厦門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 厦門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS
HTML content
CACV 88/2010 AND CACV 89/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 88 OF 2010 AND 89 OF 2010
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 961 OF 2008)
________________________
BETWEEN
| 厦門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 厦門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 | Plaintiff | |
| and | ||
| ETON PROPERTIES LIMITED (裕景興業有限公司) | 1st Defendant | |
| ETON PROPERTIES (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (裕景興業(集團)有限公司) | 2nd Defendant | |
| ETON PROPERTIES GROUP LIMITED formerly known as ETON PROPERTIES (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED | 3rd Defendant | |
| LEGEND PROPERTIES (XIAMEN) COMPANY LIMITED (利景興業(厦門)有限公司)， a limited company incorporated in Hong Kong | 4th Defendant | |
| LEGEND PROPERTIES (XIAMEN) COMPANY LIMITED (利景興業(厦門)有限公司)， a foreign-owned enterprise incorporated in the People’s Republic of China | 5th Defendant |
Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon and Kwan JJA in Court
Date of Hearing: 25 January 2011
Date of Judgment: 25 January 2011
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The written judgment of this Court was handed down on 15 December of last year. The matter concerns what, in this Court’s view, is a question of enforcement of an arbitral award.
2. The questions which are said to raise matters of great general or public importance within section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 are as follows:
(1) Whether the action is not seeking the determinative jurisdiction of the court but is within the enforcement jurisdiction and powers of the court in view of the spirit and objective of the New York Convention and the legal functions of an enforcing court.
(2) On the assumption that (1) is answered in the affirmative, are such enforcement jurisdiction and powers of the court not ousted by Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law such that the action should not be stayed even though the disputes under the action fall within the scope of the arbitration clause agreed by the parties.
3. I have to say that, as a general matter, I do not consider that the issues the defendants wish to take to the Court of Final Appeal are matters of great general or public importance. It seems to me that these are fact-sensitive to this particular case. In any event, it seems to me that the questions are, to a large extent, hypothetical and, particularly in respect of the second question, I regret to say and with due respect to whoever drafted it, that question is muddled in its thought.
4. For those reasons, I would not give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
5. I agree.
Hon Kwan JA:
6. I also agree.
(Submissions on costs)
Hon Rogers VP:
7. In relation to costs, costs would naturally follow the event. Mr Barlow has drawn our attention to the provisions which are now in the Rules following the Civil Justice Reform. In view of what has been said in respect of this application, I have to say I have sympathy with what he has said and I consider that he is right. This Court should adhere to the decision which it gave. This application was muddled and there should be costs on an indemnity basis.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
8. I agree.
Hon Kwan JA:
9. I agree.
| (Anthony Rogers) Vice-President | (Doreen Le Pichon) Justice of Appeal | (Susan Kwan) Justice of Appeal |
Mr Barrie Barlow SC and Mr Anson Wong, instructed by Messrs Stephenson Harwood, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Mr Chan Chi-hung SC and Mr Richard Khaw, instructed by Messrs Mayer Brown JSM, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants in CACV88/2010
Mr Jin Pao, instructed by Messrs Wilkinson & Grist, for the 3rd to 5th Defendants/Applicants in CACV89/2010
Please refer to FAMV4/2011 & FAMV5/2011 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Final Appeal.