Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to appeal from arbitration award

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2020

MC v. SC

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT17/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the question of whether the breach was repudiatory was fact-sensitive, depended on the arbitrator's findings of conduct and correspondence which supported his conclusion of deliberate and continued breaches evidencing an intention not to be bound, and the arbitrator's decision was not obviously wrong; the issue was not of general importance and deference to the arbitrator's factual conclusions was required.
11 Jan 2008

RE ANDREW GODDARD, QC

Citation

RE ANDREW GODDARD, QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2589/2007

Admission under s27(4) LPO was granted because the arbitration factor was powerful: the applicant had substantive prior involvement and ongoing instruction in the arbitration, and the application for leave to appeal was a substantial and important matter involving complex issues, thus justifying admission to advise and appear for the Hong Kong Housing Authority in the leave application and the appeal if granted.
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.
10 Sept 2004

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD v. STELUX HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD v. STELUX HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT29/2004

Leave to appeal is refused because the Arbitrator was not shown to be obviously or seriously wrong: clause 23 is to be applied by reference to the state of the works at the time information was required so a causal link to likely delay must be shown; on the Arbitrator's findings the late information could not have caused delay; the Arbitrator was entitled to prefer one expert's time-slice analysis over another and did not commit technical misconduct by declining further submissions.
3 Jul 2003

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF REPULSE BAY TOWERS v. BOLTON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF REPULSE BAY TOWERS v. BOLTON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT105/2002

Leave to appeal was refused because the court found no strong prima facie case that the arbitrator was wrong: the arbitrator's construction of Article 3 was a reasonable interpretation, her findings on Clause 30(5)(a) and the validity of PAL's appointment were logical, and the determinative finding that time was rendered at large by contract-specific special provisions (SP/6E, SP/26F and the deletion of Clause 23(1)(f)) meant the arbitrator's overall conclusion was not appealable under the P.T. Dover scale and the presumption of finality.
15 Mar 2002

CHINA LINK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. CHINA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation

CHINA LINK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. CHINA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT44/2001

The Notice of Originating Motion for leave to appeal was struck out because the plaintiff unacceptably and inexcusably failed to prosecute the application expeditiously (long unexplained delay, failure to serve required affidavit, failure to fix hearing date), and under the Arbitration Ordinance and established authority (Euston) speed and finality in arbitration permit striking out for want of prosecution without proof of prejudice.
16 Feb 2000

DOWNER & CO. LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY

Citation

DOWNER & CO. LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV282/1999

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge did not misapply his discretion in granting leave to appeal; there was no clear error in his reasoning or consideration of relevant matters and, given the novelty and potential general importance of s2GD, the judge was entitled to permit an appeal. Accordingly the appeal against the judge's grant of leave was dismissed.
23 Nov 1999

WONG BIK LING KITTY v. CROWE INSURANCE GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

WONG BIK LING KITTY v. CROWE INSURANCE GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/1999

The appeal was allowed because the judge below improperly relied on the possibility that the arbitration award was wrong to condone the defendant's unexplained several months' delay; the defendant had opportunities to uplift the award or pay fees, received legal advice and produced no evidence justifying extension, so the exercise of discretion to extend time was unjustified and was set aside.