Matter

A, B and C (trading as a Firm) v D (High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance HCMP 1014/2016)

13 November 2015Arbitration
13 November 2015Arbitration
Arbitrator's ruling on the preliminary issue dated 13 November 2015
Decision summary
The arbitrator ruled that D ceased to be an equity partner on 15 November 2009 and therefore ceased to have rights to drawings or profit distributions under the partnership agreement after that date.
Supporting details
4 participants
A
B
C (trading as a Firm)
D
Mentioned in judgment
4 months and 10 days later · 131 days
23 March 2016Arbitration
23 March 2016Arbitration
Arbitrator's decision dated 23 March 2016
Decision summary
The arbitrator dismissed the plaintiffs' application to strike out D's counterclaim concerning commissions and drawings due before his retirement.
Supporting details
4 participants
A
B
C (trading as a Firm)
D
Mentioned in judgment
29 days later · 29 days
21 April 2016Arbitration
21 April 2016Arbitration
Order for Directions No. 8 dated 21 April 2016
Decision summary
The arbitrator ordered the plaintiffs to bear the costs of the striking-out application and pay those costs to D.
Supporting details
4 participants
A
B
C (trading as a Firm)
D
Mentioned in judgment
8 months and 1 day later · 245 days
22 December 2016Hong Kong
22 December 2016Hong Kong
Reasons for Decision of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance in the case HCMP 1014/2016 dated 22 December 2016
High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
Case no.
HCMP 1014/2016
Decision summary
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application to set aside the arbitrator's decision dated 23 March 2016 and Order for Directions No. 8, with costs on an indemnity basis. It held that the arbitration agreement did not provide for Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Ordinance to apply, so the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 4 of Schedule 2; it also held that the application was without merit because the arbitrator's decision and costs order were consistent with the earlier ruling.
Supporting details
6 authorities · 10 participants
A
Representative
Liu Man Kin (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
Representative
Eleanor Yeung (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
Representative
Lily Fenn & Partners (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
B
Representative
Liu Man Kin (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
Representative
Eleanor Yeung (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
Representative
Lily Fenn & Partners (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
C (trading as a Firm)
Representative
Liu Man Kin (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
Representative
Eleanor Yeung (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
Representative
Lily Fenn & Partners (For: A · B · C (trading as a Firm))
D
Representative
Ann Lui (For: D)
Representative
Tony Au & Partners (For: D)
High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
Judge
Mimmie Chan
Authorities cited
6
- Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609)
  statute
- Repealed Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 341)
  statute
- Rules of the High Court (O 73 r 5 RHC)
  procedural rule
- Model Law
  model law
- KB v S (HCCT13/2015, 15 September 2015)
  case law
- Free Form Construction Co Ltd v Shinryo (Hong Kong) Ltd ([2008] 3 HKC 415)
  case law
Direct judgment
Date not availableArbitration
Date not availableArbitration
Order for Direction No. 6
Decision summary
The arbitrator directed the parties to file written submissions on the preliminary issue of whether D was entitled to payments under the partnership agreement beyond the relevant period.
Supporting details
4 participants
A
B
C (trading as a Firm)
D
Mentioned in judgment