The Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Justice Jointly Issue the "Opinions on Fully Leveraging the Functions of Arbitration to Support the High-Quality Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area"

To implement the decisions and plans of the Central Government on advancing the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA), fully utilize the functions and advantages of the arbitration system, foster a market-oriented, law-based, and internationalized business environment, and support the high-quality development of the GBA, the Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Justice recently issued the "Opinions on Fully Leveraging the Functions of Arbitration to Support the High-Quality Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions").

The "Opinions" clarify the "Hong Kong (Macao) Capital, Hong Kong (Macao) Arbitration" system, stipulating that Hong Kong- and Macao-invested enterprises established in the nine mainland cities of the GBA may choose either the mainland or Hong Kong/Macao as the arbitration seat to resolve commercial disputes.

The "Opinions" provide detailed implementation measures for planning and establishing an International Commercial Arbitration Center in the GBA. They emphasize the need to accelerate the development of world-class arbitration institutions in the region, integrating the pilot projects of the Guangzhou and Shenzhen International Commercial Arbitration Centers with the development of the Hong Kong and Macao International Legal and Dispute Resolution Service Centers. The goal is to build an International Commercial Arbitration Center in the GBA, establish unified arbitration rules and an online dispute resolution platform, and create an internationally leading arbitration hub with global influence, thereby enhancing the credibility and international competitiveness of China's arbitration system.

Additionally, the "Opinions" set forth requirements for expanding the service scope of arbitration institutions in the nine mainland cities of the GBA, improving the coordination mechanisms between arbitration and litigation, enhancing judicial support and oversight mechanisms, and sharing resources among arbitrators and arbitration secretaries in Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao. They also propose establishing an information-sharing mechanism between the people's courts, judicial administrative authorities, and arbitration institutions, as well as a joint training mechanism for international arbitration professionals.

Dalian International Arbitration Court Releases "Twenty Measures to Support and Safeguard the High-Quality Development of the Private Economy"

On February 19, the Dalian Arbitration Commission/Dalian International Arbitration Court issued the "Twenty Measures to Support and Safeguard the High-Quality Development of the Private Economy." The initiative aims to implement the spirit of the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee and the Opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on Promoting the Development and Growth of the Private Economy. It seeks to optimize the business environment for private enterprises, enhance arbitration services, and lawfully protect the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises.

The twenty measures are structured around six key areas:

A. Creating a fair and just arbitration environment to lawfully protect the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises.

B. Establishing a diversified dispute resolution platform to expand the available channels for private enterprises to resolve disputes.

C. Leveraging the professional advantages of arbitration to strengthen the rule of law safeguards for the private economy.

D. Optimizing and innovating arbitration services to provide a comprehensive and high-quality arbitration experience for private enterprises.

E. Actively building a public-interest legal exchange platform to enhance the precision and effectiveness of services for private enterprises.

F. Strengthening legal awareness and public education to foster a societal environment that upholds and protects the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises.

HKIAC Releases 2024 Case Statistics

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has recently published its 2024 case statistics, highlighting key developments:

Record-High Case Volume and Dispute Amounts

In 2024, HKIAC handled 503 cases, including 352 arbitration cases involving 510 contracts, marking an all-time high. Among these, 249 cases were administered institutional arbitrations, with a total dispute amount of HKD 106 billion (approximately USD 13.6 billion). The average dispute amount per case reached HKD 375 million (approximately USD 48.1 million).

High Degree of Internationalization

HKIAC arbitration cases involved parties from 53 jurisdictions, with international arbitration accounting for 76.4% of cases. The main jurisdictions of parties included Hong Kong, China, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Singapore, the United States, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, the Marshall Islands, and the Philippines.

Seat of Arbitration and Governing Law

The majority of cases were seated in Hong Kong, with other seats including London and Dubai. The cases involved 15 governing laws, primarily Hong Kong law, English law, and Chinese law.

Arbitrator Appointments and Diversity

In 2024, HKIAC appointed 199 arbitrators, with 34.7% being female and 36.7% being first-time appointees. Additionally, HKIAC confirmed 220 arbitrators nominated by parties or co-arbitrators. The new arbitration rules introduced diversity provisions, leading to a 6% year-on-year increase in female arbitrator nominations.

Decisions by the Proceedings Committee

HKIAC’s Proceedings Committee issued 67 decisions in 2024, including 18 on multi-contract arbitrations, 14 on non-signatory arbitrations, and 12 on expedited procedures.

Tribunal Secretary Services

In 2024, HKIAC’s Tribunal Secretary Service received 13 appointments, covering cases conducted in both Chinese and English. Since its launch in 2014, this service has been utilized in over 120 arbitration cases.

Increase in Interim Measures Applications

HKIAC processed 40 interim measures applications in 2024, involving a total amount of RMB 9.1 billion (approximately USD 1.2 billion), marking a 100% increase compared to the previous year. Mainland Chinese courts issued 31 orders, granting security measures for RMB 6.3 billion (approximately USD 865 million).

Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court: Two Arbitration Applications Were Based on Different Facts, No Repeated Arbitration Found

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China"

Article 58

Where the parties concerned can provide evidence disproving the arbitration award in any of the following circumstances, they may request a cancellation of the arbitration award by an intermediate People's Court at the place where the arbitration commission is located:

(1) there was no arbitration agreement;

(2) items for arbitration were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement or were those upon which the arbitration commission had no right to arbitrate;

(3) the establishment of the arbitration tribunal or arbitration procedures are in contravention of legal proceedings;

(4) the evidence upon which the arbitration award is made was counterfeit;

(5) the other party has concealed evidence to the degree that fairness has been affected;

(6) arbitrators have accepted bribes, resorted to deception for personal gain or perverted the course of justice by the award.

Where the People's Court has formed a collegiate bench and has examined and verified that the award was made under one of the aforesaid situations, it shall order the cancellation of the award.

Where the People's Court decides that it should make a ruling to the effect that there has been a violation of the public interest, it shall order the cancellation of the award.

Case Description：

On April 9, 2018, Zhu Mouyong signed a Labor Subcontract with Chongqing Runmou Construction Labor Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Runmou Company"), stipulating that Zhu would undertake the project designated by Runmou Company and settle the payment in accordance with the contract. A dispute later arose over the payment of remaining project funds. On July 30, 2021, the Chongqing Arbitration Commission issued the arbitration award [(2021) Yu Zhong Zi No. 821], dismissing Zhu’s claim on the grounds that the Settlement Summary of Zhu Mouyong’s External Scaffolding Team (hereinafter referred to as the "Settlement Summary") submitted by Zhu lacked corroborating evidence, making it impossible to confirm that the project payment had been settled.

On August 31, 2022, the Kunming Intermediate People’s Court rendered a civil judgment [(2022) Yun 01 Min Zhong 7534], which stated that "Xu Guangyue, an employee of Runmou Company and Tuoda Company, signed and confirmed the cost management section," corroborating that the disputed project payment had been settled. On June 27, 2024, based on this new settlement fact, Zhu Mouyong filed another arbitration application with the Chongqing Arbitration Commission, demanding that Runmou Company pay the remaining project funds and interest. On September 23, 2024, the Chongqing Arbitration Commission issued the arbitration award [(2024) Yu Zhong Zi No. 2312], ordering Runmou Company to pay Zhu the remaining project funds of 238,045.48 yuan plus interest.

In this case, the applicant Runmou Company argued that the Chongqing Arbitration Commission had already issued the [(2021) Yu Zhong Zi No. 821] award in 2021, making this case a duplicate arbitration that violated Article 9 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “one-time final adjudication” principle). Additionally, Runmou Company alleged that the Settlement Summary relied on by the arbitration tribunal was forged and applied to revoke the [(2024) Yu Zhong Zi No. 2312] arbitration award.

Court's View:

Regarding the issue of duplicate arbitration, pursuant to Article 248 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, if new facts emerge after a judgment takes effect, the case may be re-examined. The Kunming Intermediate Court’s [(2022) Yun 01 Min Zhong 7534] judgment and the signed Settlement Summary constituted new facts, providing a distinct legal basis from the prior case. Thus, this was not duplicate arbitration, and the arbitration tribunal had the authority to render a new award.

Regarding the authenticity of evidence, the court held that evidentiary issues fall within the arbitration tribunal’s discretionary authority and are not subject to judicial review. Article 58 of the Arbitration Law limits judicial review to the legality of arbitral procedures and the tribunal’s exercise of authority, excluding substantive evidentiary determinations. The tribunal had reviewed the evidence and deemed the Settlement Summary and the Kunming court’s judgment as new evidence. Even if Runmou Company questioned their authenticity, this did not constitute statutory grounds for the court to revoke the award.

Final Ruling, the court ruled that Runmou Company’s grounds for revoking the arbitration award were unfounded. In accordance with Articles 58 and 60 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court dismissed Runmou Company’s application.

Singapore High Court: Cautious Approach to Conflicts Between International Arbitration and Foreign Court Proceedings, Emphasizing Comity and Duty of Disclosure While Respecting the Autonomy of Arbitration

STS and Wansa, both Singaporean companies engaged in freight logistics and bauxite trading respectively, entered into a Transportation Contract in March 2023. The contract stipulated that STS would provide barge transportation services for Wansa’s bauxite operations in Guinea, with a minimum daily loading capacity of 25,000 tons, and included a Singapore arbitration clause. In April 2024, a dispute arose over contractual performance. Wansa accused STS of failing to meet the minimum loading requirements and providing services to third parties without authorization, filing a lawsuit in the Guinean courts seeking specific performance and claiming liquidated damages. STS defended itself by arguing that Wansa had failed to meet port condition standards and invoked the arbitration clause to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.

In the Guinean courts, Wansa successfully obtained multiple injunctions and asset preservation orders. Meanwhile, STS initiated arbitration at the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA) and applied to the Singapore High Court in July 2024 for an anti-suit injunction and declaratory relief to halt Wansa’s proceedings in Guinea. After deliberation, the Singapore High Court ultimately revoked the interim anti-suit injunction and dismissed STS’s requests for a permanent anti-suit injunction and declaratory relief.

Court's View：

The court acknowledged that Wansa’s litigation in Guinea indeed breached the parties’ arbitration agreement. Under Singapore law, a party violating an arbitration agreement may be restrained from pursuing foreign court proceedings. However, the court noted that STS’s application was unduly delayed, and the Guinean proceedings had already progressed significantly. STS had submitted substantive defenses in the Guinean courts and awaited a ruling, indicating its acceptance of the Guinean jurisdiction. Consequently, the court ruled that, based on comity, it would not intervene in the Guinean proceedings at this stage. The court further cited precedents to emphasize that even if foreign court rulings are interim, granting an anti-suit injunction could constitute indirect interference with foreign judicial processes, warranting cautious exercise of such powers.

Regarding STS’s request for declaratory relief, the court held that since STS had already raised the same issue in the arbitration—i.e., alleging Wansa’s breach of the arbitration agreement—the dispute should first be determined by the arbitral tribunal. Under the International Arbitration Act and the UNCITRAL Model Law, arbitral tribunals possess kompetenz-kompetenz (competence-competence) to rule on their own jurisdiction. In this case, Wansa argued that STS’s conduct constituted a waiver or termination of the arbitration agreement, a dispute that falls within the tribunal’s purview rather than the court’s. Thus, the court dismissed STS’s request for declaratory relief to avoid encroaching on the arbitration process.

The court also highlighted that STS failed to fully disclose critical information when applying for the interim anti-suit injunction, amounting to material non-disclosure. First, STS did not inform the court of the Guinean court’s JUD 178 Judgment dated May 23, 2024, which rejected STS’s jurisdictional challenge, found it in breach of contractual obligations, and ordered compensation. Second, STS omitted disclosure of its multiple applications and appeals filed in the Guinean courts, all of which were material to the court’s decision on granting interim relief. The court concluded that STS’s non-disclosure was deliberate and lacked reasonable justification, leading to the revocation of the interim injunction. The court reiterated that applicants for interim injunctions must act with candor and provide full factual disclosures.

On Wansa’s claim for damages, the court ruled that while STS had not provided an undertaking in damages when seeking the interim injunction, such an undertaking is presumed by law unless expressly disclaimed. Citing precedents, the court noted that enforcing such an undertaking requires proof that the injunction was wrongly sought and that special circumstances exist. Here, while STS’s application was improper, Wansa failed to provide evidence of actual loss. Thus, the court rejected Wansa’s damages claim.

In Conclusion, he court revoked the interim anti-suit injunction, dismissed STS’s application for a permanent injunction, and rejected Wansa’s claim for damages.