Bloomsbury International Arbitration Briefing: April Teaser

CL v SCG [2019] HKCFI 398

[Hong Kong]

In an important judgment considering the enforcement of arbitral awards in Hong Kong, the Court was required to make a determination on a preliminary issue as to whether section4(1)(c) of the Ordinance Cap 347 rendered enforcement of an arbitral award dated 11 February 2011 time-barred in proceedings for enforcement brought in February 2018. The judgment has important consequences for cases where delay is caused pending an application for enforcement on the Mainland.

Buda Pipe Rehab Eng Co Limited v CPC Construction Hong Kong Limited

In a judgment concerned with an application for leave to appeal on questions of law arising out of an Award, the Court was faced with a difficult question relating to limitation periods, enforcement and Section 6 (1) (b) of Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609 (;’the ordinance’). The Court chose to interpret Section 100 of the Ordinance holistically.

BVU v BVX [2019] SGHC 69


The Singaporean High Court refused to set aside an award in an application predicated upon the failure to produce witness evidence and disclose certain documents. In a reminder to parties that it is always important to be seen to request documents if it appears that it may be relevant to future application to set aside, the High Court set out the legal parameters within which such an application will need to be made and its reluctance to grant set aside on the basis of ex post facto attempts to procure evidence.

Balram Chainrai v Kushnir Family (Holdings) Ltd [2019] HKCFI 234

[Hong Kong]

There are a number of interesting features to this decision by Hon Mimmie Chan J in the Court of First Instance. This brief note focuses on a particularly important application of the Arbitration Ordinance to arbitration agreements in main contracts and their relationship to disputes arising out of sub-contract agreements. The judgment will be of particular interest within the context of construction arbitration.

Sonact Group Limited v Premuda SPA (Four Island) [2018] EWHC 3820 (Comm)

[England and Wales]

On an application to challenge an arbitral award pursuant to Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, Males J makes a determination on the applicability of an arbitration agreement within an underlying charterparty to a dispute arising from a subsequent settlement agreement. In an interesting judgment, the High Court reaffirms its commitment to the enforcement of arbitration agreements.


[England and Wales]

The English High Court once more expresses its readiness to issue an anti-suit injunction in respect of foreign proceedings issued in breach of an arbitration agreement. It also considered the principle of arbitrability in circumstances where it was being alleged following the issue of an arbitral award in a private dispute that the contract in question was rendered invalid by virtue of the constitutional invalidity of a legislative act pursuant to which those private relations had been entered into. A timely reminder that the English courts retain their commitment to enforcing arbitration agreements, this judgment is considered in-depth.

The Arbitration Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.

Written by Paul Fisher

Subscribe to the Bloomsbury Professional Law Newsletter

Law Online

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw Online research for solicitors and barristers practising in English law Free Trial

Need Help?

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw If you need any help with finding publications or just ask a question. Talk to an Advisor: 01444 416119
or send us a message