Third party rights in arbitration: can an arbitral award impact a non-party to the agreement?

In KZ v KY, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the Court) considered whether an arbitral award impacting third parties can be enforced by a court. More fundamentally, the Court also asked whether any third parties had been impacted at all.
Skyscrapers through the canopy

Background

KZ and KY were brothers embroiled in a dispute following the restructure of various family companies.

As part of the company restructure, KZ agreed to give KY shares (the restructure agreement). Under the restructure agreement, the shares would be returned to KZ once the restructure had been completed. However, KY did not return them.

Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong China.

The proceedings

The parties went to arbitration to settle whether the shares should be returned. The tribunal declared that these shares belonged to KZ and that KY should transfer them back.

KZ went to the Court to enforce the Award. In response, KY sought to have the Court set the Award aside.

KY argued that the Award had to be set aside on the grounds that:

  • the arbitration impacted third parties;
  • People’s Republic of China (PRC) law governed the agreement but the tribunal had assessed the matter using Hong Kong law; and
  • the matter itself was not capable of being arbitrated.
Business newspapers

The decision

The impact of arbitration on third parties

Central to KY’s argument was that an associate, Mr Mak, held shares by way of the agreement subject to the arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration would impact a third party. KY argued that there was authority to suggest this would invalidate the award.

The Court agreed to an extent. When an arbitral award impacts rights of third parties, a court can set aside the award. However, that does mean a court must. Rather, it is open to the court faced with an application for leave to enforce an award to decide whether third party interests provide a reason not to allow enforcement. [1]

KY then argued that an analogy should be made with equity. Equitable remedies such as specific performance will not be ordered by a court when the remedy would negatively impact a third party.

However, in this case Justice Mimmie Chan did not see how the rights of third parties would be impacted. In order to demonstrate this, Justice Mimmie Chan broke down the particulars of the agreement to prove a lack of third party rights: 

Lady justice
  1. Despite the third party’s arguments to the contrary, the share transfer at the heart of the dispute did not concern their sole share. 
  2. The Award did not bind the third party. 
  3. The third party was claiming that their rights had accrued by way of an oral agreement between them and the respondent. Justice Mimmie Chan reminded them that they were welcome to start their own independent proceedings. 

The impacts of PRC law

One of KY’s arguments was that the matter was a succession issue and would therefore be governed by PRC Succession Law. However, Justice Mimmie Chan did not agree that this meant it could not be decided by arbitration. Any arbitrator would simply only have to consider the dispute on those terms. 

Furthermore, as the companies were incorporated under Hong Kong law, Justice Mimmie Chan was doubtful that PRC law would apply in any case.  

Non-arbitrable

Justice Mimmie Chan adopted the view of the Singapore Court of Appeal that the presumption of arbitration is that arbitral awards will be enforced.[1] One of the key exceptions to the rule is whether the enforcement of an award would contravene public policy in Hong Kong. With KY having failed on the other arguments, Justice Mimmie Chan could not see how this would occur.  

Conclusion: arbitration is sensitive to third party interests

The difficulty in having a court set aside an award no doubt shaped KY’s argument around Mak being impacted by the award. The idea that Mak was an impacted third party was a stretch, but clearly there is something to the idea that arbitral awards are unenforceable when third parties are impacted.

References

[1] KZ v KY [2024] HKCFI 1880.

[2] Citing Sodzawiczny v McNally [2021] EWHC 3384 (Comm).

[3] Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd v Petroprod Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 414.

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

Hamilton Bridge

HAL in hot water: Tetchy comments and refusal to attend arbitration boils over in lease dispute

Yi Ming Investment Ltd (YMIL) terminated the lease of Hamilton Accommodation Ltd (HAL) due to alleged contractual breaches at the Ascot Motor Lodge in Hamilton, in the High Court case of Hamilton Accommodation Limited v Yi Ming Investment Limited [2024] NZHC 1619. These breaches included unauthorised alterations to the manager’s unit and using the premises for emergency housing without permission. Once the dispute arose HAL refused to engage in arbitration and the matter ended up in the High Court, with the Court handing down a scathing verdict on HAL’s conduct.
A scattered pile of U.S. hundred-dollar bills is spread across a white surface. A pair of yellow rectangular glasses rests on top of the pile, adding a splash of color to the scene.

Arbitration Act: Proposed amendments

On 9 March 2017, the Arbitration Amendment Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) to:

  • ensure arbitration clauses in trust deeds are given effect;
  • extend the presumption of confidentiality in arbitration to a rebuttable presumption of confidentiality in related court proceedings under the Act;
  • clearly define the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award and bring
  • New Zealand’s approach into line with foreign arbitration legislation; and
  • confirm the consequence of failing to raise a timely objection to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The image shows the exterior of the Centre Pompidou in Paris, characterized by its high-tech architectural style. Prominent features include external escalators encased in transparent tubes and exposed structural elements in a lattice pattern.

Gas dispute to be aired in arbitration

Hong Kong Court refuses to set aside arbitral award over claim lawyer couldn’t read witness’ body language in virtual hearing The Supreme Court of Western Australia in Power and Water Corporation v Eni Australia B V [2022] WASC 376 considered whether a party to a gas supply agreement was justified in attempting to avoid an arbitration clause. On the facts, the application (based on an exception to the arbitration clause) for urgent declaratory relief was not met. Arbitration had to proceed as provided for in the contract.

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.