, , , , (Fangda Partners)
In a significant development for the region, Mainland China and Hong Kong have announced a bilateral arrangement by which the Chinese courts will now recognise and enforce interim measures in support of institutional arbitration seated in Hong Kong (the “Arrangement”).1)
As China has no equivalent measures in place with any other non-Mainland jurisdictions, the Arrangement will further enhance Hong Kong’s attractiveness as a seat for China-related international arbitrations. Parties may now conduct “offshore” arbitration in Hong Kong whilst keeping open the potential for interim measures in Mainland China.
Background
Under PRC law the power to grant interim relief in support of arbitration rests exclusively with the courts. Importantly, whilst the PRC courts are known to award interim relief in support of domestic arbitration proceedings, they have historically been unwilling to award such measures in support of arbitrations seated outside of Mainland China.
This treatment extends to arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong, which following its 1997 handover to the PRC retains its own separate legal system based upon English common law. Whilst the two jurisdictions have entered into reciprocal arrangements with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards and court judgments (signed in 2000 and 2019 respectively), neither instrument covers interim measures in support of arbitration.
Consequently, international commercial parties agreeing arbitration clauses have in the past had no option but to arbitrate in Mainland China if they wish to ensure the availability of interim measures in the PRC.
Recent developments had however pointed to a potential change in approach and practice by the PRC courts. For instance, as previously reported in this blog, the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court in central China granted interim relief to a Claimant in a Hong Kong seated arbitration. However, as there is no system of precedent in China’s legal system, such cases do not formally bind other courts.
The Arrangement
The Arrangement was signed on 2 April 2019 and will come into force on a date to be announced. It empowers the PRC courts to grant interim measures in support of administered Hong Kong arbitration proceedings.
The Arrangement has certain limitations. It applies only to arbitrations administered by specific institutions, of which a full list will be published in due course. It does not however extend to ‘ad hoc’ (i.e. unadminstered) arbitrations. PRC law does not permit such arbitrations domestically, although in 2009 the PRC Supreme People’s Court confirmed that arbitration awards rendered in ad hoc proceedings in Hong Kong were enforceable in the PRC.
Perhaps most importantly, the relief in question is typically limited to preservation measures against assets or property. Although PRC courts have since 2017 also been empowered to grant mandatory or prohibitory injunctions (Chinese Civil Procedure Law, article 100), such orders will rarely be granted.
The Arrangement also provides for reciprocal rights to the effect that a party to arbitral proceedings in Mainland China may apply to the Hong Kong courts for interim measures (a relief which is already available under Hong Kong law).
Significance of the Arrangement
The Arrangement is an important development. It provides parties to China-related transactions with a welcome additional option when selecting the seat of arbitration. As an alternative to arbitrating in Mainland China, such parties can now agree to arbitrate in Hong Kong, whilst being assured that they have the possibility of applying for interim relief in Mainland China.
The new instrument therefore further consolidates Hong Kong’s position as a unique jurisdiction for the resolution of China-related disputes through arbitration. Hong Kong already occupies a hybrid position as a part of the PRC sovereign State which nonetheless maintains its own independent common law system, and judiciary. On the one hand it is a separate independent jurisdiction, whilst on the other it enjoys cultural, linguistic and geographical proximity to the Mainland. The new Arrangement further enhances Hong Kong’s claim to be the premier jurisdiction for resolving China-related international disputes.
For original upload, click here.
Arbitration, and typically commercial arbitration, is an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which is agreed by parties of the dispute. Arbitration can be used to replace the traditional way of litigation in court.
Derive from arbitration’s dispute settlement principles, arbitration shows many pros and brings many benefits for parties in commercial dispute, specifically as follows:
A Polish appeals court vacated an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) partial award for alleged irregularities in the arbitrator's appointment (for further details please see " ICC award set aside due to irregularities in arbitrator's appointment "). The sole arbitrator's final award was also successfully challenged and set aside. The first reason to vacate the final award was also the issue of the sole arbitrator's appointment.
It is normal to inspect the goods that have been lost or damaged during the performance of the sales contract and in the contract of carriage. However, improper inspection can lead to significant disputes and damages that you can refer to below.
The ten years of Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010 (LCA) are also the 10-year development period of VIAC - the first institutional arbitration organization in Vietnam, the organization that goes along with the formation and advancement of the legal framework of commercial arbitration in Vietnam.
Law on Commercial Arbitration (“LCA”) enacted in 2010 was considered a major step forward for the development of commercial arbitration in Vietnam. Compared with the previous years and with international standards, LCA has made remarkable progress, namely recognizing enterprises’ freedom of choice, broadening the scope of arbitration, raising the arbitral tribunal’s authority, valuing court assistance (especially interim measures enforcement), encouraging flexibility in language of arbitration, and improving party’s autonomy in arbitration while maintaining proper manners during arbitral proceedings.
Mr. Doug Jones, a leading arbitrator in the international arbitration community, revealed to me his infatuation with the beautiful beach and Vietnamese delicacies after a seminar in Da Nang. He was also inspired by the confidence, assertiveness, competence and the ambition to improve domestic arbitrators to the same level as those working in the international sphere of young arbitrators and VIAC Secretaries.
Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010 (LCA)- the procedural law governing arbitration proceedings whose seat is in Vietnam
Nowadays, as the digital economy emerges, electronic agreements on online websites are becoming more and more prevalent; hence, the legal effect of establishing terms and conditions of service when accessing the website (browse-wrap) and clicking (click-wrap) are of particular interest. The following paper analyzes some of the legal aspects of online agreement conclusion, especially the establishment of the arbitration agreement by means of browse-wrap and click-wrap.
Whether settling disputes in Court or through arbitration, when a party has the burden of proof, it must submit evidence to the arbitral tribunal. The evidence can be in many different forms: Document electronic evidence, audio recordings, video recordings, witness statement, etc. In international arbitration practice, especially in complex disputes, a type of evidence that is frequently used by the parties to defend their opinion/request is testimony/report of "expert witness".
In international commerce and investment, parties to a dispute often select arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution other than litigation in which the court, an authorized state agency, adjudicate disputes. An explanation for this phenomenon is that arbitration may be the optimal means that the parties can exercise their autonomy in writing to select one or several individuals who are not representing state agencies and state power (the so-called private parties) to resolve disputes. However, to prevent the possibility of arbitrators "privatizing" justice, [1] the New York Convention and the ICSID Convention set out the rules for annulment of arbitral award when such award violates arbitral proceeding. Here, questions arise. What rules of procedure are violated? And to what extent is the commercial and investment arbitral award annulled? This article seeks to elucidate the theory and practice of annulment for violations of procedure under the New York Convention and the ICSID Convention.
Goods can be consolidated, batched, packed, sorted, and grouped for a certain period of time before being loaded onto a trailer for carriage to the consignee. Disputes about whether the time to do these things are within the scope of insurance liability or not is an issue worth knowing (through the lawsuit with the documents of a foreign law firm) below for readers’ reference.
Mr. Vu Anh Duong is the Secretary General of the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (“ VIAC “), which is the leading Vietnamese arbitration and mediation institution . Mr. Duong has contributed significantly to the development of arbitration in Vietnam in various ways; in addition to his role with the VIAC, Mr. Duong has served as a member of various drafting committees dealing with not only the VIAC’s Rules of Arbitration (2017) (“ VIAC Rules ”), but also Vietnam’s arbitration-related legislation. He also regularly lectures on commercial arbitration and sits as an arbitrator in both international and domestic commercial arbitrations.
.png "Trường đại học ngoại thương"){kind=logo}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
