Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of awards

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2024

宁波梅山保税港区和光泰润二号股权投资中心(有限合伙) v. 北京微影时代科技有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2723
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT61/2022

The summons for extension of time was dismissed primarily because R1 displayed inordinate delay of over a year and provided misleading explanations; materially there was no prejudice from A's inadvertent non-disclosure, the Award was final and not open to appeal, and the alleged condition precedent and public policy/illegality arguments did not justify refusal of enforcement; accordingly the Enforcement Order stands, a Charging Order Absolute is made and costs are awarded to A on an indemnity basis.
4 Jun 2024

A v. R1 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT20/2023

Enforcement refused because the SCIA Approval extending the tribunal's deadline and the Deferral Agreement permitting continuation despite non-payment of fees were obtained and processed in a manner that deprived the 2nd Respondent of an opportunity to present substantive defences and undermined the structural integrity of the arbitration; the procedural failings were sufficiently serious to engage s95(2)(c)(ii), s95(2)(e)(i) and s95(3)(b) of the Arbitration Ordinance, and accordingly the Enforcement Order was set aside and enforcement of both awards refused.
5 Sept 2019

X v. JEMMY CHIEN (also known as CHIEN, CHING YU or 簡慶裕)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2172
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT31/2019

On preliminary review applying the Soleh Boneh balancing test the court concluded the Awards were not manifestly invalid: the Service Agreement and signature block objectively supported that the Defendant was a contracting party; the public policy challenge was not clearly meritorious; there was no real risk of asset dissipation during the short interim; accordingly no security for enforcement was ordered, but security for the Defendant's costs was justified because the Plaintiff has no assets in Hong Kong.
15 May 2019

WEILI SU AND ANOTHER v. SHENGKANG FEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1257
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT54/2018

The Court concluded on preliminary assessment that the Award was manifestly valid, plaintiffs' jurisdictional and pleading complaints lacked merit or were waived, there was credible risk of asset dissipation and deficient asset disclosure by the plaintiffs, and therefore in the exercise of its discretion the Court ordered security equal to 50% of the Award (US$6,850,000) as a condition for continuation of the setting aside application, failing which the application would be dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.
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.
6 Nov 2015

CHINA SOLAR POWER (HOLDINGS) LTD v. ULVAC, INC

Citation

CHINA SOLAR POWER (HOLDINGS) LTD v. ULVAC, INC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1191/2015

CSP was afforded adequate opportunity to present its case; procedural changes were agreed by CSP or within the arbitrator’s case management discretion; alleged defects related to merits rather than entitlement to be heard or structural impartiality; the minor procedural slip referencing HKIAC rules was immaterial; no serious or egregious breach of natural justice was shown and therefore the Partial Award could not be set aside; court exercises residual discretion and declines to interfere.
1 Aug 2003

廖建和及另九人 v. TREASURE CONSULTANTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

廖建和及另九人 v. TREASURE CONSULTANTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA115/2002

The Presiding Officer lawfully exercised his discretion under Sections 29A and 30 to require payment of HK$1,700,000 into court as a condition for adjournment given the cogent findings (including risk of dissipation, delay and prejudice); the Defendants' failure to comply justified entry of an award and there were no arguable grounds for leave to appeal.
29 Aug 2002

LEUNG SING v. ABDUL MAJID MALIK

Citation

LEUNG SING v. ABDUL MAJID MALIK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA34/2002

No question of law or jurisdiction was raised; the adjudicator's factual findings were supported by evidence and therefore not reviewable on appeal; financial difficulty is not a valid defence; the application did not raise permissible grounds under section 28 and must be dismissed.
18 Jan 1991

TIONG HUAT RUBBER FACTORY (SDN) BHD v. WAH-CHANG INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIONG HUAT RUBBER FACTORY (SDN) BHD v. WAH-CHANG INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV192/1990

Regulation 12(a)'s phrase 'or other disputes arising under these contract regulations' is confined to disputes arising under the specific contract regulations (eg freight, export duty, proof of shipment and related matters) and does not encompass disputes about non-acceptance or failure to open letters of credit; therefore the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction and the orders granting leave to enforce the awards were set aside.
30 Sept 1983

LIN KAM CHING v. KUI YEN CO

Citation

LIN KAM CHING v. KUI YEN CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1737/1983

A Labour Tribunal award that has been registered in the District Court under s38 becomes a District Court judgment and, except insofar as appeals are specially provided to the High Court by ss32 and 35, the District Court has jurisdiction to set aside such a registered award in appropriate circumstances (for example where the award was made in default without notice and the respondent has a bona fide defence); the matter should be remitted to the Labour Tribunal to be reheard.