|
HCCT 20/2019
[2020] HKCFI 3020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 20 OF 2019
_______________________
| |
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 92 OF THE ARBITRATION ORDINANCE, CAP. 609
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 20TH JUNE 2017
|
______________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
SHENZHEN HONEYCOMB SYSTEM CO. LTD
(深圳市霍尼卡姆机电设备有限公司) |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
HCT TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) CO., LIMITED
(霍尼卡姆技術 (香港) 有限公司) |
Respondent |
__________________
| Before: |
Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: |
27 November 2020 |
| Date of Decision: |
27 November 2020 |
________________
D E C I S I O N
________________
1. These are my reasons, succinctly stated, for declining this 11th hour application by the Respondent (HCT) to adduce further evidence for the hearing of the Applicant’s (SHS) Summons filed on 14 May 2019 for leave to enforce an arbitral award dated 20 June 2017 (Award) against it.
2. Firstly, the issue of forgery alleged by HCT in respect of the Agreement which contained the arbitration clause was raised before and rejected by the Mainland court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction: see exhibit JZ-18 to the 3rd Affirmation of Jin Zhe. I see no basis for re-opening the issue.
3. Secondly, bearing in mind in particular that the time limit imposed by an unless order against HCT to file its evidence had expired on 27 October 2020, the lateness of the additional evidence has not been properly explained. The alleged accidental chat with Ms Li, invites more questions than answered: see para 4 of the 6th affirmation of Qu Zeyang exhibited as YXM-6 to the 7th affirmation of Yan Xianming. For instance, why did HCT fail to make contact with Ms Li prior to the alleged change meeting.
4. Thirdly, bearing in mind the limited scope of the court’s role in an enforcement application (see HKCP 2021, [73/10/4]) and the directions that there be only 1 round of evidence, I see no adequate justification for the further evidence by way of the 5th affirmation of Qu exhibited as YXM-4.
5. Finally, the Summons is to be heard on 2 December 2020. Allowing this 11th hour application would inevitably lead to adjournment of the hearing by reason of SHS’s right to reply to the additional evidence. The Award was obtained some 3 ½ years ago. Such delay is unacceptable.
6. I shall hear the parties on costs.
| |
(Anthony Chan) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
| |
High Court |
Mr Paul Wong, instructed by LIMS Solicitors, for the Applicant
Mr Bob Yan of Yan Lawyers, for the Respondent
|