Arbitration Law Monthly

Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allows an application for permission to appeal on a point of law, but the test for the grant of permission depends upon whether the issue is of general public importance (in which case the award must be open to serious doubt) or whether the issue is a one-off (in which case the award must be obviously wrong). In Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd v Cwmbargoed Estates Ltd and Another [2019] EWHC 704 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews discussed the procedural issues relating to the “obviously wrong” test.

In Sabbagh v Khoury [2019] EWCA Civ 1219 the Court of Appeal has definitively laid down the principles upon which an English court can grant an anti-arbitration injunction in respect of foreign arbitration proceedings.

The decision of Chow J in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance, T v A and V, July 2018 concerns an arbitration in Hong Kong involving a contract governed by the law of the PRC. The issue concerned the effect of subrogation proceedings by an insurer on the assured itself. The application of English law throughout would have produced the same outcome.

In Gracie and Another v Rose [2019] EWHC 1176 (Ch), HHJ Russen QC considered a series of arguments by the claimant, asserting that the arbitrator was guilty of serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d) of the 1996 Act by failing to consider all of the issues put to him. The judge concluded that there was no merit in any of the arguments.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has in But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873 confirmed that Hong Kong adopts the same approach as in England to stay applications where a statutory demand has been served on the debtor. The case is discussed by Edward Liu, Legal Director, Hill Dickinson Hong Kong.