Background 1. This appeal raises issues concerning the principles applicable where a party seeks leave to resist enforcement of a 1958 New York Convention arbitration award out of time. 2. The eight respondent companies, members of a Malaysian media group (“Astro”), were the claimants in the arbitration. The appellant (“First Media”) is a substantial company listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange and part of an Indonesian conglomerate (“Lippo”) and was the main respondent in the arbitration. 3. The arbitration was brought by Astro against Lippo pursuant to an agreement for arbitration in Singapore applying Singapore law. The arbitral tribunal joined three of the Astro claimants (“the Additional Parties”)even though they were not parties to the arbitration agreement, overriding Lippo’s objections, and made awards in favour of Astro including an award in a sum exceeding US$130 million. 4. However, when Astro sought to enforce the award in Singapore, the Singapore Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the lower courts (“the SCA Judgment”), and held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make awards in favour of the Additional Parties since they were never parties to the agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration. The Singapore enforcement orders in favour of the Additional Parties were set aside. 5. In Hong Kong, in reliance on the SCA Judgment, First Media applied for an extension of time to set aside Hong Kong orders, entered some 14 months earlier, granting Astro leave to enforce the tribunal’s awards in Hong Kong (“Hong Kong orders”). Decisions of the Courts below 6. The Court of First Instance (“CFI”) refused to set aside the Hong Kong orders, finding that First Media had not acted in good faith by keeping the challenge to the tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction in reserve while proceeding with the arbitration, so that the Court should exercise its discretion to allow Astro to enforce the awards even though First Media came within an exception which would justify refusal of enforcement. Separately, it also refused to extend time for First Media to set aside the Hong Kong orders given (i) the length of the delay, (ii) the fact that a deliberate decision was taken not to apply to set aside within the time prescribed and (iii) the fact that the awards had not been set aside at the seat of the arbitration. 7. The Court of Appeal (“CA”) overturned the CFI’s decision based on the good faith principle, holding that it had failed to take sufficient account of the fundamental defect that the Awards were sought to be enforced for the benefit of the Additional Parties who were never parties to the arbitration agreement and were therefore made without jurisdiction. 8. However, the CA declined to interfere with the CFI’s exercise of discretion not to extend time and endorsed his reliance on the three factors mentioned above. Decision of this Court 9. This Court held that the proper test for considering extension of time involves looking at all relevant matters and considering the overall justice of the case, eschewing a rigid mechanistic approach. This Court also held that except in cases where section 44(2)(f) of the Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 341 (now repealed) is relied on, the fact that the award has not been set aside by the courts of the seat of arbitration is not a relevant factor to the question of whether time should be extended. 10. Looking at all relevant matters and considering the overall justice of the case, this Court decided to set aside the decisions below and granted the appellant an extension of time. To refuse an extension would be to deny First Media a hearing where its application has decisively strong merits and would involve disproportionately penalising it for a delay which caused Astro no uncompensable prejudice to the extent of permitting enforcement of an award for US$130 million. 11. The Court allowed the appeal and extended time by three months for First Media to file its application for leave to set aside the Hong Kong orders.