HARBOUR ENGINEERING CO (GROUP)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT2/2006

The application to set aside the arbitral award was refused because it was brought after an undue and inexcusable delay which, given the need for finality in arbitration, disentitled the applicant to relief; additionally, the Arbitrator's evidence indicated no actual bias and the alleged prior advice did not justify setting aside the award at this late stage.