CA-2024-002477 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1054

For these reasons I considered that permission to appeal should be refused.

I should mention two points by way of postscript. The first is that it is not clear to me whether the question of law on which Mr Eronat seeks to appeal is a question of English law or Hong Kong law in circumstances where the Deed of Release is governed by English law but the 2003 Deed of Indemnity is governed by Hong Kong law. If the question is one of Hong Kong law, the English court would have no jurisdiction to determine that question under section 69, even though it appears that there is no material difference between English and Hong Kong law (Mustill & Boyd, para 14.128). However, it is unnecessary to consider this point further.

Second, the law applicable to the interpretation of clauses 14.2 and 14.3, as part of the 2003 Deed of Indemnity, may well be Hong Kong law, even though they provide for an arbitration with an English seat in accordance with the LCIA Rules which is subject to the English Arbitration Act 1996 (Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, [2020] 1 WLR 4117). However, even if this is so, nobody suggested at any stage that the principles of interpretation under Hong Kong law would be any different, or would reach a different result, from those applicable under English law.

I agree.

I also agree.