Search for:
Category

Hong Kong

Category

Effective 16 December 2022, lawyers in Hong Kong are permitted to fund clients for whom they act in an arbitration by entering into outcome-related fee structures (ORFS), such as conditional and contingency fee arrangements. The new regime answers an increasing client demand for more flexible fee arrangements and is an important step for maintaining and promoting Hong Kong’s competitiveness with other major arbitral seats where similar fee arrangements are allowed. The new regime The new…

In the recent case of W v AW,[1] W sought to set aside an award in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance, relying on issue estoppel. Issue estoppel may arise where a particular issue forming a necessary ingredient in a cause of action has been litigated and decided, and one of the parties seeks to re-open that issue in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the…

HONG KONG Philipp Hanusch and James Ng A. LEGISLATION AND RULES A.1 Legislation A.1.1 Amendments to the mutual enforcement arrangement between Hong Kong and the Mainland Upon Hong Kong’s return to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on 1 July 1997, the PRC extended the territorial application of the New York Convention to Hong Kong. However, arbitral awards made in Hong Kong could no longer be directly enforced in the Mainland and vice versa, as…

Introduction The only recourse for a party seeking to challenge a Hong Kong award is to apply to the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (“Court”) for the setting aside of the award. The grounds under Hong Kong law mirror the setting aside grounds under the UNCITRAL Model Law and the grounds for refusing enforcement under the New York Convention.[1] In dealing with setting aside applications or applications to refuse enforcement, the Court is concerned…