Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Uncitral model law article 8

Legal area

Court

25 Jan 2011

厦門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 厦門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

厦門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 厦門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV88/2010

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions raised were not matters of great general or public importance, were fact-sensitive and to a large extent hypothetical, and one question was muddled; accordingly no leave was granted and the application was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent on an indemnity basis.
19 Apr 2007

INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES LTD v. PCCW GLOBAL LTD

Citation

INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES LTD v. PCCW GLOBAL LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV12/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions arising were not of sufficient general or public importance, the contested construction issues were specific to the contract, and discretionary considerations (including the wastefulness of further satellite litigation) justified dismissal of the application with costs.
6 Dec 2001

WAN CHUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. WAN CHUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD & ANOTHER

Citation

WAN CHUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. WAN CHUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD & ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT43/2001

The court held that Article 8 and s.6 Cap.341 mandate a stay to arbitration for claims within the arbitration clause and that s.26(2)/(3) does not permit nullifying the arbitration agreement in respect of claims that do not raise the question of fraud unless nullification of part or all of the agreement is necessary to enable the court to determine the fraud issue. The court found it was not necessary here and therefore granted a stay of all proceedings against the University to arbitration.
7 May 1999

SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD. v. WELLEAD CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD. v. WELLEAD CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2852/1999

SFK complied with Article 8 and there are arbitration agreements (one signed, one prima facie in writing) covering Wellead's counterclaim and claim; therefore the court had no discretion and must refer both matters to arbitration, leaving questions of validity and duress to the arbitrator.
24 Apr 1998

GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL A.G. v. BRIGHT CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL A.G. v. BRIGHT CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL166/1997

The court held that paragraph 17 of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim did not amount to a 'first statement on the substance of the dispute' under Article 8; accordingly Article 8/Arbitration Ordinance required a stay of proceedings in respect of paragraph 26 (and insofar as relevant part of paragraph 27) of the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim and the stay was granted. The 2nd Defendant's adjournment application was dismissed and the court awarded costs to the Plaintiff.
17 Jul 1997

HOLLMET A.G. AND ANOTHER v. MERIDIAN SUCCESS METAL SUPPLIES LTD

Citation

HOLLMET A.G. AND ANOTHER v. MERIDIAN SUCCESS METAL SUPPLIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW14/1997

The Court held that an arbitration agreement does not automatically oust the Court's jurisdiction in a winding-up petition; the debtor must establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or have arbitration commenced. In the present case the debtor ultimately established a bona fide dispute and arbitration had been commenced, so the petition was dismissed. Costs were apportioned: the debtor recovers costs up to the date when it should have filed adequate evidence (7 April 1997); petitioners recover costs from that date until the judgment day.
9 Mar 1993

China National Electronics Import & Export Shenzhen Co. v. Choi Chuk Ming t/a Erwo Enterprise Company

Citation

China National Electronics Import & Export Shenzhen Co. v. Choi Chuk Ming t/a Erwo Enterprise Company
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5964/1992

The court found the two arbitration agreements satisfied the Model Law writing/signature requirement because the documents bore writing on both sides and were chopped; there was strong evidence the defendant authorised the plaintiff's agent to sign and chop agreements. The court found insufficient evidence that the plaintiff's Hong Kong claim encompassed the counterclaim or that the plaintiff had submitted to the Hong Kong court on the matters in dispute. Consequently, under the mandatory terms of Model Law Article 8, the court had no discretion and granted a stay of the counterclaim.
17 Feb 1993

William Co. v. Chu Kong Agency Co. Ltd. and Another

Citation

William Co. v. Chu Kong Agency Co. Ltd. and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL155/1991

The court held the dispute resolution clause was not void for uncertainty and that Article 7(2) was satisfied by the Bill of Lading together with post‑dating correspondence and pleadings which recorded assent; accordingly the court had no discretion under Article 8(1) of the Model Law and was required to stay the Hong Kong proceedings in favour of arbitration in China despite potential disadvantage to the plaintiff under the Hague‑Visby Rules; choice of law issues are for the arbitrators to decide.