Arbitration analysis: this case involved a challenge before the Hong Kong High Court on the enforcement of an award on two grounds. The first is to challenge the validity of an optional arbitration agreement giving one party (the lender) the option to commence arbitration against the other (the borrower). The court held that there was a valid arbitration agreement. The court explained that once the lender exercised its option by commencing arbitration, an arbitration agreement came into existence and the borrower was compelled to follow the lender’s choice. The challenge, however, succeeded on the ground that the notice of arbitration was invalidly served, in that the notice was recorded in the award to have been sent to an email address (‘xyz@chinat.hk’) that was different to the borrower’s email address as stated in the relevant contract (‘xyz@china.hk’). This underscores the importance of proper service and illustrates the risk to enforcement if there is any irregularity with service on the face of the award. Written by Joanne Lau, partner and Harrison Chung, associate at Allen & Overy.

The Judiciary has announced plans to establish the Hong Kong International Commercial Court (HKICC) as a specialist division of the High Court to adjudicate complex, high-value international and cross-boundary commercial disputes. The HKICC is intended to handle such disputes through specialist judicial expertise and tailored court procedures and will complement existing arbitration and mediation services by providing enforceable judgments, including recognition and enforcement on the Mainland under relevant two-way arrangements. Local commercial law judges will sit on the court, with judges or practitioners from other common law jurisdictions able to sit on an ad hoc basis, and proceedings will make extensive use of technology including remote hearings and electronic filing. The Judiciary aims to establish the HKICC within the coming year, with preparatory work under way, a Practice Direction to be issued and stakeholders to be consulted in due course.

The Home Office has published details of the first ballot of 2025 in the Youth Mobility Scheme route for applicants from countries for Hong Kong and Taiwan. Applicants must email the relevant email address in the specified format and providing the specified details between 00.01am on Tuesday 4 February 2025 and 00.01am on Thursday 6 February 2025 (local times respectively). Applicants can only submit one email per ballot. In 2024 there were 1000 places available for each country. Applicants will be informed by email on Tuesday 11 February 2025 if they have been successful and within two weeks of the ballots closing if they have been unsuccessful. Successful applicants will have 90 days to submit a Youth Mobility Scheme application, pay the visa fee and provide their biometrics at a Visa Application Centre.

The Home Office has published details of the first Youth Mobility Scheme (YMS) ballot of 2026 for applicants from Hong Kong and Taiwan. Applicants must send an email to the relevant address in the specified format and provide the specified details between 00.01am on Tuesday 10 February 2026 and 00.01am on Thursday 12 February 2026 (local times respectively). Only one email per ballot may be submitted. There are 1,000 places available for each country. Applicants will be informed by email on Friday 27 February 2026 if their entry has been successful, and within two weeks of the ballots closing if they have been unsuccessful. Successful applicants will have 90 days to submit a YMS application, pay the visa fee and provide their biometrics at a Visa Application Centre.

Arbitration analysis: The 1st Defendant (D1) obtained an interim award in Hong Kong arbitration against the Plaintiffs and the 2nd Defendant (D2) in relation to a shareholders' dispute. The Plaintiffs applied to the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) to set aside the award on various grounds. D1 therefore applied for security for costs. The Plaintiffs opposed D1's application on the grounds that the CFI had no jurisdiction to order security for costs in what was essentially an arbitration matter. The CFI held that the relevant Rules of the High Court (RHC) relating to arbitration did not override the general power of the court to order security for costs. It follows that the CFI is bound by the decision in Wisdom Glory, in which the Court of Appeal (CA) applied the Soleh Boneh guidelines in considering whether to order security. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner head of International Arbitration, Greater China at Stephenson Harwood.

This table summarises all completed investigations by Hong Kong’s competition authority (the Competition Commission—the CC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under the First Conduct Rule of the Competition Ordinance Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Cleaning services• 2 undertakings and 3 individuals (listed here) Restrictive agreements • Competition Tribunal gives judgment—20/01/2025; fines totalling HK$11.31m imposed• Settlement agreement reached—09/12/2024; fines totalling HK$10.96m imposed Investigations under the Second Conduct Rule of the Competition Ordinance Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments The CC has not yet issued any decisions under the Second Conduct Rule in 2025 2024 Investigations under the First Conduct Rule of the Competition Ordinance Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments IT solutions• 4 undertakings and 1 individual (listed here) Restrictive agreements • Competition Tribunal gives judgment—07/06/2024 Investigations under the Second Conduct Rule of the Competition Ordinance Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application by a defendant to stay Hong Kong court proceedings in favour of the Wuhan Courts. The relevant dispute resolution clause provides that the plaintiff has the right to apply for arbitration or litigation, both at the location of a guarantor (being in Wuhan). In considering the effect of the dispute resolution clause, the court had to first decide the governing law of the dispute resolution clause. The court applied the principles in Enka v Chubb, the UK Supreme Court judgment on the determination of the governing law of an arbitration clause, in finding that the clause is governed by Hong Kong law. Applying Hong Kong law, the court held that the dispute resolution clause contains a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, taking into account the language and the asymmetric nature of the clause, and declined the application for a stay. Written by Joanne Lau, partner; Carine Ha, associate at Allen & Overy.

This client briefing from Hogan Lovells looks at a recent first instance decision of the Hong Kong court, Charmway Hong Kong Investment v Fortunesea (Cayman), on the interpretation of a syndicated facility based on LMA standard terms and holdout rights.

Arbitration analysis: In an English law-governed maritime arbitration, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance offered important guidance on whether an opt-in appeal on questions of law under Schedule 2 to the Arbitration Ordinance (‘AO’) could extend to a question of foreign law. While the court disposed of the application on its merits (finding the proposed question of law was not of general importance and the tribunal’s decision was neither obviously wrong nor open to serious doubt) it addressed jurisdictional issues in obiter. The court clarified that a ‘question of law’ under sections 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the AO is not necessarily confined to Hong Kong law, and whether a question of law concerned qualifies ultimately depends on its nature and the examination by the Hong Kong courts. Written by Min Li, partner, Patrick Chong, associate and Amy Lam, trainee solicitor at Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP.

Arbitration analysis: The Fiona Trust principle is that parties, as rational businesspeople, should be assumed to have intended any dispute arising out of their relationship to be decided by the same tribunal (Fiona Trust v Privalov). The principle is relied upon most commonly where a party wishes to have a single arbitral tribunal determine multiple disputes arising out of one contract. The ‘Extended Fiona Trust Principle’ is where the Fiona Trust principle is applied to a scenario where multiple disputes arise under multiple related agreements between the same parties (per Mr Justice Bryan in Terre Neuve Sarl & others v Yewdale Ltd & others, a decision of the English Commercial Court). In H v G, Mr Justice Chan in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that the Extended Fiona Trust Principle had been displaced by clear language, which showed the parties wished disputes arising out of Contract A and Contract B to be resolved separately. It is the latest in a string of cases in the Hong Kong courts in which parties have tried (and mostly failed) to apply the Extended Fiona Trust Principle. Written by Ben Bury, Partner, and Stephanie Yu, senior associate, at HFW.

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong court has refused enforcement of a Mainland award on public policy grounds where it was clear a tribunal member participating in a hearing remotely could not hear and/or failed to give the hearing his full attention. The court held that there is no apparent justice or fair hearing in such circumstances. The court also found that the failure by the respondent's lawyer to complain at the hearing itself did not constitute a waiver of the right to object as an advocate might be focused on presenting his case and not on the arbitrator's conduct on the screen. Finally, the court held that the fact the supervisory court on the Mainland had not set aside the award did not preclude the Hong Kong court, as the enforcement court, from applying its own standards as to whether to award was made contrary to Hong Kong public policy. This case raises questions as to when a complaint should be made in such circumstances and the need to carefully manage virtual hearings. Written by Yvonne Shek, counsel; Dianna Shao, counsel; and Felicia Cheng, professional support lawyer at Clifford Chance.

Arbitration analysis: In CCC v AAC, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance dismissed the respondent’s application to set aside an ex parte order granting leave to the applicant to enforce an arbitral award made online by the Hong Kong Arbitration Society (HKAS). The court held that no clear basis of fraudulent act by the applicant was found and the expedited nature of online arbitration in the present case did not amount to a denial of due process. Further, on evidence, the court found that the respondent had proper notice of the proceedings and, by agreeing to arbitration under the HKAS Online Arbitration Rules (HKAS Online Rules), had accepted SMS as a valid method of serving notice of arbitration. The court also discussed, in obiter dictum, the importance of notice in online arbitration, particularly in the context of moneylending transactions. Written by Min Li, partner at Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP and Patrick Chong, associate at Reed Smtih Richards Butler LLP.