Arbitral Digest

Matter

G v T and L (Hong Kong Court of First Instance HCA 39/2021)

  1. 21 July 2022Hong Kong

    21 July 2022Hong Kong

    Decision of the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the case HCA 39/2021 dated 21 July 2022

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

    Case no.
    HCA 39/2021
    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 2214
    Decision summary
    The Court found a prima facie case that G and T and L were bound by an arbitration agreement in the guarantees, which covered G's claims for amounts allegedly due under the guarantees and a related undertaking. It held that the arbitration agreement was not inoperative, null and void, or incapable of being performed, and stayed the action in favor of arbitration before the Guiyang Arbitration Commission. T and L succeeded on the stay application and were awarded the application costs, including reserved costs, on an indemnity basis.

    Supporting details

    5 authorities · 6 participants
    G
    T
    Representative
    Timothy Lam (For: T · L)
    Representative
    Tony Lam & Co (For: T · L)
    L
    Representative
    Timothy Lam (For: T · L)
    Representative
    Tony Lam & Co (For: T · L)
    Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

    Authorities cited

    5
    • Fiona Trust v Privalov ([2007] Bus LR 1719)
      case-law
    • PCCW Global Ltd v Interactive Communications Service Ltd ([2007] 1 HKLRD 309)
      case-law
    • Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v AA Mutual International Insurance Co Ltd ([1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep 63)
      case-law
    • Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Fully Best Trading Ltd ([2016] 1 HKLRD 582)
      case-law
    • Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

G v T and L (Hong Kong Court of First Instance HCA 39/2021) · Matter