Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Serious irregularity

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2021

H v. L

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT51/2020

The summonses to set aside the Enforcement Orders were dismissed because the respondent failed to establish any ground under section 95 of the Arbitration Ordinance: the Tribunal considered and decided the validity of the Loan Agreements under PRC law, the respondent waived or was estopped from raising PRC illegality in enforcement proceedings, errors of fact or law or alleged inadequate reasons do not justify refusal of enforcement, and the supervisory court at the seat had refused to set aside the awards, all of which support enforcing the awards and ordering indemnity costs to the applican…
10 Jul 2020

HZ CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHINA VOCATIONAL EDUCATION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT48/2016

Respondents failed to show reasonable prospects of success on any proposed ground: they did not prove deceit/backdating with sufficient particularity or evidence, contemporaneous documents supported the Court's conclusion of waiver or variation of the MNT between the parties, and there was no established serious irregularity in the Tribunal's handling of evidence; accordingly leave to appeal and the stay were dismissed and no order as to costs made.
16 Sept 2019

N v. C

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2292
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT3/2019

The court held the arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity: the Agreement on Entitlement and the ex‑contract agreement were in play on the pleaded case and evidence, the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to address those issues, and the tribunal's finding that contractual time limits and entitlement issues fell away by reason of the parties' agreement/ex‑contract compromise was within the tribunal's powers. The plaintiff's application to set aside or remit the award was dismissed.
24 Jul 2019

P v. M

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1864
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT6/2019

The court held that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and failed to comply with the scope and procedure of the remission directed by the earlier judgment, resulting in continued serious irregularity and substantial injustice; it was inappropriate to remit again, so paragraphs 169,170,172,174 and 175 of the First Interim Award and paragraphs 15–29 of the Second Interim Award were set aside and declared of no effect, and costs were ordered for P against M.
18 Apr 2019

MAEDA KENSETSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA also known as MAEDA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. BAUER HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1006
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT5/2018

The application is dismissed: the court found no serious irregularity causing substantial injustice. The Arbitrator’s 30% apportionment on idling was within the scope of the pleaded issues and parties had a reasonable opportunity to address the matter; the reinforcement cage claims were within the pleaded case and not a decision beyond the submission; the alleged omissions on remedial grouting were matters of factual evaluation and reasoning rather than a failure to deal with issues; thus no remit or setting aside was justified.
22 Feb 2019

BUDA PIPE REHAB ENG CO LTD v. CPC CONSTRUCTION HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT69/2018

The Schedule did not apply to the BP Contract because there was no written arbitration agreement between LW and CPC as required by section 101; alternatively, even if the Schedule applied BP failed to identify the question(s) of law or show the arbitrator was 'obviously wrong' on matters that were primarily findings of fact (waiver/estoppel and interim quantum); accordingly leave to appeal and other relief were refused and the originating summons dismissed with indemnity costs.
9 Oct 2018

P v. M

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT30/2018

The court held that the tribunal committed a serious irregularity by deciding entitlement on the basis that the September Letter and November Breakdown constituted contractual notice when M had not pleaded or relied on those documents, thereby depriving P of a fair opportunity to address the adequacy of those purported notices; accordingly the court declared parts of the Award to be of no effect pending reconsideration and remitted the issue to the tribunal for directions and further submissions.

Hong Kong Case Law

H v. L

HZ CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHINA VOCATIONAL EDUCATION CO LTD AND OTHERS

N v. C

P v. M

MAEDA KENSETSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA also known as MAEDA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. BAUER HONG KONG LTD

BUDA PIPE REHAB ENG CO LTD v. CPC CONSTRUCTION HONG KONG LTD

P v. M