The appellant ("defendant") is a company in Hong Kong and the respondent ("plaintiff") a company in the Mainland. By an agreement dated 29th April 1993, the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff a set of equipment for the production of rubber powder. The plaintiff had almost fully paid the purchase price. By two shipments in January and February 1994, the equipment was delivered to the plaintiff' s end user factory in China. The plaintiff alleged that itwas defective. On 15th May 1995, the parties referred their dispute to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) for arbitration. A Chief Arbitrator was appointed in addition to two arbitrators who were appointed by the parties respectively. On 10th October 1995, there was a hearing before the Arbitration Tribunal. What exactly happened at the hearing before the Tribunal and thereafter is somewhat in dispute. On 29th March 1996, the Tribunal made an award which ordered, amongst other things, that the defendant should refund the purchase price and pay compensation to the plaintiff together with interest and costs. It also directed that the equipment be returned to the defendant.

In July 1996, the plaintiff applied ex parte to Leonard, J. for leave to enforce the award and to enter judgment in terms of the award. On 23rd July 1996, the judge granted leave and the plaintiff entered judgment on the same date. On 13th August 1996, the defendant applied by way of summons to set aside the leave and judgment. The summons was adjourned at the request of the defendant pending the determination of its application to the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court to set aside the arbitral award. That application was not successful. The hearing of the summons was resumed before Findlay J. On 15th May 1997, he refused to set aside the leave and judgment. This is an appeal against that decision. The plaintiff has filed a Respondent’s Notice (which was amended on 7th October 1997) in support of that decision.