Arbitration in Asia

Arbitration in China

Arbitration in China—Lexology Panoramic guide

This guide, published by Lexology Panoramic, provides an introduction to arbitration in the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) covering topics such as arbitration agreements, constitution of arbitral tribunal, jurisdiction, arbitral proceedings, interim measures, awards, proceedings subsequent to issuance of award, ethics and update and trends. For more information, see Practice Note: Arbitration—China—Q&A guide.

Ad hoc arbitration in China

This Practice Note discusses the legality of ad hoc arbitration agreements in China and offers advice to those drafting arbitration agreements in this jurisdiction. For more information, see Practice Note: Ad hoc arbitration in China.

Challenging jurisdiction and anti-suit provisions in China

This Practice Note discusses challenges to the jurisdiction of a tribunal that may be made under the Arbitration Law of the PRC. It includes challenges on grounds of arbitrability and validity of the arbitration agreement. It also covers challenges to the tribunal and the court and the timescale within which such challenges must be brought. It sets out who has jurisdiction to determine which challenges and the time within which their decision must be

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

ADGM court’s mandatory interim relief powers prevail over LCIA Rules

Arbitration analysis: The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark decision confirming the dominance of the mandatory law of the seat over institutional arbitration rules regarding interim relief. The court allowed an appeal against the first instance court’s refusal to grant a worldwide freezing order (WFO) in support of an ADGM-seated London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration. The first instance judge refused relief because the applicants had not obtained the tribunal’s prior authorisation, which is a prerequisite under Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules (2020) once a tribunal is formed. The Court of Appeal held that mandatory statutory powers to grant interim relief cannot be displaced by institutional rules, and that a WFO may be granted despite the lack of tribunal authorisation [A30, ¶ 17]. The court found that section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015, which empowers the court to grant interim measures in cases of urgency or where the tribunal cannot act effectively, is a mandatory provision [A30, ¶ 18; quoting Arbitration Regulations, section 31]. Therefore, pursuant to LCIA Article 14.2, which subjects the tribunal’s duties to mandatory laws, a party exercising a statutory right under the law of the seat does not commit a breach of the arbitration agreement [A30, ¶ 21]. This decision confirms that the ADGM Courts will intervene to preserve assets in urgent cases, reinforcing the ADGM as a high-intervention seat for protective measures. Written by Othmane Saadani, partner and Brayden Winkler, associate at Bin Sevan Advocates & Legal Consultants.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents