International Arbitration 2026 Comparisons

International arbitration is exceptionally prevalent in the Hong Kong SAR, which is consistently recognised as one of the world’s leading arbitration hubs and was ranked the second most preferred seat of arbitration (tied with Singapore) in the 2025 Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey. This prominence is driven by its modern, pro-arbitration legal framework based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as amended in 2006 (the “Model Law”), a judiciary that adopts a policy of minimal intervention, and the exceptional services of the arbitration institutions in Hong Kong. The caseload and the total amount in dispute of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre have reached record highs in recent years, with a significant majority of cases involving international parties, underscoring its role as a neutral and preferred seat for cross-border disputes.

Domestic parties in Hong Kong regularly resort to international arbitration, particularly for complex, high-value commercial disputes with cross-border elements. While litigation remains an option, arbitration is favoured for its enforceability under the New York Convention, the flexibility to select expert arbitrators, its efficiency and its confidentiality.

Several industries in Hong Kong have experienced significant international arbitration activity in recent years. The most prominent sectors include construction and infrastructure, international trade and commercial disputes, corporate and M&A matters, and financial services. These sectors typically involve high-value, cross-border transactions, complex long-term contracts and multiple international parties, making arbitration particularly attractive for the availability of technical expertise, the enforceability of awards, and procedural flexibility.

The preference for arbitration in these sectors stems from several key advantages. Arbitration offers neutrality for parties from different jurisdictions, confidentiality for sensitive commercial matters, and the ability to select arbitrators with specialised industry knowledge. Particularly important for Hong Kong is its unique Interim Measures Arrangement with Mainland China, which allows parties to seek asset preservation from Chinese courts, providing crucial protection for assets located in Mainland China. This feature is especially valuable for industries like energy, infrastructure and trade where significant assets may be located across the border.

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) is the most frequently used arbitral institution for international arbitration in Hong Kong. Its dominance is mainly due to its long history, market recognition and globally respected, efficient rules.

While HKIAC leads the market, the local branches of other major international institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) are also commonly selected to administer cases seated in Hong Kong, reflecting the jurisdiction’s open and arbitration-friendly framework.

In May 2024, the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC), a leading Mainland institution, launched its Hong Kong branch, the Shanghai International Arbitration (Hong Kong) Center, marking the latest expansion of major international arbitration institutions in Hong Kong.

A list of major arbitration institutions in Hong Kong can be found on the Hong Kong Department of Justice’s website.

The High Court of Hong Kong is the primary court designated to hear arbitration-related matters – both international and domestic – under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (the “AO”). The High Court has specialised judges experienced in arbitration law and routinely handles arbitration-related applications under a specialist list, namely, the Construction and Arbitration List, such as stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration, interim measures, appointment and challenge of arbitrators, set-aside applications, and recognition and enforcement of awards.

The AO governs both international and domestic arbitrations in a unified regime. It is largely based on the Model Law, and applies to all arbitrations seated in Hong Kong unless parties opt into limited domestic features. The AO incorporates key Model Law pillars – party autonomy, kompetenz-kompetenz, separability, limited court intervention, confidentiality, recognition and enforcement of awards, and grounds for setting aside mirroring Article 34.

While closely aligned with the Model Law, Hong Kong has adopted several pro-arbitration refinements. Notable features include robust court support for interim measures (including in aid of arbitrations seated outside Hong Kong), a statutory emergency arbitrator regime with court enforceability of emergency relief, and an opt‑in schedule for certain domestic arbitration procedures (eg, appeals on questions of law by agreement). Hong Kong also provides streamlined mechanisms for enforcing both New York Convention and non‑Convention awards, and maintains clarified rules on third‑party funding and outcome-related fee structures for arbitrations. These divergences are designed to enhance efficiency and enforceability while preserving Model Law consistency.

Over the past three years (2023–2025), Hong Kong has not made major changes to its main arbitration law (the AO).

The major developments to the Hong Kong arbitration-related legal landscape in the last five years include the following: 

• Third-party funding and outcome-related fee structures are allowed for Hong Kong arbitration after amendments to the AO in 2019 and 2022 respectively, and the relevant codes of practice have been updated from time to time.
• Hong Kong and Mainland China signed 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 in October 2019, pursuant to which parties to Hong Kong arbitrations are able to apply for urgent interim measures from the courts of Mainland China in aid of Hong Kong arbitrations.
• Hong Kong and Mainland China further signed the Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in November 2020. A significant practical effect of the supplemental arrangement is that parties may now make simultaneous applications to the courts of Mainland China and Hong Kong for enforcement of an arbitral award.

The primary requirement under the AO is that the arbitration agreement must be in writing, which includes electronic communications such as emails or digital records that demonstrate the parties’ consent to arbitrate. The agreement should clearly express the intention to refer disputes to arbitration and, while not strictly mandatory, is advised to specify key elements such as the seat of arbitration (eg, Hong Kong), the number of arbitrators and the governing rules to avoid procedural uncertainties.

Under the laws of Hong Kong, disputes are presumed arbitrable unless there is a clear public policy reason to exclude them. While arbitration is encouraged for a wide range of disputes, certain subject matters are considered non-arbitrable due to public policy considerations or specific legislative provisions. These include but are not limited to the following:

• Criminal matters: Prosecutions and penalties imposed by the state cannot be resolved through arbitration.
• Family law issues: Family law issues such as divorce, child custody and adoption are reserved for the Family Court.
• Insolvency and winding-up proceedings: While claims involving individual debtor-creditor disputes may be arbitrable, the core procedures of corporate insolvency (eg, adjudication of bankruptcy petitions) are supervised by courts to protect the public interest and collective creditor rights.
• Legal status and validity of intellectual property rights: For example, patent or trade mark registration validity disputes often fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of designated authorities or courts, though licensing disputes may be arbitrable.
• Employment claims: Certain statutory employment rights (eg, unfair dismissal under the Employment Ordinance) may require adjudication by the Labour Tribunal rather than arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement explicitly covers such disputes and complies with statutory protections.

Hong Kong courts follow a structured choice‑of‑law analysis for the law governing the arbitration agreement. The courts look first for an express choice of law for the arbitration agreement; if this is absent, they consider whether the main contract’s governing law is an implied choice for the arbitration agreement. Where that would undermine the effectiveness of the clause or is otherwise displaced by the parties’ choice of seat, the law of the seat (lex arbitri) will often be applied as the system with the closest and most real connection. In practice, a Hong Kong seat is a strong connecting factor pointing to Hong Kong law governing the arbitration agreement, particularly where the governing law of the main contract is silent or where applying the main contract law would imperil the clause’s validity.

On enforcement, Hong Kong courts adopt a firmly pro‑arbitration stance. The Court of First Instance routinely grants mandatory stays of court proceedings in favour of arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is shown to be null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. Courts apply the presumption in favour of one‑stop adjudication, construe ambiguous drafting to uphold arbitration where possible, and leave jurisdictional objections to the tribunal under kompetenz‑kompetenz, subject to limited court review. Anti‑suit relief may be granted to restrain foreign litigation brought in breach of a Hong Kong‑seated arbitration agreement, and the courts are receptive to interlocutory assistance (eg, injunctions and other interim measures) to make the arbitration effective.

As a result, arbitration agreements are usually enforced in Hong Kong. Failures tend to be exceptional and fact‑specific – eg, clauses that are fundamentally uncertain or involve non‑arbitrable subject matter, or where there is clear evidence of bias, prejudice or non-competence of the tribunal.

Hong Kong applies the doctrine of separability to arbitration agreements. Under the AO, which adopts the Model Law framework, an arbitration clause is treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. The tribunal has competence to rule on its own jurisdiction (kompetenz-kompetenz), including any objections regarding the existence or validity of the underlying contract. Consequently, a finding that the main contract is void, voidable, rescinded, discharged or otherwise ineffective does not, by itself, invalidate the arbitration clause.

Party autonomy over arbitrator selection is broadly respected under the laws of Hong Kong, but it is subject to safeguards ensuring equality, independence and due process. Arbitrators must be impartial and independent, disclose potential conflicts and meet any qualifications the parties stipulate; justifiable doubts or failure to meet agreed qualifications can constitute a ground for challenge or removal. Parties may craft their own appointment procedure (usually by adopting institutional arbitration rules or selection mechanisms).

If the parties’ agreed appointment mechanism fails or is not followed, the AO provides default procedures (Sections 23–24 of the AO, based on Articles 10–11 of the Model Law). Unless the parties agree otherwise:

• for a sole arbitrator, the Court of First Instance or designated default appointing authority under the AO (ie, HKIAC) will appoint upon a party’s request; and
• for a three‑member tribunal, each side appoints one co-arbitrator and the two co‑arbitrators appoint the chair – if a party or the co‑arbitrators fail to act within the specified time, the court/appointing authority steps in.

There is no single built-in rule for how to appoint arbitrators in multiparty cases. If the arbitration clause does not provide a workable mechanism or the process breaks down, the court or an appointing authority can step in to set up a fair process and make appointments so no side has an unfair advantage.

Many institutional arbitration rules (such as HKIAC’s) already include clear steps for multiparty situations. For example, if multiple claimants or respondents cannot agree on a joint nominee, the institution can appoint the whole tribunal to preserve equality. In ad hoc arbitrations without such rules, the court or appointing authority can make the necessary appointments, considering party equality and any agreed qualifications. To avoid uncertainty, parties often adopt institutional rules or draft explicit multiparty appointment terms in their contracts.

As mentioned in 4.2 Default Procedures, the Court of First Instance (or an appointing authority such as HKIAC, if designated) may make appointments when the agreed arbitrator appointment procedure fails. The court can also decide challenges to arbitrators (for justifiable doubts as to impartiality/independence or lack of agreed qualifications) after institutional/contractual processes are exhausted, and remove arbitrators who are unable to perform or who unduly delay.

Limitations are significant and reflect a pro‑arbitration, minimal‑intervention policy. The court will honour the parties’ agreed procedure and any chosen institutional rules, stepping in only when that mechanism breaks down or is incapable of being performed. When appointing, the court must consider any agreed qualifications, the need for independence and impartiality, and – where appropriate – nationality considerations. Its role is not to review the merits, choose “friendly” arbitrators or second‑guess institutional case management. Decisions on appointment are generally not appealable, and court intervention is confined to the specific statutory gateways (appointment, challenge/removal, replacement after termination), leaving the arbitral tribunal to handle jurisdiction and case conduct.

The AO sets out specific procedures and grounds for challenging or removing arbitrators. A party may challenge an arbitrator if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, or if the arbitrator does not possess qualifications agreed by the parties. Challenges generally follow the procedure the parties agreed (often institutional rules). If that process is unsuccessful, the challenging party may apply to the Court of First Instance within 30 days as per Section 26 of the AO.

Hong Kong law imposes clear, ongoing duties of independence, impartiality and disclosure. Under the AO, an arbitrator must be impartial and independent; a party may challenge an arbitrator if circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts about these conditions or if agreed qualifications cannot be met. Prospective and sitting arbitrators must disclose without delay any circumstances likely to give rise to such doubts, and this duty continues throughout the proceedings. Typical disclosure topics include professional, financial or personal relationships with the parties, lawyers, witnesses and affiliates, repeat appointments and significant prior work. While the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest are not law, Hong Kong courts and tribunals frequently use them as persuasive guidance.

The 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (the “2024 HKIAC Rules”) reinforce and operationalise these standards. Arbitrator candidates must sign statements of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence, and disclose any potential conflicts. The arbitrators’ disclosure obligation continues after appointment. HKIAC can decide challenges for justifiable doubts regarding impartiality/independence or lack of agreed qualifications and may remove/replace arbitrators who fail to act or are unable to perform. In practice, robust, early disclosure is encouraged; non‑disclosure of a material connection can itself support a challenge, whereas trivial or fully disclosed links seldom do. Parties may agree on specific qualifications, but they cannot contract out of the core duties of impartiality, independence and disclosure.

The kompetenz-kompetenz principle applies in Hong Kong under Section 34 of the AO. An arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and the separability doctrine means the arbitration clause is treated as independent from the main contract.

If the tribunal issues a preliminary ruling affirming jurisdiction, a party may apply to the Court of First Instance for review within the statutory time limit; the court’s role is supervisory and narrowly framed, and the arbitration may continue while the court considers the challenge. If jurisdiction is addressed in the final award, judicial intervention may occur at the set-aside or enforcement stage. Hong Kong courts adopt a pro-arbitration, minimal-intervention approach and generally allow tribunals to decide jurisdictional issues in the first instance.

Hong Kong courts can only address tribunal jurisdiction in limited, defined contexts under the AO. Key gateways include:

• review of a preliminary positive ruling on jurisdiction under Section 34 of the AO (based on Article 16(3) of the Model Law) upon timely application;

• application to set aside an arbitral award on jurisdictional grounds (eg, tribunal exceeded authority, no valid arbitration agreement or due process violations);
• stay application where a party sues in court despite an arbitration clause; and
• enforcement/resistance to enforcement of awards, where jurisdictional objections can be raised.

The judiciary displays a strong pro‑arbitration, minimal‑intervention stance, generally deferring to tribunals to rule on jurisdiction first and construing clauses to uphold arbitration. On review of a preliminary positive jurisdiction ruling, the court conducts a de novo assessment but within the narrow statutory pathway; the arbitration may proceed meanwhile.

If a tribunal renders a negative ruling on jurisdiction, there is no equivalent statutory route compelling the tribunal to proceed; a party seeking arbitration must typically commence appropriate new legal proceedings or seek other relief. Jurisdictional issues can still be considered by the court indirectly (eg, on a stay application in related litigation).

Section 34(2) of the AO provides that a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence and a plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings. After the tribunal issues a preliminary positive ruling that it has jurisdiction under Section 34(3) of the AO (based on Article 16(3) of the Model Law), a party may apply to the Court of First Instance within 30 days for review. The arbitration may continue while the court considers the application.

Hong Kong differentiates between “jurisdiction” and “admissibility”. True jurisdictional questions (existence, validity, scope of the arbitration agreement, proper constitution of the tribunal) receive de novo judicial review via the permitted gateways. Examples include a court’s review of a tribunal’s preliminary positive ruling on jurisdiction under Section 34(4) of the AO (based on Article 16(3) of the Model Law), and set-aside or enforcement resistance on jurisdictional grounds. In these settings, the court does not defer to the tribunal’s conclusions on jurisdictional facts or law, though it remains mindful of the pro-arbitration policy and the parties’ procedural choices. By contrast, objections that pertain to admissibility (eg, time bars, pre-arbitration steps such as negotiation/mediation, multi-tier clauses, abuse of process, consolidation/joinder mechanics) are generally treated as matters for the tribunal, not the courts, and are not a basis for setting aside/enforcement refusal unless they overlap with due process or excess of mandate.

Hong Kong courts take a firmly pro-enforcement approach. If court proceedings are commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement, the Court of First Instance will ordinarily grant a mandatory stay under the AO (based on the Model Law) unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. The threshold for resisting a stay is high: the court typically applies at least a prima facie test of the agreement’s existence and scope, and construes clauses broadly (“arising out of or in connection with”) to capture the dispute. Courts also grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain foreign litigation brought in breach of a Hong Kong-seated arbitration agreement where it is just and convenient to do so.

Accordingly, there is a marked reluctance to allow such court proceedings to continue. Hong Kong’s policy is minimal judicial intervention and deference to arbitral tribunals on matters of jurisdiction and procedure (kompetenz‑kompetenz), with any residual objections addressed in the arbitration or at the set-aside/enforcement stage. Only in exceptional circumstances – clear invalidity, non-arbitrability, or impossibility of performing the clause – will the courts decline a stay and permit litigation to proceed.

Hong Kong law does not give arbitral tribunals a free-standing power to bind non‑signatories. A tribunal may assume jurisdiction over a third party only if, as a matter of the applicable law, that person is treated as having consented to or become bound by the arbitration agreement. Pathways include statutory third‑party rights (where a third party enforces a contract term that is subject to an arbitration clause, they are treated as a party to that clause) and orthodox doctrines such as assignment, novation, agency/authority (including “true principal”), trust/beneficiary claims, incorporation by reference, and estoppel. Courts support this framework at the stay/anti‑suit stage but expect tribunals to decide first under kompetenz‑kompetenz.

There are important limits. Hong Kong does not recognise a stand‑alone “group of companies” doctrine; consent remains the touchstone. Awards against true strangers to the arbitration agreement face serious enforcement risk, and courts may set aside jurisdictional determinations that incorrectly rope in non‑parties. These rules are nationality‑neutral: if the legal basis exists, they apply equally to foreign and domestic third parties.

Under the AO, an arbitral tribunal may grant preliminary or interim measures on a party’s request. Those measures are binding on the parties and may be recognised and enforced by the Hong Kong courts; the AO allows a tribunal to record an interim measure in an award and provides a statutory route for court enforcement of tribunal “orders or directions” (with Section 61 of the AO based on Article 17H of the Model Law). By contrast, ex parte “preliminary orders” are temporary, expire after 20 days unless converted into an interim measure after hearing the other side, and are binding between the parties but not court‑enforceable (Section 38(4)). Emergency arbitrator relief under the 2024 HKIAC Rules is treated as having the same effect as an interim measure and is enforceable in Hong Kong.

The Model Law taxonomy adopted in Hong Kong expressly covers: maintaining or restoring the status quo; measures to prevent current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process; preservation of assets to satisfy a future award (eg, freezing/Mareva‑type relief and security for claims); and preservation of relevant evidence. Tribunals may also order security for costs, require prompt disclosure of material changes, and modify, suspend or terminate interim measures as circumstances evolve. The AO clarifies that interim measures can take the form of injunctions. In parallel, Hong Kong courts retain a supportive power to issue interim measures in aid of arbitrations seated in or outside Hong Kong.

Hong Kong courts have express statutory authority to grant interim measures “in relation to any arbitral proceedings”, whether the arbitration is seated in Hong Kong or overseas, and this power applies even if the arbitral tribunal has similar powers (see Section 45 of the AO). The court may, however, decline to act if the matter is already before the tribunal and it considers the tribunal better placed to determine it. Common forms of interim measures include injunctions (such as freezing/Mareva orders and anti‑disposal orders), preservation of evidence, orders maintaining or restoring the status quo, orders for security (including security for costs), disclosure orders and, where appropriate, the appointment of interim receivers. Hong Kong courts also grant worldwide relief where justified. When assisting foreign‑seated arbitrations, the courts exercise their powers in a supportive manner and with due regard to the supervisory role of the foreign tribunal.

Hong Kong law also expressly recognises emergency arbitrators (Part 3A of the AO). Interim relief granted by an emergency arbitrator – whether appointed under rules providing for such procedures in Hong Kong or elsewhere – is enforceable in Hong Kong, with the court’s leave, as if it were a court order. For orders made outside Hong Kong, enforceability is limited to temporary measures such as maintaining or restoring the status quo, preventing prejudice to the arbitral process, preserving assets or evidence, and providing security. Under the 2024 HKIAC Rules, an Emergency Decision binds the parties upon issuance and has the same effect as any interim measure under those Rules.

The appointment or decision of an emergency arbitrator does not prevent a party from applying to the Hong Kong courts. Both the AO and the 2024 HKIAC Rules contemplate that parties may seek urgent judicial assistance at any stage. The court nevertheless retains discretion to refuse relief where the issue is already being addressed by the tribunal – whether by the emergency arbitrator or, once constituted, the full tribunal.

The court may intervene after an emergency arbitrator is appointed. The appointment or decision of an emergency arbitrator does not bar applications to the court. The AO allows the parties to seek urgent judicial measures at any time. That said, the court retains a discretion to decline relief where it is already the subject of arbitral proceedings or better handled by the tribunal (including an emergency arbitrator or, once formed, the full tribunal).

Under the AO, arbitral tribunals have an express statutory power to order security for costs. Section 56(1)(a) of the AO allows a tribunal to require a claimant to provide security for the arbitration costs, but a tribunal may not make such an order solely because the claimant is not resident in Hong Kong or is controlled from outside Hong Kong. The tribunal must set a time limit for compliance, and if the claimant fails to provide security, it may stay or dismiss the claim. This power is also reflected in the institutional rules commonly applied in Hong Kong, such as Article 24 of the 2024 HKIAC Rules.

Arbitrations seated in Hong Kong are governed by the AO, which gives effect to the Model Law. The AO sets out the fundamental procedural framework, including principles of equal treatment, party autonomy to agree the procedure, and the tribunal’s authority to conduct the arbitration as it considers appropriate where the parties have not agreed on procedural matters. It also contains provisions on issues such as seat, language and commencement of the arbitration. In essence, the parties are free to determine how the arbitration will be run, and failing agreement, the tribunal controls procedure subject to the AO.

In practice, Hong Kong‑seated administered arbitrations frequently proceed under institutional rules, most commonly the 2024 HKIAC Rules, which update various procedural and case‑management features, including timelines, information security measures and environmental impact considerations. Parties may also adopt other rule sets – such as the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules – particularly in ad hoc proceedings. Court applications ancillary to arbitration, such as stays, interim measures, enforcement and set‑aside, are governed procedurally by the Rules of the High Court, especially Order 73.

The AO, which incorporates the Model Law, prescribes several mandatory procedural requirements for arbitrations seated in Hong Kong. Parties must be treated equally and given a full opportunity to present their case, and each party must receive proper notice of hearings and of submissions made by the other side. Parties are free to agree their own procedural framework. If they do not, the tribunal may conduct the arbitration as it considers appropriate, but it must hold an oral hearing if a party requests one unless the parties have agreed to proceed on documents only. The AO also contemplates basic pleading steps: a statement of claim and statement of defence with sufficient particulars, filed within the agreed or tribunal‑fixed timeline. If the claimant fails to submit its claim on time, the tribunal may terminate the proceedings. If the respondent fails to defend, the proceedings usually continue, but the claimant’s allegations are not automatically accepted.

The AO also imposes mandatory timing and form requirements concerning jurisdictional objections, arbitrator issues and the award. Arbitrators must disclose circumstances that could give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality, and any challenge must be made within a short statutory period after the grounds become known. Jurisdictional objections must be raised no later than the statement of defence, and excess‑of‑authority objections must be raised promptly once the issue arises. Awards must be in writing, signed, state the date and seat, give reasons unless the parties agree otherwise, and be delivered to each party. Beyond these essentials, the AO leaves procedural matters largely to party autonomy and tribunal case management, with institutional rules typically providing the detailed timetable and mechanics for the arbitration.

Under Hong Kong law, arbitrators are given wide powers, mainly through the AO, which incorporates the Model Law.

In broad terms, tribunals may manage the arbitration if the parties have not agreed detailed procedures. They can decide their own jurisdiction (often called the kompetenz‑kompetenz principle), set the procedure and timetable, and decide what evidence is admissible and how much weight to give it. They may order document production, appoint independent experts, and continue the case even if one party does not take part.

Tribunals also have important interim and remedial powers. These include granting interim measures such as preserving assets, maintaining the status quo or protecting evidence. Under Hong Kong’s local provisions, tribunals may also order security for costs. At the end of the case, arbitrators may award interest (both before and after the award) and decide how the costs of the arbitration should be allocated. They may issue an award, and later make a correction, interpretation or an additional award where permitted.

Alongside these powers, arbitrators have mandatory duties. They must be impartial and independent and must disclose any circumstances that could give rise to justifiable doubts about this. They must treat the parties equally and give each party a fair opportunity to present its case. If a party asks for an oral hearing, the tribunal must hold one unless the parties have agreed that the dispute will be decided on documents only. Arbitrators are also required to conduct the arbitration without unnecessary delay.

Any award must be in writing, signed, and state the seat and date of the arbitration. Reasons must be given unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Hong Kong has a statutory confidentiality regime covering arbitral proceedings and awards, and arbitrators are expected to comply with these confidentiality requirements, subject to limited exceptions. Arbitrators also benefit from statutory immunity for acts or omissions done in good faith in the course of their duties, which supports their role in conducting proceedings fairly and efficiently.

In Hong Kong-seated arbitrations, parties have wide freedom to choose their legal representatives.

In arbitration proceedings, the AO removes the usual restrictions on the unauthorised practice of law for arbitration work (Section 63 of the AO). This means that parties may be represented by non-Hong Kong lawyers, and even by non-lawyers, in both domestic and international arbitrations. There are no nationality or local qualification requirements for appearing before an arbitral tribunal.

In court proceedings relating to arbitration – for example, applications for a stay of court proceedings, interim measures, or to set aside or enforce an award – the normal Hong Kong court rules apply. Parties must generally be represented by lawyers admitted in Hong Kong, namely, solicitors or barristers with the appropriate rights of audience for the court concerned. Overseas barristers may only appear if they are granted ad hoc admission by the Hong Kong courts, which is discretionary and not automatic. Additional restrictions may apply in certain limited cases, including some national security-related matters.

Institutional rules may also be relevant. The 2024 HKIAC Rules require parties to notify all other parties, the tribunal and HKIAC of any proposed change of legal representatives. The tribunal has the power to take measures, including excluding proposed new representatives, where a change in representation would give rise to a conflict of interest.

In Hong Kong arbitration, the collection and presentation of evidence is largely shaped by what the parties agree and how the tribunal manages the case, subject to basic due‑process requirements such as equal treatment, proper notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. There is no automatic, wide‑ranging US‑style discovery. Instead, document production is usually limited, focused and proportionate. Requests are often organised using “Redfern schedules” (a structured request‑and‑response table), and tribunals commonly draw guidance from the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence, if the parties agree or the tribunal considers them helpful.

Legal privilege generally follows Hong Kong principles, including legal advice privilege, litigation privilege and “without prejudice” protection for settlement communications. Arbitration proceedings and awards are confidential under the AO, subject to limited exceptions. In practice, tribunals may also order additional protections, such as confidentiality arrangements for sensitive documents, where appropriate.

Factual and expert evidence are typically submitted in the form of written witness statements or expert reports, which stand as the evidence‑in‑chief. These are then tested at an oral hearing through cross‑examination. Tribunals actively manage hearings, including time allocation between the parties and, where useful, concurrent expert evidence (“hot‑tubbing”). Electronic documents are handled through proportionate protocols set by the tribunal. In limited circumstances, and subject to the AO and court discretion, Hong Kong courts may assist with evidence‑related matters, including involving third parties. Failure to comply with evidential directions may lead to adverse inferences or costs consequences. Hearing logistics are usually governed by procedural orders covering matters such as document bundles, transcription and remote testimony.

In Hong Kong-seated arbitration, there is no mandatory set of evidence rules equivalent to the court‑focused Evidence Ordinance or Rules of High Court. Parties are free to agree on how evidence will be handled. If they do not, the arbitral tribunal has broad discretion to decide what evidence is admissible, relevant and persuasive, and how much weight it should be given. Tribunals may also adopt non‑binding guidelines, such as the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence, if the parties agree or the tribunal considers them helpful.

Witness evidence is usually given through written witness statements, which serve as the main evidence. Witnesses may then be questioned at a hearing if the tribunal considers this necessary. Tribunals can order limited and targeted document production rather than broad discovery. If a party fails to comply with evidential directions, the tribunal may take this into account when assessing the case or allocating costs.

Privilege and confidentiality are recognised in arbitration much as they are in Hong Kong litigation. Legal advice privilege, litigation privilege and “without prejudice” protection for settlement discussions generally apply. Arbitral proceedings and awards are confidential under the AO, subject to limited exceptions.

The above-mentioned approaches apply to both domestic and international arbitrations seated in Hong Kong. There is no separate set of evidentiary rules for domestic arbitration. If an arbitration‑related issue is brought before the Hong Kong courts (for example, an application for evidence‑related assistance or interim relief), the usual court procedures and evidence rules apply to that court application.

In Hong Kong-seated arbitrations, arbitral tribunals have broad procedural powers to manage evidence between the parties. They can direct parties to produce documents, submit evidence in writing (for example, by affidavit or witness statement), and arrange for witnesses to attend and give evidence at the hearing. Tribunals may also administer oaths, draw adverse inferences where a party does not comply with evidential directions, and reflect non‑compliance in costs awards. However, tribunal directions are not self‑enforcing in the way court orders are. Their practical effect against an unco-operative party lies mainly in these procedural and costs consequences unless court assistance is sought.

True legal compulsion comes from the courts. Under the AO (which incorporates Model Law concepts), the arbitral tribunal, or a party with the tribunal’s approval, may apply to the Hong Kong courts for assistance in taking evidence. The court may, subject to its discretion and ordinary privileges and protections, order a person within Hong Kong to attend to give evidence and/or to produce documents, whether before the hearing or at the hearing itself. These court powers apply to both parties and non‑parties. By contrast, a tribunal cannot directly compel a non‑party to produce documents or attend as a witness without a court order.

Court powers are territorial. The summoning of evidence or witnesses located outside Hong Kong generally requires the co-operation of the relevant foreign courts. In practice, tribunals manage disclosure and evidence directly as between the parties, while court assistance is used where compulsory measures are needed, particularly in relation to non‑parties or serious party non‑compliance.

Hong Kong-seated arbitrations are subject to a strong default position of confidentiality under the AO. As a general rule, the arbitration itself and materials generated in it – such as pleadings, evidence, transcripts and the award – are not to be disclosed or used outside the arbitration, unless an exception under the AO applies. Parties may agree to broaden or relax confidentiality, and where institutional rules such as the 2024 HKIAC Rules are adopted, these may impose additional confidentiality and information‑security obligations.

The AO allows disclosure in defined and limited circumstances. These include disclosure where it is necessary to enforce or challenge an award in court, to comply with a legal obligation, or to protect or pursue a party’s legal rights or legitimate interests. Disclosure may also be made on a confidential basis to persons such as professional advisers, insurers, auditors, funders, affiliates, witnesses or regulators. Any disclosure must be limited to what is reasonably necessary for the permitted purpose.

When arbitration‑related matters come before the Hong Kong courts, the courts generally seek to preserve confidentiality so far as practicable, for example by holding hearings in private or issuing anonymised or redacted judgments. However, the court retains discretion to permit open hearings or publication where the interests of justice or the public interest require it. In short, confidentiality is the default for Hong Kong arbitrations, but targeted disclosure is permitted in subsequent proceedings within clearly defined statutory and judicial limits.

Legal Requirements for Arbitral Awards

In Hong Kong, an arbitral award must meet certain basic requirements under the AO (based on Article 31 of the Model Law). The award must:

• be in writing;
• be signed by the arbitrator or arbitrators (a majority signature is sufficient if the reason for any missing signature is stated);
• give reasons for the decision, unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are required or the award simply records a settlement agreed by the parties;

• state the date of the award and the seat of arbitration; and
• be delivered in signed form to each party.

Time Limits for Delivery of the Award

The AO does not prescribe any general deadline for an arbitral tribunal to issue its award. The timing of the award is therefore a matter for party agreement and, where applicable, institutional rules. For example, under the 2024 HKIAC Rules, the tribunal is generally required to close the proceedings (or a separate phase of them) within 45 days after the last directed substantive submission, and to issue the award within three months after closure. The three-month time limit for the issuance of an award may be extended by agreement of the parties or by HKIAC (see Article 31 of the 2024 HKIAC Rules). Under the expedited procedure, the award should normally be issued within six months from HKIAC’s transmission of the case file to the tribunal, subject to extension in appropriate cases (see Article 42.2(f) of the 2024 HKIAC Rules).

After receiving the award, a party may apply within 30 days (subject to the extension of time by the tribunal) to:

• correct clerical, typographical or similar errors;
• request an interpretation of a specific part of the award, if the parties have agreed that interpretations are allowed; or
• request an additional award to deal with claims that were presented but accidentally omitted.

Under the AO, a Hong Kong-seated arbitral tribunal can generally grant any remedy or relief that the Hong Kong courts could grant in similar civil proceedings. This includes final injunctions, declarations, specific performance, rectification, damages, interest (simple or compound) and costs.

There are, however, some important limits set by the AO. For example, a tribunal cannot order specific performance of a contract relating to land or an interest in land unless the parties have agreed that it may do so (Section 70(3) of the AO). In practice, parties can agree to restrict certain remedies (for example, excluding punitive or exemplary damages or limiting the types of injunctions available).

The tribunal can also order interim measures (such as interim injunctions) under the framework adopted from the Model Law, and Hong Kong courts can support and enforce those measures where appropriate.

Further practical limits arise from general law. Tribunals cannot impose criminal or public law penalties, bind third parties who are not part of the arbitration, or make orders that are reserved to the courts (such as winding-up orders). Non-compensatory damages, such as exemplary or punitive damages, are only available if permitted by the governing law; under Hong Kong law, they are recognised only in narrow circumstances.

In Hong Kong arbitrations, both interest and legal costs are generally recoverable, largely at the tribunal’s discretion under the AO.

For interest, the tribunal may award simple or compound interest on sums due, for the period before the award, at the rates and intervals it considers appropriate. This can include interest on both the principal claim and costs. The tribunal may also award interest for the period after the award. If the tribunal does not deal with post-award interest, interest may arise at the statutory judgment rate if the award is enforced through the courts.

For costs, the tribunal has wide power to decide who should pay, to what extent, and in what manner. This includes the costs of the arbitration itself and of any interim applications. The tribunal will usually award costs it considers reasonable and is not bound by court scales when assessing them.

As to general practice, Hong Kong usually follows a “costs follow the event” approach. This means the unsuccessful party is typically ordered to pay a substantial portion of the successful party’s costs, although tribunals retain discretion to depart from this if appropriate.

Agreements made before a dispute arises which require each party to bear its own legal costs are generally not binding on the arbitral tribunal, but parties may agree on cost allocation after a dispute has arisen (Sections 74(8) and 74(9) of the AO).

In Hong Kong, parties generally cannot appeal an arbitral award on its merits (for example, to challenge the tribunal’s findings of fact). The main remedy is to apply to the Court of First Instance to set aside the award on limited grounds under the AO, which reflect the Model Law. These grounds include, for example, an invalid arbitration agreement, serious procedural unfairness, the tribunal exceeding its authority, non-arbitrability or public policy. A set-aside application must usually be made within three months of receiving the award (or any correction or interpretation decision), and this deadline is strictly applied.

Even if no set-aside application is made, a party may still resist enforcement of the award in Hong Kong on similar limited grounds when the other side seeks to enforce it.

A limited appeal route exists only if Schedule 2 of the AO applies (for example, if the parties have expressly opted in). In that situation, a party may apply for leave to appeal on a question of law or challenge the award for serious procedural irregularity. There are strict conditions to be satisfied, that the issue must have been put to the tribunal, must materially affect the parties’ rights, and must either be obviously wrong or involve a question of general importance that is open to serious doubt. The court will normally decide any legal question based on the facts as found by the tribunal. Possible outcomes include confirming, varying, remitting or setting aside the award.

Overall, unless Schedule 2 applies, Hong Kong law strongly favours finality of arbitral awards, with only limited court intervention.

Parties cannot contract out of the court’s mandatory supervisory role under the AO. The statutory grounds for setting aside an arbitral award (Section 81 of the AO, based on the Model Law) and the grounds for resisting enforcement (based on the New York Convention) are fixed by law. Parties cannot exclude these grounds, add new ones, or extend the three-month time limit for applying to set aside an award. A clause stating that there will be “no challenge” does not remove the court’s jurisdiction, although it may be taken into account on costs. Likewise, parties cannot agree to broader appeals on the merits than those permitted by the AO.

However, parties do have some flexibility through Schedule 2 of the AO. By express agreement (under Section 99), they can opt in to additional, limited routes of recourse: (1) appeals on a question of law and/or (2) challenges for “serious irregularity”. These routes are subject to strict permission requirements and do not allow a re-hearing of the facts found by the tribunal.

The standard of court supervision is highly deferential. Hong Kong courts do not conduct a full re-hearing or reconsider the merits of an arbitral award. Their role under the AO is supervisory only. When dealing with set-aside applications or enforcement challenges, the court will intervene only on limited statutory grounds (such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of due process, non-arbitrability or public policy). Unless Schedule 2 of AO is applicable, errors of fact or law by the tribunal, even if they appear obvious, are not enough on their own to justify interference. Any consideration of the merits is incidental to these limited grounds, not a fresh review.

The People’s Republic of China acceded to the 1958 New York Convention on 22 January 1987, subject to the reciprocity and commercial reservations under Article I(3). Following the resumption of sovereignty of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, China notified that the Convention would apply to the Hong Kong on the same terms. In Hong Kong, the Convention is implemented through the AO.

Procedures and Standards

Hong Kong adopts a pro-enforcement approach. An award creditor usually applies to the Court of First Instance without notifying the other party (ex parte) for permission (leave) to enforce the award. The application must exhibit the award, the arbitration agreement, and certified translations if needed. The court may decide the application on the papers or list a hearing. If leave is granted, the award can be enforced as if it were a Hong Kong court judgment. Once served with the order, the award debtor has 14 days to apply to set it aside. The grounds for refusing or setting aside enforcement mirror those in the New York Convention and are interpreted narrowly by Hong Kong courts. If leave is refused, the creditor may still bring a claim on the award at common law.

Awards Set Aside or Under Challenge at the Seat

If an award has been set aside by the court at the seat, Hong Kong courts have a discretion (not an automatic rule) to refuse enforcement. In practice, enforcement of an annulled award would be unusual and likely only in exceptional circumstances. If set-aside proceedings are ongoing at the seat, there is no automatic stay. The Hong Kong court may adjourn the enforcement proceedings and can order the award debtor to provide security, taking into account factors such as the strength of the challenge at the seat and any prejudice caused by delay.

Sovereign Immunity at Enforcement

The position regarding sovereign immunity is evolving. Following the PRC’s Foreign State Immunity Law (in force from 1 January 2024), Hong Kong is expected to move from an absolute immunity approach towards a restrictive regime, including exceptions for commercial activities and arbitration-related matters. This may allow recognition and enforcement proceedings, and potentially execution against assets used for commercial purposes, subject to important carve-outs (such as diplomatic, military and central bank property). However, the precise application in Hong Kong is still developing and will depend on the facts of each case.

Hong Kong courts take a strongly pro‑enforcement approach to arbitral awards. The grounds for refusing enforcement follow those in the New York Convention and are interpreted narrowly.

In particular, the “public policy” exception sets a very high threshold, as confirmed in key decisions such as Hebei Import & Export Corp v Polytek Engineering Co Ltd (1999) 2 HKCFAR 111. The Court of Final Appeal has made clear that enforcement will only be refused if it would violate Hong Kong’s most fundamental conceptions of morality and justice. Courts will not reopen the merits of the dispute, and they usually give significant weight to decisions made by the courts at the seat of the arbitration. They also emphasise comity (mutual respect between courts) and caution against using public policy as a broad or catch‑all objection. Where challenges to enforcement are clearly unmeritorious, the court may order indemnity costs.

Hong Kong law does not recognise US-style class arbitration. There is no mechanism that allows one claimant to arbitrate on behalf of a wider group of people who have not agreed to arbitrate. Arbitration is based on consent: an award binds only the parties to the arbitration (and, in limited cases, certain non-signatories under recognised legal doctrines). While the courts allow representative proceedings in some circumstances, that procedure does not give an arbitral tribunal power to bind a wider class that has not agreed to arbitration. In practice, claims involving multiple claimants must therefore be pursued in court or brought as separate individual arbitrations.

That said, “group” or multiparty arbitration is possible where the relevant arbitration agreements and applicable rules (for example, those of HKIAC) permit it. These rules may allow the joinder of additional parties, the consolidation of related arbitrations, or concurrent proceedings before the same tribunal. The main requirements are that the parties have so agreed (expressly or through compatible arbitration clauses), that the disputes are sufficiently connected, and that any rule-specific conditions (including timing) are met.

The parties’ lawyers are mainly governed by the professional rules of their home jurisdiction. If they are qualified in Hong Kong, they must follow the Bar Code of Conduct (for barristers) or the Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct. Foreign lawyers can act in arbitrations seated in Hong Kong without being locally admitted, but if they appear before the Hong Kong courts, local rights of audience rules apply.

The AO sets the legal framework for arbitrations. It places duties on the arbitral tribunal, including to act independently and impartially, to treat parties equally, and to give each party a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The AO also provides for confidentiality of arbitral proceedings, and related court proceedings are generally heard in private (subject to limited exceptions).

Arbitrators are bound by the statutory duties under the AO, including duties of independence and impartiality and an ongoing duty to disclose any circumstances that might reasonably give rise to doubts about this. The grounds and procedures for challenging or removing an arbitrator broadly follow the Model Law. The parties’ chosen institutional rules and practice guides often impose further detailed requirements on issues such as conflicts, availability, confidentiality and efficient conduct of the case.

In addition, parties and tribunals often rely on widely used international guidelines, such as the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration and the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence. General Hong Kong laws (for example, on data privacy and anti-money laundering) may also affect how lawyers and arbitrators conduct themselves. Overall, Hong Kong applies a combination of statute, institutional rules and internationally recognised guidelines to regulate arbitral conduct.

Hong Kong expressly permits third-party funding of arbitration and court proceedings connected with arbitration under Part 10A of the AO, supported by a Code of Practice issued on 7 December 2018. Funding is allowed where the seat of the arbitration is Hong Kong, and also for work done in Hong Kong on arbitrations seated elsewhere.

A funded party must disclose that it has funding, and the identity of the funder, to the other parties and the “arbitration body” (ie, the tribunal, arbitral institution or court) at the start of the arbitration or within 15 days after the funding agreement is made. Any termination of the funding must also be disclosed. Lawyers acting for a party are not permitted to act as the funder in accordance with Part 10A of the AO.

The Code of Practice imposes detailed obligations on funders. These include maintaining minimum capital adequacy (access to at least HKD20 million and sufficient resources to meet liabilities for 36 months), entering into clear written funding agreements (covering limits on control, exposure to adverse costs or security, and restricted termination rights), and having proper procedures for managing conflicts of interest and complaints. Funders must also protect confidentiality and legal privilege, maintain a Hong Kong address for service, and remind funded parties of their disclosure obligations and right to independent legal advice. An advisory body monitors compliance with the Code through information requests and annual returns.

Separately, Hong Kong allows certain outcome-related fee arrangements for lawyers in arbitration (such as conditional fee agreements and damages-based agreements) under rules effective from 16 December 2022. These rules concern lawyers’ fees and are distinct from third-party funding.

In Hong Kong, the courts do not have a general power to consolidate arbitrations. Their power arises only if the parties have expressly opted into Schedule 2 of the AO (or where it applies to certain older “domestic” agreements). In those cases, the court may order consolidation or that arbitrations be heard together if there is a common question of law or fact, if the claims arise from the same transaction or a related series of transactions, or if consolidation is otherwise appropriate.

Separately, consolidation can be achieved by agreement between the parties or under the institutional rules they have chosen. Under the 2024 HKIAC Rules, HKIAC may consolidate arbitrations where the parties agree; where all claims are made under the same arbitration agreement; or, for multiple agreements, where the disputes share common issues of law or fact, arise out of the same transaction or related series, and the agreements are compatible. Tribunals themselves generally do not have an independent power to consolidate separate arbitrations. Their role is to manage proceedings within a single arbitration, including any co-ordination permitted by the applicable rules.

In Hong Kong, a non-signatory will only be bound by an arbitration agreement or award if there is a recognised legal link to a party who agreed to arbitrate. This can arise through transfer of rights (such as assignment or succession), agency, subrogation (eg, insurers), or doctrines like estoppel.

As for foreign third parties, Hong Kong courts cannot bind a genuine non-signatory to arbitrate or be subject to an award unless one of above-mentioned recognised links applies or the person submits to the court’s jurisdiction. The courts may still make supportive orders (such as asset-preservation orders), but these do not make a non-party a party to the arbitration.

A third party who enforces a contractual right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Ordinance may also be treated as bound by the arbitration clause, depending on the contract terms. In addition, a person “claiming through or under” a party may, in some cases, rely on or be bound by the clause in court proceedings under the AO.

New parties can only be joined to an arbitration if they have agreed to it (including through applicable institutional rules). Hong Kong courts and tribunals will not compel true outsiders to arbitrate, and doctrines like piercing the corporate veil apply only in exceptional cases.