Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Waiver of arbitration

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2025

A AND ANOTHER v. X

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1535/2024

The court found that there was no clear and unequivocal waiver by X: Y-1st responded to the original dispute which did not include negligence, negligence allegations were only introduced later (material change to the dispute), and the email did not evidence abandonment of the arbitration right. Consequently X was entitled to a stay under s.20 AO in respect of the new dispute and, insofar as necessary, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to stay all claims to avoid inefficient bifurcation. Costs were awarded to X on an indemnity basis and against A&B jointly and severally.
16 Feb 2023

LI WENJUN v. CHEN CHUNHUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 405
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1151/2021

The court construed Clause 14.1 under PRC law as limited to disputes arising from a party's failure to perform contractual obligations and held tortious claims in this action fall outside the Clause; the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the dispute is arbitrable under the Clause and, in any event, waived the right to arbitrate by conduct (defending on the merits, applying for and agreeing security for costs, and not objecting to the amendment), so the stay under s.20 was refused.
27 Nov 2017

NEO INTELLIGENCE HOLDINGS LTD v. GIANT CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NEO INTELLIGENCE HOLDINGS LTD v. GIANT CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1127/2017

The November Agreement was a supplemental/amending instrument and did not plainly and unequivocally amend or waive the arbitration clause in Clause 8.1 of the June Agreement; Clause 4.1 of the November Agreement can be read as a governing law/jurisdiction clause operating in parallel with the arbitration clause; defendants established a prima facie or plainly arguable case that the parties are bound by the arbitration clause and a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration was therefore justified; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs of the summons nisi.
26 Nov 2014

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2784/2014

The court held that the 'first statement on the substance of the dispute' under Article 8(1) must be made in the action sought to be stayed, and the defendant's defence in separate Small Claims Tribunal proceedings did not preclude a mandatory stay; the arbitration agreement was valid, operative and covered the disputes; accordingly the action was stayed pending arbitration and, alternatively, a discretionary stay would have been granted.
29 Jan 2010

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. FORTUNE WORLD ENTERPRISES LTD.

Citation

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. FORTUNE WORLD ENTERPRISES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2394/2008

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and case management powers to stay and consolidate the court proceedings and refer the disputes to arbitration despite the claimant having commenced litigation and taken procedural steps; arbitration was the appropriate forum for the construction disputes and pleadings may sensibly be adopted in the arbitration.
4 Aug 2009

AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DATA-FORM ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DATA-FORM ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2143/2008

Clause 19(a) is a valid domestic arbitration agreement; the statutory wage claim under the Employment Ordinance is outside the scope of clause 19(a) because it concerns statutory rights and the existence of employment relationships rather than construction contract interpretation; defendant's letters of 30 September 2008 constituted sufficient written requests to invoke arbitration so arbitration has commenced; plaintiff did not waive arbitration and the court must stay the defendant's counterclaim for arbitration.
2 Jul 2004

C.Y. TSUN INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HOI TO COURT

Citation

C.Y. TSUN INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HOI TO COURT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA16/2003

Because the Defendant submitted its statement of defence (its first statement on the substance) before requesting referral to arbitration, Article 8(1) and section 6 were not complied with; the Small Claims Tribunal receives no special construction of Article 8(1); the tribunal therefore had no basis to stay the hearing in favour of arbitration and the consent order/adjournment was erroneous and must be set aside; alternatively, if the consent order embodied a contract it was vitiated by a fundamental common mistake of law.

Hong Kong Case Law

A AND ANOTHER v. X

LI WENJUN v. CHEN CHUNHUI AND ANOTHER

NEO INTELLIGENCE HOLDINGS LTD v. GIANT CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LTD

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. FORTUNE WORLD ENTERPRISES LTD.

AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DATA-FORM ENGINEERING LTD

C.Y. TSUN INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HOI TO COURT