This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2024 Arbitration Year in Review, in collaboration with VYAPs, a yearly collection of articles from jurisdictions all around the globe updating you on arbitration-related developments from the previous year.
THE AUTHORS:
Valerie Li, Of Counsel at DLA Piper
Edison Li, Senior Associate at DLA Piper
Peter Yung, Juris Doctor Candidate at University of Hong Kong
In 2024, arbitration in Hong Kong experienced significant advancements, highlighted by the introduction of new HKIAC rules, a record number of arbitration cases, and landmark court decisions. These developments have been pivotal in shaping the arbitration landscape in Hong Kong.
The 2024 HKIAC Rules: Transforming Arbitration Practices
In 2024, Hong Kong reached a significant milestone in its arbitration framework with the promulgation of the HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) Administered Arbitration Rules (2024) (“2024 HKIAC Rules“), which came into effect on 1 June 2024. These revised rules demonstrate, among others, HKIAC’s holistic response to the evolving demands of contemporary arbitration practice, introduce substantive innovations aimed at enhancing procedural efficiency, ensuring inclusivity, and addressing sustainability concerns.
Diversity in Arbitration Appointments
The 2024 HKIAC Rules mark a significant step forward in formalizing diversity considerations in arbitrator appointments. Article 9A mandates that the HKIAC “shall” take diversity into account, alongside other relevant factors, when exercising its appointment powers (Article 9A.2). Additionally, parties and co-arbitrators are expressly encouraged to consider diversity when selecting arbitrators (Article 9A.1).
While this reflects existing HKIAC practices, it reinforces a growing emphasis on inclusivity in arbitration. Since becoming a signatory to the ERA Pledge for Equal Representation in Arbitration in 2016, HKIAC has demonstrated measurable progress in promoting gender diversity. Female appointments by HKIAC rose from 22% in 2021 to 27% in 2022, and further to 35% in both 2023 and 2024, illustrating the institution’s commitment to advance diversified representation in arbitral tribunals.
Environmental Focus in Arbitration
Modifications of the HKIAC Rules have been introduced in relation to the environmental impact of HKIAC arbitrations, with an aim to incorporate sustainability considerations into the arbitral process:
- Article 13.1 obliges arbitral tribunals to factor in the “environmental impact” when devising suitable procedures for the conduct of the arbitration, ensuring that sustainability considerations are embedded in procedural decisions.
Article 34.4(f) further requires tribunals to take into account “any adverse environmental impact arising from the parties’ conduct” when evaluating the reasonableness of arbitration costs and apportioning those costs between the parties.
Enhanced Case Management Powers
Article 13.6 of the 2024 HKIAC Rules introduces additional discretionary powers concerning case management, which arbitral tribunals may exercise following consultation with the parties.
These powers enable tribunals to:
- Identify and resolve preliminary issues deemed capable of disposing of all or part of the dispute;
- Divide the proceedings into separate phases, including by way of bifurcation;
- Conduct the arbitration in distinct, sequential stages;
- Determine the appropriate stage of the arbitration at which particular issues shall be addressed; and
- Implement other procedural mechanisms aimed at facilitating the efficient resolution of the case.
These measures operate alongside and are complementary to the early determination procedure codified in Article 43, which remains unchanged.
Safeguarding Information Security
To align with evolving international arbitral practices, amendments are introduced to enhance the safeguarding of information security under Article 45A of the 2024 HKIAC Rules. Notably:
- The parties are permitted to mutually agree reasonable measures to secure information that is shared, stored, or processed in connection with the arbitration;
- The tribunal, following consultation with the parties, may issue directives aimed at ensuring the protection of such information during the course of the arbitration;
- The tribunal is further empowered, after considering the parties’ views, to issue decisions, orders, or awards addressing violations of agreed or directed information security protocols.
The 2024 HKIAC Rules were unveiled in conjunction with Hong Kong’s hosting of the ICCA Congress, which focused on the theme “International Arbitration: A Human Endeavour”. The ICCA 2024 Congress attracted over 1,400 participants from more than 70 jurisdictions, setting a record as the most attended ICCA Congress to date. Several of the significant updates to the 2024 Rules reflect an effort to humanize the practice of arbitration and its regulatory framework, a development that is widely regarded as a positive step forward.
HKIAC’s Record-High Caseload in 2024
On 20 February 2025, HKIAC released its statistical report for 2024 (HKIAC’s statistics for 2024), reaffirming Hong Kong’s preeminent position as a leading arbitral seat for international dispute resolution. The institution administered a total of 503 matters during the year, a figure closely approximating its 2023 caseload. Within this total, an unprecedented 352 cases were arbitrations, marking the highest number of arbitration filings in HKIAC’s history. Additionally, the institution handled 8 mediation-related applications and 143 domain name disputes. The total amount in dispute across all arbitration matters reached an extraordinary HKD 106 billion (approximately USD 13.6 billion). For arbitrations administered by HKIAC, the average disputed amount stood at HKD 375 million (approximately USD 48.1 million). Notably, the cases retained a distinctly international dimension, with parties hailing from 53 jurisdictions, a significant increase from the 45 jurisdictions represented in 2023.
The year 2024 was also marked by a deepening of the legal and procedural synergies between Hong Kong and Mainland China in the use of interim measures to support arbitrations seated in Hong Kong. As an arbitral seat outside Mainland China, parties to designated arbitral institutions in Hong Kong may seek interim relief from Mainland courts throughout the entirety of the arbitral process as well as at the enforcement stage. Hong Kong continues to offer unparalleled strategic advantages for cross-border disputes.
Under the Hong Kong-Mainland China Arrangement on Interim Measures, introduced in 2019, HKIAC—one of the seven recognized arbitral institutions under the Arrangement—facilitated 40 applications to 21 Mainland Chinese courts in 2024. These applications sought orders for the preservation of evidence, assets, or conduct collectively valued at RMB 9.1 billion (approximately USD 1.2 billion). This represents a substantial increase from the 19 applications processed in 2023, which illustrate the growing reliance on the Arrangement as a critical mechanism for safeguarding rights and interests in cross-border disputes. Of these applications, 28.9% were initiated by parties domiciled in Mainland China, while 71.1% were submitted by parties from outside Mainland China. In a further demonstration of the Arrangement’s efficacy, HKIAC reported that Mainland Chinese courts issued preservation orders in 31 cases, securing assets worth RMB 6.3 billion (approximately USD 865 million).
The integration of Hong Kong’s arbitral process with Mainland China’s legal infrastructure ensures that the city remains at the forefront of global dispute resolution and meets demands from an evolving cross-border legal landscape.
Hong Kong Courts Clarify Winding-Up Jurisdiction and Arbitration
In 2024, the Hong Kong courts delivered several pivotal judgments, shedding light on their approach to winding-up or bankruptcy petitions premised on debts that are subject to arbitration clauses.
The decisions in Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2024] HKCA 299, 23 April 2024, Shandong Chenming Paper v. Arjowiggins HKK 2 (II) [2024] HKCA 352, 23 April 2024 and Mega Gold and Man Chun Sing Matthew v. New Deal Trading [2024] HKCFI 2286, 30 August 2024 provide significant clarification on the intersection between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings under Hong Kong law. These cases address the applicability of the Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v. Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, 4 May 2023 (“Re Guy Lam”) approach, the threshold for declining insolvency jurisdiction, and the divergence from the UK Privy Council’s decision in Halimeda v. Maple Ridge and Sian [2024] UKPC 16, 19 June 2024 (“Sian Participation”).
Extension of the Re Guy Lam Approach to Arbitration Agreements
The Re Guy Lam approach, established in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, held that where a petition debt is subject to an Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause (“EJC”) in favour of a foreign court, a winding-up petition should generally be dismissed unless countervailing factors exist. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal (“HKCA”) in Re Simplicity confirmed that these principles also apply to disputes over petition debts subject to arbitration clauses.
In Re Simplicity, the appellant, acting as a guarantor for payment obligations under convertible bond instruments, challenged a winding-up petition on the basis that the underlying contracts contained arbitration clauses. The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (“HKCFI”) followed the Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 246, 2 March 2018 (“Lasmos”) approach, which does not require the debtor to show the debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds. Finding the Lasmos requirements unsatisfied, the HKCFI ordered the winding-up of the appellant. On appeal, the HKCA confirmed that the Re Guy Lam principles apply to arbitration clauses and reiterated key principles applicable to arbitration clauses in insolvency proceedings:
- Arbitration agreements deserve even stronger protection than EJCs due to public policy favouring arbitration;
- Arbitration agreements should generally be upheld as a matter of party autonomy;
- The Court’s discretion to decline insolvency jurisdiction is multi-factorial, allowing consideration of countervailing factors, such as “the risk of insolvency affecting third parties and whether the dispute is frivolous or amounts to an abuse of process”;
- A genuine intention to arbitrate is required to prevent debtors from invoking arbitration clauses as tactical devices.
Ultimately, the HKCA dismissed the appeal in Re Simplicity, citing insufficient evidence that the petition debt was genuinely disputed or would be referred to arbitration. The appellant’s defense was deemed “wholly without merit” and “bordering on frivolity or abuse of process”.
In Re Shandong Chenming, the HKCA extended the Re Guy Lam approach to cross-claims and claims of set-off subject to arbitration agreements. In this case, the debtor raised a cross-claim in support of its application to dismiss or stay a winding-up petition. The HKCA held that as long as the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, the Re Guy Lam principles apply, irrespective of whether the dispute arises from a petition debt or a cross-claim. Since no evidence suggested that the cross-claim was frivolous or abusive, the Court referred the dispute to arbitration and dismissed the winding-up petition.
The Multi-Factorial Nature of Court Discretion
The Hong Kong courts have consistently emphasized that the exercise of discretion to decline insolvency jurisdiction involves a multi-factorial analysis. Factors considered include:
- The existence and enforceability of an arbitration agreement;
- The risk of prejudice to third-party creditors;
- The bona fides of the party invoking the arbitration agreement;
- Whether the dispute is frivolous or raised tactically to delay proceedings;
- The broader objectives of insolvency law, such as procedural efficiency and creditor protection.
In Re Simplicity, the HKCA applied these factors to conclude that the appellant’s invocation of the arbitration clause was tactical and lacked genuine substance. In Re Shandong Chenming, however, the Court found no countervailing factors, as the cross-claim was raised in good faith and was subject to a valid arbitration agreement.
Stare Decisis and Stricter Threshold for Declining Insolvency Jurisdiction
The decision in Re Mega Gold highlights the divergence between the Hong Kong and UK approaches to arbitration in insolvency proceedings. Following the UK Privy Council’s decision in Sian Participation, questions were raised regarding the appropriateness of the Re Guy Lam approach. In Sian Participation, the Privy Council held that a winding-up petition should be stayed if the petition debt is subject to an arbitration agreement and the debt is genuinely and substantially disputed.
The HKCFI in Re Mega Gold, however, reaffirmed that the Re Guy Lam and Re Simplicity principles remain binding in Hong Kong as a matter of stare decisis. The stricter Hong Kong threshold—winding up petitions are stayed for arbitration where a dispute does not border on frivolity or abuse of process—reflects the courts’ focus on balancing party autonomy with the effective administration of insolvency proceedings.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Valerie Li is an Of Counsel in the Litigation and Regulatory team, based in DLA Piper‘s Hong Kong office. Valerie has extensive experience in international arbitration and commercial litigation. She is the Co-Chair of HK45 for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC). In 2018, Valerie was also accredited as a Tribunal Secretary at the HKIAC. Valerie regularly represents clients from the Middle East, Americas, United Kingdom, Europe, Mainland China, Hong Kong, and other parts of Asia. She handles disputes covering areas including intellectual property and technology, financial instruments, joint ventures, licensing and distribution, international trade and sale of goods, energy and natural resources, as well as general commercial disputes in the High Court of Hong Kong and arbitrations seated in jurisdictions including Hong Kong, London, Mainland China and Singapore, involving various jurisdictions and rules including HKIAC, CIETAC, UNCITRAL Rules, ICC Rules, and LMAA Terms.
Edison Li is a senior associate in the Litigation and Regulation team, based in DLA Piper‘s Hong Kong office. Edison is qualified in Hong Kong SAR, England & Wales and the PRC and has particular expertise in advising clients and conducting arbitrations in Mainland China or involving Chinese parties. Edison mainly focuses on commercial litigation and arbitration with particular focus on international sale of goods/trade and commodities, joint venture, licencing and IP, construction, insurance and shipping. Edison has extensive experience in handling ad hoc arbitrations and institutional arbitrations in a variety of venues including London, Singapore, Western Australia, Hong Kong and mainland China before arbitral institutions such as the ACICA, BIAC, CIETAC, HKIAC, ICC, LCIA, LMAA, SCMA, SHIAC and SIAC.
Peter Yung is currently pursuing his Juris Doctor degree at the University of Hong Kong. Prior to this, he graduated from the University of Chicago with a degree in Economics and Law, Letters, and Society. His undergraduate thesis, titled “Governing Cryptocurrency with the SEC? Rethinking through ‘Trust’ and ‘Identity,” reflects his interest in the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Peter has developed a strong passion for corporate law and has gained practical experience through internships at various financial institutions, where he has worked in corporate strategy, mergers and acquisitions, asset management, and debt restructuring, as well as participated in mini-pupillage programs.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2024 from around the world now
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
