Hong Kong has introduced a new Arbitration Ordinance which
became effective on 1st June 2011. This development brings some
significant changes and features in the way arbitration is to be
conducted in Hong Kong. Its aim is to promote Hong Kong as a strong
regional center for dispute resolution.
The most significant change is the abolition of the distinction
between domestic and international arbitration regimes. The new
Ordinance establishes a unitary regime of arbitration based on the
UNCITRAL Model Law. It is intended that the new Ordinance will be
self-contained (although it may be possible for parties to opt in
or out of the Model Law application).
The new Ordinance provides that the disclosure of information
relating to any arbitral proceedings or awards is to be prohibited.
There is a default provision available so that although proceedings
can be heard in private, the Tribunal has a discretion to order
proceedings to be heard in open court.
It also expressly gives arbitral tribunals the power to grant
interim measures including injunction relief. Additionally, the
Tribunals are now empowered to order the provision of security for
costs and direct the discovery of documents or the delivery of
The new Ordinance is expected to assist a "hybrid"
style of dispute resolution. It now allows an arbitrator to act
also as a mediator after the arbitration has commenced provided
that the parties consent in writing. In the event that settlement
is not reached during the mediation process, the mediator can then
resume acting as an arbitrator. The parties should be made aware
that if confidential information is obtained by an arbitrator in
his role as mediator, in the event the mediation fails, the
arbitrator should disclose as much of the information as the
arbitrator considers is material before resuming the
The new regime provides the legal costs of arbitration
proceedings should be reviewed and assessed by the Tribunal itself.
The Court's role to assess costs is now only available if the
Role of Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)
The statutory functions such as the appointment of arbitrators,
upon the failure of the parties to do so, which usually is vested
with the Courts, have been transferred to the HKIAC.
The new Ordinance gives more powers to the Tribunal rather than
the Courts and should be more user-friendly as the UNCITRAL Model
Law is now extended to all arbitrations in Hong Kong. It is hoped
this will enhance the perception of Hong Kong as a friendly Model
Law jurisdiction and be more attractive for both local and
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Brussels I Regulation provides a harmonised approach to determining which EU Member State court should have jurisdiction over a dispute and how judgments from courts in one EU Member State should be recognised and enforced in other EU Member States.
In VTB v Universal Telecom Investment Strategies Fund SPC  2 CILR 94, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal confirmed the availability of "free-standing" freezing injunctions in support of foreign legal proceedings, including against Cayman Islands entities against which no wrong doing is alleged.
The recent decision of the Cayman Islands Grand Court in RMF Market Neutral Strategies (Master) Limited v DD Growth Premium 2X Fund (unreported, 17 November 2014) is a further reminder of the serious challenges associated with bringing clawback actions against "innocent" third party fund investors who have received redemption proceeds from a Cayman Islands fund in the period leading up to the fund's collapse.
On 26 November 2014 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the "Privy Council") handed down its judgment in the appeal brought by Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds ("Shell") against the joint liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Ltd ("Fairfield Sentry") (the "Liquidators"), the largest feeder fund to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS").
A recent ruling of the Dubai Court of First Instance questions de novo the UAE courts’ compliance with their obligations under international enforcement instruments in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”