Presentation of case

Hong Kong has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law as the basis of its arbitration law. The grounds for setting aside an award are much the same as the grounds for refusal of recognition of enforcement of New York Convention awards. For that reason, the decision of Saunders J in Pacific China Holdings Ltd v Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd [2011] HKCFI 424 is of general interest. In this case the Hong Kong court exercised its discretion to set aside an arbitral award on the basis of violations of art 34(2) of the Model Law. The case is discussed by Edward Yang Liu Legal Assistant, Reed Smith Richards Butler, Hong Kong.

Pacific China: the facts

This was an application made by Pacific China Holdings (‘PCH’) to set aside an arbitral award pursuant to art 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration on the basis that PCH was denied an opportunity to present its case and/or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. Article 34(2) provides an exclusive means of recourse for a dissatisfied party in an arbitration conducted under the UNCITRAL Model Law to set aside the arbitral award. According to the article: