Search for:
Category

Hong Kong

Category

The Court of First Instance (CFI) already considered twice this year in the context of interim measures whether an arbitrator’s order amounted to an award or interim order: see our blog post on the decisions in G v N and W v Contractor.[1] But questions for the CFI as to what constitutes an award continue. InL v R [2024] HKCFI 1611, the plaintiff (L) applied to the CFI to set aside a Settlement Agreement (SA)…

Multi-party and multi-contract scenarios are commonplace in international arbitration. Many arbitration rules offer regimes seeking to tackle problems that may arise in such complex scenarios. An example is the regime under Article 29 of the 2018 HKIAC Rules. It allows a claimant to commence a single arbitration under multiple contracts where (i) a common question of law or fact arises under each arbitration agreement giving rise to the arbitration, (ii) the rights to relief claimed…

Recently in CNG v G and Another [2024] HKCFI 575,[1] The Honourable Madam Justice Mimmie Chan of the Court of First Instance dismissed an application to set aside an award. At the outset, Chan J has made yet another effort to summarise the important principles set out in many of the Courts’ decisions on challenges to awards or their enforcement: To Chan J’s dissatisfaction, reminders of these important principles have not been effective in discouraging…

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…