The well-known Nema guidelines set out by Lord Diplock in Pioneer Shipping Ltd v. BTP Tioxide Ltd 1 give direction for judges in the exercise of their discretion for granting leave to appeal from an arbitrator’s decision. Unfortunately, the Nema guidelines are themselves ambiguous and unclear, and that has led to a divergence of opinion between judges called upon to exercise them. This view is supported by a number of judges including Roberts CJ. In Attorney-General v. Technic Construction ,2 he commented, “there was a substantial divergence of views between judges attempting to apply The Nema guidelines”. This paper will examine the principles governing the application for leave to appeal from an arbitrator’s decision by revisiting The Nema case. Further, to engage in a debate of the difference between the “one-off” and the “standard clause” test for leave. Related Hong Kong cases are summarised in the Appendix to this paper (page 115) to reflect developments in this area of law over the last decade.

Finality of arbitration; The Nema guidelines; One-off; Standard Clause.

How ought our courts to determine whether or not to grant leave to appeal from an arbitral award? The Hong Kong courts (“the courts”) apply a stringent test following the decision of the House of Lords in Pioneer Shipping Ltd v. BTP Tioxide Ltd and Armada Marine SA ,3 commonly known as “The Nema ” guidelines. The Nema greatly influenced the decision of the

---

103