Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Setting aside award

  • 8 May 2026

    LY v. HW

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 936
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV409/2022

    The Court held the Tribunal sufficiently addressed the contested rollover arrangement: the Tribunal found LY accepted that the ASV deducted for 2017 rebate purposes should be paid/added in 2018, and reasoned there is a single ASV definition for rebate and target purposes, so there was no need to decide separately the s.10.2/s.38.1 or Assignment Issue; accordingly there was no procedural breach or insufficiency of reasons rendering the Award liable to be set aside and the appeal was dismissed.

  • 25 Mar 2026

    SIC v. WI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1795
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT68/2025

    On brief consideration the Award was neither manifestly invalid for fraud nor manifestly valid to justify immediate enforcement without conditions; balancing the parties' conduct, delay, risk of prejudice to the creditor and lack of evidence of dissipation, the court ordered payment of partial security (US$600,000) into court within 14 days as condition to adjourn the setting aside application until the conclusion of supervisory appeal or further order; failure to provide security results in dismissal of the summons with costs on an indemnity basis.

  • 12 Jun 2025

    P1 AND ANOTHER v. D

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2446
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT59/2023

    The court held that applicants failed to show any structural or egregious procedural irregularity or appearance of bias: the tribunal exercised legitimate case management powers, properly considered risks of unconscious bias and the option of an expert, was capable of disregarding inadmissible without prejudice material, and reasonably reserved Clause 6 issues to Phase 2 for further disclosure and remedies; accordingly the award was not vulnerable to setting aside under s81 AO/UNCITRAL Article 34(2).

  • 4 Mar 2024

    G v. N

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 655
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT38/2021

    The court held that the Decision to suspend setting aside proceedings and remit the Awards to the tribunal under section 81 was substantive and appealable with leave; the issues raised about the scope of judicial review of a tribunal's consideration of public policy when illegality is pleaded are important and novel and have reasonable prospects of success; a clerical mis‑citation did not defeat jurisdiction; accordingly leave to appeal was granted to obtain authoritative guidance from the Court of Appeal.

  • 8 Aug 2023

    R v. A AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2034
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT54/2022

    The Court held the Partial Final Award was a ruling on jurisdiction under Article 16/section 34; upon de novo review and considering fresh admissible evidence from Mainland criminal and civil proceedings and contemporaneous ledgers and bank records, the Court was not satisfied C had discharged the heavy burden to prove reimbursement and beneficial ownership and therefore C was not a party to the arbitration agreement; the Award and related costs award were set aside as between the Plaintiff and C and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over C.

  • 8 May 2023

    AI AND OTHERS v. LG II AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 1183
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT69/2022

    The application to set aside the arbitral Award was dismissed because the Court found the Tribunal had considered and decided the principal issues (foreign and domestic illegality, misrepresentation, contractual breaches, and events of default) with reasons that a reasonable party could discern in context; the Plaintiffs had a fair opportunity to present their case; the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in determining Events of Default under the Notes; and alleged legal errors or disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions do not justify setting aside under Model Law Article 34 or on pu…

  • 8 Mar 2023

    CANUDILO INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LTD v. WU CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 700
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT63/2021

    The Enforcement Order was set aside because Arbitrator 2, in issuing the Final Award, failed to apply an independent mind and treated the earlier 2020 Award as determinative of issues which that award had not decided as to guarantors, thereby depriving the respondents of a reasonable opportunity to present their case and causing a sufficiently serious denial of due process; the court granted an extension of time to bring the setting aside application because of the strong merits and absence of uncompensatable prejudice to the applicant.

  • 13 May 2022

    AW AND OTHERS v. PY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1397
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT47/2021

    AW Group failed to prove that Award 1 was procured by fraud because the newly discovered/concealed WeChat evidence was not shown to be material in the sense of being causative of the tribunal's decision; the Costs Award legitimately applied the findings on liability and could not revisit them; allegations of improper authorship/delegation lacked any probative evidence; Article 34(3)'s time limit could not be extended in the circumstances and, even if extension were available, AW Group offered no good reason given unexplained delay and apparent waiver by performance; accordingly the originatin…

  • 13 Nov 2020

    A AND OTHERS v. D

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2887
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT52/2020

    The Award was properly sent to and deemed received by the Applicants on 21 May 2020; the three-month period expired on 21 August 2020; the Applicants provided no credible or sufficient explanation to rebut deemed receipt or to justify retrospective extension of time; on the merits the challenge lacked prospects (2nd and 3rd were parties and the arbitration agreement was not invalid); accordingly the originating summons and the summons for extension of time were dismissed with indemnity costs to the Respondent.

  • 21 Sept 2016

    SUN TIAN GANG v. HONG KONG & CHINA GAS (JILIN) LTD

    Citation
    SUN TIAN GANG v. HONG KONG & CHINA GAS (JILIN) LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT46/2015

    The court found on the facts that the Notice of Arbitration and Award were not effectively received by Sun (service to the three addresses was ineffective or rebutted), Sun was detained and in fact unable to present his case in the arbitration, the purported Authorization did not validly authorize acceptance of service (and is likely forged), the deeming provisions can be rebutted, and the court has discretion to extend the Article 34(3) time limit; accordingly the Award was set aside, leave to apply out of time granted, and a Limitation Order made.