Hong Kong Court Re-affirms High Threshold to Prove
"Fraud" as the Ground for Not Enforcing Arbitral
On 14 March 2016, Hong Kong Court of First Instance
(CFI) dismissed an application to set aside an
order granting leave to enforce an arbitral award made in Malaysia.
(T v C  HCCT 23/2015).
C, the Respondent and debtor of the award, made an application
to set aside the order alleging that no binding contract had been
entered into between C and T, that there had been fraud and forgery
of documents. And thus, it would be contrary to public policy to
enforce the Award.
Mimmie Chan J reasoned that the public policy ground should be
narrowly construed. Before a Convention jurisdiction could refuse
enforcement of a Convention award on public policy grounds,
"the award must be so fundamentally offensive to that
jurisdiction's notions of justice that, despite its being a
party to the convention, it cannot reasonably be expected to
overlook the objection"(Hebei Import & Export Corp v
Polytek Engineering Co Ltd (1999) 2 HKCFAR 123).
She applied the threshold test confirmed in Karaha Bodas Co
LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara
(2009) 12 HKCFAR 84, which required the applicant to show that it
had a "real prospect of success" in persuading
the judge to find that the award had been obtained by fraud. It was
incumbent on C as the applicant to make full and adequate
disclosure of the facts and matters it reliedupon to substantiate
its allegation of fraud, as opposed to simply making bare
All of C's claims, such as 1) C had never seen any of the
Key Documents; 2) C had no bank accounts opened or maintained with
the issuing Bankof the bonds; 3) the wrong letterhead on 2 letters
from C to T,failed to meet the thresholds.
Significantly, C had made all these claims of forgery of the Key
Documents before the Tribunal in its challenge to the jurisdiction,
and also before the Malaysian court when C applied to set aside the
Award. Both the Tribunal and the Malaysian court had considered,
and dismissed, these claims of forgery.Mimmie Chan J confirmed the
decision of the latter should be given "due weight" by an
Moreover, the fact that there might be an appeal before the
Malaysian courts was not a persuasive reason to set aside the
Order, as the arbitral award remained "valid and
This decision follows the established practice of the Hong Kong
courts in applying a very high threshold to challenges on public
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Parties have agreed on the resolution themselves, so it is often more practical for their own particular circumstances.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).