- Hong Kong—court reaffirms pro-enforcement stance following application to stay enforcement proceedings (S v G)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to stay the enforcement of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) arbitral award in Hong Kong. The applicant (S) obtained leave to enforce the award in September 2020 and the respondent (G) applied to stay enforcement pending the full determination of a new arbitration. S contended that it should not be deprived of the fruits of the award and it would be unjust to stay execution on enforcement. G relied on, among other things, arguments that it was entitled to a legal set-off, equitable set-off or a cross-claim to justify a stay of enforcement of the award. The key question determined by the court was the manifest justice of the case and whether it would be just and equitable to order a stay of execution or enforcement. The court dismissed G’s stay application, having considered the nature of the claims in the new arbitration, the merits of G’s set-off arguments, the delay if the enforcement of the award should be stayed until determination of the new arbitration, and the prejudices to the parties. Written by Janie Wong, partner at Addleshaw Goddard (Hong Kong) LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial