Anonymous
Anonymous asked in 社會及文化語言 · 5 years ago

跪求,幫忙翻譯!謝謝!

Gingerbread seeks two orders. Firstly that the directions for discovery be set aside (under section 25(2)) and secondly that the arbitrator be removed for misconduct (under section 25(1)).

Setting aside the directions under section 25(2)

5. This court can only set aside an arbitrator’s “award” (and only then when there has been misconduct). If there is no award the issue of misconduct (in relation to the power to set aside) does not arise.

6. Wing Hong’s first contention is that the “Order for Directions No 6—Reasons” is not an award. I agree.

7. The Ordinance does not define “award”. However, a line must be drawn between procedural matters, which are not reviewable by this court and non-procedural issues which are reviewable under section 25. Russell on Arbitration, 22nd Edition, states : “Questions determining the timetable for the reference or the extent of disclosure of documents are procedural in nature and are determined by the issue of an order or direction and not by an award”.

7 Answers

Rating
  • 5 years ago
    Best Answer

    ENG:

    Gingerbread seeks two orders. Firstly that the directions for discovery be set aside (under section 25(2)) and secondly that the arbitrator be removed for misconduct (under section 25(1)).

    Setting aside the directions under section 25(2)

    5. This court can only set aside an arbitrator’s “award” (and only then when there has been misconduct) If there is no award the issue of misconduct (in relation to the power to set aside) does not arise.

    6. Wing Hong’s first contention is that the “Order for Directions No 6—Reasons” is not an award. I agree.

    7. The Ordinance does not define “award”. However, a line must be drawn between procedural matters, which are not reviewable by this court and non-procedural issues which are reviewable under section 25. Russell on Arbitration, 22nd Edition, states : “Questions determining the timetable for the reference or the extent of disclosure of documents are procedural in nature and are determined by the issue of an order or direction and not by an award”.

    中文:

    薑餅尋求兩個數量級。首先,對於發現的方向上預留(根據第25(2)條);其次,該仲裁員行為不當被刪除(第25(1)條)。根據第25(2)5.本法院只能預留仲裁員的“獎”(只有當出現了行為不當的話)如果沒有獲獎的不當行為(涉及到設置電源問題擱置方向拋開)不會出現。 6.永康的第一個觀點是,“訂單的路線6號,原因”不是一個獎項。我同意。 7.該條例並沒有界定“獎”。然而,行必須程序事項,這是不審查的通過這是根據第25條羅素仲裁,22版審查的這個法庭和非程序性問題加以區分,指出:“問題確定時間表或引用的程度披露的文件是程序性的,由一個命令或指示,而不是由一個獎“的問題決定的。

    HOPE I CAN HELP YOU ^_^

    Source(s): Google Translate
  • 5 years ago

    薑餅尋求兩個數量級。首先,對於發現的方向上預留(根據第25(2)條);其次,該仲裁員行為不當被刪除(第25(1)條)。

    根據第25條撇開方向(2)

    5.本法院只能預留仲裁員的“獎”(也只有這樣,當有不當行為)。如果沒有獎勵不當行為的問題(與預留電源)不會出現。

    6.永康的第一個觀點是,“訂單的路線6號,原因”不是一個獎項。我同意。

    7.該條例並沒有界定“獎”。然而,行必須程序事項,這是不審查的通過這是根據第25條羅素仲裁,22版審查的這個法庭和非程序性問題加以區分,指出:“問題確定時間表或引用的程度披露的文件是程序性的,由一個命令或指示,而不是由一個獎“的問題決定的。

  • 5 years ago

    英文内容 :

    Gingerbread seeks two orders. Firstly that the directions for discovery be set aside (under section 25(2)) and secondly that the arbitrator be removed for misconduct (under section 25(1)).

    Setting aside the directions under section 25(2)

    5. This court can only set aside an arbitrator’s “award” (and only then when there has been misconduct). If there is no award the issue of misconduct (in relation to the power to set aside) does not arise.

    6. Wing Hong’s first contention is that the “Order for Directions No 6—Reasons” is not an award. I agree.

    7. The Ordinance does not define “award”. However, a line must be drawn between procedural matters, which are not reviewable by this court and non-procedural issues which are reviewable under section 25. Russell on Arbitration, 22nd Edition, states : “Questions determining the timetable for the reference or the extent of disclosure of documents are procedural in nature and are determined by the issue of an order or direction and not by an award”.

    翻譯成中文 :

    薑餅尋求兩個數量級。首先,對於發現的方向上預留(根據第25(2)條);其次,該仲裁員行為不當被刪除(第25(1)條)。

    根據第25條撇開方向(2)

    5.本法院只能預留仲裁員的“獎”(也只有這樣,當有不當行為)。如果沒有獎勵不當行為的問題(與預留電源)不會出現。

    6.永康的第一個觀點是,“訂單的路線6號,原因”不是一個獎項。我同意。

    7.該條例並沒有界定“獎”。然而,行必須程序事項,這是不審查的通過這是根據第25條羅素仲裁,22版審查的這個法庭和非程序性問題加以區分,指出:“問題確定時間表或引用的程度披露的文件是程序性的,由一個命令或指示,而不是由一個獎“的問題決定的。

    希望能幫到你~ ^_^

    Source(s): google 翻譯
  • 5 years ago

    薑餅尋求兩個數量級。首先,對於發現的方向上預留(根據第25(2)條);其次,該仲裁員行為不當被刪除(第25(1)條)。

    根據第25條撇開方向(2)

    5.本法院只能預留仲裁員的“獎”(也只有這樣,當有不當行為)如果不存在任何不當行為獎勵的問題(與預留電源)。

    6.永康的第一個觀點是,“訂單的路線6號,原因”不是一個獎項。我同意。

    7.該條例並沒有界定“獎”。然而,行必須程序事項,這是不審查的通過這是根據第25條羅素仲裁,22版審查的這個法庭和非程序性問題加以區分,指出:“問題確定時間表或引用的程度披露的文件是程序性的,由一個命令或指示,而不是由一個獎“的問題決定的。

    Source(s): google
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    姜餅尋求兩個訂單。首先發現方向擱置 (下一節他方,其次仲裁員被刪除行為失檢 (下一節求償。

    撇開下節 25 方向

    5.本法院才可以擱置仲裁員的"獎"(和才當了不當行為)。如果沒有獎 (關於預留的權力) 的行為不當的問題並不存在。

    6.翼 Hong 第一個論點是,"為了使方向沒有 6 — — 原因"不是一項獎勵。我同意。

    7.條例 》 沒有界定"獎"。然而,必須程式性事項,由本法院和非程式化問題是根據第 25 條複審不是複審之間繪製一條線。關於仲裁、 第 22 版,羅素指出:"確定的時程表供參考或檔的披露程度的問題是程式性和確定由命令或指示的問題而不是獎"。

    2014-12-26 19:32:11 補充:

    姜餅尋求兩個訂單。首先發現方向擱置 (下一節他方,其次仲裁員被刪除行為失檢 (下一節求償。

    撇開下節 25 方向

    5.本法院才可以擱置仲裁員的"獎"(和才當了不當行為)。如果沒有獎 (關於預留的權力) 的行為不當的問題並不存在。

    6.翼 Hong 第一個論點是,"為了使方向沒有 6 — — 原因"不是一項獎勵。我同意。

    7.條例 》 沒有界定"獎"。然而,必須程式性事項,由本法院和非程式化問題是根據第 25 條複審不是複審之間繪製一條線。關於仲裁、 第 22 版,羅素指出:"確定的時程表供參考或檔的披露程度的問題是程式性和確定由命令或指示的問題而不是獎"。

    Source(s): , bing
  • 5 years ago

    英文

    Gingerbread seeks two orders. Firstly that the directions for discovery be set aside (under section 25(2)) and secondly that the arbitrator be removed for misconduct (under section 25(1)).

    Setting aside the directions under section 25(2)

    5. This court can only set aside an arbitrator’s “award” (and only then when there has been misconduct). If there is no award the issue of misconduct (in relation to the power to set aside) does not arise.

    6. Wing Hong’s first contention is that the “Order for Directions No 6—Reasons” is not an award. I agree.

    7. The Ordinance does not define “award”. However, a line must be drawn between procedural matters, which are not reviewable by this court and non-procedural issues which are reviewable under section 25. Russell on Arbitration, 22nd Edition, states : “Questions determining the timetable for the reference or the extent of disclosure of documents are procedural in nature and are determined by the issue of an order or direction and not by an award”.

    翻譯為中文

    華而不實的尋求兩個數量級。首先,對於發現的方向上預留(根據第25(2)條);其次,該仲裁員行為不當被刪除(第25(1)條)。

    根據第25條撇開方向(2)

    5.本法院只能預留仲裁員的“獎”(也只有這樣,當有不當行為)。如果沒有獎勵不當行為的問題(與預留電源)不會出現。

    6.永康的第一個觀點是,“訂單的路線6號,原因”不是一個獎項。我同意。

    7.該條例並沒有界定“獎”。然而,行必須程序事項,這是不審查的通過這是根據第25條羅素仲裁,22版審查的這個法庭和非程序性問題加以區分,指出:“問題確定時間表或引用的程度披露的文件是程序性的,由一個命令或指示,而不是由一個獎“的問題決定的。

  • 5 years ago

    薑餅尋求兩個數量級。首先,對於發現的方向上預留(根據第25(2)條);其次,該仲裁員行為不當被刪除(第25(1)條)。

    根據第25條撇開方向(2)

    5.本法院只能預留仲裁員的“獎”(也只有這樣,當有不當行為)。如果沒有獎勵不當行為的問題(與預留電源)不會出現。

    6.永康的第一個觀點是,“訂單的路線6號,原因”不是一個獎項。我同意。

    7.該條例並沒有界定“獎”。然而,行必須程序事項,這是不審查的通過這是根據第25條羅素仲裁,22版審查的這個法庭和非程序性問題加以區分,指出:“問題確定時間表或引用的程度披露的文件是程序性的,由一個命令或指示,而不是由一個獎“的問題決定的。

    可能有錯誤的地方

    Source(s): Google Translate
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.