CHEN CHUANG XIN v. ZHAO BIN

HCCT 59/2017

[2018] HKCFI 961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO 59 OF 2017

______________

______________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  The Arbitration Ordinance sets out the exclusive and exhaustive grounds on which enforcement of an award can be refused.

2.  The arbitration court has consistently held that the first hearing of a summons to set aside should not automatically be treated as the call-over hearing only.  If, on the materials before the court, there are no arguable grounds for setting aside an order for enforcement of an award, the application can be disposed of immediately.  This is in line with the aims and objectives of the Arbitration Ordinance and the public policy considerations of enforcing arbitration agreements and arbitration awards and ensuring Hong Kong’s observance of its obligations under the New York Convention.

3.  In this case, neither the summons nor the affidavit in support establishes any ground to refuse enforcement of the award, on the grounds set out in Section 95 of the Ordinance. 

4.  Section 84 of the Ordinance applies to enforcement of Mainland awards by virtue of section 92.  When leave is granted to enforce an award, judgment may be entered only in terms of the award, irrespective of whether the award has since been paid in part. 

5.  Section 93 of the Ordinance provides that if an application is made for enforcement on the Mainland, and the award has not been fully satisfied, the award is still enforceable to the extent that it has not been satisfied - subject, of course, to section 93. 

6.  The application made for enforcement on the Mainland has been withdrawn in this case, with leave of the Mainland court.  Whether or not any charge on the property is released, so long as the award has not been fully satisfied, the award can be enforced in Hong Kong to the extent that it has not been satisfied. 

7.  On these grounds, the application to set aside the order granting leave to enforce the award is dismissed, with costs on an indemnity basis, in the usual way as ordered in the arbitration court.