CLOUTindex.
index.
Case 41: MAL 8(1)
Hong Kong: High Court of Hong Kong (Barnett J.)
24 September 1992
Guangdong Agriculture Company Limited v. Conagra International (Far East) Limited
Published in English: (1993) 1, Hong Kong Law Reports and 1992, Hong Kong Law Digest, H11. Excerpts of judgement published in The Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Part 2, June 1993, 100
(Abstract prepared by Kaplan J.)
The plaintiff sought a summary judgement for damages for short delivery of a shipment of urea. The defendant applied for a stay of the action pending arbitration on the grounds that the agreement with the plaintiff contained an arbitration clause providing that "... In case no settlement can be reached, the case under dispute can then be submitted to the chartered loss adjuster for arbitration ... The arbitration shall take place in Hong Kong and shall take place in accordance with the rules of Hong Kong ...".
The court found that there was a binding arbitration agreement, since all article 8 MAL required was that the parties plainly agreed to settle any dispute by arbitration.
The court also found that this case involved a real dispute that could be referred to
arbitration as required by s. 6A(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance, but not by article 8
MAL. The words " ... or that there is not in fact any dispute between the parties
with regard to the matter agreed to be referred ...", omitted from article 8(1) MAL
but contained in section 6A(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance, made it clear that under the
Arbitration Ordinance only where it was readily and immediately demonstrable that a claim
has not been admitted by the party against whom it is made, the matter should be referred
to arbitration. The court granted a stay of proceedings.
This case is cited in Case 63 and Case 128.
Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "10 April 1995"):
Commented on by Kaplan in Asia LawJanuary/February 1995, 23.
Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "12 July 1995"):
Cases 39-41, 57, 60-64, 76 and 78, reported on in English: [1992] The Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Law Journal (ADRLJ) 235, [1992] ADRLJ 240, [1993] ADRLJ 100 and [1994] ADRLJ 49, 295, 307, 291, 290, 298 respectively.
Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "9 February 2000"):
Abstract published in English: [1995] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 1, issue 4, 35
Text of the court decision published in English: [1995] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 1, issue 4, 39
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW
CASE LAW ON UNCITRAL TEXTS (CLOUT)
Abstracts of cases
This compilation of abstracts forms part of the system for collecting and disseminating information on court decisions and arbitral awards relating to Conventions and Model Laws that have emanated from the work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Information about the features of that system and about its use is provided in the User Guide (A/CN.9/SER.C/GUIDE/1).
The abstracts have been prepared by national correspondents designated by their Governments. It should be noted that neither the national correspondents nor anyone else directly or indirectly involved in the operation of the system assumes any responsibility for any error or omission or other deficiency.
__________
Copyright © United Nations 1993
All rights reserved.
Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 1999.