Hong Kong / 16 January 1998 / Hong Kong, Court of Appeal, In the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region / Hebei Import & Export Corporation v. Polytek Engineering Company Limited / CACV 116/1997
| Country | Hong Kong |
| Court | Hong Kong, Court of Appeal, In the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region |
| Date | 16 January 1998 |
| Parties | Hebei Import & Export Corporation v. Polytek Engineering Company Limited |
| Case number | CACV 116/1997 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | I(1) | V | V(1) | V(2) | VI |
| Source |
[1998] 1 HKLRD 287 | http://www.judiciary.gov.hk (website of the Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | In April 1993, Hebei (a Hong Kong Company) entered into a contract with Polytek (a People’s Republic of China [“PRC”] company) and agreed to arbitrate any disputes in the PRC under CIETAC rules. A subsequent dispute led to a March 1996 arbitral award in favor of Hebei. Hebei obtained leave to enforce the award in Hong Kong in July 1996. Polytek’s application to set aside that order was dismissed on May 15, 1997. Polytek then appealed to the Hong Kong Court of Appeal on the grounds that (1) it was deprived of the ability to present its case, in violation of Section 44(2)(c) of Hong Kong's Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 341 (which directly incorporated Article V(1)(b) NYC), because it was not given notice of an inspection of Hebei’s factory; (2) enforcing the award would be contrary to public policy, in violation of Section 43 of the Ordinance (similarly incorporating Article V(2)(b)NYC), because Hebei’s ex parte communications with the Chief Arbitrator in connection with the factory inspection tainted the award; and (3) the award should not be enforced without regard to Hebei’s corresponding obligation to return the equipment in an acceptable condition. The Court of Appeal held that Polytek was deprived of an opportunity to present its case and that Hebei’s contacts with the Chief Arbitrator, outside of the presence of Polytek and the other arbitrators, made it contrary to public policy to enforce the award. The Court, however, rejected Polytek's claim that Hebei had a corresponding duty to return the equipment before the award could be enforced, because the contract did not specify such an obligation and because even if it had this obligation, it was severable from the valid aspects of the award, and therefore enforceable by the terms of Section 44(4) of the Ordinance (which incorporated Article V(1)(c) NYC). |
| reversed by : | |
| reverses : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
