论文部分内容阅读
2011年6月修订之香港《仲裁条例》第95条系针对不予执行内地仲裁裁决的法定事由,其中如当事方未得到进行仲裁程序之适当通知即可据此抗辩裁决执行。2015年4月香港高等法院原讼法庭针对2013年第3202/3203号案判令不予执行仲裁裁决,其法定依据恰恰在于程序通知不适当,该案系香港修法后首次拒绝执行内地裁决,以此为切入对商事仲裁中适当通知的程序性要求及认定进行研判,既具有鲜明的实务意义,亦不乏对程序正当性理论的检讨与反思。
Article 95 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, as amended in June 2011, is a statutory cause of non-enforcement of a Mainland arbitration award. Where the parties are not properly informed of the proceedings, they can defend the defense. In April 2015, the Court of Cassation of the Hong Kong High Court of First Instance rejected the enforcement of the arbitral award against the order No. 3202/3203 of 2013, the legal basis of which is precisely that the procedural notice was inappropriate. This case was the first one rejected by the Mainland in Hong Kong’s revision of the law in order to This is not only of substantive significance but also of reviewing and reflecting on the procedural justification of procedural justification in order to judge the procedural requirements and the determination of proper notification in commercial arbitration.