1. On the 12th July 1991 the China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) rendered an arbitration award in favour of Zhejiang Province Garment Import and Export Company against the defendants.

2. On 14th January 1992 the Plaintiffs issued an Originating Summons pursuant to Sections 2H and 42 of the Arbitration Ordinance seeking leave to enforce this award in.the same manner as a Hong Kong judgment. I considered this application ex parte and on 17th February 1992, an order of the court was made giving such leave and entering judgment for certain sums awarded by the CIETAC tribunal. As provided for by Order 73 rule 10(6), the order gave the Defendants 14 days from the service of the order to apply to set aside the order and if within that time the defendants did so apply, execution of the order would be stayed until the application had been finally disposed of.

3. The defendants duly availed themselves of this provision by applying by summons dated 13th March 1992 to set aside the ex parte order on the grounds therein set out.

4. Before turning to the issues in this case, I should comment that the procedure used by both parties in this case fully complies with Order 73 rule 10. That rule provides that the application for leave may be made ex parte 'but the court hearing the application may direct a summons to be issued'. In my judgment, the ex parte procedure should be used and only if the court directs should a summons be issued. I mention this because I have had two cases recently where the Originating Summons was served upon the defendants and the first hearing before me was an inter partes hearing. Unless there is no contest, the matter is bound to be adjourned to enable the defendants to file evidence as to why the award should not be enforced. That hearing serves no useful purpose and is a waste of costs and court time.