21
J
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1985
EXPRESS POWER TO REMOVE ARBITRATOR
*****
AMENDMENTS TO THE ARBITRATION ORDINANCE WERE PASSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY) TO GIVE EXPRESS POWER TO THE COURT TO REMOVE ANY EXISTING ARBITRATOR IN CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS.
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1985 AT THE RESUMED DEBATE, THE HON MARTIN LEE SAID AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6B(2) OF THE ORDINANCE WAS NECESSARY,
THE AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE EXPRESS POWER TO THE COURT TO REMOVE ANY EXISTING ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE IN A CASE WHERE NOT ALL THE PARTIES TO THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WOULD AGREE ON THE CHOICE OF AN ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE IN THE CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS, HE SAID.
HE NOTED THAT A LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AD HOC GROUP, CONVENED BY THE HON PETER C. WONG, HAD HELD MEETINGS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK INTO THE BILL.
THE GROUP FELT THAT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT DID NOT CATER FOR SITUATIONS WHERE ALL THE PARTIES TO THE CONSOLIDATED ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WERE IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE CHOICE OF ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE BUT THE EXISTING ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE, CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF THE PARTIES, REFUSED TO BE REMOVED.
THOUGH IT WAS APPRECIATED THAT SUCH A SITUATION WOULD BE UNLIKELY, AND INDEED IN MOST CASES IT WOULD BE COVERED BY AN EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, MEMBERS FELT THAT SINCE THE WHOLE OBJECT OF THIS BILL WAS TO REMOVE ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT, IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO GO ALL THE WAY, MR LEE SAID.
IT WAS ALSO FELT THAT THE FORMULA OUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED WHEREBY THE EXISTING ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE HAD TO BE REMOVED BY THE COURT WOULD BE UNNECESSARILY OFFENSIVE TO THE EXISTING ARBITRATOR OR UMPIRE, HE ADDED.
HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT DOUBT IN SECTION 30 OF THE ORDINANCE ALSO NEEDED TO BE REMOVED.
SECTION 30 READS: +ANY ORDER MADE UNDER THIS PART MAY BE MADE ON SUCH TERMS AS TO COSTS OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING, THE CASE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 29A, THE REMUNERATION OF THE ARBITRATOR IN RESPECT OF HIS SERVICES) AS THE AUTHORITY MAKING THE ORDER THINKS JUST.+
THE GROUP FELT THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SECTION 29A OF THE ORDINANCE IN THE WORDS WITHIN THE BRACKETS, THERE SHOULD LIKEWISE BE A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SECTION 6B SO AS TO REMOVE ANY POSSIBLE ARGUMENT THAT BY THE EXPRESS OMISSION OF ANY REFERENCE TO SECTION 6B WHEN THERE WAS A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SECTION 29A, THE LEGISLATURE HAD THEREBY INTENDED THAT SUCH POWER TO AWARD COSTS OR OTHERWISE WOULD NOT INCLUDE A SITUATION COVERED BY SECTION ÓB.
THE HON MARIA TAM MOVED TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AT THE COMMITTEE STAGE TO REFLECT THE ABOVE VIEWS.