{"id":291716,"date":"2026-07-24T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=291716"},"modified":"2026-07-30T11:34:05","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T09:34:05","slug":"not-every-procedural-complaint-warrants-annulment-hong-kong-court-reaffirms-its-pro-arbitration-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/24\/not-every-procedural-complaint-warrants-annulment-hong-kong-court-reaffirms-its-pro-arbitration-approach\/","title":{"rendered":"Not Every Procedural Complaint Warrants Annulment: Hong Kong Court Reaffirms Its Pro-Arbitration Approach"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-fh-holding-moscow-limited-v-ao-unicredit-bank-and-unicredit-s-p-a-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewca-civ-468-friday-17th-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+EWCA+Civ+468%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-16464-tuesday-8th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-judgment-of-the-court-of-first-instance-of-the-high-court-of-hong-kong-2026-hkcfi-1437-wednesday-11th-march-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+HKCFI+1437%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Hong Kong Court of First Instance, AT &amp; another v QC &amp; another [2026] HKCFI 1437<\/a><\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Jihane Bensaid<\/strong>, In-house Counsel at <strong>Groupe Ricardo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-5762387c atbs-tabs-60fcdf21 atbs-tabs-362e59b9 atbs-tabs-f82b2041 atbs-tabs-3f3b6f17 atbs-tabs-e564879e atbs-tabs-7d5286ff atbs-tabs-8074491d atbs-tabs-ec08974b atbs-tabs-ae459841 atbs-tabs-012e1490 atbs-tabs-c95d372c atbs-tabs-e53aa7e1 atbs-tabs-d078d18f atbs-tabs-fe8ed5c8 atbs-tabs-4b7fc855 atbs-tabs-e9190e75 atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-5762387c\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-judgment-of-the-court-of-first-instance-of-the-high-court-of-hong-kong-2026-hkcfi-1437-wednesday-11th-march-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+HKCFI+1437%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">11 March 2026<\/a>, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance dismissed an application to set aside a partial arbitral award dated 24 September 2024 and a final award on costs dated 26 March 2025, rendered in the context of a dispute arising out of a cross-border share purchase transaction. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed Hong Kong&#8217;s pro-arbitration stance and the narrow scope of judicial review available under <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-hong-kong-arbitration-ordinance-2011-cap-609-l-n-38-of-2011-as-amended-2022-hong-kong-arbitration-ordinance-2011-as-amended-2022-friday-16th-december-2022?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3DArbitration%2BOrdinance&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en#art_77872\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">section 81 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609)<\/a>, which incorporates <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-uncitral-united-nations-commission-on-international-trade-law-model-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration-1985-uncitral-model-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration-1985-friday-21st-june-1985#art_28059\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 12 December 2016, the applicants (&#8220;<strong>Sellers<\/strong>&#8220;) and the respondents (the &#8220;<strong>Buyers<\/strong>&#8220;) entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (&#8220;<strong>SPA<\/strong>&#8220;) for the sale of shares in a target company for a stated consideration of USD 110 million. Completion under the SPA was conditional upon the Buyers obtaining the requisite Overseas Direct Investment (&#8220;<strong>ODI<\/strong>&#8220;) approvals under PRC law and paying the USD sale price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the same date, the parties concluded a First Supplemental Agreement granting the Buyers exit and repurchase rights in the event that the target company&#8217;s contemplated IPO did not occur by 11 December 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Anticipating that ODI approval might not be obtained within the contractual timeframe due to tightening PRC capital controls, the parties entered into a Second Supplemental Agreement on 28 December 2016. Pursuant to that agreement, the Buyers agreed to make an RMB-denominated domestic payment (the &#8220;<strong>Domestic Payment<\/strong>&#8220;) equivalent to the USD sale price, in exchange for which the Sellers transferred the shares to the Buyers prior to formal completion of the SPA. The Second Supplemental Agreement further provided that, if completion could not be achieved by 31 January 2020, the Buyers would be entitled to exit the transaction and recover a &#8220;Return Sum&#8221; consisting of the Domestic Payment plus a guaranteed annual return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Buyers ultimately failed to obtain ODI approval, the USD sale price was never remitted, and formal completion under the SPA never occurred. The IPO was abandoned in 2019. The Buyers thereafter exercised their contractual exit rights and sought repayment of the Domestic Payment together with the agreed returns. The Sellers disputed their entitlement, which prompted the Buyers to commence arbitration proceedings in March 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute was submitted to arbitration seated in Hong Kong. Following a hearing in August 2023, the arbitral tribunal rendered a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-partial-award-tuesday-24th-september-2024#decision_87821?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D%2BHKCFI%2B1437%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Partial Award on 24 September 2024<\/a> and a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-final-award-on-costs-wednesday-26th-march-2025#decision_87820?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D%2BHKCFI%2B1437%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Final Award on Costs on 26 March 2025<\/a>, ruling in favour of the Buyers on four independent grounds: (i) the proper construction of clauses 4.01 and 4.02 of the First Supplemental Agreement; (ii) estoppel; (iii) the interpretation of clauses 2.03 and 2.04 of the Second Supplemental Agreement; and (iv) implied terms arising under clause 2.06(a) of the Second Supplemental Agreement. The tribunal held that, although formal completion under the SPA had never occurred, the Buyers had nonetheless provided the agreed investment financing through the Domestic Payment and were accordingly entitled to repayment together with the agreed returns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Sellers subsequently applied to the Court of First Instance to set aside the awards under section 81 of the Arbitration Ordinance. They advanced two principal arguments. First, they contended that the Buyers had, in their closing submissions, improperly departed from a position allegedly agreed between the parties during the arbitration, namely, that the Domestic Payment was not equivalent to the USD sale price and that formal completion had never taken place, by arguing that the Domestic Payment effectively constituted the investment amount. The Sellers submitted that the tribunal had accepted this new argument without granting them an adequate opportunity to respond, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to present their case. They further argued that the tribunal&#8217;s prior refusal to admit expert evidence on PRC law, to demonstrate that equating the Domestic Payment with the USD sale price contravened PRC foreign exchange and ODI regulations, had compounded this procedural unfairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Second, the Sellers argued that enforcement of the awards would violate Hong Kong public policy, on the basis that the underlying transaction constituted an unlawful foreign exchange arrangement contrary to PRC law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Buyers denied any departure from their pleaded case, maintaining that their position had been consistent throughout the proceedings and that the Domestic Payment had always been characterised as the agreed investment financing. They further contended that the tribunal&#8217;s refusal to admit PRC law expert evidence was a legitimate case-management decision within its procedural discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal questions raised before the Court were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>whether the Sellers had been &#8220;unable to present their case&#8221; within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law by reason of the tribunal&#8217;s alleged reliance on an unexpected factual and legal basis;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>whether the tribunal&#8217;s refusal to admit PRC law expert evidence amounted to a serious breach of due process; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>whether the awards conflicted with Hong Kong public policy within the meaning of Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on the grounds that the underlying transaction allegedly contravened PRC foreign exchange and ODI regulations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court dismissed the application in its entirety, reaffirming the narrow scope of judicial review over arbitral awards under Hong Kong law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Firstly, the Judge rejected the Sellers&#8217; argument that they had been deprived of the opportunity to present their case. The Court found that the Buyers had consistently pleaded, throughout the arbitration, that the Domestic Payment constituted the economic substance of the agreed investment financing and that formal completion under the SPA was not a prerequisite for the Buyers&#8217; repurchase rights to arise. The tribunal had therefore not relied on any new or unexpected basis, but had simply accepted one party&#8217;s interpretation of the contractual framework. The Court emphasised that supervisory courts are not entitled to &#8220;comb an award to look for errors&#8221; or to revisit the correctness of a tribunal&#8217;s substantive findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Secondly, the Court held that the tribunal&#8217;s refusal to admit PRC law expert evidence constituted a procedural case-management decision that was entitled to considerable judicial deference. The tribunal had concluded that the dispute did not involve any cross-border payment or USD remittance and that the PRC regulations relied upon by the Sellers were therefore not material to the determination of the issues in dispute. The Court held that such decisions could not justify annulment absent a serious denial of justice causing actual prejudice. Moreover, the Court observed that, even assuming some procedural irregularity, the outcome of the arbitration would have remained unchanged in any event, given that the tribunal had upheld the Buyers&#8217; claims on several independent grounds \u2014 including estoppel and implied contractual terms \u2014 which were unconnected to the alleged PRC illegality. The Sellers accordingly failed to establish actual prejudice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the Court dismissed the public policy challenge. Justice Chan reiterated that &#8220;public policy&#8221; within the meaning of Article 34(2)(b)(ii) refers exclusively to the public policy of Hong Kong, and not that of Mainland China. The Court held that the tribunal had already determined that no PRC regulations had been contravened, and that the Hong Kong courts could not revisit that determination. Furthermore, the Court held that, even if difficulties in enforcing the awards in Mainland China were to arise, such circumstances would not render the awards contrary to Hong Kong public policy. Public policy, the Court stressed, must be narrowly construed, and enforcement would only be refused where it would offend the &#8220;<em>most basic notions of morality and justice<\/em>&#8221; in Hong Kong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The application was accordingly dismissed, and indemnity costs were awarded against the Sellers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This decision constitutes a strong reaffirmation of Hong Kong&#8217;s pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement stance. The judgment illustrates the courts&#8217; consistent reluctance to interfere with arbitral awards, particularly when applicants seek to re-characterise disagreements on the merits as procedural irregularities or public policy violations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case is also of broader significance in the context of disputes involving alleged PRC regulatory illegality. The Court drew a clear distinction between incompatibility with Mainland Chinese regulations and genuine violations of Hong Kong international public policy, thereby reinforcing the autonomy of Hong Kong&#8217;s arbitral framework and the finality of arbitral awards rendered in Hong Kong-seated proceedings. The judgment serves as a useful reminder that the public policy ground for annulment remains an exceptional remedy of last resort, not a vehicle for re-litigation of the merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the PBA Bulletin on June 5, 2026 with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">read it Here<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jihane Bensaid<\/strong>&nbsp;is a candidate in the LL.M.\/MSc in International Business Law and Management (\u201c<strong>DAIM<\/strong>\u201d) at ESSEC Business School and previously completed a Master\u2019s degree in Business Law at Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne in partnership with the Euro-Mediterranean University of Fez. She currently works in the legal and finance department of <strong>Groupe Ricardo<\/strong>, where she assists with cross-border corporate and restructuring matters. Jihane is a member of the ESSEC Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot team and a contributor to the Paris Baby Arbitration newsletter. Her interests focus on international arbitration and cross-border restructuring, particularly in transactions involving Europe, Africa, and Asia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;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.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-5762387c\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><strong>Tous les griefs proc\u00e9duraux ne justifient pas une annulation : la Cour de Hong Kong r\u00e9affirme son approche favorable \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage<\/strong><\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-16464-tuesday-8th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-judgment-of-the-court-of-first-instance-of-the-high-court-of-hong-kong-2026-hkcfi-1437-wednesday-11th-march-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+HKCFI+1437%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Hong Kong Court of First Instance, AT &amp; another v QC &amp; another [2026] HKCFI 1437<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-judgment-of-the-court-of-first-instance-of-the-high-court-of-hong-kong-2026-hkcfi-1437-wednesday-11th-march-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+HKCFI+1437%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">11 mars 2026<\/a>, la Cour de premi\u00e8re instance de Hong Kong a rejet\u00e9 une demande d\u2019annulation de deux sentences arbitrales issues d\u2019un litige portant sur une cession transfrontali\u00e8re de parts sociales. La Cour a confirm\u00e9 que le contr\u00f4le judiciaire des sentences arbitrales est limit\u00e9, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-hong-kong-arbitration-ordinance-2011-cap-609-l-n-38-of-2011-as-amended-2022-hong-kong-arbitration-ordinance-2011-as-amended-2022-friday-16th-december-2022?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3DArbitration%2BOrdinance&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en#art_77872\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">l\u2019article 81 de l\u2019<em>Arbitration Ordinance<\/em> (Cap. 609)<\/a> et \u00e0 <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-uncitral-united-nations-commission-on-international-trade-law-model-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration-1985-uncitral-model-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration-1985-friday-21st-june-1985#art_28059\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">l\u2019article 34 de la Loi type de la CNUDCI<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 12 d\u00e9cembre 2016, les requ\u00e9rants (les \u00ab <strong>Vendeurs<\/strong> \u00bb) et les d\u00e9fendeurs (les \u00ab <strong>Acqu\u00e9reurs<\/strong> \u00bb) ont conclu un contrat de cession de parts sociales (le \u00ab <strong>Contrat<\/strong> \u00bb) pour un prix de 110 millions de dollars am\u00e9ricains. La r\u00e9alisation du Contrat \u00e9tait conditionn\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019obtention par les Acqu\u00e9reurs des autorisations d\u2019investissement direct \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tranger (\u00ab <strong>ODI<\/strong> \u00bb) requises en droit chinois.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Face au durcissement des contr\u00f4les ODI en Chine continentale, les parties ont conclu le 28 d\u00e9cembre 2016 un accord compl\u00e9mentaire pr\u00e9voyant que les Acqu\u00e9reurs verseraient imm\u00e9diatement un paiement en renminbi \u00e9quivalent au prix de vente (le \u00ab <strong>Paiement domestique<\/strong> \u00bb), en \u00e9change de quoi les Vendeurs transf\u00e9raient les titres sans attendre la r\u00e9alisation formelle du Contrat. Si celle-ci n\u2019intervenait pas avant le 31 janvier 2020, les Acqu\u00e9reurs pourraient sortir de l\u2019op\u00e9ration et r\u00e9cup\u00e9rer leur mise, augment\u00e9e d\u2019un rendement annuel garanti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Les autorisations ODI n\u2019ont jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 obtenues et la r\u00e9alisation formelle du Contrat n\u2019a pas eu lieu. L\u2019introduction en bourse pr\u00e9vue a \u00e9galement \u00e9t\u00e9 abandonn\u00e9e en 2019. Les Acqu\u00e9reurs ont alors exerc\u00e9 leur droit de sortie et r\u00e9clam\u00e9 le remboursement du Paiement domestique assorti des rendements convenus. Face au refus des Vendeurs, ils ont engag\u00e9 une proc\u00e9dure arbitrale en mars 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L\u2019arbitrage s\u2019est tenu \u00e0 Hong Kong. Apr\u00e8s une audience en ao\u00fbt 2023, le tribunal arbitral a donn\u00e9 raison aux Acqu\u00e9reurs dans une <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-partial-award-tuesday-24th-september-2024#decision_87821?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D%2BHKCFI%2B1437%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">sentence partielle du 24 septembre 2024<\/a>, confirm\u00e9e par une <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-final-award-on-costs-wednesday-26th-march-2025#decision_87820?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D%2BHKCFI%2B1437%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">sentence finale relative aux frais du 26 mars 2025<\/a>. Il a jug\u00e9 que, m\u00eame sans r\u00e9alisation formelle, les Acqu\u00e9reurs avaient bien fourni le financement pr\u00e9vu et \u00e9taient fond\u00e9s \u00e0 en r\u00e9clamer le remboursement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Les Vendeurs ont demand\u00e9 l\u2019annulation des sentences devant la Cour de premi\u00e8re instance, en soulevant deux moyens. D\u2019une part, ils ont soutenu que les Acqu\u00e9reurs avaient modifi\u00e9 leur position en cours de proc\u00e9dure en pr\u00e9sentant, dans leurs conclusions finales, un argument nouveau auquel ils n\u2019avaient pas pu r\u00e9pondre, violant ainsi leur droit d\u2019\u00eatre entendus. Ils ont \u00e9galement reproch\u00e9 au tribunal d\u2019avoir refus\u00e9 d\u2019admettre une expertise en droit chinois destin\u00e9e \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer l\u2019illic\u00e9it\u00e9 de l\u2019op\u00e9ration. D\u2019autre part, ils ont soutenu que l\u2019ex\u00e9cution des sentences serait contraire \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public de Hong Kong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Les Acqu\u00e9reurs ont ni\u00e9 tout changement de position et ont fait valoir que le refus d\u2019admettre l\u2019expertise relevait du pouvoir discr\u00e9tionnaire du tribunal en mati\u00e8re de gestion de la proc\u00e9dure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour devait d\u00e9terminer :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>si les Vendeurs avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 priv\u00e9s de leur droit d\u2019\u00eatre entendus au sens de l\u2019article 34(2)(a)(ii) de la Loi type de la CNUDCI ;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>si le refus d\u2019admettre l\u2019expertise constituait une violation grave du contradictoire ; et<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>si les sentences \u00e9taient contraires \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public de Hong Kong au sens de l\u2019article 34(2)(b)(ii) de la Loi type de la CNUDCI.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour a rejet\u00e9 l\u2019ensemble des moyens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sur le premier moyen, le juge a relev\u00e9 que les Acqu\u00e9reurs avaient, d\u00e8s le d\u00e9but de la proc\u00e9dure, qualifi\u00e9 le Paiement domestique de financement de l\u2019investissement. Il n\u2019y avait donc pas eu de changement de position, et le tribunal s\u2019\u00e9tait born\u00e9 \u00e0 accueillir l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation contractuelle d\u2019une des parties. La Cour a rappel\u00e9 qu\u2019il n\u2019appartient pas aux juridictions de contr\u00f4le de rejuger les sentences arbitrales sur le fond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sur le deuxi\u00e8me moyen, la Cour a jug\u00e9 que le refus d\u2019admettre l\u2019expertise en droit chinois constituait une d\u00e9cision de gestion proc\u00e9durale relevant du pouvoir discr\u00e9tionnaire du tribunal, qui n\u2019avait estim\u00e9 le droit chinois pertinent pour aucune des questions \u00e0 trancher. En tout \u00e9tat de cause, m\u00eame si une irr\u00e9gularit\u00e9 avait \u00e9t\u00e9 commise, l\u2019issue de l\u2019arbitrage aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 la m\u00eame, le tribunal ayant statu\u00e9 en faveur des Acqu\u00e9reurs sur plusieurs fondements ind\u00e9pendants. Les Vendeurs n\u2019ont donc pas \u00e9tabli l\u2019existence d\u2019un pr\u00e9judice effectif.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sur le troisi\u00e8me moyen, la Cour a rappel\u00e9 que l\u2019ordre public vis\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019article 34(2)(b)(ii) est exclusivement celui de Hong Kong, et non celui de la Chine continentale. Le tribunal ayant d\u00e9j\u00e0 constat\u00e9 qu\u2019aucune r\u00e9glementation chinoise n\u2019avait \u00e9t\u00e9 viol\u00e9e, les juridictions hongkongaises ne pouvaient remettre cette appr\u00e9ciation en cause. L\u2019annulation ne pouvait \u00eatre prononc\u00e9e qu\u2019en cas d\u2019atteinte aux principes les plus fondamentaux de la justice \u00e0 Hong Kong, ce qui n\u2019\u00e9tait pas \u00e9tabli en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Les Vendeurs ont \u00e9t\u00e9 condamn\u00e9s aux d\u00e9pens sur la base de l&#8217;indemnit\u00e9 int\u00e9grale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cette d\u00e9cision illustre l\u2019approche restrictive des juridictions hongkongaises en mati\u00e8re de contr\u00f4le des sentences arbitrales. Elle confirme que les moyens fond\u00e9s sur le d\u00e9faut de contradiction ou la violation de l\u2019ordre public sont interpr\u00e9t\u00e9s strictement, et ne permettent pas de remettre en cause le fond d\u2019une sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Elle apporte \u00e9galement un \u00e9clairage utile sur la distinction entre l\u2019ordre public de Hong Kong et les r\u00e8gles imp\u00e9ratives du droit chinois, rappelant que la seule incompatibilit\u00e9 d\u2019une op\u00e9ration avec la r\u00e9glementation de la Chine continentale ne suffit pas \u00e0 fonder une annulation \u00e0 Hong Kong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans l<\/em><\/em>e bulletin PBA<em><em> le vendredi 5 juin, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lire Ici<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jihane Bensaid<\/strong>&nbsp;is a candidate in the LL.M.\/MSc in International Business Law and Management (\u201c<strong>DAIM<\/strong>\u201d) at ESSEC Business School and previously completed a Master\u2019s degree in Business Law at Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne in partnership with the Euro-Mediterranean University of Fez. She currently works in the legal and finance department of <strong>Groupe Ricardo<\/strong>, where she assists with cross-border corporate and restructuring matters. Jihane is a member of the ESSEC Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot team and a contributor to the Paris Baby Arbitration newsletter. Her interests focus on international arbitration and cross-border restructuring, particularly in transactions involving Europe, Africa, and Asia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hong Kong Court refuses to set aside an arbitral award, reaffirming its pro-arbitration stance and rejecting a public policy challenge based on PRC regulations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":291723,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"174"},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_description":"Hong Kong Court refuses to set aside an arbitral award, reaffirming its pro-arbitration stance and rejecting a public policy challenge based on PRC regulations.n","twitter_description":"Hong Kong Court refuses to set aside an arbitral award, reaffirming its pro-arbitration stance and rejecting a public policy challenge based on PRC regulations.n","twitter_title":"Not Every Procedural Complaint Warrants Annulment: Hong Kong Court Reaffirms Its Pro-Arbitration Approach","fb_title":"Not Every Procedural Complaint Warrants Annulment: Hong Kong Court Reaffirms Its Pro-Arbitration Approach","twitter_image":"291726","fb_image":"291726"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,209,170,207,174,188,276,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-291716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-arbitration-aftermath-post-award","category-asia-pacific","category-commercial-arbitration","category-hong-kong-sar","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291716","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291716"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291716\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":291906,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291716\/revisions\/291906"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/291723"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291716"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=291716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}