Arbitral Digest

Matter

Company A and Others v Company D and Others (High Court of Hong Kong HCCT 31/2018)

Seat
Singapore
Applicable rules
ICC Rules
  1. 17 February 2016Singapore

    17 February 2016Singapore

    ICC emergency arbitrator order dated 17 February 2016

    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    Decision summary
    The emergency arbitrator prohibited Company D from disposing of, transferring, or encumbering its shares in Company H, ordered Company E to cause Company D to comply, and refused the request to appoint a receiver.

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    Company A
    Company D
    Company E
    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    1 year, 7 months and 5 days later · 583 days

  2. 22 September 2017Singapore

    22 September 2017Singapore

    ICC Partial Award against Company D dated 22 September 2017

    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    Decision summary
    The tribunal ordered Company D to pay the first instalment of the purchase price with interest.

    Supporting details

    4 participants
    Company A
    Company B
    Company C
    Company D
    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce
  3. 22 September 2017Singapore

    22 September 2017Singapore

    ICC Partial Award against Company E dated 22 September 2017

    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    Decision summary
    The tribunal ordered Company E to pay interest on the first instalment of the purchase price.

    Supporting details

    4 participants
    Company A
    Company B
    Company C
    Company E
    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce
  4. 22 September 2017Singapore

    22 September 2017Singapore

    Tribunal order dated 22 September 2017

    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    Decision summary
    The tribunal extended the February 2016 order by restraining Company D and Company E from disposing of the shares in Company G until the global purchase price was paid, subject to the tribunal's findings in the second phase of the arbitration.

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    Company A
    Company D
    Company E
    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    8 months and 10 days later · 252 days

  5. 1 June 2018Singapore

    1 June 2018Singapore

    Tribunal order dated 1 June 2018

    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    Decision summary
    The tribunal directed Company F not to dispose of or diminish the value of the shares in Company G.

    Supporting details

    1 participant
    Company F
    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    4 months and 2 days later · 124 days

  6. 3 October 2018Hong Kong

    3 October 2018Hong Kong

    Reasons for Decision of the High Court of Hong Kong in the case HCCT 31/2018 dated 3 October 2018

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

    Case no.
    HCCT 31/2018
    Decision summary
    The Court held that it had jurisdiction under section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance to grant an appropriate interim measure against a third party in aid of the Singapore arbitration, but refused the plaintiffs' application to appoint receivers over Company G shares held by Company F. The Court found no sufficient risk of dissipation, no clear evidence of breach warranting receivership, and an adequate less intrusive remedy; it ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' and Company F's costs.

    Supporting details

    11 authorities · 15 participants
    Company A
    Representative
    Justin Lam (For: Company A · Company B · Company C)
    Representative
    Deacons (For: Company A · Company B · Company C)
    Company B
    Representative
    Justin Lam (For: Company A · Company B · Company C)
    Representative
    Deacons (For: Company A · Company B · Company C)
    Company C
    Representative
    Justin Lam (For: Company A · Company B · Company C)
    Representative
    Deacons (For: Company A · Company B · Company C)
    Company D
    Representative
    Linda Chan, SC (For: Company D · Company E)
    Representative
    Thomas Wong (For: Company D · Company E)
    Representative
    King & Wood Mallesons (For: Company D · Company E)
    Company E
    Representative
    Linda Chan, SC (For: Company D · Company E)
    Representative
    Thomas Wong (For: Company D · Company E)
    Representative
    King & Wood Mallesons (For: Company D · Company E)
    Company F
    Representative
    Charles Manzoni SC (For: Company F)
    Representative
    Gary CC Lam (For: Company F)
    Representative
    DLA Piper Hong Kong (For: Company F)
    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

    Authorities cited

    11
    • Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609)
      statute
    • Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A)
      statute
    • Re Chime Corporation Ltd (HCMP 4146/2001)
      case-law
    • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd ([1975] AC 396)
      case-law
    • Mandarin Resources Corp Ltd v Cheng Heng Soon (CACV 146/1987)
      case-law
    • Macau First Universal International Ltd v Ding Xiaohong & Others (CACV 193/2011)
      case-law
    • Prema Birkdale Horticulture (Macau) Ltd v Venetian Orient Ltd ([2009] 5 HKLRD 89)
      case-law
    • Paul Cardile v LED Building Proprietary Ltd ((1999) 198 CLR 380)
      case-law
    • Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd
      case-law
    • DTEK Trading SA v Mr Sergey Morozov
      case-law
    • Consultation Paper on Reform of the Law of Arbitration in Hong Kong and Draft Arbitration Bill, December 2007
      academic

Matter record

Report a correction

Company A and Others v Company D and Others (High Court of Hong Kong HCCT 31/2018) · Matter