Of Counsel Felda Yeung has contributed the Hong Kong chapter to this Q&A publication with DFDL which aims to shed light on the practical issues surrounding the enforceability of arbitral awards in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam.
This article considers the pro-arbitration approach of courts in Hong Kong in the context of a recent case. It also considers other significant initiatives and developments in the arbitration regime concerning interim measures from mainland courts, arbitration of Russia-related disputes and the new online dispute resolution platform.
Evelyn Chan and Felda Yeung have contributed the Hong Kong Chapter for the GLI guide to International Arbitration 2020. The book contains 32 country chapters and is designed to provide general counsel, government agencies and private practice lawyers with a comprehensive insight into the realities of international arbitration. Market trends, legal developments and practical, policy and strategic issues are also explored.
In our article dated 5th October 2019, we introduced the newly in force “Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the HKSAR” (the “Arrangement”).
Stan Cheung explores the benefits and implications of the recent “Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the HKSAR” whereby parties to arbitrations seated in Hong Kong may now seek interim measures from the PRC courts.
This article considers the pro-arbitration approach of courts in Hong Kong in the context of two recent cases. It also considers other significant initiatives and developments in the arbitration regime concerning third party funding, consolidation, and costs of arbitrations.
Global Legal Insights to: International Arbitration 2018 covers key topics including arbitration agreements and procedures, arbitrators, interim relief, arbitration awards, challenge and enforcement of awards, investment arbitration and decisions in 35 jurisdictions.
It is well recognised that the pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement approach of Hong Kong courts is the key attribute that underpins Hong Kong's position as an attractive venue for commercial dispute resolution.Due to the rapid economic growth in the markets and a surge in cross-border transactions, arbitration users across the globe are demanding a robust regulatory framework and a judicial climate that is pro-arbitration. Hong Kong has been successful in recognising these demands both in principle as well as in practice.This article considers:The pro-enforcement approach of courts in Hong Kong in the context of the recent judgment in U v A [HCCT 34/2016].
Other important developments in the arbitration regime in Hong Kong.
The Dispute Resolution Global Guide provides practical analysis of topical cross-border issues and country-specific Q&A guides on dispute resolution law and practice worldwide. The Q&A guide aims to give a structured overview of the key practical issues including, for example, court procedures, fees and funding, interim remedies (including attachment orders), disclosure, expert evidence, appeals, class actions, enforcement of judgments, cross-border issues and the use of ADR.
This article considers the pro-arbitration approach of courts in Hong Kong in the context of two recent cases T v C HCCT 23/2015 and Bluegold Investment Holdings Limited v Kwan Chun Fun Calvin HCA 1492/2015. It also considers other significant initiatives and developments in the arbitration regime concerning third party funding, consolidation, and costs of arbitrations.
Practical Law’s Arbitration Global Guide provides practical analysis of topical cross-border issues and country-specific Q&A guides on arbitration law and practice worldwide. The Q&A guide aims to give a structured overview of the key practical issues including, for example, any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim.
This article considers the pro-enforcement approach of courts in Hong Kong in the context of the recent judgment in KB v S and Others, examines the various factors courts consider when dealing with applications to set aside an arbitral award or to refuse enforcement of an award, and provides a concise overview of the procedure for applying to the Hong Kong courts for enforcement of a foreign arbitration award.
