JSM International Arbitration newsletter: Third issue
We are delighted to present the third issue of the JSM International Arbitration Newsletter, continuing our commitment to delivering timely insights into key developments shaping the arbitration landscape in Hong Kong, Chinese Mainland and beyond.
This edition covers the period from July to September 2025, spotlighting recent judgments from Hong Kong, Chinese Mainland, Singapore and the UK. These cases underscore the evolving judicial attitudes toward procedural efficiency, enforcement of arbitral awards and the continued alignment of regional arbitration frameworks with international standards.
In addition to case law analysis, this issue explores industry trends and legislative updates, in particular the amendments to the PRC Arbitration Law. Whether you’re a seasoned practitioner or new to the field, we hope this newsletter remains your go-to resource for arbitration news and perspectives.
Notable Hong Kong cases | Mainland arbitration updates | Overseas jurisdictions observations
| Hong Kong court refuses to grant anti-suit injunction in first application to restrain Cayman winding-up proceedings in favour of arbitration
Hyalroute Communication Group Limited v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Ltd [2025] HKCFI 2417 1 August 2025 Summary: The plaintiff sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain winding-up proceedings commenced by the defendant in the Cayman Islands in favour of arbitration in Hong Kong. The relevant arbitration clause provided that any disputes arising out of or in connection with a term facility agreement (“TFA”) between the parties were to be referred to and “finally resolved” by binding arbitration administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. The Hong Kong Court of First Instance found that the clause imposed (i) an obligation on the parties to have disputes finally resolved by arbitration; and (ii) an obligation not to have disputes finally resolved in a forum not stipulated by the contract. The issue was therefore whether the Cayman winding-up proceedings would have the effect of finally resolving the dispute on the plaintiff’s indebtedness under the TFA. The court held that Cayman law must be considered in determining this question — and that Cayman law does not view a winding-up petition as substantively or finally resolving a dispute. The defendant’s offshore petition therefore did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause and the plaintiff’s anti-suit injunction application was dismissed. Takeaway: The decision is a notable addition to developing case law around the interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings. While the outcome seems to reflect a creditor-friendly approach, it flows from the court’s consideration of the use of the words “finally resolved” in the arbitration clause – and whether Cayman law views winding-up proceedings as finally resolving a dispute. Therefore, parties seeking to restrain foreign winding-up proceedings should be mindful of the scope of the arbitration agreement as indicated in its express language and whether the offshore proceedings are caught by the arbitration agreement. |
| Hong Kong court adopts UK Supreme Court and Privy Council’s jurisprudence in staying unfair prejudice petition for arbitration
Re Sirnaomics Limited [2025] HKCFI 4284 19 September 2025 Summary: The petitioners had previously exchanged their shares in a US company for shares in a Cayman Islands company (the “Company”) in anticipation of the Company’s listing on HKEX. They had also entered into a Members’ Agreement with the Company and its other shareholders, which contained an arbitration clause. Following the listing, the petitioners were issued share certificates with a restrictive legend to the effect that any transfer of their shares would require the Company’s approval. In response, they filed an unfair prejudice petition under section 724 of the Companies Ordinance, claiming the restriction was in breach of, inter alia, (i) a “tripartite understanding” among the Company’s shareholders and between the shareholders and the Company; and (ii) implied terms under the Company’s articles of association. The respondent Company and its founder applied for stay of the proceedings in favour of arbitration. In considering whether the dispute falls within the ambit of the arbitration agreement, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance adopted the principles laid down by the Privy Council in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holdings Corp. [2023] 2 248 CLC and the UK Supreme Court in Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and others [2023] Bus LR 1359. In particular: (i) the court should not be “overly respectful” to the petitioner’s formulations aimed at avoiding arbitration, nor to the respondent’s defence which may be equally designed to avoid adjudication by court; and (ii) the overarching consideration of the court is the true substance of the matter of dispute. In this case, although the petitioners framed their claim as independent of the Members’ Agreement, relying on the Listing Rules and implied terms, the court held that the Members’ Agreement was legally relevant and central to the dispute because the petitioners’ rights to removal of the restrictive legend depended on it – so the true substance of the petitioners’ claim is enforcement of a clause in the Members’ Agreement relating to restrictive legends, which falls within the ambit of the arbitration agreement. Thus, the applications for stay were allowed. Takeaway: Parties should remember that the court takes a practical and common-sense approach in ascertaining the substance of a dispute. The court will not be easily swayed by pleadings crafted carefully to circumvent arbitration (or to avoid litigation, as the case may be). |
| Hong Kong court continues worldwide Mareva injunction in aid of post-arbitration enforcement
Flame Asia Resources Pte Ltd v Full Idea Trading Limited and Others [2025] HKCFI 4139 5 September 2025 Summary: The plaintiff had previously obtained from the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (i) leave to enforce two arbitral awards against a company (the “Company”); (ii) disclosure orders against the Company; and (iii) disclosure orders against certain banks for banking documents of the Company and the first defendant. It was discovered that the Company had dissipated the cash in its bank account by transfers to the first and second defendants during the arbitration. The transfers were authorised by the third defendant and indirectly benefitted the third and fourth defendants. The plaintiff then brought an action against the defendants for (i) unlawful means conspiracy and (ii) procuring breach of the arbitration agreement, obtaining an ex parte interim worldwide Mareva injunction against the second to fourth defendants. In ordering a continuation of the injunction, the court found there was a real risk of dissipation of assets given that, inter alia, the conduct of the defendants showed a flagrant disregard of arbitration awards and court orders, as well as a lack of commercial morality. The court also stated that in a post-arbitration enforcement action it would be more inclined to grant the injunction to enable effective enforcement. Takeaway: This is yet another illustration of the readiness of Hong Kong courts to facilitate enforcement of arbitral awards by granting / continuing worldwide Mareva injunctions in related separate civil proceedings. In particular, parties ignoring arbitral awards and disclosure orders may well be seen in the eyes of the court as having “no commercial morality”, which can be an important factor of the court in weighing whether there is a real risk of dissipation when granting or continuing a Mareva injunction. |
| Hong Kong court finds taxation of costs non-arbitrable in solicitor-client dispute
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (a firm) v Sunshine Success Global Inc. and Anor. [2025] HKCFI 4567 30 September 2025 Summary: The plaintiffs were previously engaged by the defendants to provide legal services under an Engagement Letter and Terms of Retention, both of which contained a clause providing for resolution of disputes by HKIAC arbitration. Following the defendants’ non-payment of five bills issued by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs issued an Originating Summons for taxation under section 67(2) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (“LPO”). The defendants opposed the Originating Summons on the grounds that, inter alia, the defendants were severally liable to pay the plaintiffs’ fees (Several Liability Ground), and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any remuneration because of alleged professional negligence (Negligence Ground). The defendants further sought a stay of the Originating Summons pending resolution of the negligence claim. Departing from the view expressed in Fung Hing Chiu Cyril v Henry Wai & Co [2018] 1 HKLRD 808 that applications for taxation under the LPO are capable of being submitted to arbitration, Madam Justice Au-Yeung in this case revisited Assaubayev v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2014] 6 Costs LR 1058 (as considered in Henry Wai & Co) and decided that applications for taxation of costs under Part VI of LPO (and under the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors) cannot be resolved by arbitration. Further, the Terms of Retention had expressly preserved the LPO’s operation. It was therefore held that taxation of the bills should be handled by the court rather than in arbitration. That said, as the Several Liability Ground and Negligence Ground were both issues that should be referred to arbitration, the court ordered a stay of the Originating Summons pending resolution of these issues – on the condition that the defendants commence arbitration within 21 days. Takeaway: While disputes over liability and alleged negligence are arbitrable, this case confirms that within the context of a solicitor-client dispute over fees, taxation of legal costs under the LPO is non-arbitrable – at least when the terms of engagement have not displaced the LPO. |
| Free access to HKIAC Case Digest and new Jus Mundi partnership
1 July 2025 Summary: On 10 April 2025, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) announced that the HKIAC Case Digest will be freely accessible, starting 1 July 2025. Launched in 2021 and awarded Best Innovation in 2022, this offers insights into HKIAC’s procedures, covering decisions, as well as analysis of different procedural issues by HKIAC’s Proceedings Committee and Appointment Committee. This move providing access supports HKIAC’s goals of transparency and innovation. Partnering with Jus Mundi, HKIAC will use Jus AI to generate consistent, high-quality procedural decision summaries. Takeaway: HKIAC’s free Case Digest, powered by Jus Mundi’s AI, enhances access to arbitration insights and procedural transparency, marking a significant step forward in legal tech and dispute resolution innovation. |
| Hong Kong Chief Executive’s 2025 Policy Address proposes measures to promote arbitration development
17 September 2025 Summary: Hong Kong’s Chief Executive announced a number of arbitration-related initiatives in his annual Policy Address on 17 September 2025. Key measures include:
Takeaway: These initiatives mark a promising step towards Hong Kong’s goal in establishing itself as an international legal and dispute resolution services centre. |
| PRC adopts newly revised Arbitration Law
12 September 2025 Summary: The Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress adopted the newly revised PRC Arbitration Law (the “Revised Law”), which will take effect on 1 March 2026. The Revised Law introduces extensive and significant reforms, featuring:
Takeaway: The Revised Law marks a major step towards a more transparent and open arbitration framework in the PRC that aligns with international standards. However, it remains the case that tribunals do not have the power to order interim measures – and despite the new power of the tribunal to rule on the validity of the arbitration agreement, the court’s determination on the tribunal’s jurisdiction will prevail. While it enhances flexibility and efficiency in dispute resolution, the Revised Law also requires parties to draft arbitration agreements with greater care to avoid ambiguity and fully benefit from the new legal landscape. |
| Recommended list of arbitrators established by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission for securities and futures disputes
1 July 2025 Summary: The China (Shanghai) Securities and Futures Arbitration Centre, established by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission (SHAC) in 2021, recently released a pilot list (the “List”) of 90 experienced arbitrators selected from SHAC’s existing roster who specialise in securities and futures disputes. SHAC will appoint arbitrators from this List as chief or sole arbitrators in relevant cases, although parties may still select arbitrators freely under SHAC’s Arbitration Rules. The List took effect on 30 June 2025 and remain valid until the end of the current committee’s term. Takeaway: The List of 90 arbitrators with expertise in securities and futures disputes reinforces SHAC’s commitment to specialised and credible dispute resolution. The List will guide appointments in relevant cases while preserving party autonomy under SHAC’s Arbitration Rules. This initiative reflects SHAC’s ongoing efforts to enhance professionalism and transparency in financial arbitration. |
| First case under Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Court’s fast-track mediation rules concluded in just seven days
4 July 2025 Summary: The Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre (BAC/ BIAC) introduced its new Fast-Track Mediation-Arbitration Procedure Rules (the “Rules”) on 15 April 2025 – an initiative designed to streamline dispute resolution. According to BAC/BIAC, the first case under the Rules, a shareholder dispute, was resolved in just seven days, exemplifying the procedure’s efficiency. The Rules introduce tailored processes and reduced fee structures, offering a significantly more cost-effective alternative to traditional arbitration and litigation. This initiative reflects BAC/BIAC’s commitment to flexible, efficient and cost-effective services, supporting Beijing’s rise as a global arbitration hub and marking a shift from procedural adaptation to rule-making leadership. Takeaway: The Rules represent a meaningful advancement in the pursuit of efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution. The remarkably swift resolution of the first case within just seven days highlights the tangible benefits of this streamlined mechanism. By introducing greater procedural flexibility and affordability, the Rules not only enhance user experience but also strengthen Beijing’s standing as a dynamic and innovative centre for international arbitration. |
| Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) launches new Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol
26 August 2025 Summary: The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) introduced the SIAC Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol (the “RIA Protocol”) with immediate effect. The RIA Protocol is the first mechanism of its kind that specifically deals with resolution of disputes in context of restructuring, adjustment of debt and insolvency. It adopts and modifies existing SIAC Rules to adapt to the insolvency context and ensure efficient conduct of proceedings. Notable features include:
Takeaway: The RIA Protocol – accompanied by a Guidance Note and model clauses – reinforces Singapore’s position as a prominent seat for complex insolvency-related disputes. It expedites arbitration proceedings by providing for shorter timelines, a welcome development for practitioners and other stakeholders given the urgency of insolvency disputes. |
| Ciarb publishes 2025 Guideline on Third-Party Funding
11 September 2025 Summary: The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has published the 2025 Guideline on Third-Party Funding (the “2025 Guideline”) to explain the functions and procedure of third-party funding (“TPF”) for arbitration stakeholders, including parties, funders and tribunals. The 2025 Guideline is structured in two parts. Part 1 outlines the key stages and considerations in the funding process, including pricing models, types of funding arrangements, contractual terms and a balanced overview of the advantages and disadvantages of TPF. Part 2 addresses the practical implications of TPF in arbitration proceedings, such as disclosure obligations for the funded parties, conflicts of interest, confidentiality concerns and cost recovery mechanisms. Takeaway: The 2025 Guideline provides a comprehensive and practical roadmap for arbitration stakeholders navigating third-party funding. It offers valuable clarity on the expectations and responsibilities of all stakeholders. |
| Singapore International Commercial Court upholds arbitral award despite alleged breach of natural justice and public policy
DNO v DNP [2025] SGHCI 24 18 September 2025 Summary: DNO applied to set aside a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) arbitral award in favour of DNP, a commodities trader, arising from eight contracts for the sale of raw cashew nuts disrupted by COVID-19 and governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 July 2020. DNO claimed standing as successor to a partnership firm involved in the arbitration. The challenge was based on alleged breach of natural justice and conflict with public policy under the International Arbitration Act. The SIAC dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness in the tribunal’s refusal to allow amendments and no public policy violation. The award, which upheld DNP’s right to terminate the MOU and sell the cargo, granted damages of around USD 33,000 and INR 22.3 million plus interest. Takeaway: The Singapore International Commercial Court reaffirmed its pro-arbitration stance by rejecting attempts to set aside an award based on unfounded alleged breaches of natural justice and public policy. This highlights the court’s strict approach to standing and its reluctance to interfere with arbitral outcomes absent clear procedural violations. |
| English Court of Appeal dismisses arbitration appeal due to late filing under a contractual deadline
Eronat v CNPC International (Chad) Ltd & Cliveden Petroleum Co Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1054 1 August 2025 Summary: The appellant, Friedhelm Eronat, sought permission to appeal an arbitral award on a question of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitration arose from a dispute over indemnity obligations under a 2003 Deed of Indemnity governed by Hong Kong law, with arbitration seated in England under LCIA Rules. The tribunal awarded CNPC and Cliveden USD 324 million, which they had paid to a third party in settlement. The key issue was whether the contractual time limit for appeal – namely, “within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered” – ran from the date the award was made (11 April 2024) or the date it was sent to the parties (16 April 2024). The court held that “rendered” referred to the date the award was made, not communicated. As the appeal was filed by the appellant on 16 May 2024, it was five days out of time. The court also found that the parties had expressly waived the right to apply for an extension of time under the Arbitration Act. Even if such a right had existed, the High Court would not have exercised its discretion to extend time due to lack of explanation for the delay and the importance of finality in arbitration. Takeaway: This case emphasises the importance of precise contractual language in arbitration agreements, particularly regarding time limits for appeals. Parties should also be aware of the consequences for waiving procedural rights, including the right to extend time. The decision additionally reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding arbitration finality and respecting agreed procedural frameworks. |
Contact(s)
Subscribe
Follow our insights
