Hong Kong

Hong Kong Court of Appeal holds that the “Good Faith” Principle is Complementary to the “Choice of Remedies” Principle, Aligning Hong Kong Law with Singapore Law

By Abraham Vergis, Nawaz Kamil & Sunita Advani, Providence Law Asia

On 5 December 2016, in a case concerning the enforcement of five arbitral awards (the “Awards”) made in favour of Astro Group (“Astro”) against PT First Media TBK (“First Media”), the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (“HKCA”) found that the “good faith” principle was complementary to the “choice of remedies” principle, moving Hong Kong law in line with Singapore law. Under the “choice of remedies” principle, the award debtor may resist recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, which is what the Singapore and Hong Kong courts refer to as a passive remedy, even though it had not applied to challenge a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction or to set aside an arbitral award, referred to as active remedies.

In the lower court decision, Judge Anderson Chow Ka-ming (“Chow J”) held that First Media had breached the “good faith” principle by participating in the arbitration but then only raising objections to jurisdiction later at the enforcement stage. On appeal, the HKCA overturned the lower court’s finding and held that there was no breach of the “good faith” principle.

Just three years prior in Singapore, First Media had successfully resisted enforcement of the Awards before the Singapore Court of Appeal based on the Singapore Court of Appeal’s holding that parties who do not elect active remedies are not thereby precluded from relying on passive remedies to resist recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

In a lengthy judgment littered with references to the Singapore Court of Appeal judgment, the HKCA found that one of the reasons why First Media had not breached the good faith principle is that First Media did not remain silent about its objection to jurisdiction even though it had not challenged the preliminary award, and had expressly preserved its rights throughout as regards jurisdiction. This was confirmed by the Singapore Court of Appeal. Additionally, the HKCA held that Chow J had “fallen into error” in not giving weight to the decision of the supervisory court of the seat of the arbitration, i.e. the Singapore Court of Appeal judgment, in considering the conduct of the arbitration for the purpose of the good faith principle.

However, the HKCA acknowledged that “[a]pplying the principle of “good faith” too rigorously whenever there is a failure to pursue active remedies might bring this into conflict with the “choice of remedies” principle”. To prevent such a conflict, the court should consider the “full circumstances why an active remedy is not pursued or other relevant considerations (such as whether there was a clear reservation of rights so the opposite party was not misled)”.

The decision of the HKCA brings Hong Kong’s position in line with Singapore’s position in respect of raising jurisdictional objections before the courts.

In conclusion, this pro-arbitration stance of the Hong Kong courts has allowed Hong Kong to maintain its appeal as one of the world’s leading arbitral centres, despite stiff competition from Singapore. This decision of the HKCA also underscores the importance of parties expressly reserving their position on jurisdiction in order to avail themselves of passive remedies during the enforcement of arbitral awards.

http://www.providencelawasia.com/

Tags: Disputes, Hong Kong, Singapore
Articles by Lawyer
The Assistant Registrar’s Role in the Judicial Hierarchy
The decision in Peter Low LLC provides the latest judicial pronouncement on the role and position of an Assistant Registrar in the judicial hierarchy ...
Singapore High Court issues guidance on grant of super priority
On 8 November 2017, in Re Attilan Group Ltd [2017] SGHC 283 (“Re Attilan”), the Singapore High Court took its first steps towards building a corpus of jurisprudence on the grant of super priority ...
The Future of Med-Arb Clauses in Singapore
Multi-tiered or escalation Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) clauses have gained increased popularity amongst parties seeking a flexible resolution process ...
Recent Developments in Patent Law
Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Sunseap Group Pte Ltd and others ...
Related Articles by Firm
Singapore: Deferred prosecution agreements
The Singapore government is looking to introduce deferred prosecution agreements as part of a slew of proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code.
Singapore: Vicarious Liability and Insurers
The Decision in Ong Han Ling v American International Assurance Co Ltd ...
Singapore: Recent Developments in Trade Mark Enforcement
In recent times, Singapore’s undisputed position as a global leader in shipping and intellectual property has come under substantial challenge ...
Singapore: CIFG Special Assets Capital I Ltd (formerly known as Diamond Kendall Ltd) v Ong Puay Koon and others and another appeal [2017] SGCA 70
The central issue in the appeal was whether CIFG could claim the entirety of its losses against each of the Initial Shareholders jointly and severally.
The Assistant Registrar’s Role in the Judicial Hierarchy
The decision in Peter Low LLC provides the latest judicial pronouncement on the role and position of an Assistant Registrar in the judicial hierarchy ...
Singapore High Court issues guidance on grant of super priority
On 8 November 2017, in Re Attilan Group Ltd [2017] SGHC 283 (“Re Attilan”), the Singapore High Court took its first steps towards building a corpus of jurisprudence on the grant of super priority ...
The Future of Med-Arb Clauses in Singapore
Multi-tiered or escalation Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) clauses have gained increased popularity amongst parties seeking a flexible resolution process ...
Recent Developments in Patent Law
Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Sunseap Group Pte Ltd and others ...
The Validity of Asymmetrical Arbitration Clauses
In the recent case of Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 362; [2017] SGCA 32 (“Wilson”), the Court of Appeal was invited to consider the validity of an arbitration agreement that only provided for one party to commence ...
What’s new with Cybersecurity in Singapore?
With the increasing frequency of cyber-attacks, the new Cybersecurity Bill could not have come at a more pertinent time ...
Mauritian Company Successfully Enforces US$300 million LCIA Award in India
On 6 July 2012, Mauritius-based Cruz City Mauritius Holdings obtained a US$300 million award rendered by a London Court of International Arbitration tribunal. Cruz City thereafter sought to enforce this award in the High Court of New Delhi against its joint venture ...
Recent Significant Developments to Third-Party Funding in Singapore’s Arbitration Landscape
Third-party funding is increasingly prevalent globally in both litigation and arbitration ...
What’s new about the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules 2017?
With the introduction of the Investment Arbitration Rules 2017, the SIAC is now the first private arbitral institution to cater separately to investment and commercial arbitrations ...
Recent Significant Changes to the Corporate Regulatory and Restructuring Regime in Singapore
In an effort to ensure Singapore’s corporate regulatory regime continues to stay robust and to strengthen Singapore’s status as a leading global financial hub, the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 (“CAA 2017”) was passed by Parliament on 10 March 2017 ...
Related Articles
India: Valuation by Registered Valuer
“Price is what you pay, Value is what you get” ...
Data Protection and Cyber Security Law in Thailand
It is perceived that Thailand does not have adequate protection covering this very fast developing environment ...
Related Articles by Jurisdiction
The thing about … Kirsty Dougan
The managing director of Axiom spoke to Asian-mena Counsel’s Patrick Dransfield about disrupting the traditional law firm model in Asia ...
Grabbing with both hands
Disputes present us with the opportunity to negotiate or take a more adversarial approach (arbitrate or litigate). Litigation has traditionally been viewed …
Latest Articles
India: Valuation by Registered Valuer
“Price is what you pay, Value is what you get” ...
Data Protection and Cyber Security Law in Thailand
It is perceived that Thailand does not have adequate protection covering this very fast developing environment ...