Shenzhen Honeycomb System Co Ltd v Hct Technologies (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd

Judgment Date15 December 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 3076
Year2020
Judgement NumberHCCT20/2019
Subject MatterConstruction and Arbitration Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCCT20B/2019 SHENZHEN HONEYCOMB SYSTEM CO LTD v. HCT TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) CO., LTD

HCCT 20/2019

[2020] HKCFI 3076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 20 OF 2019

_______________________

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 92 OF THE ARBITRATION ORDINANCE, CAP. 609

and

IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 20TH JUNE 2017

______________________

BETWEEN

SHENZHEN HONEYCOMB SYSTEM CO. LTD
(深圳市霍尼卡姆机电设备有限公司)
Applicant

and

HCT TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) CO., LIMITED
(霍尼卡姆技術 (香港) 有限公司)
Respondent

__________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 15 December 2020
Date of Decision: 15 December 2020

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1. This is the hearing of the Respondent’s (“HCT”) Summons filed on 24 July 2020 (“Stay Summons”) for a stay of the Applicant’s (“SHS”) Summons filed on 14 May 2019 (“Enforcement Summons”) which sought leave to enforce a Mainland arbitral award (“Award”) against HCT. The stay application is premised upon HCT’s appeal against a Decision of Mimi Chan J dated 20 May 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 822) (“Decision”) whereby HCT’s challenge to the Enforcement Summons on the ground that the proceedings were not brought with authority of SHS was rejected.

2. After the filing of the Stay Summons, the Enforcement Summons was heard by Mimi Chan J on 2 December 2020. Leave to enforce the Award was granted to SHS after the hearing, with reasons for decision to be handed down. This application is therefore, in substance, one for a stay of the enforcement of the Award.

3. It is HCT’s case that its appeal against the Decision, based on 2 grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal filed on 17 June 2020, has a strong likelihood of success. In addition, it was submitted that HCT has no sufficient assets available for execution to satisfy the Award, and a winding up order against it would have serious deleterious effect.

4. The background of this case can be seen from the Decision. For the present purpose, I adopt the nomenclature used in the Decision. In gist, the 2 grounds of appeal advanced the following contentions :

(1) Jin, the Legal Representative of SHS, had the burden to prove authorisation;

(2) Jin had adduced no evidence, such as Board resolution, to discharge his burden;

(3) On the other hand, the accepted evidence was that the majority of the shareholders (holding 53.7% of the shares of SHS) and 2 of the 3 directors of SHS disapproved of the Enforcement proceedings.

5. The applicable legal principles for a stay application are uncontroversial, and can be found in the much cited authority of Star Play Development Ltd v Bess Fashion...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT