Legal News

Hong Kong—breach of arbitration agreement, competing jurisdiction clauses, and the ‘one-stop’ adjudication presumption (Capital Wealth Holdings v 通嘉禾科技投资开发有限公司)

Hong Kong—breach of arbitration agreement, competing jurisdiction clauses, and the ‘one-stop’ adjudication presumption (Capital Wealth Holdings v 通嘉禾科技投资开发有限公司)
Published on: 19 February 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Hong Kong—breach of arbitration agreement, competing jurisdiction clauses, and the ‘one-stop’ adjudication presumption (Capital Wealth Holdings v 通嘉禾科技投资开发有限公司)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: This analysis considers a return date judgment of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance regarding an ex parte on notice interim anti-suit injunction granted in the plaintiffs’ favour in support of arbitration. The judge at the ex parte hearing had relied on the one-stop adjudication presumption to find that the plaintiffs’ argument that proceedings brought in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) should properly be resolved by arbitration in Hong Kong. The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Yeung disagreed with that analysis, which may have been appropriate in cases where there was only one arbitration clause and multiple contracts. This was not such a case as there were multiple forum clauses at play. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration Greater China, at Stephenson Harwood. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents