Hong Kong / 23 August 1991 / Hong Kong, High Court, In the Supreme Court of Hong Kong / Guangdong New Technology Import & Export Corp Jiangmen Branch [China] v. Chiu Shing T/A BC Property & Trading Co [HK] / Miscellaneous proceedings No 1625 of 1991
Country | Hong Kong |
Court | Hong Kong, High Court, In the Supreme Court of Hong Kong |
Date | 23 August 1991 |
Parties | Guangdong New Technology Import & Export Corp Jiangmen Branch [China] v. Chiu Shing T/A BC Property & Trading Co [HK] |
Case number | Miscellaneous proceedings No 1625 of 1991 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | V | IV | V(1)(d) | V(1)(b) | IV(1) |
Source |
[1991] 2 HKC 459 (HC) |
Languages | English |
Summary | Pursuant to Section 44 of the Arbitration Ordinance (which implements Article V NYC), Plaintiff, Guangdong New Technology Import & export Corp. Jiangmen Branch (“Guangdong”), brought an action to enforce an arbitral award rendered in China. Defendant, Chiu Shing T/A BC Property & Trading Co. (Chiu Shing”), challenged enforcement on the grounds that: (1) Guangdong had not produced a “duly authenticated original award”; (2) Guangdong had not produced a “duly certified copy” of the original arbitration agreement; (3) it (Chiu Shing) received late notice of the arbitral proceedings; and (4) the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the parties agreement. The court found that the original award, accompanied by an affidavit affirming its authenticity was sufficient to meet the requirement set forth in the NYC and the domestic implementing legislation. The court also found that copies of a document containing an arbitration clause — which had been incorporated by reference into the parties’ contract—sufficiently depicted the “original arbitration agreement” required for enforcement of an arbitral award. In response to Chiu Shing’s contention that it received late notice of the arbitiral proceedings, the court pointed out that despite such late notice, Chiu Shing did have an opportunity to present its case to the arbitral tribunal. Finally, the court rejected Chiu Shing’s argument that the tribunal was improperly constituted because the parties had intended the “Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade” to resolve their dispute and the dispute was handled by the “China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission” instead—the court pointed out that the tribunal had clearly indicated in the award that it had recently changed its name from the former to the latter. For these reasons, the court granted leave for the award to be enforced in the same manner as a judgment of the court. |
see also : |
Attachment (1)
Original Unavailable Adobe Acrobat PDF |