CCC v. AAC

HCCT 131/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 131 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

___________________________________

DECISION ON LEAVE TO APPEAL

___________________________________

1.  This is the Respondent’s application for leave to appeal against my judgment given on 18 July 2025 [2025] HKCFI 2987 (the “Judgment”)  dismissing the Respondent’s application to set aside the Order of Mimmie Chan J to enforce an arbitration award made on 4 November 2024. In accordance with the Order of Mimmie Chan J made on 4 August 2025, the application has been dealt with on the papers.

2.  The Judgment upholds an award under rules known as the Hong Kong Arbitration Society Online Arbitration Rules in respect of a loan made to the Respondent in favour of the Applicant moneylender. 

3.  Along with the application, the Respondent annexed draft grounds of appeal, and the parties subsequently filed written submissions dated 15, 29 August and 5 September 2025.

4.  Draft Grounds of Appeal 1(a)  and (b)  deal with the arbitrator’s statement that the Respondent had the opportunity to participate in the arbitration, and with the central factual issue whether the Respondent in fact received the SMS which contained the notice of arbitration which he denied. These are factual matters and in my view these grounds have no reasonable prospect of success.  I refuse leave on these grounds.

5.  Draft Ground 2 deals with whether the arbitrator failed to consider important issues and rubber stamped the claim. However, I consider that in the circumstances the arbitrator adequately considered the issues under the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap. 163), and that these grounds do not have reasonable prospects of success.  I refuse leave to appeal on this ground. 

6.  Draft Ground 1(c)  is to the effect that service of notice of arbitration by SMS does not satisfy the requirement of proper notice either at all or in the context of consumer arbitration.  This raises questions not previously considered by the Hong Kong courts as to balancing the potential access to justice benefits of online arbitration against such risks as may be inherent in the use of this medium, particularly sending notice of arbitration to the respondent by SMS.  This is a question of general principle in respect of which a decision of the Court of Appeal would be to the public advantage.  I accordingly give leave to appeal on this ground on that basis.

7.  I grant the Respondent’s application for an order that enforcement of the arbitral award be stayed until determination or other disposal of the appeal or further order.

8.  Costs of the application are to be reserved to the Court of Appeal.