Arbitration analysis: In the case of Beijing Songxianghu Architectural Decoration Engineering Co Ltd v Kitty Kam, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance addressed the complex interplay between arbitral confidentiality and parallel litigation. The court decisively refused the defendant’s application to strike out the claim or close proceedings to the public, holding that the disclosure of arbitration-related information was permissible under Hong Kong law when necessary to pursue a legal right. This decision underscores the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality under the Arbitration Ordinance, particularly when overlapping issues arise in concurrent arbitration and litigation. Practitioners should take note of this ruling as it highlights the potential for arbitration-related information to be disclosed in court proceedings if it is essential for protecting or pursuing legal rights. This ruling signals that confidentiality in arbitration, while significant, is not absolute and must be carefully managed, particularly when advising clients on the strategic use of arbitration versus litigation.

Arbitration analysis: The Court of First Instance granted summary judgment restraining Guangdong Guangwu from continuing a Guangzhou arbitration after it had submitted the same claims to the claims-adjudication process under Hong Kong Petrochemical’s court-sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement. By filing a proof of debt, the creditor submitted to the Scheme’s machinery and jurisdiction; having failed to invoke the prescribed review procedure, it was bound by the Scheme Administrators’ rejection, with the claims discharged and further proceedings barred. The decision confirms that a creditor’s subjective intention in filing a proof is irrelevant and that foreign arbitration clauses will not circumvent a Scheme once the creditor has engaged its process. Practitioners should therefore treat proof filing and review deadlines as potentially determinative of substantive rights. Produced in partnership with Min Li, partner and Sylvia Siu, associate at Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP.

Arbitration analysis: In Kat Yue Construction v Fai Lee Construction, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance refused leave to appeal against a decision declining to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration. The dispute arose from a construction contract which contained an arbitration clause. The parties settled the initial dispute by entering into a Settlement Agreement that expressly provided that the arbitration clause ‘shall not apply’. When further disputes arose under the Settlement Agreement, the defendant applied to stay the proceedings in favour of arbitration, arguing that the plaintiff’s damages were based on the original contract and therefore fell within the arbitration clause. The court refused a stay and subsequently refused leave to appeal. The court held that the Settlement Agreement, rather than the original contract, was the ‘centre of gravity’ of the dispute. Although damages were assessed by reference to the original contract, the plaintiff’s right to relief depended on establishing a breach of the Settlement Agreement—which the court characterised as a ‘condition precedent’ to recovery. The court further noted that requiring arbitration would render the express exclusion clause otiose and lead to ‘fragmentation’ of proceedings. This decision illustrates that where related agreements contain conflicting dispute resolution regimes, the court will adopt the regime governing the agreement at the ‘centre of gravity’ of the dispute. It reinforces the principle that courts will not strain to bring disputes within an arbitration clause where parties have expressly agreed otherwise. Written by Paul Starr, partner, and John Law, associate, at King & Wood Mallesons.

Arbitration analysis: This case summarises the factors the Hong Kong Court will consider in deciding whether to grant an application under sections 181 and 329 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) (the ‘Ordinance’) to restrain an arbitration pending final resolution of ongoing winding-up proceedings against a foreign company. In doing so, the court reiterated its acceptance that proceedings will generally be restrained unless there are ‘very exceptional circumstances’. Written by Andrew Stafford KC and Jeremy Toh of Kobre & Kim, London and Hong Kong.

Arbitration analysis: In Bank A v Bank B, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance granted an anti-suit injunction and related relief to prevent a Russian bank from pursuing court proceedings in Russia in breach of an arbitration clause contained in the agreement concerned. In so holding, the court rejected the Russian bank’s submission that the case involved acts of state and foreign affairs and that the court had no jurisdiction in the absence of a certificate required by Article 19 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong (‘Certificate’). Further, the court rejected the Russian bank’s argument that the arbitration in Hong Kong would be futile, pointing out that any award made by the arbitral tribunal would be valid and binding on the parties, even if its performance was impossible. Written by Min Li, partner and Patrick Chong, associate at Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP.

The Hong Kong Department of Justice (DoJ) has launched a consultation on proposed amendments to the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609), following a review by the Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform, established by the DoJ in October 2025. The proposed reforms address 25 issues across four key areas: speed and convenience, confidentiality, scope and fairness and justice. The proposals are intended to enhance the speed, convenience and finality of arbitration, protect confidentiality, make arbitration more readily available to resolve various types of disputes, ensure fairness and justice and respect party autonomy. The consultation is directed at stakeholders including arbitral institutions, arbitration practitioners and legal professionals, as well as other legal, commercial and institutional users of arbitration services. The consultation closes on 27 October 2026. Following consideration of stakeholder responses, the DoJ intends to introduce an amendment bill into the Legislative Council in early 2027, with a view to completing the legislative amendments to the Arbitration Ordinance within 2027.

The Hong Kong Department of Justice (DoJ) has announced that the AALCO Hong Kong Regional Arbitration Centre and the eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre have been selected as the administering body and technology provider respectively for a two-year pilot scheme on sports dispute resolution. The scheme, part of the government’s policy initiative to promote sports mediation and arbitration in Hong Kong, will provide a structured mechanism for resolving sports-related disputes through mediation and arbitration, supported by dedicated institutional and technological infrastructure. The DoJ, assisted by the Advisory Committee on Sports Dispute Resolution, which includes representatives from the Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau, the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong, assessed proposals based on criteria such as institutional expertise, governance, conflict management, training experience and fee structures. Preparatory work will commence immediately, and the pilot scheme will be launched by the end of the year, with further details to follow.

The Hong Kong Department of Justice (DoJ) has announced an updated list of nine qualifying arbitral and dispute resolution institutions eligible to seek interim measures from mainland Chinese courts. The list, issued under the 2019 arrangement between the DoJ and Supreme People's Court, includes major arbitration centres such as the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and ICC Asia Office. The designations will remain valid until 1 April 2027, enabling parties in Hong Kong-seated arbitrations to apply for interim measures from mainland courts.

1. What is the applicable legislation? There is no general legislation designated to govern foreign investment into Hong Kong. The sector-specific foreign ownership restrictions described below are principally governed by the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) and, for sound broadcasting, Part 3A of the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106). 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? There is no specific regulatory authority designated to govern foreign investment into Hong Kong. However, the Communications Authority administers the sector-specific broadcasting controls described below, while the Chief Executive in Council has certain licensing and approval powers. 3. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime? Does it only apply to specific sectors or types of investors (eg foreign or non-EU / non-WTO)? Are there specific rules for certain types of investors (eg state-owned enterprises)? While there are no general restrictions on foreign investment into Hong Kong, there are certain restrictions based principally on ordinary residence in Hong Kong in

Arbitration analysis: This decision notably considers compatibility under Article 29 of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Administered Arbitration Rules 2018 (the Rules). The defendant (D and claimant in the arbitration) commenced a single arbitration under multiple contracts pursuant to Article 29. The plaintiffs ((P1 and P2, together Ps) and respondents in the arbitration) objected and challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction, this led to an Interim Award dismissing the plaintiffs’ jurisdiction challenge. The plaintiffs then sought to set aside the Interim Award before the Hong Kong Court of First Instance. Deputy Judge Nip SC held that there was a clash between the arbitrator appointment procedures under the different arbitration agreements, such that the arbitration agreements were not compatible within the meaning of Article 29. It was not therefore open to D to rely on Article 29 to commence a single arbitration based on multiple contracts. It follows that the composition of the arbitral tribunal in that arbitration was also defective, the judge set aside the Interim Award. Written by Paul Starr, partner at King & Wood Mallesons.

Arbitration analysis: Amy Lo and Timothy Hill of Hogan Lovells’ Hong Kong office discusses the Hong Kong Court of First Instance decision in MV Ever Judger elucidating the Hong Kong courts’ approach to anti-suit injunctions.

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of First Instance granted a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance, holding that the dispute between shareholders and the company over share transfer restrictions was governed by the arbitration clause in the Members’ Agreement. The court found that, despite attempts by the petitioners to frame their claims as arising independently of the Members’ Agreement, the true substance of the dispute related to the enforcement of rights and obligations under that agreement, particularly concerning the removal of a restrictive legend on share certificates. Practitioners should note the court’s practical approach in identifying the ‘substance’ of a dispute for arbitration clauses and its reluctance to allow parties to circumvent agreed arbitral processes through careful pleadings. The decision reinforces the strength of arbitration clauses in shareholder and investment agreements and offers guidance on their interpretation and application in cross-border corporate disputes. Written by Min Li, partner at Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP and Amy Lam, trainee solicitor at Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP.