搜尋結果
2019年10月25日 · On 1 October 2019, Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong bodies brought into force a reciprocal arrangement with significant implications for Hong Kong as a seat of arbitration. The arrangement allows the courts of each jurisdiction to award interim measures in support of arbitrations seated in the other territory.
2020年6月3日 · Hong Kong’s approach to public policy. In Hong Kong, the public policy defence has been adopted in Section 86 (2) (b) of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (“ Arbitration Ordinance ”). 1) The position of public policy is similarly of a high threshold as set out by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Hebei Import ...
2022年10月28日 · Judgment. In C v D, the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong held that the question of whether a pre-arbitration procedural requirement, such as negotiation, has been fulfilled or not is a question suitable for determination by an arbitral tribunal, i.e., a matter of admissibility.
2023年9月11日 · This two-part article provides an empirical analysis of hundreds of cases concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Mainland China between 2012 and 2022.
2022年10月28日 · Kluwer Arbitration Blog. C v D: Hong Kong in Step with the Admissibility Versus Jurisdiction Debate. Prakritee Yonzon (University of Hong Kong) · Friday, October 28th, 2022 · ArbitralWomen. The differences between admissibility and jurisdiction in arbitration have been recognized in various jurisdictions, such as the UK, US and ...
2022年3月1日 · At present, Hong Kong lawyers are prohibited from charging outcome related fees in arbitration. As discussed in a previous blog, the landscape started to change since the publication of a Consultation Paper by the Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration Sub-committee (the “ Sub-committee “) of the Law Reform Commission of ...
Continue reading. The Request for Suspension of the Proceeding in Ruby River Capital LLC v. Canada: Legal Issues and Political Context. Jean-Michel Marcoux ( Carleton University) / August 7, 2024 / Leave a comment. For the first time under Rule 54 (2) of the ICSID 2022 Arbitration Rules, the Tribunal in Ruby River Capital LLC v.
%20(site:arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com)&ck=0E8011E0F5415678AF68D5DBF99538C4&idpp=rc&idpview=singleimage&form=rc2idp "劉俊謙_(香港)1")
%20(site:arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com)&ck=9C525000573FB45B8A7E3076A92FDA3D&idpp=rc&idpview=singleimage&form=rc2idp "劉俊謙_(香港)2")
%20(site:arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com)&ck=4B954A76729FC61E3B5DE5871F4A0250&idpp=rc&idpview=singleimage&form=rc2idp "劉俊謙_(香港)3")
%20(site:arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com)&ck=84CE53E2B7E0806520826FDFD6DB25DC&idpp=rc&idpview=singleimage&form=rc2idp "劉俊謙_(香港)4")
%20(site:arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com)&ck=98290E1BD466EBCF9F8759C28EA5DAA8&idpp=rc&idpview=singleimage&form=rc2idp "劉俊謙_(香港)5")
