Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality of arbitration

Legal area

Court

25 Apr 2014

SHANGHAI FUSHENG SOYA FOOD CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PULMUONE HOLDINGS CO LTD

Citation

SHANGHAI FUSHENG SOYA FOOD CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PULMUONE HOLDINGS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT48/2012

The application to set aside was dismissed because the Applicants had full opportunity to litigate the issues in arbitration, the Shanghai judgment did not bind the Respondent in its personal capacity and did not render the Award repugnant to Hong Kong public policy, and any error by the Tribunal in not taking the judgment into account would not have materially affected the outcome; there was no serious procedural breach requiring setting aside.
10 Apr 2008

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 Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV42/2007

The judge, even while assuming an arguable case of apparent bias, validly exercised his discretion to refuse to extend the statutory time limit in light of the long and unexplained delay and the public policy of finality in arbitration; consequently there was no proper basis to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
13 Feb 2003

CHUN WO FOUNDATIONS LTD v. BPL (HK) PRIVATE LTD

Citation

CHUN WO FOUNDATIONS LTD v. BPL (HK) PRIVATE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT59/2002

Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicant failed to meet the high threshold for court intervention in arbitration: the Arbitrator's interpretation of the pay-when-paid provisions was not shown to be obviously or plainly wrong nor was there a strong prima facie case of error; the dispute involved issues that placed it at the higher end of the spectrum so finality must be respected.
26 Sept 2002

SWIRE PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR

Citation

SWIRE PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1058/2001

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted because the court, exercising its overriding discretion under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, found that the exceptional circumstances and the potentially massive financial consequences justified permitting an appeal despite the parties' agreement that arbitration should be final.
30 May 2002

MAK\'S CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD.

Citation

MAK\'S CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT20/2002

The court upheld the arbitrator's construction that clause 2 imports the methodology of the Principal Contract (the SMM) as the objective method of measurement rather than the actual measurement carried out by the Engineer, and found the arbitrator's factual findings supporting estoppel were supported by evidence; therefore there was no basis to grant leave to appeal and the originating motion was dismissed.
30 May 2002

KEN FORWARD ENGINEERING LTD. v. WELTIME HONG KONG LTD.

Citation

KEN FORWARD ENGINEERING LTD. v. WELTIME HONG KONG LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT47/2002

Application dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a sufficient reason for the substantial delay (nearly eight weeks), funds/award were available earlier and no prompt application was made; balancing exercise favoured finality and the respondent as no clear arguable point of law was shown and prejudice would follow; courts interfere in arbitration only in exceptional circumstances.
12 Feb 1997

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV81/1996

The court held the parties' procedural agreement was integral to the arbitration and did not remove the operation of the Croasdell principle; issues 3 and 4 were interlocutory and thus required leave under r2(b), and none of the issues met the high threshold of being of great general and public importance or otherwise meriting leave, so the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
12 Feb 1997

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV80/1996

The court held that the disputed matters were either interlocutory or did not become appealable by virtue of a procedural agreement; Croasdell governs the characterisation of such orders so leave is required under r2(b), the threshold for which was not met on these facts, and accordingly leave to appeal to the Privy Council was refused.
12 Feb 1997

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV79/1996

The Court held that the parties' procedural agreement formed part of the arbitration and did not remove the interlocutory character of the contested decisions; the matters raised did not meet the high threshold of general or public importance required to grant leave under r2(b) of the Privy Council Rules, and therefore leave to appeal was refused.
27 Feb 1986

KONG KEE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

KONG KEE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2712/1985

The Court holds that under Hong Kong law there is no general 5th discretionary ground to remit awards beyond the established grounds of misconduct, admitted mistake or fresh evidence; technical misconduct is limited to clear procedural irregularity (ambiguity in operative part, excess of jurisdiction, incompleteness, breach of natural justice); on the facts no misconduct was proved and the motion to remit is dismissed; a subpoena of the arbitrator required prior leave and would likely be set aside.