Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Reasoned award

  • 8 Mar 2024

    AAB v. BBA AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 699
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT63/2023

    The application to set aside the Second Partial Final Award is dismissed on grounds of lack of reasoning and lack of due process because the Award contained sufficient reasons read commercially in context and the applicant waived procedural complaints by failing to seek adjournment; however the Tribunal failed to decide an important estoppel issue (Issue 3), so the court stayed proceedings for three months and remitted the Award to the Tribunal to take such action as will obviate setting aside for that failure, with costs reserved.

  • 6 Aug 2001

    MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.

    Citation
    MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT24/2001

    Applications for leave to appeal (s.23), remission (s.24) and removal of arbitrator (s.25) were refused because the arbitrator's conclusions were predominantly factual or one‑off contract questions, lacked a plain and obvious legal error, and did not meet the high threshold required to rebut the presumption of finality; arbitrator correctly found Practical Completion certificate of 24 June 1999 valid, held SP 5.03 and SP 8.02 inconsistent so SP 8.02 did not displace Clause 23, granted 703 days extension of time and held time was set at large due to employer non‑payment, and assessed quantum m…

  • 6 Aug 2001

    MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.

    Citation
    MIGHT FOUNDATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CCECC (H.K.) LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT25/2001

    Court refused leave to appeal under section 23, refused to remit under section 24 and refused removal under section 25 because the arbitrator's determinations were primarily factual or contract‑specific, did not disclose plain or obvious legal error warranting interference, and met the standards for reasoned awards; specific holdings upheld include validity of Practical Completion certificate dated 24 June 1999, inconsistency found between SP5.03 and SP8.02 such that SP8.02 did not operate as a condition precedent to extensions, award of 703 days extension of time and finding that time was se…