HK courts reconfirm their pro-arbitration stance

0
1431
LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link

In the case of X Chartering v Y, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance considered an application by the respondent, Y, to set aside an earlier order of the court, which granted leave to the applicant, X Chartering, to enforce two New York Convention awards rendered in London as judgments of the court.

The respondent sought to set aside the order on three grounds. First, it argued that it was unable to present its case in the arbitration due to the tribunal’s adoption of an erroneous method of calculating damages, and its erroneous reliance on expert evidence rather than legal submissions. Second, it claimed that as a result of the tribunal’s errors the arbitral procedure adopted by the tribunal was not in accordance with the arbitration agreement, nor with English law as provided by section 89(2)(e) of the Arbitration Ordinance. Third, it argued that in accordance with section 89(3)(a) of the ordinance, it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the awards in Hong Kong.

Recognising the pro-enforcement nature of both the convention and the ordinance, Judge Mimmie Chan dismissed the respondent’s application to set aside the order, finding inter alia that:

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员

已有集团订阅,可点击此处继续浏览。
如对集团订阅感兴趣,请联络我们

The author, Gavin Denton, is an arbitrator at Arbitration Chambers Hong Kong and co-author, Luka Groselj, is an associate at the chambers

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link