Pro-enforcement policy for awards in HK courts

Hong Kong courts have always adopted a pro-arbitration attitude. According to the website of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the courts maintain an excellent track record of enforcement of arbitral awards, and did not refuse to enforce any award between 2011 and 2014.

This pro-enforcement approach in relation to arbitral awards has consistently been seen in judgments of Hong Kong courts. The Court of Appeal (CA) in the case of Re Petro China International (Hong Kong) Corp Ltd [2011] said that enforcement of arbitral awards should be “almost a matter of administrative procedure” and the court’s task in this regard should be “as mechanistic as possible” in that it was not entitled to go behind the award by exploring the reasoning of the arbitral tribunal, or second-guessing its intention.

Setting-aside application as the only recourse against arbitral awards. The Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) provides that (save for the application of opt-in provisions under the ordinance, which will be discussed below), the only recourse to a court against an arbitral award is by way of an application to set aside the award in accordance with the provisions of article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (as implemented by section 81 of the ordinance).

Cheung Kwok Kit is a partner in the Hong Kong office of Deacons. He can be contacted on +852 2825 9427 or by email at kwokkit.cheung@deacons.com.hk