Summary

Introduction

The Plaintiff ("P") and the Defendants ("D1" and "D2" and collectively "Ds") were respectively the Claimant and the Respondents in the underlying arbitral proceedings ("Arbitration") conducted under the 2018 HKIAC Administered Rules ("Rules").

By a Partial Award dated 30 June 2024 ("Partial Award"), P's claims in the Arbitration were entirely dismissed by an experienced tribunal ("Tribunal") under the Early Determination Procedure ("EDP"), which procedure was invoked by Ds pursuant to Article 43 of the Rules. The EDP is in substance akin, but not identical, to an application for summary judgment under the court procedures. As will be seen below, the EDP involves a two-stage process, first a screening stage, and if allowed to proceed beyond the screening stage, a determination stage. P complains that the Tribunal's decision to proceed under the EDP and the manner in which its claims was determined give rise to grounds under which the Partial Award may be set aside pursuant to section 81 of the Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609 ("AO") which incorporates Article 34 of UNCITRAL Model Law ("ML").

Following the dismissal of P's claims, on 7 October 2024, the Tribunal issued a Final Award on Costs ("Costs Award") by which P was ordered to pay Ds' costs in the amounts of XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX and XXX XXX XXX ("Principal Sums") together with interest. Were the Partial Award set aside, there is no real dispute between the parties that the Costs Award should consequently be set aside. However, P says that even were the Partial Award not set aside, the Costs Award itself is problematic and ought to be set aside, in that P was unable to present its case on the quantum of the costs claimed by Ds and/or the Tribunal had failed to comply with its duty to act in accordance with Article 34.1 of the Rules and/or section 74(7)(a) of the AO, each enjoining the Tribunal to only allow costs that were reasonable.

...