Since the Arrangement on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region came into force 20 years ago, fruitful results have been achieved in judicial assistance and cooperation。On November 27, when the High People's Court and the Department of Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region signed the Supplementary Arrangement on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the two sides issued 10 typical cases of mutual enforcement of arbitral awards in both Chinese and English。

　　This is the first time for the two places to publish a typical case of judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters, which has explored effective new measures and new ways to further improve the judicial assistance system of the two places and respond to the judicial needs of the people。The presentation of typical cases maintains the respective language habits of the two places。

　　The brief introduction of the case is as follows:

Catalogue of cases of Mainland people's courts

　　1. Huaxia Shipping (Singapore) Limited applied for enforcement of the Hong Kong Arbitration Award

　　Ii. The United States Yi Ed Architects applied for the implementation of the Hong Kong arbitration award

　　David Dane Consulting Limited and Bramley Limited applied for enforcement of the Hong Kong arbitration award

　　Application by Raffles International Limited for enforcement of the Hong Kong Arbitration Award

　　V. Benner Design Group International Consulting Co., Ltd. applied for enforcement of the Hong Kong arbitration award

　　1. Huaxia Shipping (Singapore) Limited applied for enforcement of the Hong Kong Arbitration Award

　　Case number: (2018) Yue72 Recognized Port No. 1, (2019) Yue72 Recognized Port No. 1

　　(1) Basic facts

　　On February 1, 2012, Huaxia Shipping (Singapore) Limited (hereinafter referred to as Huaxia) signed a contract with Donghai Shipping Limited (hereinafter referred to as Donghai Company), agreeing that the goods of Huaxia Company shall be carried by Donghai Company, and all disputes arising from the contract shall be submitted to Hong Kong for arbitration, which shall be governed by English law。On April 21 of the same year, Huaxia Company sent an email to Donghai Company to confirm that the two parties reached a supplementary contract on the basis of the aforementioned contract, agreeing to transport a new batch of goods, and other terms and conditions shall apply to the contract。Later, the parties had a dispute over the performance of the supplementary contract, and Huaxia filed for arbitration in Hong Kong on February 16, 2016。The Hong Kong arbitral Tribunal made the initial final award and the final award of costs respectively, and awarded Donghai Company to pay the corresponding compensation and the relevant arbitration costs。

　　After the arbitration award came into effect, Huaxia applied to the Guangzhou Maritime Court for recognition and enforcement of the above two arbitration awards。Donghai company replied that，The arbitration agreement submitted by Huaxia Company has not been notarized，No officially certified Chinese translation was submitted;The transportation of the goods involved in the case is a supplementary contract，The supplementary contract is made orally by the parties over the telephone，There is no arbitration clause or arbitration agreement，Tokai also never recognized the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal;Enforcement of an arbitral award would violate the Mainland Arbitration Law's requirement of an express arbitration agreement and the relevant provisions of the General Provisions of the Civil Law on expression of intent，Against the public interest。

　　(2) The result of the judgment

　　The Guangzhou Maritime Court held that, first, Huaxia's application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award met the formal requirements of the Arrangement of the High People's Court on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter referred to as the Arrangement)。Second, whether the arbitration agreement is established or not is within the scope of examination of the validity of the arbitration agreement, and since the parties have not agreed on the applicable law to confirm the validity of the arbitration agreement, in accordance with Article 7 (1) of CEPA, whether the arbitration agreement is established or not shall be examined in accordance with the law of the place of arbitration, that is, the law of Hong Kong。According to the relevant provisions of Hong Kong law, the contract incorporation clause recorded in the E-mail involved constitutes a valid arbitration agreement。Third, a violation of the relevant provisions of Mainland law cannot be equated with a violation of the public interest of the Mainland society, unless the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award would cause serious damage to the basic principles of Mainland law。The express requirement of arbitration agreement in the Mainland Arbitration Law and the requirement of expression of intention in the General provisions of the Civil Law do not belong to the basic principles of the Mainland law。Based on the above reasons, the ruling recognizes and executes the two arbitral awards involved。In addition, according to the application of Huaxia Company, the Guangzhou Maritime Court froze the deposits of Donghai Company in the Shenzhen Branch of China Merchants Bank before making the ruling on the recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award。

　　(3) Typical significance

　　First, it shall be clear that whether the arbitration agreement is established or not is within the scope of validity review of the arbitration agreement。An arbitration agreement is a document to be submitted by the parties when they apply for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, which is directly related to whether the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction。The review of the validity of the arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award。For this reason, if Article 7 (1) of CEPA clearly stipulates that the arbitration agreement is invalid, it shall not be executed。However, whether the arbitration agreement is invalid in a broad sense or a narrow sense, and whether the arbitration agreement is not established, is controversial in practice。This case is not limited to the literal meaning, but from the original meaning of the article, the establishment of the arbitration agreement is the premise of the validity of the arbitration agreement, which belongs to the scope of examination of the validity of the arbitration agreement。The nullity of the arbitration agreement includes the situation where the arbitration agreement is not established。

　　(2) Before making an order of recognition and enforcement, take preservation measures as requested。The CEPA does not specify whether the court can take preservation measures against the property of the respondent before or after accepting an application for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the understanding in practice is inconsistent。In this case, reference is made to the Arrangement for the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Macao Special Administrative Region.，In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and its judicial interpretation，On the application of the parties，Before the parties apply for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award，Take pre-litigation preservation measures;After the parties apply for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award, and before the court makes a recognition and enforcement order，Take protective measures in litigation。The trial court promotes the smooth execution of the award through preventive relief measures, which is conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties。

　　Ii. The United States Yi Ed Architects applied for the implementation of the Hong Kong arbitration award

　　Case number: (2016) Su 01 Jiangang No. 1

　　(1) Basic facts

　　March 29 and May 15, 2013，American Yi Ed Architects (hereinafter referred to as Yi Ed Architects) and R&F Nanjing Real Estate Development Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as R&F Company) signed a contract for the plot design，And agreed on an arbitration clause，Submit the dispute to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission，The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration rules of the arbitration Commission in force at the time of applying for arbitration，The place of arbitration shall be Hong Kong SAR。Due to the dispute over the performance of the contract, in February 2015, Yi Aide applied for arbitration to the Hong Kong Arbitration Center of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Hong Kong Center), requesting R&F to pay the design fee owed and bear the liability for breach of contract。

　　Cietac Hong Kong accepted the case in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) which came into force on January 1, 2015, and rendered the (2015) CIETAC Arbitration Award No. 0003 on November 28, 2015。On June 7, 2016, YIDE applied to Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province for the implementation of the third item of the arbitration award, namely the payment of interest。R&f raised no objection。

　　(2) The result of the judgment

　　The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province held that R&F had no objection to the arbitration award and had fulfilled the principal part of the design fee determined by the arbitration award, except for the overdue interest part of the third item。The arbitration award does not violate the public interest of the mainland society。Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 7 and 7 of the Arrangement of the High People's Court on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter referred to as "Arrangement"), an order is made to enforce item 3 of the arbitral award。

　　(3) Typical significance

　　This is the first case in which an arbitral award made by a branch of a mainland arbitration institution in Hong Kong was enforced by a mainland court。The case clearly states that the place of the arbitral award is the criterion for identifying the place of arbitration, and that the arbitral award concerned is a Hong Kong arbitral award and meets the applicable conditions of CEPA。

　　The mainland law provides different examination standards for different types of arbitral awards, and the name of the arbitral award is generally determined by the location of the arbitral institution。The Notice of the High People's Court on Issues Relating to the Enforcement of Hong Kong Arbitral Awards in the Mainland (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice") stipulates that the people's courts shall review provisional arbitral awards made in Hong Kong and arbitral awards made in Hong Kong by foreign arbitration institutions in accordance with the provisions of CEPA。This actually makes it clear that the place of arbitration rather than the location of the arbitration institution is the criterion for judging the name of the arbitral award。However, the Notice does not specify whether an arbitral award made by a mainland arbitration institution in Hong Kong is a Hong Kong arbitral award。The fact that the arbitration award was made by a branch of a Mainland arbitration institution established in Hong Kong at the place of arbitration is in line with the spirit of the Notice and international standards。

　　David Dane Consulting Limited and Bramley Limited applied for enforcement of the Hong Kong arbitration award

　　Case No. : (2020) Beijing 04 No. 5

　　(1) Basic facts

　　大卫戴恩咨询有限公司（DAVID DEIN CONSULTANCY LIMITED）（以下简称大卫戴恩公司）、布拉姆利有限公司（BRAMLEY CORPORATION LTD）（以下简称布拉姆利公司）分别与北京中赫国安足球俱乐部有限责任公司（以下简称国安俱乐部）于2018年8月24日签署了相同的《世界十大电子游戏平台》各一份，The dispute shall be submitted to the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre for arbitration，The governing law is English law。On November 21, 2018, Guoan Club filed a notice of arbitration with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre accordingly。Later, David Dane and Bramley filed counterclaims。In this regard, HKIAC/A18211 was awarded by HKIAC on March 5, 2020: Guoan Club constituted a breach of contract of the Consultant Agreement;The Guoan Club shall pay the relevant fees and interest to David Dane Company and Bramley Company。

　　After the arbitration award came into effect, David Dane Company and Bramley Company applied to the Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing for recognition and enforcement of the arbitration Award in accordance with the Arrangement of the High People's Court on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitration Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter referred to as "Arrangement")。Respondent National security club defense，The people's court shall rule not to recognize and enforce the arbitration award，The arbitration agreement is invalid, the composition of the arbitral tribunal is inconsistent with the agreement between the parties and the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the procedures of the arbitral tribunal are inconsistent with the agreement between the parties, it is against the public interest, and the amount is not recognized。

　　(2) The result of the judgment

　　Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court after review，一，The parties in this case only agree that the law governing the contract is the substantive law of England，The law applicable to the validity of a foreign-related arbitration agreement is not clearly confirmed，Because the seat of the arbitration institution and the place of arbitration are both in Hong Kong，Therefore, the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong shall be applied for examination，The agreement is valid according to the provisions。Second, the composition of the arbitral tribunal does not contravene the 2018 HKIAC Rules in force at the time of the arbitration。The fact that both the arbitrator and the directors of the two companies hold office in the FA does not necessarily mean that there is an interest relationship or interest relationship between the arbitrator and the two companies。The parties to the disclosure of the arbitral tribunal have already been informed, and there is no need to disclose and find the procedure illegal。Third, the partial copy of arbitration documents and bill expenses provided by the applicant do not prove that the arbitration procedure is inconsistent with the agreement, and the above circumstances are disclosed in the arbitration procedure and do not violate the confidentiality clause。Fourth, the social public interest should be related to the interests of all members of the society, enjoyed by the public, different from the interests of the parties to the contract, although part of the assets of the National Security Club belong to state-owned assets, but not all matters related to it can be identified as social public interests。The award of HKIAC/AC18211 of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is hereby recognized and enforced。

　　(3) Typical significance

　　1.In this case, it is clear that the parties invoke Article 7 of the Arrangement "the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the procedure of the arbitral tribunal is inconsistent with the agreement between the parties"，When an arbitrator has procedural problems such as disclosure or withdrawal，The court shall follow the rules of arbitration，Reasonable judgment combined with social life experience，It is reviewed on the basis of whether it is sufficient to affect the impartiality and independence of the arbitration。In the case，Arbitrators may contact and interact with others due to the needs of social activities such as work, life and study，And the fact that they hold office in the same organization does not necessarily constitute an interest set out in the rules of avoidance or other relationship affecting the impartiality of the arbitration，For matters unrelated to the independence of the arbitrator and the impartiality of the arbitration，May not be disclosed。

　　2.This case explains the social public interest and has certain reference significance。Social public interests should be related to the interests of all members of society, enjoyed by the public, and needed for the development of the whole society, with public and social nature, different from the interests of the parties to the contract。The dispute handled by the arbitration involved is a contract dispute between equal civil subjects, and the settlement result only affects the parties to the contract and does not involve social public interests。Although part of the assets of the Guoan Club of the respondent in this case belong to state-owned assets, all matters related to it cannot be identified as social public interests。

　　Application by Raffles International Limited for enforcement of the Hong Kong Arbitration Award

　　Case No. : (2016) Jin01 Jiangang No. 1

　　(1) Basic facts

　　On January 15, 2007, Raffles International Limited (hereinafter referred to as Raffles Corporation) and HNA Tianjin Center Development Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as HNA Corporation) entered into a "License Contract" for the use of the "Raffles" logo and trademark.。On the same day, Raffles Hotel Management (Beijing) Co., LTD. (an affiliated company of Raffles Company, hereinafter referred to as Raffles Beijing) and HNA Company signed the Hotel Management Contract for cooperation in hotel management and operation.。The Licence Contract provides that any dispute, argument or dispute arising out of or in connection with the Contract shall be submitted to HKIAC for final arbitration in accordance with the arbitral Tribunal's arbitration rules in force at the time of applying for arbitration，The place of arbitration shall be Hong Kong，Concurrent convention，If the Hotel Management Contract or any other transaction contract is terminated for any reason，The contract was terminated immediately。The Hotel Management Contract stipulates that the relevant disputes shall be submitted to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Shanghai Sub-Commission (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai MIAOzhong) for adjudication。

　　On 20 January 2012, Raffles applied to the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) for arbitration of the dispute relating to the License Contract。2012年1月29日，莱佛士北京向上海贸仲申请就《全球官网电子游戏》所涉争议进行仲裁。Thereafter, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre made an arbitration award (Case No. HKIAC/A12016), ordering HNA Company to pay the corresponding amount and interest to Raffles Company。Raffles applied to the Tianjin Intermediate People's Court for enforcement of the arbitration award。The respondent HNA Company, on the grounds that the disputes dealt with by the award are not within the terms of the arbitration agreement, holds that the award violates the provisions of Article 7 of the Arrangement of the High People's Court on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter referred to as the Arrangement) and shall not be executed。

　　(2) The result of the judgment

　　The First Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin reported to the Tianjin Higher People's Court and the High People's Court for review that: first, the circumstances in which the award of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center relates to the Hotel Management Contract do not constitute an overruling and do not fall within the circumstances of Article 7 (1) (3) of the Arrangement。Second, the arbitral tribunal's handling of the jurisdictional issue has not violated the agreement between the parties and the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and does not fall under Article 7 (1) (4) of CEPA。Third, the challenge raised by HNA Company is not a challenge to the impartiality or independence of the arbitrators, but a challenge to jurisdiction, which the arbitral tribunal has the power to decide, without being decided by the Council of the Arbitration Center, so it does not fall under the circumstances of Article 7, paragraph 1 (4) of the Arbitration Award Enforcement Arrangement。In summary, in accordance with Articles 1, 6 and 7 of CEPA, the Tianjin No.1 Intermediate People's Court has ordered the enforcement of the partial and final awards numbered HKIAC/A12016 rendered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre on 19 November 2014 and 19 March 2015。

　　(3) Typical significance

　　This case is about whether the arbitral award falls under the "overaward" circumstances provided for in Article 7 (1) (3) of CEPA，It clarifies the rule that the arbitral tribunal shall only judge disputes that are not within its jurisdiction in the fact-finding and reasoning parts of the reasons for the award，Other contractual disputes are not involved in the main text of the award，Does not constitute an "overcut"。

　　In this case, Raffles Corporation submitted to HKIAC for arbitration a dispute relating to the performance of the Licence Contract。Because the License Contract and the Hotel Management Contract are closely related, the arbitration award involves the relevant situation of the Hotel Management Contract in the part of finding out the facts and reasoning。This analysis finds that it is inevitable for the arbitral tribunal to hear the License Contract dispute。In the end, the arbitral tribunal only made a corresponding award on the disputes involved in the License Contract based on the arbitration request, and did not make a specific award on the disputes involved in the Hotel Management Contract。The relevant disputes fall within the scope agreed by the parties in the arbitration agreement to submit to arbitration, and the arbitral award involved does not exist in the case of "overaward" as provided for in Article 7 (1) (3) of CEPA。

　　V. Benner Design Group International Consulting Co., Ltd. applied for enforcement of the Hong Kong arbitration award

　　Case number: (2019) Chuan01 Jiangang No. 1

　　(1) Basic facts

　　November 13, 2013，Binsnai Design Group International Consulting Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Binsnai Company), Chengdu Menli Wangjiang Land Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Menli Company) and Chengdu Chenchuan Industrial Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Chenchuan Company) signed the "China Chengdu Mandarin Oriental Hotel Landscape Design Service Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as the "Service Agreement").。The Service Agreement provides that any dispute, argument or claim arising out of or in connection with this Contract or the breach, termination or invalidity of this Contract shall be settled by arbitration in Hong Kong in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (" the Arbitration Rules ") as then in force。Due to a dispute arising from the performance of the contract, on March 5, 2018, Binsner applied to the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center for arbitration。On May 5, 2019, the arbitral Tribunal issued a final award in support of all of Binsnai's arbitration claims。On June 4, 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal issued the Corrections to the Final Award, which corrected and updated the Final Award。Subsequently, Binsnai applied to the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province for enforcement of the arbitration award。

　　Menli Company and Chenchuan company jointly defended that，The selection and appointment of arbitrators were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the Arbitration Rules using the list method，Instead, the sole arbitrator will be appointed，It falls under Article 7 (4) of the Arrangement of the High People's Court on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter referred to as the Arrangement)。Second, the arbitrator's failure to serve the relevant arbitration documents to the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Ministry of Justice Order No. 69 "China Entrusted Notary (Hong Kong) Administration Measures" falls under the circumstances specified in Article 7 (2) of CEPA。The application is therefore denied。

　　(2) The result of the judgment

　　Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province reviewed that, first, on the composition of the arbitral tribunal involved。The parties agree in the Service Agreement that the Arbitration Rules shall apply.。The exercise of HKIAC's discretion to appoint a sole arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings is in accordance with the above requirements。Second, whether the arbitral tribunal served the respondent in an appropriate manner。In the arbitration proceedings involved, the arbitrator served the relevant documents at the address agreed by the two parties in the Service Agreement, and the respondent also indicated that it had indeed received them, which was in line with the provisions of Article 2 of the Arbitration Rules on service, and there was no problem of the arbitrator failing to properly notify the respondent。The respondent's claim that relevant arbitration documents should be served on the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the China Entrusted Notary (Hong Kong) Administration Measures is inconsistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Rules, and the opinion shall not be accepted。

　　(3) Typical significance

　　In this case, it is clear that the basis for judging the success of service should be the arbitration rules applicable to the arbitration proceedings。"Not served in accordance with law" is the reason frequently cited by the respondent for not enforcing the Hong Kong arbitration award。To judge whether the service is effective according to law, we should first clarify the provisions on which the service procedure is based。In this case, the parties agree in the Contract that any dispute, argument or claim arising out of or in connection with this Contract or the breach, termination or invalidity of this Contract shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration Rules then in force。Accordingly, in this case, the choice of the parties is fully respected, the relevant documents are served in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Rules and at the address agreed in the Service Agreement between the parties, and the respondent indicates that it has indeed received them, and there is no problem of the arbitrator failing to properly notify the respondent。The respondent's claim that relevant arbitration documents should be served to the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the China Entrusted Notary (Hong Kong) Administration Measures is inconsistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Rules。

List of court cases of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

　　CL v. SCG

　　Gao Haiyan v. Jianyi Holdings Limited and other cases

　　Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co., Ltd. v. Yue King Industrial Co., LTD

　　Shandong Hongri Akang Chemical Co., Ltd. v. petrochina International Business (Hong Kong) Co., LTD

　　V. Guo Shunkai v. Yongcheng Chemical Co., LTD 

　　CL v. SCG

　　[2019] 2 HKLRD 144

　　HCCT 9/2018

　　I. Basic case

　　This is a hearing brought by the respondent as a preliminary question。The issue at the hearing was whether an application for enforcement of an award against the respondent was subject to the limitation of time under section 4 (1) (c) of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap. 347, Laws of Hong Kong。

　　The Applicant and the respondent entered into arbitration administered by a Hong Kong arbitration Centre in favour of the Applicant and ordered the Respondent to pay US $2,173,000, interest and costs arising from the arbitration to the Applicant immediately。

　　In March 2011, the applicant sought to recover the amount of money required to be paid by the arbitration award and the costs incurred by the arbitration from the Respondent, but was unsuccessful。On July 7, 2011, the applicant applied to a mainland people's court for enforcement of the arbitration award, but the court rejected the application。The applicant then appealed to the higher people's court and made an application for trial, which was rejected on March 1, 2016。

　　On 6 February 2018, the Applicant unilaterally filed an application for leave to enforce the arbitral award with the Hong Kong Court under section 2GG of the (Repealed) Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341) (the "Arbitration Ordinance") and successfully obtained the leave and the relevant court order (the "Order").。On 6 June 2018, the Respondent applied for a two-pronged hearing to set aside the arbitral award and supported its application on a number of grounds。The grounds raised include that under section 4 (1) (c) of the Limitation Ordinance, the applicant's application for enforcement of an arbitral award has lost its limitation。On July 24, 2018, the court ordered a preliminary dispute over the loss of limitation to be heard。

　　Ⅱ.争议

　　1.When do the causes of action relating to enforcement of an arbitral award accrue？（“争议1”）

　　2.Whereas, article 2 of the Arrangement for the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (CEPA)，The period from July 7, 2011, when the applicant applied to a mainland people's court for enforcement of the arbitral award, to March 1, 2016, when the people's court at the next higher level rejected his application for enforcement of the arbitral award，Cause of action and whether the limitation effect under section 4 (1) (c) of the Limitation Ordinance is suspended? (“争议2”)

　　Ⅲ.分析

　　争议1

　　The respondent submits that the limitation period is three months from the date of the award, that is, 17 May 2011。This date was argued to be a reasonable time for the respondent to pay and comply with the award, meaning that the limitation period should have expired on May 18, 2017。In addition, the respondent argues that the alternative cause of action commenced accrual late on 8 July 2011, that is, the date on which the applicant applied to a people's Court in the Mainland for enforcement of the award。The limitation period derived from this date expired on July 9, 2017。

　　On the other hand, the applicant argued that the limitation period only began on the date on which the respondent filed his statement against the applicant's application in a People's Court in the Mainland, i.e. 11 March 2012。The Applicant argues that despite the respondent's failure to pay as requested by the Applicant for payment to the Respondent in March 2011, it is not possible to infer from this conduct whether the Respondent is disputing the award。The applicant submits that the respondent only demonstrated a clear and unequivocal intention not to be bound by the award in making the aforementioned objection。Therefore, the Applicant considers that the cause of action only began to accrue on 11 March 2012。

　　鉴于法庭在International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd 诉Minerals and Metals Trading Corp of India [1996] 1 All ER 1017一案里拒绝接受类近于前述有关诉讼因由的累算和意图的论点，The reason for the court not to accept the action begins to count only if a party has demonstrated a clear and unequivocal intention not to be bound by the award。The Tribunal explained that accepting this argument meant allowing the debtor of an arbitral award to delay indefinitely and defer the accrual of the award creditor arising out of the proceedings, thereby delaying its right to enforce the award。随法庭在International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd 诉Minerals and Metals Trading Corp of India [1996] 1 All ER 1017一案及Agromet Motoimport Ltd 诉Moulden Engineering Ltd[1985] 1 WLR 762一案里的判决，The court held that when "the respondent failed to perform the undertakings in the arbitral award at the time of recovery"，The cause of action starts to add up。Thus, the limitation period begins when the implied promise to fulfil the award is breached。

　　The Court further noted that a cause of action arose when the respondent failed to pay within a reasonable time after the publication of the award and the commencement of recovery。What constitutes a "reasonable time" depends on the terms of the award and the circumstances。In the present case, as the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the amount under the arbitral award "immediately", the reasonable late payment in the present case ended on 8 April 2011, that is, 21 days after the Claimant requested payment。As a result, the limitation period ended on April 8, 2017。

　　争议2

　　The applicant argues that the accrued cause of action was suspended from 7 July 2011 to 1 March 2016, that is, the date when the applicant applied to a people's court in the Mainland for enforcement of the arbitral award to the date when the application was finally rejected by the people's court at a higher level。The applicant refers to section 2 of CEPA and section 40C of the Arbitration Ordinance，The Ordinance prohibits simultaneous applications for enforcement of arbitral awards in the Mainland and Hong Kong，并指出该限制的目标是堵塞双重强制执行和双重追讨的漏洞(Shenzhen Kai Loong Investment and Development Co Ltd 诉CEC Electrical Manufacturing (International) Co. Ltd [2001-2003] HKCLRT 649)。Therefore, the applicant considers that the court should not be prohibited under section 4 (1) (c) of the Limitation Ordinance from applying for enforcement of an award in Hong Kong simply because it has attempted to apply for enforcement of the award in the Mainland。

　　However, the Court is of the view that, notwithstanding the possible unfair consequences of "not being able to enforce the rules at the same time", the accrued prescription under section 4 (1) (c) of the Limitation Ordinance should not be suspended in the absence of an express provision under CEPA or the Arbitration Ordinance, even if the application for enforcement in the Mainland is in progress。The Court therefore rejected the applicant's argument that the accrual of the cause of action should be suspended while the Mainland enforcement application proceedings were ongoing。

　　Based on the above analysis of disputes 1 and 2, the Court considers that the application process for leave to enforce an arbitral award filed in Hong Kong on 6 February 2018 under section 4 (1) (c) of the Limitation Ordinance should be prohibited。

　　Ⅳ.裁决

　　The respondent's application to set aside the order shall be allowed。

　　Ⅴ.Typical meaning

　　(a) The statute of limitations begins on the day of the breach of the implied undertaking to fulfil the arbitral award。This date is the date on which the debtor has failed to comply with the award within a reasonable period of time after the award is granted and recovery is made。The reasonable time for payment and performance in an award depends on the terms of the award and the facts and circumstances of the case。

　　(b) The case shows that，Notwithstanding that Article 2 of CEPA provides that an arbitral award shall be made to the creditor in the event that the reimbursement obtained by the court of one place is insufficient，To seek enforcement of the arbitral award in another court for the deficiency，The limitation of time under the Statute of Limitations continues to accure while the creditor of the award seeks enforcement of the award in another place。The possible unfairness of this situation, such as the hardship faced by the applicant in this case, highlights the shortcomings of CEPA and the need for reform to address the prohibition of the simultaneous enforcement of arbitral awards in both places under Article 2。

　　Gao Haiyan v. Jianyi Holdings Limited and other cases

　　[2012] 1 HKLRD 627

　　CACV 79/2011

　　I.Basic case

　　The Applicant transfers the shares of a Hong Kong company to the Respondent by means of a Share Transfer Agreement and a Supplementary Share Transfer Agreement (the "Agreement")。该香港公司在一家位于中国内地的合资企业煤生意中拥有实质权益。该协议受中国内地法律管辖并规定在内地某仲裁委进行仲裁。

　　In accordance with Article 37 of the Arbitration Rules, conciliation-arbitration shall be conducted by the arbitral tribunal or the first arbitrator, or by any third party with the agreement of the parties to the arbitration。The Tribunal held two meetings。After the first hearing, the arbitral tribunal took the initiative to recommend to the parties that the respondent pay RMB 2 to the applicant.$500 million to settle the case。

　　Prior to the second hearing, in the absence of the arbitrator appointed by the respondent and the first arbitrator, the arbitrator appointed by the applicant and the relevant persons of the respondent attended an informal meeting, at the invitation of the Secretary-General of the arbitration Commission, which was claimed to be a meeting to mediate the arbitration。The Secretary-General of the Arbitration Commission is not appointed by mutual agreement。He allegedly chaired the informal meeting and asked the respondent's contacts to persuade the respondent to accept the arbitral tribunal's recommendation。

　　The arbitration parties were unable to reach a settlement。The tribunal awarded in favour of the applicant。The ruling recommended, but did not call for, 50 million yuan in damages。The respondent has never complained about the conduct of the tribunal for fear that doing so would antagonise the tribunal。The respondent then filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court where the arbitration Commission was located, alleging that the secretary-general of the arbitration Commission had manipulated the arbitration results and thus violated the law and arbitration rules。As a result, it was rejected。

　　Subsequently, the applicant was granted leave to enforce the award in Hong Kong under sections 2GG and 40B of the (repealed) Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 341。In its application to stay the leave, the respondent argued that because the award was influenced by bias or apparent bias, enforcing the award would be contrary to public policy。The Respondent argues that the arbitrator appointed by the applicant, the Secretary General of the Arbitration Commission and the respondent's contacts attempted to put pressure on the respondent to pay RMB2 to the applicant through an informal meeting held between them during dinner.$500 million in exchange for a ruling in favor of the respondent。The Court of First Instance judge ruled that the arbitral award was affected by prima facie bias。The judge also ruled that the respondent's continuation of the second hearing after the alleged informal meeting incident did not waive his right to appeal against bias。The applicant appealed。

　　Ⅱ.争议

　　1.Whether the public policy arguments applicable to the enforcement of UNCLOS arbitral awards apply to Mainland arbitral awards？About how high the bar is？（“争议1”）

　　2.Whether the respondent has waived his right to appeal against the violation of the rules of the Arbitration Commission？（“争议2”）

　　3.Is apparent bias (as opposed to actual bias) sufficient to constitute a public policy justification for refusing to enforce an arbitral award？（“争议3”）

　　4.Whether, based on the facts of the case, the alleged prima facie bias constitutes a public policy justification for refusing to enforce an arbitral award？（“争议4”）

　　Ⅲ.分析

　　争议1

　　The Court held that the legal philosophy of refusing to enforce UNCLOS arbitral awards on public policy grounds also applied to Mainland arbitral awards。The bar is high on the grounds that the principle of international courtesy needs to be "woven" into the concept of public policy, and therefore applied in the context of overseas (including mainland) arbitral awards。On this point, the Court cited Hebei Import & Judgment in Export Corp v Polytek Engineering Co Ltd (1999) 2 HKCFAR 111。In that case, the Court noted that, in order to give effect to the principle of international courtesy, enforcement of a foreign arbitral award would not be refused unless it would be contrary to the basic concepts of morality and justice in Hong Kong;And there needs to be a very good reason for that。

　　争议2

　　The Court ruled that if a party to the arbitration wished to rely on a breach of the rules of arbitration, it should do so without delay;You should not wait to know the outcome of your claim before you decide to appeal;Nor should the arbitration be allowed to proceed as if there had been no breach。Accordingly, the respondent should not submit only supplementary comments to the Tribunal after the informal meeting incident, nor should he attend the second arbitration hearing without filing a complaint。The Tribunal also noted that the respondent's attack on the integrity of the applicant was no substitute for a complaint against the arbitral Tribunal or the Secretary-General of the Arbitration Commission for any bias or misconduct on his part。For these reasons, the respondent is legally deemed to have waived his claim of bias。

　　The Tribunal explained that if the complaint had been made, remedial measures might have been taken by the arbitral tribunal or the people's court where the arbitration Commission was located;Both are better able to determine whether bias exists on the facts of a case。The court held that，Although the decision of the People's Court where the Arbitration Commission is located to refuse to set aside the arbitral award on the grounds of bias is not binding on the Hong Kong court，Even if the principle of estoppel does not apply in this case as a result of the aforementioned court's decision，Hong Kong courts have the power to decide whether to enforce an arbitral award，Carefully consider the decision of the local people's court of the arbitration Commission。

　　争议3

　　The Hebei Import & After careful interpretation of the views expressed in Export Corp v. Polytek Engineering Co Ltd, the Tribunal held that the Tribunal could refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the basis of prima facia bias alone。However, if a party to the arbitration wished to rely on apparent bias, it would have to reach a higher threshold than would apply if it relied on actual bias, and the court should exercise the relevant discretion prudently。

　　争议4

　　Based on its assessment of the relevant facts, the Tribunal found that there was no "objective observer" who feared prima facie bias。The Court ruled that while the average person might be as upset as the first instance judge about the way in which mediation was conducted, as mediation in Hong Kong was usually conducted in a different way, whether a prima facie bias might arise might depend on an understanding of how mediation was normally conducted in the place of mediation。In this regard, the Tribunal stated that it must take into full consideration the decision of the People's court where the Arbitration Commission is located to refuse to set aside the arbitral award。

　　The Court reiterated that it would only refuse to enforce an arbitral award if its enforcement would be incompatible with the fundamental concepts of morality and justice of the place of enforcement, in this case Hong Kong。Accordingly, the Tribunal should not refuse to enforce the award in Hong Kong simply because the informal meeting format might give rise to apparent bias in Hong Kong。

　　Ⅳ.裁决

　　Win an appeal。

　　Ⅴ.Typical meaning

　　If a party to the arbitration wishes to rely on a violation of the arbitration rules, it shall promptly provide such basis;You should not wait to know the outcome of your claim before you decide to appeal;Nor should the arbitration be allowed to proceed as if there had been no breach。

　　A court will only refuse to enforce an arbitral award if enforcing it would be contrary to basic notions of morality and justice in the place of enforcement。The court respects the form of mediation that is customary in the place where mediation is conducted and will not easily invoke a violation of public policy simply because the form is different from the local one。

　　Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co., Ltd. v. Yue King Industrial Co., LTD

　　[2009] 4 HKLRD 353;

　　CACV 106/2008 & CACV 197/2008

　　Ⅰ.Basic case

　　The first and second Appellants are two Hong Kong companies, a shareholder of Lee King Industrial (Hong Kong) Limited (" Lee King Hong Kong ") and a member of the Eton Group。Hong Kong Lee King wholly owns a Mainland company which owns a piece of land in Xiamen (the "Property")。

　　The applicant (a Mainland company) agrees to pay the Appellant 1.200 million RMB for the right to develop, operate and profit from the property。The Appellant also agreed to transfer its shares in Lee King Central, Hong Kong to the Applicant and deliver the property to the Applicant (the "Agreement").。The agreement contains an arbitration clause。

　　上诉人没有将该物业交付给申请人，并以履行该协议违反中国内地法律为由宣称终止该协议。Accordingly, the Applicant initiated arbitration proceedings in Beijing (the "First Arbitration") and obtained an award in its favour (the "Award"), in which the Appellant was ordered to continue to perform the Agreement。The applicant subsequently obtained an order in Hong Kong ex parte to enforce the award (" the Order ").。

　　The appellant applied for a stay of the order，Considers that under the Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 341 of the Laws of Hong Kong (" the Arbitration Ordinance ")，Enforcement of the order shall be refused on the grounds that failure to perform the agreement would make enforcement of the order contrary to public policy，The reasons include: (a) the construction of the property has commenced;(b) The restructuring of the Eton Group was implemented during an arbitration，Hong Kong's Lee King shares have been diluted in the process，When the middle share has been transferred to its parent company。The judge refused to stay the order。

　　At the same time, the Appellant seeks a determination from the Arbitration Commission as to whether the obligations of the parties under the agreement have been discharged (" secondary arbitration ").。The arbitration Commission ruled against the appellant。

　　At the time of this hearing to deal with the Appellant's appeal against the judge's refusal to set aside the order, the development of the property had been completed and 99% of the completed flats had been sold to third parties。The appellant argued that by being unable to fulfil the agreement, the applicant was in effect applying for "further" remedies, such as damages or the surrender of profits, rather than any interest in the property itself。The Appellants also undertake that they will proceed to the next round of UNCAC arbitration for the arbitral tribunal to decide on alternative remedies (the "undertaking").。In addition, the appellant may refer the case back to the Arbitration Commission for its direction or defer the appeal until the Commission has given its direction。

　　Ⅱ.争议

　　1.Whether the appellant is unable to perform the agreement？（“争议1”）

　　2.Given dispute 1, whether there are sufficient public policy grounds for refusing to enforce the award？（“争议2”）

　　3.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to refer the case back to the Arbitration Commission？（“争议3”）

　　Ⅲ.分析

　　争议1

　　The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had ample opportunity to raise the issue of its inability to fulfil the agreement directly with the Arbitration Commission, but did not do so。Accordingly, the Tribunal found the undertaking to be meaningless。As there was no reasonable explanation for the practice, the Court considered that it was clearly a deliberate decision by the appellant。The Court rejected the appellant's argument that work on the property had commenced;Due to the restructuring of Eton Group, Hong Kong Lee King shares were diluted in the process;And most of the units of the property have also been sold to a third party, rendering it unable to perform the agreement。The court found that these were calculated risks and were created by the Appellant, and therefore the Appellant must bear the consequences。The Court also noted that since the order did not provide for any enforcement time and a person unable to execute the order would not be guilty of contempt, the risk of imprisonment for contempt of court was fictitious。

　　争议2

　　The Court noted that in considering whether to refuse enforcement of the award on public policy grounds, the Court would not consider the merits of the case or the transactions on which the case was based。The role of the tribunal is limited to deciding whether there are grounds for refusing to enforce an award because it is contrary to public policy。The role of the Court in dealing with this issue should be as mechanical as possible。The Court therefore considers that the inability to perform the agreement at the stage of registration of the award is not a relevant factor and is not a sufficient reason for refusing to enforce the award on public policy grounds。

　　争议3

　　The court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to refer the case back to the Arbitration Commission。Under the Arbitration Regulations, the Tribunal has the power to enforce the award (or refuse to do so), but has no jurisdiction to return the case。

　　Ⅳ.裁决

　　Appeal dismissed。

　　Ⅴ.Typical meaning

　　The court will not consider the merits of the case or the transactions on the merits when considering whether to refuse to enforce the award。The role of the Tribunal is limited to determining whether there are questionable grounds for refusing to enforce the award。On this basis, the Tribunal held that the inability to perform the agreement was not a relevant consideration at the registration or recognition stage of the enforcement of the arbitral award。As such, it does not constitute sufficient grounds for refusing to enforce an arbitral award on grounds contrary to public policy。

　　Shandong Hongri Akang Chemical Co., Ltd. v. petrochina International Business (Hong Kong) Co., LTD

　　[2011] 4 HKLRD 604

　　CACV 31/2011

　　Ⅰ.Basic case

　　The appellant, as buyer, entered into a contract with the respondent, as supplier, for 3,937.448 tons of sulphur supplied and at the purchase price of 3,051,522.20 dollars in exchange。The Appellant refused to receive 3,810,578 tonnes of sulphur because the specifications of the sulphur supplied were incorrect。 Accordingly, the Appellant seeks a refund of the balance of the purchase price amounting to US $2,953,198 for the sulfur。

　　The two parties conducted arbitration on the dispute, which was heard by a Mainland arbitration commission in a Mainland arbitration tribunal。The Tribunal found in favour of the Appellant, holding that:

　　(a) The appellant shall return 3,810 to the respondent.578 tons of sulfur;

　　(b) The Respondent shall refund to the Appellant $2,953,198 (i.e., the payment received in connection with the transaction);

　　(c) The respondent shall pay to the Appellant compensation, miscellaneous expenses and costs of the Appellant plus interest (if any late payment);

　　(d) The Respondent's interpretation of the award is that, in accordance with (b) and (c) above, the return of the balance of the transaction payments received and the payment of other payments is a precondition for the appellant to return the sulphur he has refused to receive and that the quality of the sulphur returned is equivalent to the "condition and quality" of the supply to the appellant.。

　　In response to the respondent's written applications and inquiries, the Commission issued three letters (" the Commission's Letters ").。In the first two letters, the Arbitration Commission confirms the respondent's interpretation of the award。The third letter sets out the Tribunal's view that the two aforementioned letters are "supplementary notes" to the award and form part of the award。

　　Neither the respondent's letter requesting clarification to issue a supplementary award nor the responses contained in the two letters of the Arbitration Commission were copied to the Appellant。The Appellant disagrees with the respondent's interpretation of the award and has applied for leave to enforce items (b) and (c) of the award in Hong Kong。The respondent objected to his application and applied for leave to enforce subparagraph (a) of the award。The court ruled in favour of the respondent。 The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal。

　　Ⅱ.争议

　　1.In view of section 2GG (1) of the (repealed) Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 341 (the "Arbitration Ordinance"), whether the court should "make a court judgment on the terms of an arbitral award, order or direction"。（“争议1”）

　　2.Given the wording of the award and the enforcement of the Tribunal's obligations, whether the obligations referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of the award depend on subparagraph (a) of the award？（“争议2”）

　　3.Whether the obligations under subparagraph (a) of the arbitral award are independent of those under subparagraph (b) of the award, depending on the application of the restitution principle？（“争议3”）

　　4.According to Article 56 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (the "Arbitration Law") and/or the relevant provisions of the arbitration rules of a local arbitration Commission, whether the letter from the Arbitration Commission constitutes a supplementary or additional arbitration award shall form part of the award？（“争议4”）

　　5.Whether the validity of the Commission's letter should be dealt with by the relevant Mainland court instead of the enforcement court in Hong Kong？（“争议5”）

　　Ⅲ.分析

　　争议1

　　The court cited an authoritative decision stating that the enforcement of arbitral awards should be "almost a matter of administrative procedure";For important policy reasons, courts need to ensure that arbitral awards are effectively and expeditiously enforced。The Tribunal held that the Tribunal should respect the clear intention behind the arbitral award and had no right to explore the reasons behind the award or guess at its intention。Under section 2GG (1) of the Arbitration Ordinance, the court shall register the award "in accordance with the terms of the award" at the recognition stage of the award。

　　争议2

　　The Tribunal considers that, apart from the issue of the Commission's letter, the award clearly fails to state that the payment obligation under subparagraphs (b) and (c) of the award depends on subparagraph (a)。Therefore, conditions should not be imposed in the case of a court judgment made pursuant to an arbitral award to enforce subparagraphs (b) to (c)。Otherwise, the arbitral award will be changed rather than enforced。In this light, there is no reason for the Tribunal to impose further conditions on the status and quality of sulphur。

　　争议3

　　For three reasons，The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the obligations under subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the award would not be independent of each other because of the circumstances under which the restitution principle applied: first，The court should not second-guess the intent behind the decision;In addition，The principle of restitution varies in different jurisdictions，The relevant law should be applied by the arbitral tribunal;secondly，Even assuming that the arbitral award is not independent of the obligation to return the money paid and the goods returned，Nor can the court conclude that the decisions depend on each other。The rights and obligations under the law of restitution should not be confused with decisions and orders made to give effect to those rights and obligations。

　　争议4

　　According to Article 56 of the Arbitration Law and/or the relevant provisions of the arbitration rules of an arbitration Commission in the Mainland, the letter from the Arbitration Commission does not constitute a supplementary or additional award。Therefore, the views expressed in the letter of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration Commission are inadmissible in enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong。

　　争议5

　　For three reasons，The court refused to admit the respondent to the relevant Mainland court，Rather than Hong Kong's enforcement court to deal with the argument of the validity of the Arbitration Commission's letter as a supplementary or additional award: first，If the Tribunal finds that there is a clear difference in the requirements between the so-called arbitral award or supplementary award and the arbitral award or supplementary award under the relevant law or rule，The Tribunal is not required to accept all documents described as arbitral or supplementary awards;In addition，Enforcement The Tribunal is entitled to consider its public policy on the enforcement of foreign or mainland arbitral awards。In the present case, the issues in letters 2 and 3 of the Commission's letters relate to the rule of natural justice in public policy。

　　Ⅳ.裁决

　　Win an appeal。

　　Ⅴ.Typical meaning

　　Enforcing arbitral awards should be 'almost a mechanical process'。Enforcement The Court has no power or need to explore the reasons behind the arbitral award or speculate on its intent。As an enforcement court, the Hong Kong Court has the power to determine whether a document is an arbitral award or a supplementary arbitral award, or a part of it。The Court is also empowered to decide whether to refuse enforcement of foreign or mainland arbitral awards in accordance with its public policy on enforcement of foreign or mainland arbitral awards。The question of whether the rules of natural justice are adhered to, which is the subject of the Arbitration Commission's letter in this case, will be taken into account by the Tribunal。

　　V. Guo Shunkai v. Yongcheng Chemical Co., LTD

　　[2013] 3 HKLRD 484

　　HCCT 35/2012

　　Ⅰ. Basic case

　　Pursuant to an arbitration administered by a arbitration Commission in the Mainland between the applicant and the Respondent, the arbitral Tribunal rendered an award in favour of the Respondent (the "Award")。The award required the respondent to pay to the applicant: (1) RMB 29,195,470.Compensation for economic losses of RMB 58 and related interest of RMB 12,293,716.33元； （2）人民币500,000元的法律费用；及 （3）人民币675,473元的仲裁程序费用，以及人民币134,574元的仲裁员费用。

　　Subsequently, the applicant obtained an order and leave from the court allowing the award to be enforced in Hong Kong (" the Order ")。

　　On the grounds that the award was beyond the scope of submission to arbitration and that the arbitration procedure was in conflict with the law, the respondent applied to a people's court in the Mainland for setting aside or revoking the award。The Hong Kong Court held that it was not in the nature of the application to appeal on the merits of the dispute on which the case was based。

　　Subsequently, the respondent issued a summons (" the summons ") to set aside or vary the order under Rule 10 (6) of Order 73 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A, Laws of Hong Kong (the "Rules")。That's the question the court is asking in this case。

　　Ⅱ.争议

　　1.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to defer proceedings in cases relating to the enforcement of Mainland arbitral awards？（“争议1”）

　　2.What factors should a party take into account when applying for a guarantee when the court adjourns the hearing of an application to stay or vary the order？（“争议2”）

　　Ⅲ.分析

　　争议1

　　The court noted that，Even though the Arbitration Ordinance does not include any provision for post-custodial proceedings in the enforcement of Mainland arbitration awards，That is tantamount to deferring the provisions relating to procedures for the enforcement of ordinary arbitral awards or Convention arbitral awards，It does not mean that the Court does not have jurisdiction to defer the proceedings relating to the enforcement of the Mainland arbitration award。The Tribunal considers that it has general and inherent powers to control its proceedings, including adjournment;This power is implicit in High Court Order 73, Rule 10A。

　　争议2

　　the Court cited and referred to the principles set out by the English Court in Soleh Boneh International Ltd v. Government of the Republic of Uganda [1993] 2 LLR 208。In this case, the English court decided to adjourn the hearing and required the parties to provide guarantees equivalent to the amount of the award pending a decision by the Swedish court on whether the award was binding。In the course of the appeal, the Court considered two factors - the merits of the argument that the arbitral award was invalid after brief consideration by the court, and the ease with which enforcement of the arbitral award would be made difficult by the transfer of assets or inadvertant transactions if there was a delay in enforcement。The stronger the argument that the arbitral award is invalid, or the more obvious it is that the difficulty of enforcement will be enhanced by the delay in enforcement, the more likely it is that the court will order the parties to the litigation to provide assurances。

　　In accordance with the above principles，The court considered a number of factors relevant to the case，Including the respondent's failure to provide any document setting out the merits of his application to a Mainland court for setting aside or quashing the award，Thereby supporting its argument that the award was "manifestly invalid";The respondent changed its registered office，The respondent sold its industrial property，The respondent's financial situation is deteriorating，And the Respondent company shares (described as obsolete assets) were sold by the parent company shortly after the award was granted;In addition，Reported total assets (approx. 4,Hk $5.04 million) and unaudited net debt (approximately 1.Hk $43.5 billion)。

　　Ⅳ. 裁决

　　Based on the above factors，And in the absence of a statement that the amount of the particular guarantee would be beyond the means of the respondent，The court adjourned the hearing of the summons pending a Mainland people's Court's determination on whether the award should be set aside or quashed，And order the respondent to provide 2,Hk $10 million as security deposit，To protect the chances of the award being successfully enforced in Hong Kong if the hearing is adjourned。

　　Ⅴ. Typical meaning

　　The High Court of the HKSAR has the power to adjourn the hearing of the proceedings relating to the enforcement of the Mainland arbitration award and to require the respondent to provide security。

　　There are two main considerations for the court as to whether the respondent should be ordered to give security to fulfil the award。The first is the argument that the ruling is invalid。If the award is manifestly invalid, the hearing should be adjourned and an order for assurance should not be made;However, if the ruling is clearly valid, an enforcement order or an order requiring substantial assurance should be issued immediately。Second, the court should consider the ease of enforcement and the impact of any delay in enforcement, for example through the transfer of assets or inadvertant transactions。