网络安全检测|网络安全服务|网络安全扫描-香港墨客投资移动版

　　The court rejected the Respondent’s submissions that the obligations under items (a) and (b) were not independent ones since they dealt with a restitution situation for these reasons: first, the court should not second-guess the intention of the tribunal; second, the law of restitution may vary from one jurisdiction to another, and it is for the tribunal seized of the arbitration to apply the applicable law; third, even if one were to assume that return of the goods and repayment of the price already paid are not mutually independent of each other, it did not follow that the respective awards must be conditional on each other. The rights and obligations under the law of restitution must not be confused with awards and orders as means to give effect to those substantive rights and obligations.

　　Issue 4

　　The Arbitral Body’s Letters did not constitute a supplemental or additional award pursuant to Article 56 of the Arbitration Law and / or the relevant provision of the Arbitration Rules of the arbitral body in the Mainland. Thus, the views expressed by the tribunal or in the Arbitral Body’s Letters were simply inadmissible in the enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong.

　　Issue 5

　　The court rejected the Respondent’s submissions that all questions about the validity of the Arbitral Body’s Letters as supplemental awards should have been dealt with by the relevant court in the Mainland, not the enforcement court in Hong Kong for these reasons:  first, the enforcement court did not have to accept every piece of paper placed before it that was said to be an award or supplemental award as such, despite glaring discrepancies between the description of what amounted to an award or supplemental award in the relevant law or rules and what the court found on the face of the so-called award or supplemental award; second, the enforcement court is entitled to look at its own public policy relating to enforcement of foreign or Mainland awards.  In the present case, public policy in terms of the rules of natural justice were at issue so far as the second and third of the Arbitral Body’s Letters were concerned.

　　IV.Decision

　　Appeal allowed.

　　V.Significance

　　Enforcement of arbitral awards should be "as mechanistic as possible".  The enforcing court is neither entitled nor bound to go behind the award in question, explore the reasoning of the arbitral tribunal or second-guess its intention.  Hong Kong court as the enforcement court is entitled to determine whether a document constituted an award or a supplemental award, or a part thereof. The court is also entitled to decide whether or not to refuse enforcement of an award on the basis of its own public policy relating to enforcement of foreign or Mainland awards. Observance of the rules of natural justice, which the Arbitral Body’s Letters in the present case concerned, is to be taken into account by the court.

　　CASE No.5：Guo Shun Kai v. Wing Shing Chemical Co Ltd

　　[2013] 3 HKLRD 484

　　HCCT 35/2012

　　I.Brief Facts

　　Pursuant to an arbitration between the Applicant and the Respondent administered by an arbitral body in the Mainland, an award was made against the Respondent (the “Award”). The Award required the Respondent to pay the Applicant: (1) compensation for economic loss in the amount of RMB 29,195,470.58 and interest thereon in the amount of RMB 12,293,716.33; (2) legal costs in the amount of RMB 500,000; and (3) costs of the arbitration proceedings in the amount of RMB 675,473 and costs of the arbitrators in the amount of RMB 134,574.

　　Thereafter, the Applicant obtained an order granting leave to enforce the Award in Hong Kong (the “Order”).

　　The Respondent applied to the People’s Court in the Mainland to set aside or dismiss the Award on the grounds that the Award exceeded the scope of the arbitration and the procedures of the arbitration were contrary to law. The Hong Kong court was of the view that the application was not an appeal on the merits of the underlying dispute.

　　Subsequently, the Respondent took out a summons (the “Summons”) to set aside or vary the Order granting leave pursuant to Order 73 rule 10(6) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) (“RHC”), which was the matter before the court in the present case.

　　II.Issues

　　1.Whether the court has jurisdiction to adjourn proceedings relating to the enforcement of a Mainland award? (“Issue 1”)

　　2.What factors should a court take into account in considering the application for security upon adjournment of the Summons dealing with an application to set aside or vary the Order? (“Issue 2”)

　　III.Analysis

　　Issue 1