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.
Being able to apply for interim measures in an international arbitration can be crucial for parties, especially in a constantly evolving Covid-19 world. The Hong Kong-Mainland China Interim Measures Arrangement was introduced in October 2019 and has been a game changer for parties to arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong.
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.
Hong Kong has long attracted business to its shores thanks to its robust, independent and highly respected legal system. Investors enjoy a high degree of confidence that they will be able to resolve their disputes through litigation and arbitration. Hong Kong, however, has been trying for more than a decade to grow the commercial space’s appetite for mediation as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism.
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.