Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
2011INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONREPORTNEWARBITRATIONLAWPASSEDINHONGKONG18tTheHongKongLegislativeCouncilspassingoftheHongKongArbitrationBillinNovember2010istheculminationofaveryextendedperiodofconsultationdraftingandlegislativeconsideration.ThisprocessdatesbacktotheestablishmentbytheHongKongInstituteofArbitratorsandtheHKIACHongKongInternationalArbitrationCentreoftheCommitteeonHongKongArbitrationLawin1998whichCommitteepublisheditsreportin2003.ThewaithasbeenworthwhileHongKongwillnowhaveanexcellentuser-friendlyandhighlyregardedarbitrationlawwhichwillfurtherenhanceHongKongsreputationasaninternationalarbitralvenue.ThepreviousarbitrationlawinHongKongadoptedasplitregimeunderwhichtheUNCITRALModelLawappliedonlytointernationalcases.DomesticarbitrationswereregulatedbyseparateprovisionsbasedontheEnglishArbitrationActsof195019751979and1996whichgavetheHongKongcourtsgreaterpowersofsupervisionandinterventionthanisthecaseundertheModelLaw.UnderthenewlawthisdistinctionisremovedandtheModelLawisnowtoapplytoallarbitrationsinHongKong.AswellascausingtheModelLawtoapplytodomesticaswellasinternationalarbitrationsthenewlawalsobringsthe2006amendmentstotheModelLawintoeffectforallarbitrationsinHongKong.Thesemodicationsincludetheimportantprovisionsaddressingtribunal-orderedinterimmeasuresArticles17Ato17GoftheModelLaw.TheyalsoincludetherstoptiontoArticle7whichprovidesamongotherthingsthatanarbitrationagreementisinwritingifitscontentisrecordedinanyformandconrmsthatthisincludesanyelectroniccommunicationsinwhichtheinformationisaccessibleforfuturereference.AlthoughthegreatmajorityoftheModelLawhasbeenincorporatedintothenewlawwithoutmodificationtherearesomeareasinwhichHongKonghaschosentomodifyorreplaceaspectsoftheModelLawwithprovisionsbaseduponthepreviouslawandortheEnglishArbitrationAct1996.ForexampletherequirementatArticle18oftheModelLawthateachpartyshallbegivenafullopportunityofpresentingitscaseisreplacedatsection46witharequirementthatthearbitraltribunalshouldgivethepartiesareasonableopportunitytopresenttheircases.Liketheequivalentsectioninthepreviouslawandthesimilarprovisioninsection33oftheEnglishArbitrationActthechangeofwordingfromfulltoreasonableisintendedtoensurethattribunalshavetheabilitytoprecludepartiesfromadvancingunnecessaryandover-extensiveevidenceandsubmissions.Thisisintheinterestsofefficientcasemanagementandtheavoidanceofunnecessaryexpenseanddelay.WhilethemovetowardsaunifiedregimebasedontheUNCITRALModelLawisaverywelcomesimplicationofHongKongsarbitrationlawandonethatwillmakethelawmuchmorefamiliaranduser-friendlytopartiesandlawyersfromoutsideHongKongthenewlawdoespermitpartiestoagreetooptintoprovisionssimilartopartsoftheolddomesticregime.Theseincludeprovisionsconcerningthecourtspowertoconsolidatearbitrationsthedeterminationofpreliminaryquestionsoflawbythecourtandchallengesofawardstothecourtonaquestionoflaw.TheModelLawdoesnotitselfcontemplateapplicationstothecourtattheseatofthearbitrationforthedeterminationofpreliminaryquestionsoflaworforappealstothecourtattheseatonquestionsoflaw.UnderthepreviouslawinHongKongandundersections45and69oftheEnglishArbitrationAct1996suchapplicationswerepermittedunlessexcludedbythepartieseitherexpresslyorby