Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim award

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2014

VK HOLDINGS (HK) LTD v. PANASONIC ECO SOLUTIONS (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

VK HOLDINGS (HK) LTD v. PANASONIC ECO SOLUTIONS (HONG KONG) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT19/2014

Given the Agreement's broad arbitration clause and the close factual and functional connection between the Parts and the Products, an objective construction shows the parties intended disputes of this kind to be arbitrable under Article 20; absence of a written amendment to the Exhibit did not prevent the clause applying and the parties had submitted the jurisdictional question as to both items to the arbitrator.
29 Jul 2010

HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT21/2010

The approximate area stated in the Bills of Quantities was a matter of description, not an error in firm quantities under the GCC; Hung Wan had priced the roof works on the contract drawings and specifications showing about 4,300 m2 and the accepted lump-sum price of $14,900,000 covered those works; the arbitrator was not obviously wrong and leave to appeal is refused.
28 May 2004

HOP HING IRON WORKS & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. ACG JOINT VENTURE

Citation

HOP HING IRON WORKS & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. ACG JOINT VENTURE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT27/2003

The Court refused leave because the challenged findings were not shown to be obviously or seriously wrong, several points were factual issues not questions of law, and the Arbitrator's corrections and explanations addressed the alleged errors; accordingly there is no sufficient legal basis to permit appeal.
7 Oct 2002

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

The court allowed the amendment because the Originating Motion had been served in time, the proposed amendments were minor, no substantial delay or prejudice to the respondent or the hearing was demonstrated, and Order 73, rule 5 does not preclude amendments when ordinary amendment principles and expedition are observed.
6 Mar 2000

PAUL Y.-ITC CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. SUNDART ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

PAUL Y.-ITC CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. SUNDART ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT124/1999

The court upheld the arbitrator's construction that the name borrowing procedure is optional and not mandatory; the arbitrator correctly held he lacked jurisdiction under clause 8(b) until the architects' permission was required, but had jurisdiction under clause 22 to hear claims for loss and/or expense under clause 8(c); the interim award on the preliminary jurisdictional point was therefore correctly decided.
16 Mar 1999

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AOKI CORPORATION

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AOKI CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT135/1998

The arbitrator acted within his procedural discretion and expertise by adopting a different, correct comparative approach after inviting submissions; the parties had fair notice and opportunity to respond; the arbitrator's findings were not plainly wrong and therefore leave to appeal was refused.
31 Jul 1997

ALLIED KAJIMA LTD v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

ALLIED KAJIMA LTD v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT40/1997

The Court found no misconduct: the arbitrator validly decided jurisdiction because the parties' pleadings put the larger sum in issue; the wording of the arbitrator's letter did not establish bias; refusal to admit an architect's report was a proper exercise of case-management discretion in a documentary arbitration; closure of submissions was justified. Consequently the application to remove the arbitrator was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.
22 Mar 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2892/1995

The Court refused leave to appeal on the principal legal grounds because no strong prima facie error was shown and the matters would not materially clarify Hong Kong commercial law; remission under s.24 was granted only where there was procedural unfairness or an inadvertent unfinished task by the arbitrator (site overheads deduction and specified Shimizu quantification issues), but otherwise the Court declined to re-open factual findings or correct ordinary arbitral errors. The arbitrator may reserve decisions, invite further submissions and correct oversights; only limited remissions were w…
30 Jan 1995

GARDEN CO. LTD. v. ON LEE GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD.

Citation

GARDEN CO. LTD. v. ON LEE GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT24/1994

The court refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case that the arbitrator erred on questions of law; the issues raised did not warrant appellate clarification of Hong Kong commercial law and the matters were within the ambit of an experienced arbitrator whose decisions attract a presumption of finality absent a plainly wrong determination.
2 Jun 1992

VIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

VIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1111/1992

Leave to withdraw the $4,000,000 paid into Court was refused because the application was made very late (over one year after payment and nine months after an adverse interim award) and the interim award constituted a sufficient change of circumstances that materially altered the risks of the arbitration, justifying refusal of leave under O.73 r.14(3).