Hong Kong—loss of right to object to arbitral proceedings (AO, s 11)
Hong Kong—loss of right to object to arbitral proceedings (AO, s 11)

The following Arbitration guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Hong Kong—loss of right to object to arbitral proceedings (AO, s 11)
  • Waiver or loss of the right to object
  • Raising an objection
  • Taking part or continuing to take part
  • Knowledge of the objection
  • Subsequent challenge must refer to earlier objection

This Practice Note considers the various elements of the test under section 11 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO) which provides that any objections to arbitral proceedings must be raised as soon as they are known of or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

Waiver or loss of the right to object

Section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) contains similar waiver provisions to that of AO, s 11. Thus, English cases on the equivalent section are of assistance, some of which are referred to in this Practice Note. AA 1996, s 73 provides that a party will be taken to have waived its right to object unless it can be shown that it could not have discovered the matter complained of even with reasonable diligence—see Practice Note: AA 1996—loss of right to object (s 73).

Under AO, s 11, where a party knows that any derogable provision of the AO has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration without stating its objection to such non-compliance within the prescribed time limits or without undue delay, the party is deemed to have waived the right to object. AO, s 11 gives effect to article 4 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which provides:

‘A party who knows that any provision of this Law from