Hong Kong SAR’s position as a major centre of arbitration continues to develop in 2026

Globally, the jurisdiction has regained its position as third most preferred seat, according to the  latest Queen Mary University survey (46-page / 2.09MB PDF).

In March 2025, Hong Kong SAR formally adopted a scheme allowing arbitrators, counsel, witnesses and tribunal staff to enter without employment visas for arbitration activities, making the jurisdiction more accessible and appealing for international arbitration.

• Read more: international arbitration developments and trends for 2025-26

Hong Kong SAR is currently considering updates to its arbitration law, with a first meeting of the working group having taken place in November 2025. Although still in preliminary stage, a list of topics of revisions has been established – including the governing law of the arbitration agreement following the recent change in the UK Act and the Malaysian Arbitration Act in favour of the law of the seat; the scope of disputes for arbitration, the arbitral tribunal’s powers and jurisdiction, court’s powers, and the use of artificial intelligence.

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), which celebrated its 40 years anniversary in 2025, maintains one of the largest caseloads in the Asia-Pacific region and its arbitration rules are amongst the five most preferred sets of arbitral rules worldwide.

To maintain its pre-eminence, HKIAC has implemented several major developments in 2025 and 2026 aimed at enhancing user experience while also improving time efficiency.

In February 2025, the HKIAC issued a practice note on the compatibility of arbitration clauses across multiple contracts following a rise in multi-party disputes. This guidance addresses consolidation and single arbitration proceedings under the 2018 and 2024 HKIAC Rules. It highlights the need for coherent arbitration clauses in related contracts, offering practical drafting tips and noting that procedural efficiency, party consent, and risk of award challenge are significant factors to decide on compatibility.

Since 1 January 2026, with HKIAC’s new fee schedules the scope for expedited procedures has been expanded, doubling the monetary threshold to allow parties with disputes up to HK$50 million (US$6.4 million) to apply for such procedures, thereby aligning HKIAC with similar reforms at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to meet increasing demand for speed and efficiency.

These developments add to the distinct advantages of Hong Kong SAR as seat. These include arbitration-friendly legislation, minimal court intervention and strong judicial support, strategic proximity to Mainland China and unique reciprocal enforcement arrangements.

The Hong Kong SAR courts handed down several significant decisions in 2025.

Schedule 2 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance allows parties to appeal on a point of law if they opt in. In a case known as CI v IU, the Hong Kong court gave ‘obiter’ guidance on a previously untested issue, whether the appeal could be made on questions of foreign law. The judge opined that when the applicable law – here, English law – bears no real difference to Hong Kong law, then an appeal on a question of foreign law is an appeal on a question of law, not fact. Only where the applicable law is “truly exotic” so that the foreign law is only proved by expert evidence, then it may qualify as a question of fact. The Hong Kong opt-in regime on appeal on a question of law is distinct from the UK regime which is opt-out, and only on questions of UK law. In Singapore, there is no appeal on a question of law, although the Singapore Ministry of Law is currently considering revisions to the International Arbitration Act that may introduce the possibility of appeals on questions of law, including those involving foreign law.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a significant ruling regarding the interaction between insolvency proceedings and arbitration, an area currently under active discussion given the differing outcomes recently reached by various common law jurisdictions. Here, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands applied to the Hong Kong court for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain the creditor from presenting any winding up petition against it in the Cayman Islands on the ground of an arbitration clause. The Court of Appeal, confirming the lower court’s decision, dismissed the plaintiff’s ASI application holding that it had no real prospect of success on the merits. The Court of Appeal relied on two previous cases - Guy Lam and Re Simplicity - finding that an absence of a genuine dispute over the petitioning debt can be considered abuse of process and grounds to deny an ASI.

Further, cases rendered in 2025 confirmed the Hong Kong SAR courts’ strong judicial support for arbitration during the proceedings and at the award enforcement stage.

In CC v AC, the court rejected a challenge based on lack of due process and upheld deemed service of notice under contractually agreed provisions. It ruled that “proper notice” of arbitral proceedings does not require actual receipt, but that it must be reasonably calculated to inform the recipient. This reinforces the practical importance of contractual notice mechanisms and fairness in enforcement challenges.

In Kwokping Sun v Zhang Jun, the court granted worldwide freezing orders and appointed interim receivers to aid enforcement of arbitral awards rendered by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission, demonstrating Hong Kong’s robust support for arbitration enforcement, including proactive interim measures when there is a clear risk of dissipation of assets.

In CNG v G and G, the Hong Kong court confirmed that a high threshold is required to successfully challenge an award for lack of an arbitrator’s impartiality. The award was contested due to claims that the presiding arbitrator was impartial, showed hostility toward CNG and its counsel, prejudged matters important to CNG, and fell asleep during hearings. The court - which had already rejected a previous partial award in the same case on due process grounds in February 2024 - confirmed that the grounds for justifiable doubts as to the president’s impartiality were not met. An arbitrator may share preliminary views if they do not suggest a final decision has been made. The arbitrator falling asleep did not alone indicate partiality, especially since neither party raised concerns during or after the hearing. Parties are therefore well advised to be prompt to signal any objection in this regard.

Although Hong Kong SAR courts are very supportive of arbitration, they will not automatically stay litigation proceedings solely because an arbitration clause exists in the contract.

In Soremi Investments Ltd v China National Gold Group, the court declined to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration because the claims, which involved breaches related to the discharge of duties by Soremi directors, were not breaches of contract and clearly fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Co-written by Karah Howard and Johanne Brocas of Pinsent Masons.