{"id":290219,"date":"2026-05-14T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-14T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290219"},"modified":"2026-05-14T13:25:21","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T11:25:21","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-hong-kong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/14\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-hong-kong\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review – Hong Kong"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Edison Li<\/a><\/strong>, Senior Associate at DLA Piper<\/strong><\/a>
Kexin Liu<\/strong>, Legal Assistant,<\/strong> Shanghai Kaiman<\/strong><\/a>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2025 is another fruitful year for\u00a0Hong Kong<\/a>\u00a0to celebrate significant developments in arbitration, highlighted by its rise to the second most preferred seat globally, the establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation, and a series of landmark court decisions. These developments enhance Hong Kong\u2019s appeal as a one-stop hub for international dispute resolution, underpinned by a sophisticated legal system, a deep pool of professional expertise, strong legislative support, and the cutting-edge insights of the legal community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Hong Kong as the Second Preferred Seat Globally<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to the highly regarded\u00a02025 International Arbitration Survey: \u2018The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration<\/em>\u2019 – School of International Arbitration<\/a>\u00a0(the \u201cSurvey<\/strong>\u201d)\u00a0issued by Queen Mary University of London,\u00a0Hong Kong was named the most preferred seat in the Asia-Pacific region, with 45% of survey respondents selecting it. Globally, Hong Kong, together with Singapore, ranks as the joint second most preferred seat of arbitration, with 31% of respondents choosing it, just behind London (34%).\u00a0As mentioned in the\u00a0Survey<\/a>\u00a0(on pages 7-8), the preference for Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration can be attributed\u00a0to its pro-arbitration legal environment, neutrality, impartiality, and the strength of its national arbitration laws, and close connection with\u00a0Mainland China<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, this year marks the 40th Anniversary of\u00a0HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre)<\/a>.\u00a0Founded in 1985, HKIAC has become one of the leading arbitral centres worldwide. Today, HKIAC\u2019s Administered Arbitration Rulesrank the most preferred set of arbitration rules in Asia-Pacific and the second most preferred globally. According to the\u00a0Survey<\/a>\u00a0(on page 10), respondents appreciate the sense of innovation in the HKIAC Rules, the \u201clight touch\u201d approach with full respects to parties\u2019 autonomy in arbitration administration, and its\u00a0Policy<\/a>\u00a0to maintain administrative function in sanction-related disputes.\u00a0HKIAC-administered arbitration is also particularly attractive for resolving sino-foreign disputes because parties can apply for interim measures from the Mainland China People\u2019s Courts throughout the entire lifespan of the arbitration including the enforcement stage, pursuant\u00a0to the\u00a0Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region<\/em><\/a>. Notably, the newly implemented\u00a0\u00a0HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules\u00a02024<\/a>\u00a0(\u201c2024 HKIAC Rules<\/strong>\u201d) which feature an updated toolkit, including expanded discretion of arbitral tribunal, power for HKIAC to revoke appointment of arbitrator in exceptional circumstances, consideration of diversity and environmental impact, further enhance Hong Kong\u2019s capabilities to facilitate impartial, efficient, secure and socially responsible arbitrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hong Kong Announces Review of Arbitration Ordinance<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, the\u00a0Legislative Council of Hong Kong<\/a>\u00a0announced the plan to review the Hong Kong\u00a0Cap. 609 Arbitration Ordinance<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cHong Kong Arbitration Ordinance<\/strong>\u201d), which has been in effect since 2011. Historical amendments have reflected global trends, including the enforceability of emergency arbitrator orders in Hong Kong, the recognition of the arbitrability of IP disputes, and the removal of restrictions on contingency fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Working Group was formed in late October 2025, chaired by the Secretary for Justice, Mr Paul Lam SC, to advise the\u00a0Department of Justice<\/a>\u00a0to comprehensively study whether further amendments to the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance are necessary. According to the\u00a0Terms of Reference<\/a>\u00a0of the Working Group, the potential areas of reform include issues concerning the governing law of arbitration agreement, the scope of disputes for arbitration, the arbitral tribunal’s powers and jurisdiction, the court’s powers, and the use of artificial intelligence in arbitration. Among these varied and wide areas of potential reform, it is particularly interesting to see whether Hong Kong may adopt similar amendments recently made to the English Arbitration Act, which introduced a new default rule regarding the governing law of the arbitration agreement. The potential changes aim to align Hong Kong\u2019s arbitration framework with international best practices, foster cooperation with the newly established International Organisation for Mediation (as introduced below), and reinforce Hong Kong\u2019s role as a global dispute resolution hub.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BAC Opens New Office in Hong Kong<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On 12 November 2025, the BAC (Beijing Arbitration Commission \/ Beijing International Arbitration Court<\/a>)\u00a0officially opened its first overseas office in Hong Kong. BAC becomes the fourth Mainland China arbitral institution to establish a presence in Hong Kong, underscoring the city\u2019s growing importance in global arbitration. According to\u00a0BAC 2024 Work Report (in Chinese)<\/a>, BAC administered a record 14,060 arbitration matters, with over 10,000 cases resolved through expedited procedures. Of these, 277 cases were international arbitrations, with a total disputed amount amounting to RMB 10.4 billion.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new BAC Hong Kong Centre will advance its services and management systems in line with global best practices, deepen collaboration between Mainland China and Hong Kong, and provide reliable dispute resolution services in support of outbound investment by PRC companies. Notably, BAC Hong Kong Centre has been equipped with arbitration rules in eight languages, including French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Japanese, and Korean, to meet the needs of potential foreign parties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Another eye-catching event in 2025 was the inauguration of the IMOed (International Organization for Mediation<\/a>)\u00a0with its headquarters in Hong Kong. On 30 May 2025, 33 countries signed the\u00a0Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cIMOed Convention<\/strong>\u201d), marking the launch of the world\u2019s first intergovernmental legal organisation dedicated exclusively to international mediation. The number of Signatory States has since grown to 38, with more countries expected to join.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the trend of increasing demand for mediation, a more flexible, cost-effective, convenient and well-implemented alternative dispute resolution method, this institution offers a new option for parties and countries to seek peaceful and reliable settlement of disputes. IMOed will provide comprehensive mediation services with respect to interstate disputes, investor-state disputes as well as international commercial disputes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notably, IMOed also intends to address the challenge of the enforceability of the settlement agreement. Specifically, the IMOed grants the Contracting States the authority to directly enforce the settlement agreements reached during mediation, but limited to international commercial disputes between private parties (Article 41(1) of the IMOed Convention). Mediation administered by IMOed remains available and could proceed at any time, even if other dispute resolution processes like arbitration are ongoing (Article 38(1) of the IMOed Convention). Two Panels of mediators will be maintained by IMOed, with one Panel consisting of professionals in political matter to be qualified to deal with inter-state disputes (Article 19(1) of the IMOed Convention).As of the date of this review, the IMOed Convention is mainly signed by States from Asia-Pacific, Africa and Latin America. While traditional arbitration centres such as Singapore, the UK, and Sweden remain cautious, IMOed\u2019s establishment is a significant step forward for Mainland and Hong Kong to jointly strengthen Hong Kong\u2019s position as a one-stop international legal hub for dispute resolution. Together with the advanced arbitration system, the IMOed will also appeal to parties to explore more possibilities of hybrid dispute resolution processes such as Med-Arb, Arb-Med, Arb-Med-Arb, etc. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Significant Decisions by the Hong Kong Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Besides the achievement in building legal mechanisms, there have been a number of significant decisions rendered by the Hong Kong courts in the past year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Limitation of the\u00a0Re Guy Lam\u00a0<\/em>Approach<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On 21 October 2025, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (\u201cHKCA<\/strong>\u201d) handed down a significant judgment in\u00a0Hyalroute Communication v. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China<\/em>\u00a0[2025] HKCA 936<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cHyalroute v. ICBC<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), where it for the first time clarified the relevance of merits in an injunction restraining a Cayman winding up in support of Hong Kong arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In relation to the intersection between insolvency proceedings and arbitration agreements, a series of decisions were issued in recent years. In 2023, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (\u201cHKCFA<\/strong>\u201d) established the remarkable\u00a0Re Guy Lam<\/em>\u00a0approach in\u00a0Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v. Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP<\/em>\u00a0[2023] HKCFA 9, 4 May 2023<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cRe Guy Lam<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), confirming that an insolvency or winding-up petition should generally be stayed or dismissed if it involves a petition debt subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause which has similar effect of arbitration clause in terms of reflecting parties\u2019 agreement on tribunal-selection. Although the implications of arbitration agreements were not mentioned in\u00a0Re Guy Lam<\/em><\/a>, subsequent decisions in cases such as\u00a0Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited<\/em>\u00a0[2024] HKCA 299, 23 April 2024<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Shandong Chenming Paper v. Arjowiggins HKK 2 (II)\u00a0<\/em>[2024] HKCA 352, 23 April 2024<\/a>\u00a0affirmed that\u00a0Re Guy Lam<\/em>\u00a0approach was also applicable to arbitration agreements. For details, please\u00a0see\u00a0\u20182024 Arbitration Year In Review \u2013 Hong Kong<\/em><\/a>\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Hyalroute v. ICBC<\/em><\/a>, the Plaintiff, acting as the guarantor under a Term Facility Agreement, pleaded for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the Defendant from presenting a winding-up petition in the Cayman Islands where the Plaintiff is incorporated. The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (\u201cHKCFI<\/strong>\u201d) dismissed the Plaintiff\u2019s anti-suit injunction, holding that the Plaintiff\u2019s underlying defence was frivolous and an abuse of process, for which the Plaintiff appealed. After review, the HKCA rejected the Plaintiff\u2019s argument that the merits of the Plaintiff\u2019s defence against the underlying debt are irrelevant. Instead, Anthony Chan JA made it clear that the lack of any bona fide dispute to the petitioning debt, which may constitute an abuse of process, shall be a strong reason to justify the court\u2019s refusal to grant an anti-suit injunction. In so holding, the HKCA for the first time confirmed the applicability of the abuse of process exception set out by the HKCFA in Re Guy Lam<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In two related decisions handed down by HKCFI (with different judges seated),\u00a0Techteryx Ltd v. Legacy Trust Company Limited & Others\u00a0<\/em>[2025] HKCFI 665, 11 February 2025<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cTechteryx v. Legacy Decision 1<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u201d<\/strong>) and\u00a0Techteryx Ltd v. Legacy Trust Company Limited & Others<\/em>\u00a0[2025] HKCFI 787, 24 February 2025<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cTechteryx v. Legacy Decision 2<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), the Court affirmed that a non-signatory can be bound by or invoke the arbitration agreement, provided that claim raised by or against the non-signatory is inextricably linked to the contract containing the arbitration clause.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The underlying dispute involves the acquisition of a cryptocurrency business. Disputes arose when the manager transferred funds in the Reserves to its financial adviser, who failed to redeem them as instructed. The plaintiff (the buyer) alleged that fraudulent misrepresentations were committed by,\u00a0inter alia<\/em>, the seller, the seller\u2019s authorised person (an individual) and the financial adviser. Initially, the seller initiated\u00a0SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre)<\/a>arbitrations against the buyer and other parties to recover payment under the acquisition instruments. In response, the buyer commenced litigation proceedings in the Hong Kong court, alleging fraud. After the seller obtained an anti-suit injunction order rendered by the Singapore Court, the buyer consented to stay the Hong Kong proceedings against the seller. These two decisions addressed stay applications filed by the authorised person and the financial adviser, both scenarios involved a non-signatory to the relevant arbitration clauses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Techteryx v. Legacy Decision 1<\/em>, the financial adviser sought to bind the plaintiff to an arbitration clause executed between the financial adviser and the manager, to which the plaintiff was not a party. After applying the Singapore law which governs the arbitration agreement, by finding a beneficiary derivative claim where the plaintiff was \u201cstepping into the shoes\u201d of the manager, Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Wong concluded that there was a prima facie<\/em> case that the plaintiff should be bound by the arbitration clause. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As two sides of the same coin, in\u00a0Techteryx v. Legacy Decision 2<\/em>, the authorised person sought to invoke arbitration clauses contained in the acquisition instruments where he was not a signatory. Applying the Delaware Law applicable to the arbitration agreements, the Honourable Madam Justice Mimmie Chan (\u201cMimmie Chan J<\/strong>\u201d) found a\u00a0prima case<\/em>\u00a0that the matter in dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the SIAC arbitral tribunal, reasoning that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n