Header graphic for print
ARBlog International Arbitration News, Trends and Cases

Tag Archives: arbitral awards

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance Narrowly Construes the Arbitration Ordinance in Relation to Domestic Arbitrations and the Application of Schedule 2

In A v D [2016] CFI 1014/216 the Honourable Mimmie Chan J dismissed as “totally without merit” proceedings to set aside the decision of an arbitral tribunal and counterclaim on the alleged grounds of serious irregularity under section 4 of Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 609 (“the 2011 Ordinance“), imposing significant cost sanctions on the applicants. Background The Claimants and the Respondent were equity partners of a firm pursuant to terms set out in a letter dated 11 May 2007 (the “Agreement“). In accordance with the Agreement the

Consistency restored as Astro v Lippo appeal dismissed

In the latest instalment of the long-running dispute between Astro and Lippo, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (CA) has dismissed Lippo’s appeal against a 2015 first instance decision allowing the enforcement of five arbitral awards, despite a ruling of the Singaporean courts refusing enforcement on the basis that the arbitral tribunal had acted outside its jurisdiction in making the awards. Although it upheld the first instance decision, the CA notably disagreed with the High Court’s finding that Lippo did not act in good faith and reflected this in its

Hong Kong Court Shows Zero Tolerance for Unmeritorious Applications to Set Aside Arbitral Awards

In Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited v X Co [2016] HCCT 53/2015, the Honourable Madame Justice Mimmie Chan of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance gave short shrift to an application for setting aside an HKIAC award on technical and procedural grounds that she “dismissed as totally without merit.” Background Arjowiggins HKK2 Co Ltd (the “Claimant”) entered into a joint venture agreement in October 2005 (the “JV Agreement“) with X Co (the “Respondent”) to set up a company for the purpose of manufacturing paper products in China (the “Company”).  Under the

Further confirmation of the pro-arbitration stance of the Hong Kong courts

A Hong Kong court has refused to grant an application to set aside its own order granting leave to enforce an arbitral award, thereby reinforcing the arbitration-friendly approach of Hong Kong courts and clarifying the restricted scope of the courts’ review of an arbitral award rendered in a Member State of the New York Convention. In the original arbitral proceedings, an arbitral tribunal seated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, had ordered C, the respondent in arbitration, to pay T, the claimant, a sum as damages for breach of contract.  C had

Advocate General at the CJEU emphasizes the importance of competition law arguments in international arbitration (Opinion of AG Wathelet in Case C-567/14)

On 17 March 2016, Advocate General Wathelet at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)  delivered his Opinion in Case C-567/14 (Genentech) emphasizing the importance of competition law arguments in annulment proceedings of arbitral awards and calling the French standard of review of arbitral awards “contrary to the principle of effectiveness of EU law“. France is known for its limited scope of review of arbitral awards by national courts. Although Paris is one of the hubs of international arbitration in Europe, this was the first referral for preliminary

Arbitrating in Africa: Enforcement Regimes for Arbitral Awards

It is widely accepted that the ease of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is one of the key components of a strong arbitration regime. Whilst Africa is an incredibly diverse continent, with different legal systems in each country, the enforcement regimes for arbitral awards for the majority of countries across Sub-Saharan Africa fall broadly within three categories: States that are party to the New York Convention. States that are party to the OHADA regime. States that are neither party to the New York Convention nor the OHADA regime. The New

England: “unmeritorious” challenges to arbitral awards prompt rule change

The Commercial Court has changed its rules on challenging arbitral awards for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in response to what it has described as “the substantial increase in the number of unmeritorious section 68 applications in recent years”. English arbitration law provides for rights of challenge to an arbitral award that go significantly beyond the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award that are permitted in most other jurisdictions.  Section 68 is concerned with procedural failings and not with errors of fact, law or