Stevenson, Wong & Co.
(中文) 2021年10月27日，本所合伙人、诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师和黎嘉钿高级律师，出席了于香港瑰丽酒店举行之香港仲裁慈善晚会。
香港仲裁慈善晚会致力筹集资金以支持香港本地的慈善机构，并推广仲裁的发展。
今年晚会结合线上线下慈善拍卖的形式，为两所本地慈善机构募集资金。本所合伙人徐凯怡律师鼎力支持这项别具意义的慈善活动，并积极参与了该晚的慈善拍卖会, 共襄善举。
若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师(heidichui.office@sw-hk.com)。
(中文) 本所很荣幸赞助由香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）主办的第十届香港仲裁周，并参加了于2021 年 10 月 27 日举行的亚洲替代性纠纷解决机制（ADR）会议。 本届仲裁周获得超过30间境内外的知名机构大力支持、包括亚洲国际仲裁中心（AIAC）、中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）、国际商会仲裁院（ICC）和香港律师会等。
左起: 本所陆卓楠实习律师、合伙人许懿律师、合伙人诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、刘嘉雯实习律师和巿场及传讯主管杨诗雅
ADR 亚洲会议是国际仲裁界的重要活动，来自世界各地的仲裁界专家围绕国际仲裁的核心问题和发展等热点问题展开深入探讨。今年会议主题为「未来的争议- 今天之争议 (Tomorrow’s Dispute Today)」。本次会议由HKIAC秘书长Sarah Grimmer和律政司司长郑若骅致开幕词揭开序幕，并邀得终审法院首席法官张举能法官﹐最高人民法院研究室副主任司艳丽博士等嘉宾探讨了以下的议题：
HKIAC秘书长Sarah Grimmer致开幕词
律政司司长郑若骅致开幕词
终审法院首席法官张举能法官
最高人民法院研究室副主任司艳丽博士
署理高级助理民事法律专员(仲裁) 孔庆雯（左）和本所合伙人徐凯怡律师（右）
若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师 (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com) 或合伙人许懿律师 (osberthui.office@sw-hk.com)。
Introduction
On 26 August 2021, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ordered a stay of litigation proceedings in favour of arbitration in Kinli Civil Engineering Ltd v Geotech Engineering Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2503 (“Kinli Civil Engineering Ltd”), which serves as a reminder of the Hong Kong Court’s pro-arbitration stance. This article will take a closer look at the judgment of Kinli Civil Engineering Ltd and its future implications.
Factual Background of Kinli Civil Engineering Ltd
The case centres around a dispute in a public housing development project between the plaintiff Kinli Civil Engineering Ltd (“Kinli”) and the defendant Geotech Engineering Limited (“Geotech”). Kinli commenced court proceedings against Geotech to claim for alleged unpaid sums under the subcontract (“Contract”).
The dispute resolution clause of the Contract (“DR Clause”) provides that: –
“If in the course of executing the Contract, any disputes or controversies arise between [Geotech] and [Kinli] on any question and the parties are unable to reach agreement, both parties may in accordance with the relevant arbitration laws of Hong Kong submit the dispute or controversy to the relevant arbitral institution for resolution, and the arbitral award resulting from arbitration in the HKSAR shall be final and binding on both parties, and unless otherwise agreed by both parties, the aforesaid arbitration shall not be conducted before either the completion of the main contract or the determination of the subcontract” (emphasis added).
Based on the DR Clause, Geotech applied to stay the litigation proceedings pursuant to section 20(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance. Kinli challenged the stay application.
Issues before the Court
In its opposition, Klini raised three main submissions: –
1. The use of “may” instead of “shall” or “must” in the DR Clause meant that parties merely had the option to elect arbitration, and the arbitration was merely permissive instead of mandatory.
2. The subcontract would be rendered “unworkable” if the DR Clause is interpreted as requiring all the disputes to be arbitrated only upon the completion of the main contract or the determination of the subcontract.
3. Parties are not precluded from litigating their disputes because arbitration could only be conducted after the completion of the main contract or the determination of the subcontract.
Decision
1. In interpreting the use of “may” in the DR Clause, the Court adopted a modern approach and referred to the judgement of Fili Shipping Co Ltd and others v Premium Nafta Products Ltd [2007] BUS LR 1719, confirming that the starting point for the construction of an arbitration agreement is the presumption in favour of arbitrability and the “one-stop” adjudication approach. The Court also considered the UK decision in Hermes One Ltd v Everbread Holdings Ltd [2016] 1 WLR 4098, where the Privy Council held that even in case of a purely permissive arbitration clause, it becomes mandatory for both parties when one party chooses to invoke the arbitration clause. The Court then rejected Kinli’s argument, and held that an arbitration clause will not be construed as giving a choice between arbitration and litigation unless there was very clear language providing for such.
2. As to the second issue, the Court observed that it is common for parties to the construction contracts in Hong Kong to require arbitration to be commenced only after completion of construction works so that the works could be continued despite the parties’ disputes. Therefore, the Court disagreed with Kinli’s argument that the subcontract would be rendered “unworkable”.
3. In response to Kinli’s last submission, the Court noted that it would be unusual for the parties to establish separate and distinct procedures for resolving same disputes. Without any mention of litigation, the Court held that the parties were bound to arbitrate the disputes. In this regard, the Court also reaffirmed its decision in C v D [2021] HKCFI 1471 that it has no role in determining whether any preconditions to arbitration have been met. Such a question relates to admissibility of the claim, and is for the arbitral tribunal to decide.
In light of the above analysis, the Court held that Geotech has discharged the onus to establish a prima facie case of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and granted Geotech’s application to stay the litigation in favour of arbitration.
Observations and Comments
The judgement once again emphasizes the Hong Kong Court’s pro-arbitration stance. It is now clear from the judgment that the use of “may” in an arbitration clause does not by itself indicate that the arbitration agreement is permissive rather than mandatory. In absence of any unequivocal and clear language that the contracting parties have the option to resolve their disputes in court, the Hong Kong Court is more likely to uphold a binding obligation imposed on the contracting parties to arbitrate.
This article is co-authored by our Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department, Ms. Heidi Chui, Associate, Mr. Calvin Huang, and Trainee Solicitor, Mr. Charles Luk. Please contact Ms. Heidi Chui [heidi.chui@sw-hk.com] for any further enquiries or information.
This newsletter is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage.
(中文) 2021年10月21日，本所合伙人、诉讼及争议解决部门主管徐凯怡律师连续两年受邀担任亚洲法律 (LAWASIA) 模拟仲裁国际大赛的评审。
本所合伙人徐凯怡律师(第一行;中)
亚洲法律模拟仲裁国际大赛旨在促进及融合全世界的法律学院之交流和合作。今年模拟大赛聚焦于争议解决，商业法和合同法。超过十五所来自中国﹑新加坡，马来西亚之大学参与了本次模拟大赛。
关于亚洲法律 (LAWASIA)
亚洲法律是一个由律师协会，律师，法官，法律学者和其他组织组成的国际组织，其工作包括关注亚太地区的法律专业以及促进其成员参与世界上最具活力的经济区域。自1966年成立以来，亚洲法律作为一个富有成效和具有代表性的组织，在该区域内外的律师，商人和政府中享负盛名。
如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com)。
(中文) 介绍
2021年8月20日，香港司法机构代表香港高等法院规则委员会及区域法院规则委员会发布新闻公报，在宪报刊登《2021年高等法院规则 (修订) 规则》及《2021年区域法院规则 (修订)(第2号) 规则》(统称「修订规则」)。修订规则亦已提交至 2021 年 8 月 25 日举行的立法会会议，进行先订立后审议的程序。待相关立法程序完成后，修订规则将于 2021 年 12 月 1 日生效。
何为简易判决?
根据《高等法院规则》(第 4A 章) 及《区域法院规则》(第336H章) 第14号命令第1条及第5条规则，原告人 (或提起反申索的被告人）可以以另一方无法抗辩为由，在无需进行全面审讯的情况下，于法庭程序的初期申请取得判决。换言之，第14号命令为法庭诉讼各方提供了一个无需进行全面审讯而取得「快速判决」的特快机制。
诈骗例外规则
需要注意的是，简易判决的申请程序并不适用于某些诉讼，其中包括基于诈骗指称而提出的申索 (即「诈骗例外规则」)。
在上诉法庭案件 Zimmer Sweden AB v KPN Hong Kong Limited & Brand Trading Ltd [2016] 1 HKLRD 1016（下称「Zimmer案」）一案中，上诉法庭确立了适用诈骗例外规则的准则。当时为高等法院上诉法庭副庭长的林文瀚法官对诈骗例外规则是否应该继续在香港的现代诉讼环境下存在提出了质疑，并建议探索废除诈骗例外规则的可能性。有鉴于此，司法机构重新审视了诈骗例外规则的适用性及范围，并决定修订法例以废除诈骗例外规则。
废除诈骗例外规则的理据
根据司法机构政务处于 2021 年 8 月发表的立法会参考资料摘要，司法机构提供了以下的理据支持废除诈骗例外规则：
1. 由于诈骗案在香港不存在要求有陪审团参与审讯的权利，香港没有保留诈骗例外规则的实际需要；
2. 香港的现代诉讼环境中没有充分理据支持诈骗例外规则的继续存在(如 Zimmer 案中所述)；
3. 即使被指称诈骗的被告人在审讯中有证明自己清白的机会，但这能否作为剥夺原告人寻求简易判决的权利，甚至在被告人仅提出象征性抗辩的情况下，原告人为取得济助而承担全面审讯的所有费用的理据值得质疑；及
4. 英格兰自 1992 年起已废除诈骗例外规则。
观察及评论
在修订规则提出之前，即便是在非常明确的诈骗案件中，受到损失的原告人也需要避免对另一方提出有关不诚实的申索以规避诈骗例外规则。我们亦在之前的文章中对Zimmer案作出解读 (参见“欺诈例外”在香港简易判决申请的应用链接) 并提醒网络骗案的受害者需要审慎拟定法庭状书以避免作出任何涉及诈骗的指控。为了克服这一例外规则并尽快取得简易判决，原告人通常唯有基于其他案由提出申索，例如財物复还 (restitution) 及不当得利 (unjust enrichment)。
废除诈骗例外规则无疑会帮助优化简易判决的申请机制，以及配合不断演变的法律环境，从而维护诉讼各方的利益。这一修订尤其是会受到网络骗案受害者的支持和欢迎。考虑到香港近年来网络骗案的数量在急速增加，与Zimmer案境况类似的诈骗案受害者现在可以利用简易判决的申请机制向被告人追索赔偿，而无需参与冗长的法律程序和耗费额外的法律费用。
我们相信诈骗例外规则的及时废除将会使更多骗案的受害者受益，而且预计会有更多的原告人会在适当的情况下妥善利用简易判决这一机制通过较为快速且具成本效益的方式取得法庭判决。
本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、黄晊晄律师和陆卓楠实习律师共同撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com)。
于本文中提供的一切资料仅供参考，不构成任何法律意见，资料亦受制于适用规定及法例不时的更新与修改。若需取得相关法律意见，须咨询法律顾问。
We are delighted to announce that our Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department, Ms. Heidi Chui, is on the List of Arbitrators for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC).
Founded in 1985, HKIAC is the third most preferred arbitral institution in the world [1]. To be listed on the HKIAC’s List of Arbitrators, one must have substantial experience in arbitration.
Ms. Chui is one of the few solicitors accredited and listed on the panel of arbitrators for The Law Society of Hong Kong. She is also an arbitrator of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Shanghai International Arbitration Center, Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, Hainan International Arbitration Court (Hainan Arbitration Commission), Nanjing Arbitration Commission, Guangzhou Arbitration Commission, Ningbo Arbitration Commission and Langfang Arbitration Commission.
She is also an accredited mediator of HKAIC, The Law Society of Hong Kong and a Panel Mediator for Buildings Management Cases of the Lands Tribunal, and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (U.K.). She is also a China Appointed Attesting Officer as appointed by the Ministry of Justice PRC.
Please contact Ms. Heidi Chui (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com) for any enquiries or click here to visit Ms. Chui’s profile on HKIAC’s website.
[1] According to the 2021 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, HKIAC is the third most preferred arbitral institution in the world.