Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery in arbitration

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2007

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD

Citation

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT22/2007

The applications fail because the Arbitrator did not make any error of law amounting to being 'seriously wrong' in construing the contract clauses; his factual findings (including scope of Sunday/public holiday manpower and status of Regional Park Site A) stand and are not amenable to appellate review on leave; the quantum meruit claim was unpleaded and factually unsupported; refusal of discovery was within the Arbitrator's discretion and did not amount to misconduct; and the liquidated damages assessment was a permissible factual conclusion rather than a penalty.
19 Jul 2007

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD

Citation

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT23/2007

The applications were dismissed because the court found no serious error of law or construction by the arbitrator, the arbitrator's factual findings were open to him, the quantum meruit claim was unpleaded and lacked evidential basis, liquidated damages were a reasonable pre-estimate, and refusal of discovery did not constitute misconduct.
19 Jul 2007

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD

Citation

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT29/2007

The applications were dismissed because the judge was satisfied the arbitrator's constructions and factual findings were not 'seriously wrong', the quantum meruit/unjust enrichment claims were unpleaded and unsupported, the cleaning and manpower obligations were properly interpreted, liquidated damages were a reasonable estimate and not a penalty, and the arbitrator's refusal of discovery did not amount to misconduct justifying setting aside the awards.
1 Jun 2007

JACKIN TOTAL FULFILMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER v. JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (a firm)

Citation

JACKIN TOTAL FULFILMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER v. JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP736/2007

Summary judgment entered for Johnson Stokes & Master because the defendants' counterclaim was not a genuine bona fide defence and failed on causation; the application for taxation was discretionary under s67 and, given the late, generalised and tactical nature of the challenge, taxation was refused; the application for stay pending winding-up was refused because exceptional circumstances existed (no bona fide defence, apparent dissipation/tactical conduct) and the plaintiff undertook not to execute judgment until winding-up resolved.
31 Oct 1990

J.E. TAYLOR CO. LTD. v. PAUL L. BROWN AND ANOTHER

Citation

J.E. TAYLOR CO. LTD. v. PAUL L. BROWN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1259/1990

No evidence established inherent or actual bias on an objective test; the procedural directions and conduct complained of did not amount to serious or irreparable misconduct that would require revocation or removal; the arbitrator acted within his discretion to proceed expeditiously and to set and revise timetables and did not abuse powers; application to revoke/remove dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD

RE NEW MAY LANDSCAPE LTD

JACKIN TOTAL FULFILMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER v. JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (a firm)

J.E. TAYLOR CO. LTD. v. PAUL L. BROWN AND ANOTHER