Three Crowns LLP’s Post

Last week, Delos Dispute Resolution hosted its Journal Series with a spotlight on Hong Kong, exploring the implications of HKCFA decision in C v D. Amidst a flurry of write ups on C v D, Delos's "A case in time" for Hong Kong stands out as it gathered: 👉 Rimsky Yuen SC - a prominent Hong Kong arbitrator and former Secretary for Justice - who discussed the C v D appellate decision's implications on arbitrator practice; 👉 Simon Chapman KC - a talented solicitor-advocate who argued C v D before the HKCFA - in setting out the basis for the court's decision and how the case was argued; 👉 Queenie Lau - a dynamic Hong Kong barrister with a flourishing arbitration practice - who discussed C v D's implications for counsel practice and specifically on how the arbitration agreements are to be drafted in light of the HKCFA decision; 👉 moderated by insightful and intuitive Jonathan Lim who authored a seminal piece on the US Supreme Court's decision in BG v Argentina in deciding a similar issue; and yours truly covered the C v D implications for treaty-based disputes seated in Hong Kong. There, very helpfully, the HKCFA offered guidelines on how the Hong Kong judiciary is likely to entertain treaty-based pre-arbitration requirements (such as the cooling off periods and the local litigation requirements). The HKCFA judgment is available in the link below, with Justice Gummow and Justice Ribeiro distinguishing between commercial arbitration and treaty-based arbitration: https://lnkd.in/guqPjBCS

The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules offer multi-party and multi-contract regimes to help parties to tackle problems that may arise in such complex scenarios. An example is the regime under Article 29 which allows a claimant to commence a single arbitration under multiple contracts provided that arbitration clauses are compatible and other requirements are met. In SYL and Another v GIF [2024] HKCFI 1324, the Court had to determine whether the claimant had satisfied the compatibility requirement when commencing a single arbitration under related contracts. The respondents argued that the arbitration clauses lacked compatibility regarding the appointment process and that the tribunal was not constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The Court agreed. The problem that arose in SYL v GIF is not uncommon: parties deviate from the HKIAC model clause by adding provisions that render the clauses in the related contracts incompatible. This in turn undermines the multi-party and multi-contract regimes under the HKIAC Rules. Read more about this highly relevant decision on Baker McKenzie's Global Arbitration News blog.

The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules offer multi-party and multi-contract regimes to help parties to tackle problems that may arise in such complex scenarios. An example is the regime under Article 29 which allows a claimant to commence a single arbitration under multiple contracts provided that arbitration clauses are compatible and other requirements are met. In SYL and Another v GIF [2024] HKCFI 1324, the Court had to determine whether the claimant had satisfied the compatibility requirement when commencing a single arbitration under related contracts. The respondents argued that the arbitration clauses lacked compatibility regarding the appointment process and that the tribunal was not constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The Court agreed. The problem that arose in SYL v GIF is not uncommon: parties deviate from the HKIAC model clause by adding provisions that render the clauses in the related contracts incompatible. This in turn undermines the multi-party and multi-contract regimes under the HKIAC Rules. Read more about this highly relevant decision on Baker McKenzie's Global Arbitration News blog.

The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules offer multi-party and multi-contract regimes to help parties to tackle problems that may arise in such complex scenarios. An example is the regime under Article 29 which allows a claimant to commence a single arbitration under multiple contracts provided that arbitration clauses are compatible and other requirements are met. In SYL and Another v GIF [2024] HKCFI 1324, the Court had to determine whether the claimant had satisfied the compatibility requirement when commencing a single arbitration under related contracts. The respondents argued that the arbitration clauses lacked compatibility regarding the appointment process and that the tribunal was not constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The Court agreed. The problem that arose in SYL v GIF is not uncommon: parties deviate from the HKIAC model clause by adding provisions that render the clauses in the related contracts incompatible. This in turn undermines the multi-party and multi-contract regimes under the HKIAC Rules. Read more about this highly relevant decision on Baker McKenzie's Global Arbitration News blog.

The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules offer multi-party and multi-contract regimes to help parties to tackle problems that may arise in such complex scenarios. An example is the regime under Article 29 which allows a claimant to commence a single arbitration under multiple contracts provided that arbitration clauses are compatible and other requirements are met. In SYL and Another v GIF [2024] HKCFI 1324, the Court had to determine whether the claimant had satisfied the compatibility requirement when commencing a single arbitration under related contracts. The respondents argued that the arbitration clauses lacked compatibility regarding the appointment process and that the tribunal was not constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The Court agreed. The problem that arose in SYL v GIF is not uncommon: parties deviate from the HKIAC model clause by adding provisions that render the clauses in the related contracts incompatible. This in turn undermines the multi-party and multi-contract regimes under the HKIAC Rules. Read more about this highly relevant decision on Baker McKenzie's Global Arbitration News blog.

The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules offer multi-party and multi-contract regimes to help parties to tackle problems that may arise in such complex scenarios. An example is the regime under Article 29 which allows a claimant to commence a single arbitration under multiple contracts provided that arbitration clauses are compatible and other requirements are met. In SYL and Another v GIF [2024] HKCFI 1324, the Court had to determine whether the claimant had satisfied the compatibility requirement when commencing a single arbitration under related contracts. The respondents argued that the arbitration clauses lacked compatibility regarding the appointment process and that the tribunal was not constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The Court agreed. The problem that arose in SYL v GIF is not uncommon: parties deviate from the HKIAC model clause by adding provisions that render the clauses in the related contracts incompatible. This in turn undermines the multi-party and multi-contract regimes under the HKIAC Rules. Read more about this highly relevant decision on Baker McKenzie's Global Arbitration News blog.

The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules offer multi-party and multi-contract regimes to help parties to tackle problems that may arise in such complex scenarios. An example is the regime under Article 29 which allows a claimant to commence a single arbitration under multiple contracts provided that arbitration clauses are compatible and other requirements are met. In SYL and Another v GIF [2024] HKCFI 1324, the Court had to determine whether the claimant had satisfied the compatibility requirement when commencing a single arbitration under related contracts. The respondents argued that the arbitration clauses lacked compatibility regarding the appointment process and that the tribunal was not constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The Court agreed. The problem that arose in SYL v GIF is not uncommon: parties deviate from the HKIAC model clause by adding provisions that render the clauses in the related contracts incompatible. This in turn undermines the multi-party and multi-contract regimes under the HKIAC Rules. Read more about this highly relevant decision on Baker McKenzie's Global Arbitration News blog.

Hong Kong Court sets aside an interim arbitral award in a complex multi-contract dispute, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to agreed-upon arbitration procedures. This landmark decision in SYL and LBL v. GIF provides valuable lessons for arbitrators and parties involved in multi-contract arbitration. Key takeaways: - Procedural Irregularities: The court highlighted the necessity of following agreed-upon procedures, including the proper appointment of arbitrators. - Multi-Contract Arbitration Challenges: The case underscores the complexities of consolidating disputes under multiple contracts. - Strict Interpretation: Courts will strictly interpret arbitration clauses, limiting arbitral discretion. Feel free to share your thoughts and insights on this important ruling in the comments below. Link to the full article: https://lnkd.in/gHDyki2m  Authored by: Fanuel Rudi Supervised by: Kalyan Krishna Bandaru #legalnews #disputeResolution #arbitration #HongKongArbitration #InterimAward #ArbitrationLaw #ContractDispute #HKIAC #InternationalArbitration #LegalPrecedent #ProceduralFairness #MultiContractArbitration #BusinessLaw

Thank you to Aracelly Lopez of Dentons for contributing an independent review of my new book, "Arbitration of International Disputes in New York" (JURIS 2023), to Transnational Dispute Management (TDM 3 (2024)). Excerpts: "Dr. Bekker has effectively drafted a scholarly work that navigates all the stages of an international arbitration proceeding through the lens of New York law, making it a great contribution to the arbitration community. ... Regardless of its focus on New York arbitration, and the analysis of state and federal law applicable to disputes seated in that State, the book proves to be a truly valuable source for the arbitration community overall, and there are a lot of portions of it that apply to arbitrations seated anywhere in the world. ... By combining the theory of how international arbitrations work with practical examples of every single stage of the proceeding, the book not only educates but also gives the reader tools for processing successful arbitrations."

The parties to an arbitration settle their dispute and the proceedings are terminated by an order of the tribunal, but without a consent award. Can the settlement agreement and termination order be challenged and set aside on the same grounds as an arbitral award? The Hong Kong Court of First Instance ruled in a recent procedural decision that there was a "serious question to be tried" on both issues, effectively giving the go-ahead for a full trial on the merits (L v. R [2024] HKCFI 1611). A determination on these points could have important practical implications for users of arbitration in Hong Kong, given the frequency with which disputes covered by an arbitration agreement are resolved through settlement. More details available in our latest HSF Arbitration Notes blog. Simon Chapman KC, Kathryn Sanger, Antony Crockett, Tang Hanjie Helen, Dana Kim, Murphy Mok