Hong Kong Court’s Guidance on Correction of Arbitral Awards, Additional Awards, and Applications to Set-Aside or Resist Enforcement
In SC v OE1, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance confirmed that Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), section 69; Model Law, article 33(1)(a) will be strictly construed to only allow correction of clerical errors. However, it also identified Arbitration Ordinance section 69; Model Law, article 33(3) as a potentially useful tool for parties who believe that the tribunal has not properly addressed all of its claims in an award, or has omitted from an award relief for claims which have otherwise been dealt with by the tribunal, allowing parties to ask the tribunal to make a supplemental award relating to such claims in certain circumstances.
The case provides a cautionary tale for parties involved in applications to set aside or resist the enforcement of an arbitral award: Parties should include all grounds that they intend to rely upon in their application, as any further, separate applications to set aside or resist enforcement of substantially the same arbitral award in Hong Kong will need to be limited to the same grounds, unless there is a compelling or exceptional reason allowing further grounds to be relied upon.