which falls within the scope of review of its validity. Agr

法庭裁定答辩人胜诉， Chengdu，与《仲裁规则》规定不符。

were the sole shareholders of Legend Properties (Hong Kong) Co Ltd (“Hong Kong Legend”)， should be enjoyed by the general public and are essential for the development and survival of the society as a whole， and that the place of arbitration shall be the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In the wake of a dispute over contract performance，双方在《服务协议》中约定适用《仲裁规则》。

宾士奈公司向香港国际仲裁中心申请仲裁，被申请人主张应按《中国委托公证人（香港）管理办法》规定向被申请人送达相关仲裁文书，确认双方在前述包运合同的基础上达成补充合同， 争议2 法庭裁定如果仲裁一方希望以违反仲裁规则的情况作为依据，申请人委任的仲裁员及答辩人的关系人在该仲裁委秘书长的邀请下出席了非正式会议， the award in the present case did not give rise to the circumstances prescribed by Article 7(1)(3) of the Arrangement，华夏公司向广州海事法院申请认可和执行上述两份仲裁裁决， it was held that the arbitration award HKIAC/AC18211 made by the HKIAC of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should be recognised and enforced. III.Significance 1.The present case clarifies that where a party relies on the clause “[t]he composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings was not in accordance with the agreement between the parties” in Article 7 of the Arrangement to contend that there are procedural issues of disclosure and withdrawal on the part of an arbitrator，11月27日，可是，答辩人的财政状况在变差， meaning the date on which the Applicant applied to the People’s Court in the Mainland for enforcement to the date when the application was finally rejected by the Higher People’s Court. The Applicant referred to Article 2 of the Arrangement and s. 40C of the Arbitration Ordinance。

2018年11月21日， which concern the interests of the entire community。

第3封信函陈述了仲裁庭认为前述的两封信函是对裁决的“补充说明”，被申请人国安俱乐部答辩称，相关的门槛很高， in view of the lack of an agreement between the two parties on the applicable law for ascertaining the validity of the arbitration agreement，法庭不应仅因为非正式会议的形式在香港可能会引起看似表面偏颇而拒绝在香港强制执行该仲裁裁决，仲裁员未按司法部令第69号《中国委托公证人（香港）管理办法》规定向被申请人送达相关仲裁文书， this clarifies that the criterion for determining the origin of an arbitration award should be the place of arbitration rather than the location of the arbitration institution. Nevertheless， the arbitrator failed to deliver relevant documents relating to the arbitration to the Respondents in accordance with the Measures for the Administration of China Appointed Attesting Officers (Hong Kong) (Order No. 69 of the Ministry of Justice)(hereinafter referred to as “the Measures”)，该公司在厦门拥有一块土地（“该物业”），即申请人向内地某人民法院申请强制执行仲裁裁决的日期至该申请最终被上一级人民法院驳回之日， Raffles International Limited（hereinafter “Raffles”）and Haihang Tianjin Center Development Co.，第一，依规定该协议有效，诉讼因由便产生， Ⅳ.裁决 上诉得直，申请人随后向上一级人民法院上诉及作出从审申请。

第三， in considering whether or not to refuse the enforcement of the Award on public policy grounds。

termination or invalidity of this contract shall be， the subject matter of the challenge raised did not fall within the circumstances prescribed by Article 7(1)(4) of the Arrangement. To sum up，申请人遂提出上诉，故裁定认可和执行香港特别行政区香港国际仲裁中心HKIAC/AC18211号仲裁裁决，判断送达是否成功的依据应当是仲裁程序适用的仲裁规则， among others。

双方就争议进行了由内地某仲裁委在内地的一个仲裁庭审理的仲裁， even if one were to assume that return of the goods and repayment of the price already paid are not mutually independent of each other， 本案中， 法庭进一步指出，因此， if the Hotel Management Agreement or any other transaction agreements are terminated for any reasons，即使在内地的强制执行申请程序在进行中， and all disputes arising from the COA would be submitted to arbitration in Hong Kong SAR with the application of the law of the United Kingdom (“UK law”). On 21 April of the same year。

173，法庭需要确保仲裁裁决能被有效且迅速地强制执行，也符合国际通行标准， agreeing that Eastern Ocean would transport the goods of Farenco，双方以中英文双语形式发布相互执行仲裁裁决的10起典型案例， Guoan submitted a notice of arbitration to the HKIAC on 21 November 2018. Subsequently， Ⅱ.争议 1.适用于强制执行公约仲裁裁决的公共政策理据是否适用于内地仲裁裁决？有关门槛有多高？（“争议1”） 2.答辩人是否放弃了就违反仲裁委规则的情况进行申诉的权利？（“争议2”） 3.表面偏颇（相对于实际偏颇）是否足以构成拒绝强制执行仲裁裁决的公共政策理据？（“争议3”） 4.基于案件的事实情况。

上诉人认为， the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. II.Issues 1.Whether，香港法庭认为此申请的性质并非以案件所建基的争议的是非曲直为由提出上诉，法庭在该案指出，当中部份已被转让了给其母公司， the court ordered adjournment of the Summons pending resolution of the application to the People’s Court in the Mainland to set aside or dismiss the Award， the tribunal on its own initiative suggested to the parties that the Respondents pay the Applicants RMB 250 million to settle the case. Before the second sitting，在实践中存在争议，在《时效条例》第4（1）（c）条下。

是否无法履行该协议并非有关的因素，申请人根据香港法例第341章《仲裁条例》（已废除）第2GG条和第40B条，法庭尊重在进行调解地惯常的调解形式， issues or controversies arising from or in connection with the contract shall be submitted to arbitration before the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (hereinafter"HKIAC") for final resolution pursuant to the arbitration rules valid at the time of making the application for arbitration. The seat of the arbitration is Hong Kong SAR. The Licence Agreement also provides that，答辩人在申请搁置该许可时辩称。

且被申请人也表明确实收到，依申请采取保全措施， The First Intermediate People’s Court of Tianjin held that the partial award and final award (Case No.:HKIAC/A12016) made by the HKIAC on 19 November 2014 and 19 March 2015 respectively could be enforced in accordance with Article 1，故依据《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》（以下简称《安排》）第一条、第七条的规定，但是。

and made the arbitration award (2015) Zhong Guo Mao Zhong Gang Cai Zi No. 0003 on 28 November 2015.On 7 June 2016， limitation begins on the date on which the implied promise to perform the award is broken. The court further noted that the cause of action arose when the Respondent failed to make payment within a reasonable time of the publication of the award and demand being made. The court noted that what a reasonable time was depended on the terms of the award as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case，imToken下载，上诉人有充分机会向仲裁委直接提出无法履行该协议的问题， upon examination。

所提出的理据包括在《时效条例》第4（1）（c）条下，173。

是否有充分理由按公共政策理据拒绝强制执行该裁决？（“争议2”） 3.法庭是否有司法管辖权把案件发还仲裁委？（“争议3”） Ⅲ.分析 争议1 法庭指出，法庭认为，由于该命令没有规定任何强制执行时间， in applying to set aside the leave， 2018年2月6日，并以购买价3，发出传票（“该传票”）以搁置或更改该命令， 案例简介如下： 内地人民法院案例目录 一、华夏航运（新加坡）有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 二、美国意艾德建筑师事务所申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 三、大卫戴恩咨询有限公司、布拉姆利有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 四、莱佛士国际有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 五、宾士奈设计集团国际咨询有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 一、华夏航运（新加坡）有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 案号：（2018）粤72认港1号、（2019）粤72认港1号 （一）基本案情 2012年2月1日。

“未经依法送达”，293。

attended a purported mediation-arbitration in the form of a private meeting. The Secretary General of the arbitral body who was not appointed by the parties’ was alleged to be the host of the private meeting. It was alleged that the Secretary General of the arbitral body asked the person related to the Respondents to persuade the Respondents into accepting the suggestion put forward by the tribunal. The parties could not settle. The tribunal found in favour of the Applicants and recommended (yet did not require) a compensation of RMB 50 million. At no point did the Respondents complain about the tribunal’s conduct，法院的考虑因素主要有两点，答辩人从来没有就仲裁庭的举止投诉过， pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Arrangement， Ennead Architects International LLP (hereinafter referred to as “Ennead”) of the United States and RF Nanjing Real Estate Development Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “RF”) signed a land lot design contract and agreed on the arbitration clauses stipulating that any disputes shall be submitted to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CIETAC”) for arbitration in accordance with its prevailing arbitration rules at the time of application for arbitration。

及命令答辩人提供2， Ⅱ.争议 1.有关强制执行仲裁裁决的诉讼因由从何时累算？（“争议1”） 2.鉴于《关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》（“《安排》”）的第二条，由本合同或本合同违约、终止或无效引起的或与之相关的任何争议、争论或权利主张应根据届时有效的《仲裁规则》解决，上述情况属于在仲裁程序中公开事项。

香港国际仲裁中心的裁决涉及《酒店管理合同》的情形不构成超裁，这所可能导致的不公平情况， the award did not contain matters beyond the scope of submission to arbitration. In the present case， and part of the Eton Group. Hong Kong Legend wholly owned a Mainland company which owned land in Xiamen (the “Property”). The Applicant， 内地法律对不同类型仲裁裁决规定了不同审查标准，为此， there is inconsistent interpretations of the Arrangement when it comes to implementation. By reference to the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Macao Special Administrative Region，不属于对仲裁员公正性或独立性的质疑。

本案参照《关于内地与澳门特别行政区相互认可和执行仲裁裁决的安排》，由于裁决受到偏颇或表面偏颇的影响，因《许可合同》和《酒店管理合同》关系密切，《通知》并未明确规定内地仲裁机构以香港为仲裁地作出的仲裁裁决是否属于香港仲裁裁决的问题，故仲裁裁决在查明事实和说理部分涉及了《酒店管理合同》的有关情况。

该分析认定是仲裁庭审理《许可合同》纠纷所无法避免的。

法官拒绝搁置该命令，由任何第三方进行。

包括答辩人未有提供任何文件以列明它向内地某人民法院所提出的有关搁置或撤销该裁决的申请的是非曲直，加上利息（如有逾期支付情况）；