Introduction Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, adopted in Hong Kong under section 20(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), provides that where a plaintiff brings a court action which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, the court must refer the parties to arbitration, if a party so requests, unless the court finds that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. An applicant seeking a stay under section…
Giving due and fair notice of arbitral proceedings is critical when commencing an arbitration, as a failure to…
Effective from 1 March 2025, the Pilot Scheme on Facilitation for Persons Participating in Arbitral Proceedings in Hong…
Introduction Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (“AO”) has adopted Articles 17-17H of the UNCITRAL Model Law on interim measures and preliminary orders.[1] However, for recognition and enforcement of interim measures (Articles 17H and 17I) and court-ordered interim measures (Article 17J), the AO has adopted its own regimes tailored for Hong Kong.[2] For court-ordered interim measures, section 45 AO empowers the Court of First Instance (CFI) to grant interim measures for any arbitrations which have…
A. LEGISLATION AND RULES A.1 Legislation International arbitration in Hong Kong continues to be governed by the Arbitration…
Introduction It is a well-established principle in Hong Kong that foreign proceedings instituted in breach of an arbitration…
Introduction In recent years, the world has witnessed an explosive growth in the popularity and value of virtual assets. This “digital gold rush” has been largely driven by the rise of cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The unique nature of these digital assets, authenticated by blockchain technology, has attracted significant investment, transforming the way value and ownership is perceived. The terms virtual assets (VAs) and crypto-assets are often used interchangeably to describe digital assets that…
The Court of First Instance (CFI) already considered twice this year in the context of interim measures whether…
The Hong Kong courts consistently adopt a robust and purely mechanistic approach to applications resisting enforcement of awards,…
Whether an arbitral tribunal’s decision constitutes an “award” is an important question. It determines, for example, whether the decision is subject to review by the supervisory court, the available recourse against it, and its enforceability. As there is no universally accepted definition of “award”, its meaning depends on the jurisdiction in question. The Court of First Instance considered in two recent cases whether the arbitrator’s decision amounted to an award: Both cases concerned interim measures…