时间延长,自由裁量权扩大

M. Lau
{"title":"时间延长,自由裁量权扩大","authors":"M. Lau","doi":"10.1177/1473779518791129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the latest saga of the Astro v First Media litigation, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) allowed First Media’s out-of-time challenge against enforcement of New York Convention arbitral awards rendered in favour of the Astro Group. This note critically analyses the Court of Final Appeal’s decision. It argues that there was no compelling reason to reject the structured approach as adopted by the lower courts. This is because, on a correct reading of the said approach, it could accommodate the very concerns that troubled the HKCFA. Meanwhile, the ‘overall justice’ test as adopted by the HKCFA lacks guidance power and its application to the facts was questionable. To this end, it is argued that, as and when similar issues arise in other jurisdictions, a careful judgment would have to be made as to whether the Hong Kong approach should be followed.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"47 1","pages":"208 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779518791129","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time extended, discretion expanded\",\"authors\":\"M. Lau\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1473779518791129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the latest saga of the Astro v First Media litigation, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) allowed First Media’s out-of-time challenge against enforcement of New York Convention arbitral awards rendered in favour of the Astro Group. This note critically analyses the Court of Final Appeal’s decision. It argues that there was no compelling reason to reject the structured approach as adopted by the lower courts. This is because, on a correct reading of the said approach, it could accommodate the very concerns that troubled the HKCFA. Meanwhile, the ‘overall justice’ test as adopted by the HKCFA lacks guidance power and its application to the facts was questionable. To this end, it is argued that, as and when similar issues arise in other jurisdictions, a careful judgment would have to be made as to whether the Hong Kong approach should be followed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Common law world review\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"208 - 216\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779518791129\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Common law world review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779518791129\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779518791129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在最新的天文诉第一传媒诉讼案中,香港终审法院(终审法院)批准第一传媒就执行《纽约公约》作出的有利于天文集团的仲裁裁决提出的不合时宜的质疑。本文对终审法院的裁决进行了批判性分析。它认为,没有令人信服的理由拒绝下级法院采用的结构化方法。这是因为,如果正确解读上述方法,它可以解决困扰香港cfa协会的问题。与此同时,香港终审法院采用的“全面公正”测试缺乏指导力,对事实的适用也存在问题。为此,我们认为,当类似的问题在其他司法管辖区出现时,必须审慎判断是否应遵循香港的做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Time extended, discretion expanded
In the latest saga of the Astro v First Media litigation, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) allowed First Media’s out-of-time challenge against enforcement of New York Convention arbitral awards rendered in favour of the Astro Group. This note critically analyses the Court of Final Appeal’s decision. It argues that there was no compelling reason to reject the structured approach as adopted by the lower courts. This is because, on a correct reading of the said approach, it could accommodate the very concerns that troubled the HKCFA. Meanwhile, the ‘overall justice’ test as adopted by the HKCFA lacks guidance power and its application to the facts was questionable. To this end, it is argued that, as and when similar issues arise in other jurisdictions, a careful judgment would have to be made as to whether the Hong Kong approach should be followed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信