London International Disputes Week: LIDW 2025
THE AUTHOR:
Erica Li, Senior Associate at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
What types of disputes have arisen in the Greater China region in recent years, and what can London learn from them? The panel titled “Insights from the East: What London can learn from the latest innovations and trends from China-related disputes” aimed to answer this question. Leveraging their extensive experience in China-related disputes, the panelists provide an overview of the disputes landscape in China and Hong Kong, as well as an institutional perspective from the HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) on this topic.
The panelists included Judy Fu (Barrister at 3VB); Tim Meng (Partner at GoldenGate Lawyers); Christopher Moger KC (Arbitrator at 4 Pump Court); Kiran Sanghera (Deputy Secretary-General at HKIAC); Yi-Shun Teoh (Partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain); and Briana Young (Counsel at Three Crowns and Vice Chair at HKIAC). The discussion was moderated by Shai Wade (Partner and Head of International Arbitration at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain).
HKIAC’s Perspective: Emerging Trends from China and Hong Kong
Ms. Sanghera explained that generally, the HKIAC’s caseload had increased year-on-year. In 2024, it dealt with arbitrations arising out of a record number of 510 contracts, 40% of which were entered into in the past 3 years. This showed that parties continued to select HKIAC as an institution and Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration. In the same year, the HKIAC’s cases involved 53 jurisdictions, with the top users of the institution being Mainland China, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Singapore, Korea, the Philippines, the UAE and Russia.
There has also been an increase in the amounts disputed. In 2024, the total value of the HKIAC’s caseload amounted to USD 13.6 billion. The disputes the HKIAC dealt with were also increasingly complex, with most disputes involving multiple parties and contracts.
Further, 40% of the HKIAC’s caseload involved Mainland Chinese elements, which shows a continued selection of HKIAC and Hong Kong as a seat in Mainland Chinese-related arbitrations. These cases were typically high in value, with a total dispute amount of USD 6.7 billion, with an average of USD 47 million per case. They were also complex, and in 2024, involved 543 parties across 229 contracts.
The types of disputes varied. In 2024, corporate disputes formed the majority, followed by joint venture disputes, shareholder disputes, and post-M&A disputes. The types of Chinese entities involved also varied from private companies to state-owned enterprises. In particular, there were several Belt and Road arbitration cases, all of which were administered arbitrations. Usually, they were dealt with under the HKIAC Arbitration Rules, though some also adopted the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, which the HKIAC was equipped to deal with. The most frequently-chosen governing law was Hong Kong law, followed closely by PRC law and English law.
Overall, Mainland Chinese cases represented a significant percentage of HKIAC’s caseload, and there was no sign of this decreasing any time soon.
Changes in China-related Disputes In Recent Years
Christopher Moger KC explained that compared to a decade ago, there had been three main changes in China-related disputes, in respect of (1) counsel; (2) litigants; and (3) the governing law.
Changes in Counsel
In the past, lawyers from the UK tended to be engaged in Chinese disputes. If any Chinese firms were involved at all, their roles were typically limited to serving as a bridge between the international law firm and the Chinese litigant. Nowadays, Chinese firms commonly act as lead counsel, including English-language cases. However, this is still limited to tier 1 or specialist Chinese firms. While the language skills of Chinese counsel are typically excellent, they tend to be less comfortable with oral advocacy in English.
Changes in Litigants
Previously, litigants in Mainland Chinese disputes comprised mostly of state-owned enterprises, which were large corporations with significant political influence and control by the government. They had settled ways of conducting business, and when confronted with a dispute, they usually expected to settle. They also tended to view contracts as the beginning of a commercial relationship, rather than the actual rules governing the relationship.
Nowadays, state-owned enterprises are more attuned to Western adversarial systems. There is also an increased number of private companies in China that are often familiar with Western business environments and are therefore more sophisticated in litigation proceedings.
Governing Law
Previously, disputes involving Chinese entities were almost always governed by the laws of Western legal systems, as Western counterparties often dictated the applicable governing law, and they often chose English, New York, Hong Kong or Singapore law. Nowadays, Chinese entities tend to opt for Chinese law as the governing law.
Overview of Arbitration Trends in China
Mr. Meng explained that CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) had over 6,000 new filings in 2024, and there was a dramatic increase in the number of cases involving foreign parties over the past year. These foreign parties usually came from Hong Kong, the USA, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. Typically, these cases related to disputes arising out of sale and purchase agreements, construction projects and IP issues. Moreover, according to the Queen Mary University of London (“QMUL”) and White & Case International Arbitration Survey Report conducted in 2021, CIETAC was recognized as one of the top five preferred arbitral institutions in the world. CIETAC awards are regularly enforced.
Mr. Meng said he agreed with Mr. Moger KC that there is now an increased number of Chinese attorneys with excellent language skills and who are knowledgeable about international arbitration.
Use of Interim Measures and Procedures in China-related Disputes
Mr. Teoh explained that he had seen an increasing use of interim measures such as early determination procedures in China-related disputes. This is usually driven by the client who expect earlier findings of fact. Particularly for private equity firms, the speed at which disputes are resolved is paramount.
In Mr. Teoh’s experience, parties are increasingly alive to enforcement issues and are more proactive in thinking about freezing of assets and emergency arbitration proceedings. Mr. Teoh noted that the HKIAC and SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) Rules both provide for emergency arbitration proceedings, which enable parties to resolve their disputes in an expeditious manner.
Mr. Teoh also highlighted that Hong Kong is the only seat which enables parties to obtain interim relief in Mainland China under the Arrangement 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 (“Arrangement”), and the Arrangement has become increasingly popular. Further, as there is no need to prove the risk of asset dissipation to obtain a worldwide Mareva injunction order in China, there is a high success rate in obtaining such orders under the Arrangement.
Challenges Arising Out of China-related Disputes
Ms. Fu noted two specific challenges which have arisen out of China-related disputes.
First, there is a misconception that Chinese users are generally dissatisfied with international arbitration. This is generally attributed to the lack of arbitrators who are well-versed in Chinese business culture, difficulties with language and cultural barriers, and the differences in business cultures. While Chinese litigants have come a long way in conforming with Western business cultures, arbitrators should recognize the cultural nuances that Chinese-related disputes often bring, and approach them with an open mind without losing sight of the fact that Chinese businesses may do things differently compared with their Western counterparts.
Second, there is generally a high number of challenges to awards. While this isn’t an issue specific to China-related disputes, there are factors which make this more prevalent in these disputes.
In particular, there is a significant amount of Chinese outbound investment from state-owned enterprises. These businesses tend to face a higher risk of scrutiny; therefore, even if challenges to awards rendered against them are unmeritorious, they may still feel pressured to pursue challenges.
There also appears to be a disconnect in Chinese litigants’ perception of arbitration, who tend to view it as a tool of negotiation and not of the same judicial quality as litigation. Even though indemnity costs are generally awarded for bringing unmeritorious claims, this hasn’t been effective in stymieing the flow of such claims.
Possible Solutions from the HKIAC Perspective
Ms. Young explained that HKIAC recognizes the issues flagged and has sought to address them in the recently updated HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules 2024. A suite of new measures in the Rules provides tribunals with the power to make proceedings faster in a more cost-effective manner. There are also time limits for awards to be rendered, to ensure that tribunals close proceedings promptly.
Like the Singaporean government, the Hong Kong government has been proactive in working with the HKIAC and the wider community in Hong Kong and China to understand what users might require.
Finally, Ms. Young noted HKIAC is uniquely placed as it straddles both Western and Chinese approaches to arbitration. In her experience, arbitrators who sit on HKIAC cases generally understand cultural issues that may arise in China-related disputes.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Erica Li is a Senior Associate and Solicitor Advocate (England and Wales) at the London office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, where she specialises in international arbitration.
*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.
