Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Seat of arbitration

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2023

ZS CAPITAL FUND SPC AND OTHERS v. ASTOR ASSET MANAGEMENT 3 LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1157/2020

The stay was lifted because the arbitral tribunal had finally determined the disputes and directed MLO-related matters to be litigated in Hong Kong, leaving nothing further for the tribunal to decide; arbitral awards are binding unless stayed or set aside, and a pending set-aside application in the seat does not, without more, preclude the Hong Kong court from proceeding where the award has not been stayed.
30 Jan 2015

Z v. A AND OTHERS

Citation

Z v. A AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT8/2013

The court held that the parties' use of the term 'China' was ambiguous as to whether it meant Mainland China only or included Hong Kong; because the parties agreed to ICC arbitration and the ICC Court is empowered by Article 14(1) to fix the place of arbitration, the ICC Court validly fixed Hong Kong as the seat; the Arbitrator therefore correctly applied Hong Kong procedural law and had jurisdiction to decide the matters submitted to him; the application to set aside the Partial Award was dismissed.
19 Oct 2011

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (H.K.) CO LTD

Citation

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (H.K.) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1836/2011

Leave to appeal was refused because the court agreed with Saunders J that the parties impliedly chose German law in the MOU to govern the arbitration agreement, that choice is effective despite the seat in Shanghai, the arbitration clause is therefore valid and the dispute falls within the MOU so the stay to arbitration should be maintained; the plaintiff's arguments were not reasonably arguable.
9 Sept 2011

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (HK) CO LTD

Citation

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (HK) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1526/2010

Leave to appeal and a stay of arbitration were refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the MoU's express choice that the contract in its entirety be governed by German law (together with the arbitration clause's requirement for a German-law arbitrator and the placement of clauses under one heading) establishes German law as the proper law of the arbitration agreement, PRC Article 58 does not displace that express choice, and the arbitration clause on its proper construction covers the dispute; therefore no arguable case for appeal exists.
14 Jul 2011

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (HK) CO LTD

Citation

KLÖCKNER PENTAPLAST GMBH & CO KG v. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (HK) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1526/2010

The court held the disputes over the sale of KP cards and capsule films fell within the MoU arbitration clause; the parties' express choice that "all of the obligations" be governed by German law together with the requirement that the third arbitrator be admitted to practice in Germany meant the lex arbitri was German law; no evidence suggested German law invalidated the clause, so the arbitration agreement was valid and a stay of the Hong Kong proceedings was granted.
30 Mar 1995

THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL"LADY MURIEL" v. TRANSORIENT SHIPPING LTD.

Citation

THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL"LADY MURIEL" v. TRANSORIENT SHIPPING LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/1995

The Hong Kong court had jurisdiction under its inherent jurisdiction to grant an interim measure of protection in aid of a foreign arbitration, but such relief should not be granted without the arbitrators' approval unless the applicant satisfies the court that justice necessitates the relief to prevent serious and irreparable harm; the charterers failed to discharge that heavy burden and the inspection order was not justified.
5 May 1993

Lucky-Goldstar International(H.K.) Ltd. v. Ng Moo Kee Engineering Ltd.

Citation

Lucky-Goldstar International(H.K.) Ltd. v. Ng Moo Kee Engineering Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA94/1993

The arbitration clause manifested a clear mutual intention to arbitrate disputes in a third country; the reference to a non-existent arbitration association does not nullify or render the clause inoperative or incapable of performance because the arbitration can proceed under the law of the chosen third country; accordingly the court was obliged under Article 8 of the Model Law to stay the proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration.
29 Jun 1992

Katran Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kenven Transportation Ltd.

Citation

Katran Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kenven Transportation Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/1992

Article 9 of the UNCITRAL Model Law is wide enough to include Mareva (freezing) injunctions as "interim measures of protection," and therefore the Hong Kong court has jurisdiction to grant such an injunction in support of an arbitration governed by the Model Law where the arbitration is international under Article 1(3).
2 Mar 1992

INTERBULK (HK) LTD v. SAFE RICH INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

INTERBULK (HK) LTD v. SAFE RICH INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL29/1992

Where a valid arbitration clause designates a seat outside Hong Kong, the Hong Kong courts do not have power under s.14(6)(h) of the Arbitration Ordinance to grant interim relief such as a Mareva injunction; in those circumstances judicial restraint requires declining to grant interim relief under general injunctive powers, and the ex parte Mareva order must be discharged.