Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of arbitration

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2017

ZHANG LAN AND OTHERS v. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM)

Citation

ZHANG LAN AND OTHERS v. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP285/2016

Given the applicants' delay in seeking taxation beyond the one‑month limit, the court exercised its discretion under s67 LPO to impose a payment condition to do justice between the parties; on the facts (nature, duration and quantum of work and prior conduct indicating ability and offers to pay), a 40% interim payment of the total billed fees (less the HK$500,000 already paid on account) within the specified time was appropriate; estoppel not established; lifting the stay of arbitration was refused so arbitration remains stayed pending taxation outcome.
16 Dec 2013

LEONONE 3D ELECTRICAL ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. TGI (FAR EAST) LTD

Citation

LEONONE 3D ELECTRICAL ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. TGI (FAR EAST) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2522/2013

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed because the arbitrator was already appointed and able to determine the preliminary issue, the plaintiff had delayed in seeking relief, the plaintiff failed to show that damages would be inadequate or that the defendant could not pay damages, and on balance of convenience the injunction should not be granted to avoid undermining the arbitration process.
23 May 2012

EASTMAN CHEMICAL LTD v. HEYRO CHEMICAL CO LTD

Citation

EASTMAN CHEMICAL LTD v. HEYRO CHEMICAL CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1859/2011

The court dismissed the applicant's stay application, varied the order nisi by consent to provide for a gross sum assessment of costs, found parts of the solicitors' claimed profit costs excessive given their prior involvement in related proceedings, and on summary assessment fixed the costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $121,222 to be paid within 14 days.
23 Dec 2011

LIN MING v. SEQUEDGE INVESTMENT INC. (formerly known as SEQUEDGE INC.) AND OTHERS

Citation

LIN MING v. SEQUEDGE INVESTMENT INC. (formerly known as SEQUEDGE INC.) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2596/2011

The originating summons was dismissed as an abuse of the court's process because it sought the same relief as an application already before the court in HCA 1900/2011, involved overlapping parties, and the plaintiff's failure to join Gingero in HCA 1900/2011 was due to counsel's mis‑judgment which did not justify a separate, duplicative proceeding.
4 Dec 2009

JUICY COUTURE, INC. v. BELLA INTERNATIONAL LTD t/a JUICY GIRL AND OTHERS

Citation

JUICY COUTURE, INC. v. BELLA INTERNATIONAL LTD t/a JUICY GIRL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1764/2008

The court exercised its residual jurisdiction to stay the arbitration because the arbitration and Court action substantially overlap on the same facts and legal issues, continuation of arbitration would be oppressive and lead to duplication and risk inconsistent outcomes, and staying the arbitration would not cause injustice to the complainant; accordingly the stay was granted with costs to the 1st defendant.
10 May 2005

WOLIK LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

WOLIK LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6060/2003

The court held that Tai Fong's counterclaim and proposed defences amounted to a true equitable set‑off inseparably connected to Wing Hong's third‑party claim; on balance of factors, including the risk of parallel proceedings, potential issue‑estoppel and the seriousness of fraud/malicious falsehood allegations, it was just and necessary to restrain the arbitration and allow the court proceedings to proceed. Consequently the strike out/stay application by Wing Hong failed, the arbitration was restrained pending determination of TP Proceedings, TP Proceedings were transferred to the Court of Fi…
3 Mar 1999

CHINA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. CHINA LINK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

CHINA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. CHINA LINK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP45/1999

Although there was prima facie evidence that the respondent had received advance payments and had denied receipt (potentially fraudulent), the applicant failed to show that, on balance of all circumstances, it was just and convenient to deprive the respondent of its agreed forum; allegations of fraud alone and risk of multiplicity of proceedings did not justify revoking the arbitration agreement, therefore the applicant's application under s26(2) was dismissed.
14 May 1998

GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG v. TIANJIN BUARONG MINERAL PRODUCTS CO. LTD.

Citation

GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG v. TIANJIN BUARONG MINERAL PRODUCTS CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT24/1998

Because the arbitration was commenced before the Amendment Ordinance came into force s.18 applies and the Arbitration Ordinance (s.14(6)(a)) permits the Court to order security for costs in relation to a reference; the Court exercised its discretion under O.23 r.1 in favor of ordering security given absence of Hong Kong assets and real difficulty of enforcement in China and set security at HK$800,000 in two stages, stayed the arbitration pending provision of that security and ordered cost nisi and submission of a draft order.
30 Jan 1991

YEE SANG METAL AND BUILDING SUPPLIES CO. LTD. v. SHANGHAI JIN JIANG SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD.

Citation

YEE SANG METAL AND BUILDING SUPPLIES CO. LTD. v. SHANGHAI JIN JIANG SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4010/1990

The Court has jurisdiction under s14(6)(a) of the Arbitration Ordinance read with Order 23 r.2 to order security for costs and to include an ancillary stay of the arbitration pending provision of that security; such a stay is a necessary and appropriate term to give effect to the security order and does not impair the arbitrator's authority.
16 Oct 1990

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WANG CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WANG CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP70/1990

The court held there was no valid Architect's decision under clause 117 because (1) Mr P.L. Kwan was not established to be the Architect under the Contract, (2) the maintenance certificate operated as conclusive approval and admission of due performance in the contractual scheme, and (3) the dispute concerned quality of materials/workmanship and thus fell within clause 115 excepted matters excluded from clause 117 arbitration; accordingly the Government's applications for declaration, appointment of an arbitrator and stay were dismissed and Wang Chong obtained declarations consistent with tho…