Hong Kong Court Clarifies Threshold for Setting Aside Awards

A Hong Kong Court recently adopted a resoundingly pro-arbitration stance in a decision which emphasised the high thresholds of irregularity that would need to be established before an arbitration award can be set aside. In LY v HW, [2022] HKCFI 2267, the Court dismissed an application to set aside an award based on claims that … Read more

ENGLISH COURT AGREES WITH TRIBUNAL: RELYING ON A SUBMISSION LATER THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED EARLIER IN THE ARBITRATION WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

In Union of India v Reliance Industries Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 1407 (Comm), the Union of India (the “Government”) challenged an award under ss.68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“Act”). In the award, the Tribunal had found that, as a matter of English law, the Government was precluded from relying on matters … Read more

ENFORCEMENT OF CIETAC AWARD IN HONG KONG STAYED, BUT NOT FOR LONG

Summary In a further decision in the long-running G v X matter (see our previous blog post here), the Hong Kong court has decided to stay enforcement of a CIETAC award pending a challenge to the award at the seat of arbitration in Beijing.  The stay was granted in deference to the jurisdiction of the … Read more

FURTHER HONG KONG JUDGMENT CONFIRMS THAT AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL IS “THE MASTER OF ITS OWN PROCEDURAL RULES” AND COMPLIANCE WITH PRE-ARBITRATION CONDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE REVIEWED BY THE COURTS

In the recent judgment of T v B [2021] HKCFI 3645, the High Court of Hong Kong observed that “if the Court is the master of its own procedural rules, so should be the arbitral tribunal“. In so doing, the Court reaffirmed the principle that compliance with pre-conditions to arbitration is a question of admissibility, … Read more