- Hong Kong court refuses a stay where arbitration was optional
- What was the background of the case?
- What was the wording of the dispute resolution clause?
- On what basis was the clause, and its effect, distinguished from the clause in the Anzen case?
- How was a costs award on the indemnity basis justified against the applicant for a stay?
- What are the practical implications of the judgment?
Arbitration analysis: Gary Seib, partner, and Gillian Lam, associate at Baker & McKenzie, consider the background to a recent Hong Kong court decision on the effect of the word ‘may’ in an arbitration clause and assess the practical implications of the judgment, namely that it is vital that dispute resolution clauses and arbitration clauses are drafted in clear, concise and unambiguous terms.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial