Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside awards

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2024

IO v. CONTRACTOR

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1802
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP30/2024

The Contractor's application to set aside the Enforcement Order failed because (1) it had notice and was represented so there was no deprivation of opportunity to present its case; (2) alleged errors of fact or law by the arbitrator are not proper grounds to refuse enforcement; (3) SCC 41.6(d) conferred power on the arbitrator to review and interpret the Substantial Completion Certificate and the arbitrator's findings were within the scope of the submission to arbitration; accordingly the Enforcement Order was properly made and the application was dismissed with indemnity costs and a Certific…
4 Mar 2024

G v. N

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT28/2023

The court granted leave to appeal because the issues raised are important and novel involving the permissible scope of supervisory court review of an arbitral tribunal's consideration of public policy when illegality is pleaded; the decision to suspend setting aside proceedings and remit matters to the tribunal under section 81 is substantive and appealable with leave; clerical mis‑citation does not defeat relief where the correct bases were argued.
25 Sept 2023

G v. N

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2437
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT38/2021

The Court accepted that it had power under s86(4) to order security but exercised its discretion to refuse N's application for security for costs because the application was made late, would be disproportionate and prejudicial to G given the imminent substantive hearing; however the Court concluded fortification was necessary given the awards, the evidence of G's and KG's precarious finances and the risk to N, and ordered additional fortification of US$658,982.33 to be paid within 7 days.
31 Jul 2023

SONG LIHUA v. LEE CHEE HON (FORMER NAME: QUE WENBIN)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1954
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT111/2022

An arbitrator performing adjudicative functions is immune from being compelled by the Hong Kong Court to give evidence about the exercise of those functions absent fraud or bad faith; accordingly the Court will not issue a letter of request to compel the arbitrator QF to give evidence and will refuse the request for limited evidence from the tribunal secretary as disproportionate and unnecessary for the setting aside application.
23 Apr 2020

LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING CO LTD v. ZHANG LAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 622
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT36/2019

Court held Hadkinson order appropriate: Zhang, already found in wilful contempt for failure to comply with disclosure orders, must purge contempt by full disclosure as condition to be heard on her voluntary summons; the summons to set aside enforcement orders was adjourned for three months on condition that respondents pay into court security equal to 40% of the total Awards and costs on indemnity basis, failing which the summons would be dismissed; on a preliminary view the Awards were manifestly valid and the respondents' challenge to tribunal composition under Article 27(3) of the CIETAC R…
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.
15 Sept 2015

KB v. S AND OTHERS

Citation

KB v. S AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT13/2015

The summons to set aside the order granting leave to enforce the 2nd and 3rd arbitration awards was dismissed and struck out because (1) the application was out of time as to the 1st and 2nd respondents and no compelling reason or proper leave was given to extend time, (2) the summons was unsupported or belatedly supported by proper affidavits and disclosed no arguable grounds to set aside the awards, and (3) the respondents abused process and breached their duty of good faith by failing to raise objections in the arbitration and seeking to relitigate merits; accordingly the court enforced th…
24 Apr 2013

LEHMAN & CO. MANAGEMENT LTD v. EFFISCIENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEHMAN & CO. MANAGEMENT LTD v. EFFISCIENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV272/2011

The appeal was allowed only to a limited extent; the appellant is not the overall successful party for full costs. The Court exercised its discretion to apportion costs to reflect discrete successes and failures: Effiscient must pay one‑third of Lehman Management's costs of the appeal; the judge's equal apportionment of the court expert's fees is varied so Effiscient bears 30% and Lehman Management 70% of the expert's fees; costs of the remedies trial are reallocated so Lehman Management pays two‑thirds of its costs to Effiscient; the judge's costs order on the liability trial is undisturbed;…
5 Apr 2013

GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. JBPB & CO (A PARTNERSHIP)

Citation

GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. JBPB & CO (A PARTNERSHIP)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT13/2012

The Ex Parte Order was set aside for material non-disclosure because the claimant failed to inform the court of the respondents' pending English application to set aside the award, but the court exercised its discretion to re-grant leave to enforce the award on an inter partes basis because the tribunal did not act beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration under s89(2)(d) and there were no statutory grounds to refuse enforcement.
2 Dec 2011

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV79/2011

Appeal allowed because respondents waived their right to object to the alleged procedural irregularities by continuing the arbitration and failing to make a prompt objection; alternatively, even assuming no waiver, the court was not satisfied that the facts disclosed an apparent or actual bias so grave as to offend Hong Kong's fundamental notions of morality and justice under section 40E(3); accordingly Reyes J's refusal to enforce was set aside and enforcement upheld.