INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 1/3LY
HONG KONG
HONG KONG IS A POPUL AR ARBITRATION SE AT, WITH 234 NEW INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS BEING COMMENCED AT THE HKIAC IN 2014. ACCORDING TO HKIAC’S 2013 ANNUAL REPORT, CHINESE PARTIES REMAIN THE MOST NUMEROUS, WITH SOME 62.5% OF THE ARBITRATIONS INVOLVING A CHINESE PART Y. TO THAT EX TENT, AT LE A ST, HONG KONG MAY BE SEEN BY CHINESE PARTIES, AND CERTAINLY THEIR FOREIGN COUNTERPARTIES, A S A GOOD COMPROMISE SE AT AWAY FROM MAINL AND CHINA . OTHER FAR E A STERN COUNTRIES SUCH A S TAIWAN, SINGAPORE, SOUTH KORE A , JAPAN AND THE PHILIPPINES ALSO FE ATURE FREQUENTLY A S HKIAC USERS. In terms of formal legal infrastructure, HongKonghas thebenefit of a well-regarded judiciaryand court system–basedon theEnglish common law–which is supportiveof arbitration. TheHongKong ArbitrationOrdinance (HKAO) is a sophisticatedpieceof arbitration legislation, largelybased on theUNCITRALModel Law, andwasmost recently revised in2013 to implement changes suchasnewprovisions allowingHongKong courts to enforce relief grantedbyanemergencyarbitrator. Under theHKAO, theHong KongCourtshave thepower to issue interimorders insupport of arbitration.
Hong Kong also scores well in terms of convenience and general infrastructure. It is well placed geographically, with good transport links, and offers parties familiaritywith the Chinese language and culture, withmanymultilingual practitioners based in Hong Kong and bilingual arbitrations not uncommon. Inwhat many considered a response to Singapore’s foundation of Maxwell Chambers in 2009, HKIAC undertook amajor refurbishment program in 2012. Ease of enforcement against assets in China is no doubt also a factor influencing Hong Kong as a choice of seat. Like the Chinese institutions though, HKIAC’s latest data shows a drop in newarbitrations since the late 2000s with 2013 seeing the lowest number of cases accepted in 14 years of statistics. One reason for this may be that parties fromoutside China, particularly those fromEurope and the US, sometimes viewHong Kong as an arbitral seat within China and, therefore, not a “neutral” venue for an arbitration against a Chinese party. Another reason for the fall in casesmay simply be the relative success of Singapore as a venue for international arbitration in the region. To continue to compete, Hong Kong will need to consistentlymarket itself as an attractive seat for arbitrations against Chinese parties, and to distinguish itself fromMainland China as an arbitral seat by emphasising its common lawheritage andworld-class arbitration infrastructure.
E A SE OF ENFOR CEMENT AGA INS T A SSE T S IN CHINA I S NO DOUBT ALSO A FACTOR INFLUENCING HONG KONG A S A CHOI CE OF SE AT.
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter