IN DETAIL: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Resolving Differences A new agreement between Hong Kong and mainland China will see significant improvements in the speed and process of arbitration enforcement for Greater Bay Area businesses in dispute. – By Christopher Short and Vivian Wong
T
he Hong Kong Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that it had entered into the “Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (Supplemental Arrangement) with the Chinese Supreme People’s Court. The DOJ says that the current Arrangement since February 2000 has provided a simple and effective mechanism in Hong Kong and mainland China to enable the reciprocal enforcement of arbitral awards arising out of crossborder business, but that after 20 years, the changes adopted in the Supplemental Agreement will “further refine the Arrangement”, and are “in accordance with the spirit of the New York Convention”. Notable cases have been published in Chinese and English (http://www.court.gov.cn/zixunxiangqing-275321.html) to provide practical assistance, especially to those involved in crossborder dispute resolution. Greater Bay Area (GBA) businesses in dispute are going to see significant improvements in speed and
24
process in the arbitration enforcement process in both jurisdictions. The principal changes in the Supplemental Agreement are contained within Articles 1 to 4.
Effect of Article 1 – Express provision on “recognition” The current Arrangement only covers the situation of enforcement (and not recognition), which has led to uncertainty over whether recognition is a pre-requisite to enforcement of an award. The situation has now been clarified and the enforcement of arbitral awards in either jurisdiction shall be interpreted as including the procedure of recognition and enforcement. Cross-border businesses in dispute will see the lowering of barriers as “procedures for enforcing arbitral awards of the Mainland or the HKSAR … shall be interpreted as including the procedures for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards”.
Effect of Article 2 – Broadening scope of arbitral awards The effect of the amendments in Article 2 is to
