The judge also noted that, although the Lasmos approach had been applicable, Mr. But had not met the third requirement of the Lasmos approach because he had not taken the necessary steps to make the arbitration. The trial judge therefore refused to set aside the legal requirement. The Court of Appeal accepted the following judge`s explanatory statement and found that it was not necessary to determine whether the Lasmos approach or previous approaches applied to this case. In any event, if the Lasmos approach applied, Lasmos` third requirement would not have been met, as Mr. But did not demonstrate his actual intention to arbitrate more than two years after the first conciliation application was made and IB was never served with arbitration. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Customers who are unable to trade more than one futures contract per order should first check their order preferences to ensure that they have not set a size limit in the precautionary settings. If this is not the case, the restriction was probably imposed by IB because the client did not accept the arbitration agreement that automatically sets a limit for negotiating a contract per order. Customers refuse to accept the agreement when they are submitted as part of the application process, but subsequent acceptance of the need to contact customer service to obtain and execute a physical copy of the contract. In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC  HKCA 873, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal to quash a legal claim on online forex futures. Mr. Kwan, Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, was responsible for the circumstances in which a liquidation petition would be postponed if the contracting parties had agreed to an arbitration procedure for a settlement of disputes.
It is clear from the Court`s comments that the Court already has the tools it needs to deal with the tensions between the creditor`s right to a debtor`s bankruptcy application and the right of the parties to accept arbitration in a contract. Vice-President Kwan`s analysis suggests that she considers the Lasmos case to have given too one-sided discretion. She reiterated that if the Court of Justice is satisfied that there is no good faith dispute for substantial reasons, discretion should not always be exercised in favour of the creditor. Mr. But attempted to set aside the legal requirement on the basis (i) of a counterclaim for misrepresentation and (ii) to resolve the dispute in accordance with a compromise clause in his contract with IB. The application failed and Mr. But appealed to the Court of Appeal. The lasmos case results in the fact that, if these three conditions are met, the company has the right to reject the petition without having to prove that the claim is well received for essential reasons.