Arbitration in Hong Kong in 2026: Cap. 609, the Arbitration Law Reform Programme and HKIAC Statistics

August 28, 2026

Arbitration in Hong Kong is governed by Cap. 609, the Arbitration Ordinance — a statute built on the 2006 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law and in force since 1 June 2011. As at this article’s verification date the consolidated text of Cap. 609 carries a version date of 16 December 2022: the last instrument to amend it was Ordinance No. 6 of 2022 on outcome related fee structures (ORFS). The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, HKIAC, registered 582 new cases in 2025, of which 388 were arbitrations, with a total amount in dispute of HKD 126.2 billion.

⚠️ The essential point about the “2026 reform”. No enacted 2026 statute reforming Hong Kong arbitration exists. The Legislative Council’s bills database contains no arbitration bill for 2024, 2025 or 2026, and Cap. 609 itself has not changed since 16 December 2022. The “2026 reform” is a legislative programme in progress: the Department of Justice established a Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform in October 2025 and told the Legislative Council on 24 June 2026 that it operates “with a view to advancing the relevant legislative amendment work within 2026”. Any material stating that Hong Kong “reformed” its arbitration law in 2026 is wrong.

What Arbitration Means Under Hong Kong Law, and Why Cap. 609 Is Built the Way It Is

Cap. 609 is a unitary arbitration statute that abolished the former domestic/international divide and replaced the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341). Its purpose is stated in the instrument itself: “An Ordinance to reform the law relating to arbitration, and to provide for related and consequential matters.” Its commencement appears on the face of the statute: [1 June 2011] L.N. 38 of 2011.

The practical effect of unification is that an arbitration seated in Hong Kong is governed by one and the same regime by default, whether the parties are Hong Kong or foreign. Differences survive only where the parties have chosen them — through the opt-in provisions of Schedule 2, examined below.

Three features distinguish the Hong Kong construction from most Model Law jurisdictions:

First, the Model Law is written into the statute article by article rather than annexed wholesale. Each Model Law article takes effect through a distinct section of Cap. 609 — and some articles are expressly deprived of effect. This allows surgical departures, but it means the statute, not the Model Law, has to be read.

Second, Hong Kong adopted the 2006 version of the Model Law, not the 1985 version. The definition in section 2 of Cap. 609 reads: “UNCITRAL Model Law … means the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as adopted by the Commission on 21 June 1985 and as amended by the Commission on 7 July 2006, the full text of which is set out in Schedule 1.” The practical consequence is the fully incorporated Chapter IV A on interim measures (Articles 17 to 17J), absent in jurisdictions still on the 1985 text.

Third, Hong Kong is the only jurisdiction whose awards reach Mainland China through a dedicated intergovernmental mechanism and whose parties may ask Mainland courts for interim relief before an award is made. This flows not from the New York Convention but from bilateral Arrangements between the Mainland and the SAR.

A comparison with the UAE, which is built on an entirely different architecture — Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 and the DIAC and arbitrateAD institutions — is covered separately by UPPERSETUP: commercial arbitration in the UAE in 2026.

The Regulatory Framework: the Complete Amendment Chain of Cap. 609

Cap. 609 is Ordinance No. 17 of 2010; the ordinance itself was gazetted on 12 November 2010, and the statute was brought into operation on 1 June 2011 by L.N. 38 of 2011.

Seven ordinances have amended it: six arbitration-specific ones and one consequential. All are named expressly in the source notes to the consolidated text. The full chain follows, with the ordinance gazette date and what each instrument did stated separately.

Amending ordinance	Gazetted	What it inserted or changed	Key dates
Ordinance No. 28 of 2012 — the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622)	10 August 2012	A consequential amendment: sections 912 and 920 of that ordinance amended the definition of “HKIAC” in s. 2(1) of Cap. 609	No effect on arbitration substance
Ordinance No. 7 of 2013	19 July 2013	Added Division 4 of Part 10 (ss. 98A–98D)— recognition and enforcement of Macao awards; replaced s. 86(1)(a); amended s. 92	Implements the Macao Arrangement signed 7 January 2013
Ordinance No. 11 of 2015	17 July 2015	Amended ss. 23(3), 102 and 111 and section 1 of Schedule 2; added Part 2 of Schedule 3	2015
Ordinance No. 5 of 2017	23 June 2017	Added Part 11A (ss. 103A–103J) — arbitrability of intellectual property rights disputes	Gazetted 23 June 2017; Part 11A in force 1 January 2018, except s. 103J from 19 December 2019
Ordinance No. 6 of 2017	23 June 2017	Added Part 10A (ss. 98E–98X) — third party funding of arbitration	Passed 14 June 2017, gazetted 23 June 2017; Divisions 1, 2, 4 and 6 on gazettal, Divisions 3 and 5 from 1 February 2019
Ordinance No. 1 of 2021	19 March 2021	By s. 3 added the definition of “Mainland”to s. 2(1) and amended the definition of “Mainland award”; by ss. 4 and 5 repealed ss. 93 and 97	Implements the Supplemental Arrangement with Mainland China signed 27 November 2020; Part 2 in force 19 May 2021
Ordinance No. 6 of 2022	30 June 2022	Added Part 10B (ss. 98Y–98ZU) — outcome related fee structures	Gazetted 30 June 2022; fully in force 16 December 2022

The version date of the consolidated Cap. 609 is 16 December 2022. That is the date the statute last changed.

The text additionally carries editorial revisions (E.R. 2 of 2014, omitting the enacting provision; E.R. 3 of 2015 and E.R. 1 of 2018, format changes), which do not alter substance, and L.N. 38 of 2011, the commencement notice.

A point frequently reported wrongly: the definition of the UNCITRAL Model Law in s. 2(1) has not been amended.The note “(Amended E.R. 1 of 2018; 1 of 2021 s. 3)” attaches to subsection 2(1) as a whole, not to the last definition in alphabetical order; what Ordinance No. 1 of 2021 actually did in that section was add the definition of “Mainland” and amend the definition of “Mainland award”.

The international and inter-territorial layer

Instrument	Status for Hong Kong	Implementation in Hong Kong law
New York Convention 1958	Applies to Hong Kong	ss. 87–91 Cap. 609; the list of parties is set by order (s. 90)
UNCITRAL Model Law, 2006 version	The basis of the statute	Schedule 1 to Cap. 609; each article enacted by a separate section
Arrangement on mutual enforcement of arbitral awards between the Mainland and the HKSAR	Signed 21 June 1999, effective 1 February 2000	ss. 92–98 Cap. 609
Supplemental Arrangement to it	Signed 27 November 2020	Ordinance No. 1 of 2021; repeal of ss. 93 and 97
Arrangement on mutual assistance in court-ordered interim measures in aid of arbitration	Signed 2 April 2019, effective 1 October 2019	ss. 45(2), 60(1), 61 and 22B Cap. 609
Arrangement with the Macao SAR	Signed 7 January 2013	ss. 98A–98D Cap. 609 (Ordinance No. 7 of 2013)

A distinction frequently blurred: the New York Convention and the Mainland Arrangements are different mechanisms. An award made in Mainland China is enforced in Hong Kong not under the Convention but under Division 2 of Part 10 of Cap. 609 (ss. 92–98), because Hong Kong and the Mainland are parts of one state and the Convention does not operate between them. Choosing the wrong statutory gateway is a way to lose an enforcement application on a formality.

Subsidiary legislation

Instrument	Subject matter
Arbitration (Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration) Rules (Cap. 609D)	Conditions and limits on outcome-related fee agreements

How Cap. 609 Incorporates the Model Law: Which Articles Have Effect and Which Do Not

Every article of the UNCITRAL Model Law takes effect in Hong Kong through a separate section of Cap. 609, and four Model Law articles are expressly deprived of effect. This makes reading the Model Law alone useless: what is legally operative is the text of the Cap. 609 section, not the Model Law article standing on its own.

The mapping that matters in practice:

Cap. 609 section	Model Law article	Subject
s. 20	Article 8	Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before a court (stay)
s. 21	Article 9	Arbitration agreement and court-ordered interim measures
s. 23	Article 10	Number of arbitrators
s. 24	Article 11	Appointment of arbitrators
s. 25	Article 12	Grounds for challenge
s. 26	Article 13	Challenge procedure
s. 34	Article 16	Competence of the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction
ss. 35–43	Articles 17–17H	Tribunal-ordered interim measures: power, conditions, preliminary orders, modification, security, disclosure, costs, recognition and enforcement
s. 44	Article 17I	Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of an interim measure — DOES NOT HAVE EFFECT
s. 45(1)	Article 17J	Court-ordered interim measures — DOES NOT HAVE EFFECT; Hong Kong’s own rule in s. 45(2)–(6) applies instead
s. 46	Article 18	Equal treatment of the parties
s. 47	Article 19	Determination of rules of procedure
s. 81	Article 34	Application for setting aside as exclusive recourse
s. 82	Article 35	Recognition and enforcement — DOES NOT HAVE EFFECT
s. 83	Article 36	Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement — DOES NOT HAVE EFFECT

Four sections of Cap. 609 deprive the corresponding Model Law articles of effect using the same formula: section 44 — “Article 17I of the UNCITRAL Model Law does not have effect”; section 45(1) — the same for Article 17J; section 82 — “Article 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law does not have effect”; section 83 — the same for Article 36.

This is a design decision, not a drafting detail, and it is made twice. On interim measures Hong Kong discarded Articles 17I and 17J and wrote its own rule in section 45(2): “On the application of any party, the Court may, in relation to any arbitral proceedings which have been or are to be commenced in or outside Hong Kong, grant an interim measure.” On enforcement Hong Kong replaced the Model Law machinery with its own, more elaborate Part 10 regime: general enforcement under s. 84, refusal grounds under s. 86, and separate regimes for Convention awards (ss. 87–91), Mainland awards (ss. 92–98) and Macao awards (ss. 98A–98D). A lawyer looking for refusal grounds in Article 36 of the Model Law will not find an applicable provision.

The Arbitration Agreement, the Stay of Court Proceedings, and the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

A Hong Kong court must refer the parties to arbitration where the subject matter of the claim falls within a valid arbitration agreement; the tribunal’s own jurisdiction is decided by the tribunal itself under Article 16 of the Model Law, enacted by section 34 of Cap. 609.

Three levels of that mechanism, which must not be conflated:

Level 1 — form of the agreement. Section 19 of Cap. 609 enacts Article 7 of the Model Law (Option I) with Hong Kong additions, including recognition of agreements concluded electronically and incorporation of an arbitration clause by reference.

Level 2 — the stay of court proceedings. Section 20 enacts Article 8: the court refers the parties to arbitration unless it finds the agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The threshold for refusing a stay is high in Hong Kong practice.

Level 3 — what the tribunal decides and what the court decides. This is where the most important modern distinction in Hong Kong arbitration law sits. In C v D, FACV 1/2023, [2023] HKCFA 16, judgment of 30 June 2023, (2023) 26 HKCFAR 216, the Court of Final Appeal held that compliance with a pre-arbitration condition in a multi-tiered clause (negotiation, mediation or expert determination before arbitration) goes to the admissibility of the claim, which is for the tribunal, and not to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and is therefore not reviewable by the court on a setting-aside application.

The practical consequence of C v D: an argument that the claimant “did not observe the mandatory negotiation stage” will almost never ground the setting aside of a Hong Kong award. The objection has to be taken to the tribunal and decided there.

A qualification on unanimity worth knowing: the admissibility/jurisdiction distinction was adopted by the majority as “a helpful aid to construction”. Gummow NPJ agreed that the appeal should be dismissed but regarded the distinction itself as unnecessary. It is inaccurate to say the Court adopted it unanimously.

Tax disputes in Hong Kong run on an entirely different track, covered separately: disputing an IRD assessment in 2026.

Interim Measures: Three Separate Mechanisms That Must Be Distinguished

In Hong Kong, interim relief in aid of arbitration is available through three independent channels: from the tribunal itself, from an emergency arbitrator, and from a court — including Mainland Chinese courts. Conflating the channels is the most common tactical error at the early stage of a dispute.

Channel 1 — tribunal-ordered interim measures

Sections 35 to 43 of Cap. 609 enact Chapter IV A of the 2006 Model Law: the tribunal’s power (Article 17), conditions for granting (17A), preliminary orders (17B, 17C), modification and termination (17D), provision of security (17E), disclosure (17F), costs and damages (17G) and recognition and enforcement (17H). Article 17I, on the grounds for refusing recognition of an interim measure, has no effect: section 44 switches it off expressly.

Separately, section 61 of Cap. 609 makes a tribunal’s orders and directions enforceable in the same manner as an order of the court — but only with the leave of the court.

Channel 2 — the emergency arbitrator

Section 22B of Cap. 609 provides that any emergency relief granted by an emergency arbitrator under the relevant arbitration rules, “whether in or outside Hong Kong”, is enforceable in the same manner as an order or direction of the court, but only with the leave of the court.

For relief granted outside Hong Kong, section 22B(2) imposes a limit: the court may not grant leave unless the applicant demonstrates that the relief consists only of one or more temporary measures by which the emergency arbitrator orders a party to maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute, or to take action that would prevent — or to refrain from action likely to cause — current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process.

The limit bites in practice: a foreign emergency arbitrator’s decision ordering payment of money, or security for a claim, will not be enforced in Hong Kong.

Channel 3 — the court

Section 45(1) deprives Article 17J of the Model Law of effect, and section 45(2) puts Hong Kong’s own rule in its place: on the application of any party the Court may grant an interim measure in relation to any arbitral proceedings which have been or are to be commenced in or outside Hong Kong.

Section 45(3) confirms that the power may be exercised whether or not the tribunal has similar powers under section 35. Section 45(4) lets the Court decline where the measure sought is already the subject of arbitral proceedings and the Court considers it more appropriate for the tribunal to deal with it. Section 45(5) imposes further conditions where the seat is outside Hong Kong.

The Mainland Interim Measures Arrangement: Figures, Not a Slogan

Hong Kong remains the only jurisdiction outside Mainland China whose parties can apply to Mainland courts for the preservation of assets and evidence, and for conduct orders, before an arbitral award is made. The basis is the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings, signed 2 April 2019 and effective from 1 October 2019.

The mechanism is not open to every Hong Kong arbitration, only to proceedings administered by a qualified institutionon a list maintained by Hong Kong’s Department of Justice.

The actual 2025 outcomes, per HKIAC:

2025 metric	Value
Applications processed by HKIAC under the Arrangement	34
Number of Mainland courts they went to	13
Preservation sought	RMB 10.9 billion
Mainland court orders granted	17
Value of assets actually preserved	RMB 5.0 billion

The cumulative figures cited by Department of Justice officials:

As at	Applications	Assets preserved
September 2024	145 applications to 50 Mainland courts	approximately RMB 21 billion
30 September 2025	177 applications to 48 Mainland courts	nearly RMB 27.9 billion

Two methodological caveats attach to these figures. First, in both speeches the amount is described as the value of assets actually preserved, not sought. Second, the number of Mainland courts in the official statements falls from 50 to 48 between September 2024 and September 2025 even as applications rise from 145 to 177; the primary sources do not explain the discrepancy, so the court count should not be treated as a trend indicator.

Separately: the Department of Justice cumulative figures and HKIAC’s own statistics are different series. HKIAC separately reports 178 applications of its own between 1 October 2019 and the end of 2025; the two sets of numbers must not be merged.

The figure that should drive a seat decision: in 2025 Mainland courts granted 17 of 34 applications — roughly half — preserving RMB 5.0 billion of assets against RMB 10.9 billion sought. No Singapore, London or Dubai seat offers this option.

Setting Aside an Award: Section 81 and Why There Is No Review on the Merits

The only recourse against an arbitral award under the general Hong Kong rule is an application to set aside under section 81 of Cap. 609, which enacts Article 34 of the Model Law subject to section 13(5).

Section 81(1) says so in terms: “Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the text of which is set out below, has effect subject to section 13(5).” The section then reproduces Article 34, which opens: “Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of this article.”

The grounds are the closed list in Article 34(2):

Limb	Ground	Who must prove it
(a)(i)	A party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity; or the agreement is not valid under the law the parties chose or, failing indication, under the law of this State	The applicant
(a)(ii)	The applicant was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present his case	The applicant
(a)(iii)	The award deals with a dispute not contemplated by the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions beyond its scope — with partial setting aside available where the parts are separable	The applicant
(a)(iv)	The composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, failing agreement, with the Law	The applicant
(b)(i)	The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of this State	The court finds it
(b)(ii)	The award is in conflict with the public policy of this State	The court finds it

What is absent from that list is the point: an error by the tribunal in applying the law or in weighing the evidence is not a ground for setting aside. Review on the merits is available in Hong Kong only through Schedule 2, and only where the parties have opted in.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the approach in 2026. In LY v HW, CACV 409/2022, [2026] HKCA 936, judgment of 8 May 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a first-instance refusal to set aside an award under section 81: the absence of detailed discussion of two issues in the award did not make them “key issues” whose treatment would justify setting aside; there was no egregious error; and the “structural integrity of the arbitral process” had not been disturbed. A costs order nisi was made against the challenger on an indemnity basis — in Hong Kong practice the standard signal that an unsuccessful challenge costs more than an ordinary loss.

Enforcement: the Four Regimes of Part 10

Hong Kong applies four different enforcement regimes to arbitral awards depending on where the award was made. Choosing the wrong regime is itself a route to trouble in court.

Regime	Sections	Which awards	Refusal grounds
General	ss. 84–86	Any award made in or outside Hong Kong	s. 86
New York Convention	ss. 87–91	Awards made in a Convention State	s. 89
Mainland China	ss. 92–98	Awards made in accordance with the Arbitration Law of the PRC	s. 95
Macao	ss. 98A–98D	Awards made in the Macao SAR	s. 98D

Section 84(1) states the general rule: an award, whether made in or outside Hong Kong, in arbitral proceedings by an arbitral tribunal is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment of the court that has the same effect — but only with the leave of the court. Where leave is granted, the court may enter judgment in terms of the award (s. 84(2)).

The refusal grounds in section 86(1) track the New York Convention structure: incapacity of a party; invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the chosen law or the law of the country where the award was made; lack of proper notice or inability to present the party’s case; matters beyond the scope of the submission; non-conforming composition of the tribunal or procedure; and an award that is not yet binding, or has been set aside or suspended. Paragraph (a) of that section was replaced by Ordinance No. 7 of 2013.

Section 86(2) adds discretionary grounds, including conflict with public policy and “any other reason the court considers it just to do so”.

The rule worth memorising: section 86 is framed as “may be refused”, not “shall be refused”. Refusing enforcement in Hong Kong is a discretion, not a duty. That is the statutory foundation of the courts’ pro-enforcement approach.

Questions arising where a counterparty is wound up, and how that interacts with an arbitration clause, are covered separately: closing a Hong Kong company in 2026.

Schedule 2: the Only Route to an Appeal on a Question of Law

Schedule 2 to Cap. 609 contains seven opt-in provisions that apply either by express choice or automatically — and one of them, section 5, confers a right of appeal against an award on a question of law. It is the exception to finality, and it exists nowhere else in the statute.

Schedule 2 section	Content
1	The dispute is submitted to a sole arbitrator if the parties fail to agree on the number of arbitrators
2	The court may consolidate arbitral proceedings or order them heard concurrently or consecutively
3	The court may decide a preliminary question of law arising in the proceedings
4	Challenge to an award on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award
5	Appeal against an award on a question of law
6	Application for leave to appeal on a question of law
7	Supplementary provisions on challenge and appeal

When Schedule 2 applies automatically

Section 100 of Cap. 609 provides that all the provisions in Schedule 2 apply, subject to section 102, to an arbitration agreement entered into before the commencement of the Ordinance which provides that arbitration under it is a domestic arbitration, and to such an agreement entered into at any time within a period of 6 years after commencement.

The statute speaks of “a period of 6 years after the commencement of this Ordinance” and states no calendar date.Since the Ordinance commenced on 1 June 2011, the working conclusion is that Schedule 2 applies automatically to domestic arbitration agreements entered into before 1 June 2017. The specific date is an inference from the statute, not its text.

Date of an arbitration agreement providing for domestic arbitration	Schedule 2
Entered into before 1 June 2011 and which provided for domestic arbitration (s. 100(a))	Applies automatically, subject to s. 102
Entered into within six years after 1 June 2011 (s. 100(b))	Applies automatically, subject to s. 102
Entered into after the six-year period expired	Does not apply unless the parties expressly opt in under section 99

Section 101 extends automatic application to Hong Kong construction subcontracting structures, and section 102 works in the opposite direction: the Schedule 2 provisions do not apply automatically where the agreement expressly provides that specified provisions do, or do not, apply.

The threshold for leave to appeal

Section 6 of Schedule 2 sets a two-stage filter. An appeal under section 5 may not be brought except with the agreement of all the other parties to the proceedings or with the leave of the court.

Leave is granted only if the court is satisfied cumulatively that: the decision of the question will substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties; the question is one which the tribunal was asked to decide; and, on the basis of the findings of fact in the award, the tribunal’s decision on the question is either obviously wrong, or the question is one of general importance and the tribunal’s decision is at least open to serious doubt.

The court must determine a leave application without a hearing unless it appears that a hearing is required (section 6(3)). Appealing the grant or refusal of leave itself requires the leave of the court or the Court of Appeal, given only where the question is one of general importance or should for some other special reason be considered (section 6(5)–(6)).

Section 7(1) adds a mandatory exhaustion condition that gates all three routes — sections 4, 5 and 6: an application or appeal may not be brought if the applicant has not first exhausted any available recourse under section 69 of Cap. 609 and any available arbitral process of appeal or review.

The drafting conclusion for 2026: if the parties want judicial review of the tribunal’s legal conclusions to remain available, it has to be written into the arbitration agreement by express reference to section 5 of Schedule 2. Since 1 June 2017 it is not available automatically. Conversely, where the parties want complete finality under a contract entered into before that date, an express disapplication under section 102 is needed.

Third Party Funding of Arbitration: Part 10A

Third party funding of arbitration is permitted in Hong Kong by Part 10A of Cap. 609 (sections 98E–98X), inserted by Ordinance No. 6 of 2017. Before that, funding ran into the doctrines of maintenance, champerty and barratry — the common law prohibitions on supporting another’s litigation and sharing in its outcome.

Part 10A has six Divisions and commenced in stages:

Element	Commencement
Divisions 1, 2, 4 and 6 (purposes, interpretation, disapplication of the common law prohibitions, other measures)	23 June 2017, on gazettal
Divisions 3 and 5 (code of practice; disclosure)	1 February 2019
The mediation provisions inserted by the same ordinance into Cap. 620	not yet commenced — awaiting a code of practice

The key sections:

Section	Content
98G	Meaning of third party funding of arbitration
98H	Meaning of funding agreement
98I, 98J	Meanings of funded party and third party funder
98K	Particular common law offences do not apply
98L	Particular tort does not apply
98M	Other illegality not affected
98N	Limited application of Part 10A for non-Hong Kong arbitration
98O	Part 10A not applicable to lawyers acting for parties in arbitration
98OA	Part 10A not applicable to ORFS agreements for arbitration
98P–98S	Code of practice: issuance, content, process, non-compliance
98U	Disclosure about third party funding
98V	Disclosure about the end of third party funding
98W	Non-compliance with Division 5
98X	Appointment of advisory body and authorized body

Section 98O is the critical limit: the disapplication of the prohibitions does not extend to lawyers acting for parties in the arbitration. A lawyer cannot fund a client’s dispute as a third party funder; lawyers have their own regime in Part 10B, below. Section 98OA expressly separates the two so they do not overlap.

The disclosure duty is not a formality. Sections 98U and 98V require disclosure both of the funding agreement and of its end. Non-compliance carries consequences under section 98W.

Outcome Related Fee Structures: Part 10B and Cap. 609D

Since 16 December 2022, lawyers in Hong Kong may agree outcome-related fees with parties to an arbitration under Part 10B of Cap. 609 (sections 98Y–98ZU), inserted by Ordinance No. 6 of 2022. This is the most recent amendment to Cap. 609 and the reason the consolidated text carries a version date of 16 December 2022.

Three permitted agreement types:

Type	Section	Mechanics
Conditional fee agreement (CFA)	98ZC	A success fee on top of the ordinary fee where the outcome is favourable
Damages-based agreement (DBA)	98ZD	A fee calculated as a share of the financial benefit obtained
Hybrid damages-based agreement	98ZE	A discounted running fee plus a share of the benefit

The structure of Part 10B:

Section	Content
98Y	Purposes
98Z	Part 10B not applicable to third party funding agreements
98ZA–98ZE	Interpretation and the definitions of the three agreement types
98ZF, 98ZG	Particular common law offences and a particular tort do not apply
98ZI	Application of Part 10B for non-Hong Kong arbitration
98ZK	Validity and enforceability of ORFS agreements
98ZL	An ORFS agreement is void and unenforceable to the extent it relates to personal injuries claims
98ZM	Power of the advisory body to make rules
98ZN, 98ZO	Code of practice and non-compliance
98ZQ, 98ZR	Disclosure of an ORFS agreement and of its end
98ZS	Non-compliance with Division 7
98ZU	Limitation on award of costs by the arbitral tribunal

Section 98ZL is a hard limit: an ORFS agreement is void and unenforceable so far as it relates to personal injuries claims. That is a nullity rule, not a reasonableness test.

Section 98ZU restricts the tribunal’s power to award costs — so a successful party cannot automatically pass the whole success uplift on to the loser.

The detailed conditions sit in subsidiary legislation: the Arbitration (Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration) Rules, Cap. 609D.

The 2026 Arbitration Law Reform: What Is Actually Happening

As at this article’s verification date, no bill amending Cap. 609 has been enacted or introduced into the Legislative Council in 2024, 2025 or 2026. The “2026 reform” is preparatory legislative work by the Department of Justice, not an instrument in force or even one tabled.

The evidence is direct and checkable:

First, the statute itself. The consolidated text of Cap. 609 on Hong Kong’s e-Legislation portal carries a version date of 16 December 2022. Had the statute changed in 2026, the version date would say so.

Second, the Legislative Council bills database. In the complete list of bills since 2000, the arbitration entries are: Arbitration Bill; Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2013; 2015; 2016; 2021; the Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016; and the Arbitration and Legal Practitioners Legislation (Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration) (Amendment) Bill 2022. There is no entry for 2024, 2025 or 2026.

What is actually happening: the timeline

Date	Event
17 September 2025	Paragraph 133 of the 2025 Policy Address commits to “step up promotion of Hong Kong’s arbitration services, while studying the need to amend the Arbitration Ordinance”
Late October 2025	The Department of Justice establishes the Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform
17 November 2025	The Working Group holds its first meeting
9 March 2026	The Secretary for Justice states publicly that the proposed amendments will be shared “in due course”
24 June 2026	The Government’s reply to a Legislative Council question: the Working Group operates “with a view to advancing the relevant legislative amendment work within 2026”

The Working Group’s composition and mandate

Parameter	Value
Full name	Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform of the Department of Justice
Chairman	The Secretary for Justice, Mr Paul Lam, SC
Vice-chairman	The Deputy Secretary for Justice, Dr Cheung Kwok-kwan
Membership	Experts from the legal and dispute resolution services sector
Term of members	Two years
Mandate	To advise the Department of Justice on the legislative framework for arbitration in Hong Kong, including reviewing and making recommendations to amend the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609)

What cannot be asserted about the content of the reform

The Working Group’s specific proposals have not been officially published. Commentary names themes such as reinstating or reforming the right of appeal on a question of law, the arbitrator’s power to award costs, confidentiality, and a review of third party funding. None of these is confirmed by a government document, and none should be attributed to the Department of Justice. No public consultation on arbitration law reform could be located, and the Department has not announced one.

The practical conclusion for drafting today: clauses should be planned against Cap. 609 as it stands at 16 December 2022. Any structure built around “what the reform will bring” rests on nothing. Monitoring is nevertheless warranted: the Government’s stated aim is to advance the legislative work within 2026, which means a bill could be introduced before the year ends.

It is also worth noting that even enactment would not change the regime retrospectively. Every previous amendment to Cap. 609 took effect prospectively and, as Part 10A shows, frequently in stages — with as much as eighteen months between gazettal and the commencement of individual Divisions.

The 2024 HKIAC Rules: What Changed and Which Articles Apply

The current HKIAC rules are the 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules, in force from 1 June 2024. The Rules say so expressly: “These Rules shall take effect on 1 June 2024.” The previous edition was released on 1 November 2018, and HKIAC describes the 2024 edition as “largely a refinement of the 2018 Rules”.

Four genuinely new elements in the 2024 edition:

Topic	Article	Content
Diversity	9A	9A.1: parties and co-arbitrators are “encouraged to take into account considerations of diversity”; 9A.2: HKIAC “shall take into account considerations of diversity” when appointing
Information security	45A	45A.1: the parties may agree measures; 45A.2: the tribunal may direct measures after consulting the parties; 45A.3: the tribunal may make a decision, order or award in respect of any breach
Environmental impact	13.1 and 34.4(f)	13.1: in adopting procedures the tribunal shall have regard to “the effective use of technology, information security, and environmental impact”; 34.4(f): in allocating costs the tribunal may take into account “any adverse environmental impact arising out of the parties’ conduct in the arbitration”
HKIAC power to protect the process	13.10	HKIAC may take any necessary measure, “including, in exceptional circumstances, by revoking the appointment of any arbitrator”

Timing: closure of proceedings and the award

Stage	Deadline	Article
Declaring the proceedings closed	no later than 45 days from the last directed substantive oral or written submissions	31.1
Making the award	no later than three months from the date the tribunal declares the proceedings, or the relevant phase, closed	31.2
Extension	By party agreement or, in appropriate circumstances, by HKIAC	31.2
Expedited Procedure	six months from transmission of the file to the tribunal; Article 31.2 does not apply	42.2(f), 31.3

The Expedited Procedure: the threshold has left the rules text

Article 42.1(a) of the 2024 Rules contains no monetary figure at all. It refers to the amount “set by HKIAC, as stated on HKIAC’s website on the date the Notice of Arbitration is submitted”. That delegation is itself a 2024 change.

Date the Notice of Arbitration is submitted	Expedited Procedure threshold
1 June 2024 to 31 December 2025	HKD 25,000,000
From 1 January 2026	HKD 50,000,000

HKIAC’s Expedited Procedure threshold doubled on 1 January 2026 to HKD 50,000,000.

The other Article 42.1 gateways are party agreement and exceptional urgency. Article 42.3 allows HKIAC to disapply the Expedited Procedure.

The emergency arbitrator: the Schedule 4 deadlines

Step	Deadline	Provision
Appointing the emergency arbitrator	HKIAC “shall seek to appoint” one within 24 hours of receiving the application and the deposit	Schedule 4, ¶4
Making the Emergency Decision	within 14 days of the date HKIAC transmitted the file to the emergency arbitrator, extendable	Schedule 4, ¶12
Appointing a substitute emergency arbitrator	within 24 hours	Schedule 4
Emergency Decision ceases to bind	If the tribunal is not constituted within 90 days of the Emergency Decision	Schedule 4

Early determination

Article 43 of the 2024 Rules is the Early Determination Procedure. The tribunal may decide a point of law or fact on an expedited basis on three grounds (Article 43.1): the point is manifestly without merit; it is manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction; or, even if assumed correct, no award could be rendered in that party’s favour.

The Hong Kong court has already upheld an award made under this procedure.

Other articles that matter to complex transactions: Article 27 (joinder of an additional party), Article 28 (consolidation), Article 29 (single arbitration under multiple contracts), Article 30 (concurrent proceedings) and Article 44 (disclosure of third party funding). These mechanisms existed in the 2018 edition too; 2024 refined the drafting — notably Articles 27.12, 28.8 and 29.5, which introduce a deemed waiver of the parties’ right to designate an arbitrator on joinder, consolidation and multi-contract commencement.

What HKIAC Arbitration Costs: the Fee Schedules in Force From 1 January 2026

HKIAC revised its fee schedules with effect from 1 January 2026; the new tariffs apply to all cases filed on or after that date. The previous schedules, in force from 1 June 2024, continue to apply to cases filed before 1 January 2026.

The Registration Fee

The Registration Fee payable on submitting a Notice of Arbitration is HKD 10,000 and is non-refundable. It is set by Article 4.4 and Schedule 1 to the 2024 Rules. Where there are multiple Claimants, the fee is shared equally.

The previous figure was HKD 8,000 and had stood unchanged for twelve years.

HKIAC Administrative Fees

Sum in dispute (HKD)	Administrative fee (HKD)
Up to 400,000	15,000
From 400,001 to 800,000	21,780 + 1.4300% of the amount over 400,000
From 800,001 to 4,000,000	27,500 + 1.1000% of the amount over 800,000
From 4,000,001 to 8,000,000	62,700 + 0.5995% of the amount over 4,000,000
From 8,000,001 to 16,000,000	86,680 + 0.2915% of the amount over 8,000,000
From 16,000,001 to 40,000,000	110,000 + 0.2200% of the amount over 16,000,000
From 40,000,001 to 80,000,000	162,800 + 0.1210% of the amount over 40,000,000
From 80,000,001 to 240,000,000	211,200 + 0.0781% of the amount over 80,000,000
From 240,000,001 to 400,000,000	336,160 + 0.0649% of the amount over 240,000,000
Over 400,000,000	440,000 — the maximum

HKIAC’s maximum administrative fee is HKD 440,000, previously HKD 400,000. Where the amount in dispute is unquantified, HKIAC fixes the fee under paragraph 2.6 of Schedule 1.

Tribunal fees: two models, the party’s choice

HKIAC is one of the few institutions worldwide offering a choice between an hourly rate and an ad valorem scale, with the hourly rate applying by default (Article 10.1).

Model A — hourly rate (Schedule 2):

Item	Maximum from 1 January 2026	Previous maximum
Agreed hourly rate of an arbitrator	HKD 7,500 per hour	HKD 6,500
Hourly rate of a tribunal secretary (Article 13.4)	HKD 2,500 per hour	HKD 2,500

The rise in the arbitrator’s hourly cap from HKD 6,500 to HKD 7,500 is the first adjustment since 2013.

How the cap works: the prohibition itself sits in paragraph 9.3 of Schedule 2 to the Rules (“an arbitrator’s agreed hourly rate shall not exceed the rate set by HKIAC, as stated on HKIAC’s website on the date the Notice of Arbitration is submitted”), the figure is published in the Schedule of Fees, and paragraph 9.5 permits higher rates where all parties expressly agree or HKIAC so determines in exceptional circumstances.

Model B — ad valorem scale (Schedule 3); the figures are per arbitrator:

Sum in dispute (HKD)	Arbitrator’s fees (HKD)
Up to 400,000	12.100% of the amount in dispute
From 400,001 to 800,000	48,400 + 11.000% of the amount over 400,000
From 800,001 to 4,000,000	92,400 + 5.8300% of the amount over 800,000
From 4,000,001 to 8,000,000	278,960 + 4.1580% of the amount over 4,000,000
From 8,000,001 to 16,000,000	445,280 + 1.9030% of the amount over 8,000,000
From 16,000,001 to 40,000,000	597,520 + 1.1660% of the amount over 16,000,000
From 40,000,001 to 80,000,000	877,360 + 0.4840% of the amount over 40,000,000
From 80,000,001 to 240,000,000	1,070,960 + 0.2750% of the amount over 80,000,000
From 240,000,001 to 400,000,000	1,510,960 + 0.2508% of the amount over 240,000,000
From 400,000,001 to 600,000,000	1,912,240 + 0.1111% of the amount over 400,000,000
From 600,000,001 to 800,000,000	2,134,440 + 0.0737% of the amount over 600,000,000
From 800,000,001 to 4,000,000,000	2,281,840 + 0.0484% of the amount over 800,000,000
Over 4,000,000,000	3,830,640 + 0.025% of the amount over 4,000,000,000, maximum 13,831,400

The maximum ad valorem fee payable to one arbitrator is HKD 13,831,400, previously HKD 12,574,000.

Challenges and the emergency arbitrator

Item	Amount from 1 January 2026
Fee for filing a challenge to an arbitrator (Article 11.7)	HKD 55,000, non-refundable (previously HKD 50,000)
Application Deposit for an emergency arbitrator (unchanged)	HKD 250,000
— of which HKIAC’s emergency administrative fees	HKD 45,000
— of which the emergency arbitrator’s maximum total fees and expenses	HKD 205,000
Cap on the emergency arbitrator’s fees (Schedule 4, ¶5, unchanged)	HKD 200,000, unless the parties agree or HKIAC determines otherwise in exceptional circumstances

HKIAC as appointing authority in ad hoc arbitration

Service	Fee
Appointing one arbitrator	HKD 8,000
Determining the number of arbitrators	HKD 8,000
Challenge Registration Fee	HKD 50,000
Fundholding	HKD 8,000 per annum, non-refundable

HKIAC’s 2025 Statistics: the Full Figures

HKIAC registered 582 new cases in 2025, the highest caseload in its history. The breakdown and every derived figure below come from HKIAC itself.

Caseload structure

2025 metric	Value
Total new cases	582
Of which arbitrations	388
Of which mediations	9
Of which domain name disputes	185
Arbitrations administered by HKIAC under its Rules	281 (72% of 388)
Arbitration filings in 2024	352
Total cases in 2024	503

Arbitration filings grew 10% in 2025 against the 352 recorded in 2024.

Amounts in dispute

Metric	Value
Total amount in dispute across all arbitrations	HKD 126.2 billion (approximately USD 16.2 billion)
Of which in administered cases	HKD 117.7 billion (approximately USD 15.1 billion)
Average amount in dispute in administered arbitrations	HKD 418.8 million (approximately USD 53.7 million)
Total amount in dispute in 2024	HKD 106 billion (approximately USD 13.6 billion)

International character and geography

2025 metric	Value
Share of all arbitrations that were international	84.3%
Share of administered arbitrations that were international	92.9%
Number of jurisdictions parties came from	61
Share of cases on contracts signed from 2020 onwards	72.2%
Total parties across the 388 arbitrations	1,233
Total contracts	578

The ten leading jurisdictions of origin of the parties in 2025, in descending order: Hong Kong; Mainland China; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; Singapore; the United States; the United Arab Emirates; Indonesia; Brazil; then Russia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Corporate and shareholder disputes are HKIAC’s largest category, and their subject matter frequently turns on how the share transfer itself was documented and taxed: stamp duty on share transfers in Hong Kong in 2026.

Seat, governing law and language

Metric	Value
Share of arbitrations seated in Hong Kong	96.6%
Number of different governing laws	17
Share of administered arbitrations conducted in English	77.6%
Share conducted in Chinese	16.7%

The governing laws, in descending order: Hong Kong law; English law; Chinese law; British Virgin Islands law; Cayman Islands law; Kazakhstan law; Singapore law; Swiss law; New York law; Russian Federation law; Cambodia law; Mexico law; Korea law; Malaysia law; Mongolia law; California law; Delaware law.

The presence of Kazakhstan law and Russian Federation law on that list is commercially significant: Hong Kong in practice handles disputes under contracts governed by CIS-country law.

Types of dispute

Category	Share
Corporate and shareholder disputes	23.6%
Maritime	19.9%
Sale of goods	14.2%
Commercial	10.9%
Construction	9.2%
Financial	7.7%
Cryptocurrency and blockchain	7.2%
Aviation	1.7%
Professional services	1.7%
Intellectual property	1.2%
Property	1.2%
Employment	1.0%
Insurance	0.5%

Arbitrator appointments

2025 metric	Value
Direct appointments of arbitrators by HKIAC	176
Confirmations of designations	141
Share of women among HKIAC’s direct appointments	36.4% (64 of 176)
Challenges to arbitrators filed	4, all dismissed

The 176 direct appointments by role: sole arbitrator 59.7% (105); co-arbitrator 19.3% (34); presiding arbitrator 15.9% (28); emergency arbitrator 5.1% (9).

By applicable rules: HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules 71.6% (126); ad hoc 11.9% (21); UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules administered by HKIAC 8.5% (15); HKIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules 7.4% (13); HKIAC’s Small Claims Procedure 0.6% (1).

Nine emergency arbitrator applications were made in 2025, with an average time to appoint an emergency arbitrator of 15 hours and 11 minutes.

A comparability caveat on the female-arbitrator figure: for 2025 HKIAC measures the share against 176 direct appointments, whereas for 2024 it published 34.7% against 199 appointments. The bases differ, so “up from 34.7% to 36.4%” is not a strict year-on-year comparison.

The official position and the ranking

In the 2025 Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey, Hong Kong was selected as the most preferred arbitration seat in the Asia-Pacific region and ranked second globally alongside Singapore. The Hong Kong Government cited this in its reply to the Legislative Council of 24 June 2026 and stated in the same reply that “there are at least nine arbitration institutions in Hong Kong”.

The Hong Kong Courts and Arbitration: the Case Law to Know Before Signing a Clause

Arbitration matters in Hong Kong are heard by the Court of First Instance of the High Court in the Construction and Arbitration List, governed by Practice Direction 6.1. The current version took effect on 2 January 2021, is dated 1 December 2020 and is signed by Mimmie Chan J, the Judge in Charge of the List. Paragraph 10 provides that any application relating to an arbitration should normally be listed before that Judge or a designated Judge.

A practical detail worth knowing: Practice Direction 6.1 itself still refers to the repealed Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341), and Cap. 609 is not mentioned anywhere in its text. Paragraph 3(4) brings within the List “applications relating to arbitration whether arising under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341), Rules of High Court … Order 73 or otherwise.” The operative statute is Cap. 609; the Practice Direction’s reference is a drafting relic and does not change the applicable law.

The leading authorities in force at the verification date

Case	Citation	What it establishes
Hebei Import & Export Corporation v Polytek Engineering Co Ltd	FACV 10/1998, Court of Final Appeal, 9 February 1999, (1999) 2 HKCFAR 111	The pro-enforcement approach; a party that does not object during the arbitration loses the right to rely on the point at enforcement
Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) v Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd	CACV 136/2011, Court of Appeal, 9 May 2012, [2012] 4 HKLRD 1	The standard for setting aside; the “structural integrity of the arbitral process” test
Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Ltd	CACV 79/2011, Court of Appeal, 2 December 2011, [2012] 1 HKLRD 627	Public policy and apparent bias as refusal grounds
Astro Nusantara International BV v PT First Media TBK	FACV 14/2017, [2018] HKCFA 12, 11 April 2018, (2018) 21 HKCFAR 118	Choice of remedies and extension of time
C v D	FACV 1/2023, [2023] HKCFA 16, 30 June 2023, (2023) 26 HKCFAR 216	Compliance with a pre-arbitration condition is a question of admissibility for the tribunal, not of jurisdiction, and is not reviewable by the court
Ever Judger Holding Company Limited v Kroman Celik Sanayii Anonim Sirketi	HCCT 6/2015, Court of First Instance, G Lam J, 17 April 2015, [2015] 2 HKLRD 866	The court’s discretionary power to restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration clause

The formulation from Ever Judger worth quoting precisely: the innocent party’s right specifically to enforce his contract “can only be displaced by strong reasons being shown by the opposite party why an injunction should not be granted”.

The 2025 and 2026 judgments

Case	Citation	What was decided
Hyalroute Communication Group Ltd v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Ltd	HCCT 155/2024, [2025] HKCFI 2417, 1 August 2025	Refusal of an anti-suit injunction sought to restrain Cayman winding-up proceedings: such proceedings do not finally resolve the dispute, so resorting to them does not breach the arbitration agreement
Bank v Guarantor and Others	HCCT 112/2025, [2026] HKCFI 1818, [2026] 2 HKLRD 801, Mimmie Chan J; 26 March 2026 is the date of the Reasons for Decision, the hearing and decision dates being redacted in the anonymised judgment	Enforcement of a Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration award under ss. 84 and 92 Cap. 609; the duty of good faith; waiver of the right to object
LY v HW	CACV 409/2022, [2026] HKCA 936, 8 May 2026; Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Barma JA, the judgment of the Court delivered by Barma JA	Appeal dismissed against a refusal to set aside an award under s. 81; costs order nisi on an indemnity basis

The formulation from Bank v Guarantor that shapes 2026 practice: if there was any defect in the procedure, then by not raising it with the tribunal at the hearing and “keeping this up its sleeve” until its opposition to enforcement, the guarantor was in breach of its duty of good faith in the arbitration and had deprived the tribunal of the opportunity to rectify the breach; on the authorities, it had “clearly waived the right to complain and is estopped from raising this now as a ground to resist enforcement of the Award”.

An important qualification about the level of the court: Bank v Guarantor is a first-instance decision, not an appellate one. The rule itself is Court of Final Appeal authority and derives from Hebei (1999). No Court of Final Appeal arbitration judgment has followed C v D [2023] HKCFA 16.

Anti-suit injunctions

The Hong Kong court has a general discretionary power to restrain a party from pursuing foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. The leading authority is Ever Judger (2015), applied in, among others,Linde GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC, HCCT 19/2023, [2023] HKCFI 2409, 27 September 2023. The outer limit was drawn in Hyalroute (2025): a winding-up petition in a foreign jurisdiction is not, of itself, a breach of the arbitration agreement.

The distinction worth carrying away: an arbitration clause protects against a claim on the merits, but it does not guarantee protection against a winding-up petition in the offshore jurisdiction where the counterparty is incorporated.

Arbitral Institutions in Hong Kong and the Institutional Context

On the Hong Kong Government’s own figure as at June 2026, “there are at least nine arbitration institutions in Hong Kong”. The Department of Justice names eight of them.

Institution	Hong Kong presence per the Department of Justice
HKIAC	Hong Kong’s own home-grown arbitration body, established in the 1980s
ICC-ICA Asia Office	November 2008 — the first overseas branch of the Secretariat of the Paris-based ICC International Court of Arbitration
CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Centre	September 2012 — CIETAC’s first branch outside the Mainland
CMAC Hong Kong Arbitration Centre	November 2014
eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre	Established June 2018
AALCO Hong Kong Regional Arbitration Centre	Established November 2021; the sixth AALCO regional centre
South China International Arbitration Center (HK)	Established 2019
Hong Kong Mediation and Arbitration Centre (HKMAG)	Originally formed February 2000 as a division of HKIAC; became independent March 2019

The Permanent Court of Arbitration has no separate Hong Kong office. What exists is a Host Country Agreement and Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements announced on 4 January 2015: PCA-administered proceedings “can be conducted in the HKSAR on an ad hoc basis with the provision of facilities and support services required”. Stating that the PCA “opened a Hong Kong office” is inaccurate.

Government support measures

Measure	Content
Immigration Facilitation Scheme for Persons Participating in Arbitral Proceedings	Launched as a pilot on 29 June 2020; regularised with refinements from 1 March 2025and renamed. Participants enter as visitors without an employment visa on a letter of proof from a designated institution or venue provider; five categories are covered
eBRAM funding	In 2020 the Government allocated HKD 70 million to the COVID-19 online dispute resolution scheme; in January 2021 the Legislative Council’s Finance Committee approved HKD 100 million for the platform; approximately HKD 87 million had been disbursed as at February 2026
Expert Advisory Group on Legal and Dispute Resolution Services	Established by the Department of Justice in October 2024, subsuming the functions of the Advisory Committee on Promotion of Arbitration set up in 2014
Panel of GBA Arbitration (Greater Bay Area)	Working Guidelines endorsed 18 November 2024 and promulgated 30 July 2025; the panel itself endorsed 9 December 2025 and promulgated 30 December 2025

No arbitration-specific tax concession appears among the Inland Revenue Department’s published concessionary regimes. Neither the Government’s reply to the Legislative Council of 24 June 2026 nor the Department of Justice’s own materials identify one, and arbitration does not feature among the IRD’s concessionary regimes — patent box, aircraft leasing, ship leasing, FIHV, FSIE. The wording here is deliberately careful: absence from the published lists is not proof that no measure exists, but claims of a “special tax regime for arbitrators” are not supported by official sources.

Hong Kong Against the Alternatives: What Actually Differs

Seats are properly compared on the parameters that change outcomes, not on marketing characteristics. Four such parameters follow.

Parameter	Hong Kong	Singapore	Mainland China	UAE
Governing statute	Cap. 609, 2006 Model Law	International Arbitration Act, Model Law	PRC Arbitration Law	Federal Law No. 6 of 2018
Mainland court interim relief before the award	Yes, under the 2019 Arrangement for qualified institutions	No	Domestic mechanism	No
Enforcement of awards in Mainland China	Under the 1999 Arrangement as supplemented in 2020 — simultaneous enforcement in both jurisdictions is permitted	Under the New York Convention	Domestic enforcement	Under the New York Convention
Appeal on a question of law	Only if the parties expressly opt in (Schedule 2, section 5)	Not for international arbitration	No	No
Third party funding	Permitted from 23 June 2017 (Part 10A)	Permitted	Restricted	Governed by institutional rules
Success fees for lawyers	Permitted from 16 December 2022 (Part 10B)	Permitted from 2022	Restricted	Governed by institutional rules

Hong Kong’s one genuine advantage that cannot be replicated by choosing another seat is access to Mainland Chinese court interim relief before an award and the special regime for recognising awards in Mainland China.Everything else — institutional quality, judicial support, cost — has close equivalents in Singapore.

The corollary: if the counterparty holds no assets in Mainland China, that advantage is worth nothing to the transaction, and the choice should turn on cost, language of the proceedings and governing law.

UPPERSETUP covers the practical side of building Hong Kong–UAE structures separately: the Hong Kong–UAE dual structure for international business in 2026.

Step by Step: From Drafting the Clause to Enforcing the Award

Stage 1. Drafting the arbitration clause

Step 1. Fix the seat separately from the venue. The seat determines the applicable procedural law and the supervising court. “Arbitration in Hong Kong” without the word “seat” invites argument; use the HKIAC model clause.

Step 2. Decide on the institution. The 2024 HKIAC Rules are not the only option; at least nine institutions have a Hong Kong presence, and the parties may choose ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules with HKIAC as appointing authority (HKD 8,000 to appoint one arbitrator).

Step 3. Decide the Schedule 2 question deliberately, not by default. For contracts signed today, the Schedule 2 provisions do not apply automatically — the six-year window closed on 31 May 2017. If an appeal on a question of law is wanted, an express opt-in under section 99 referring to section 5 of Schedule 2 is required.

Step 4. Agree the number of arbitrators and the language. By default HKIAC determines the number in administered cases; 77.6% of administered proceedings run in English.

Step 5. Check arbitrability. Intellectual property disputes have been arbitrable since 1 January 2018 (Part 11A of Cap. 609). Personal injuries claims cannot be funded under an ORFS agreement (section 98ZL).

Stage 2. Commencing the arbitration

Step 6. Check the pre-arbitration conditions — but remember C v D. Failure to observe a negotiation or mediation tier will not ground the setting aside of a Hong Kong award; the point is for the tribunal.

Step 7. Submit the Notice of Arbitration and pay the Registration Fee of HKD 10,000.

Step 8. Assess urgency. Where emergency relief is needed before the tribunal is constituted, apply for an emergency arbitrator with the HKD 250,000 Application Deposit; appointment within 24 hours, decision within 14 days.

Step 9. If the counterparty holds assets in Mainland China, assess an application under the 2019 Arrangement immediately. In 2025 Mainland courts granted 17 of 34 such applications.

Step 10. Disclose any funding. Sections 98U and 98V of Cap. 609 for third party funding; sections 98ZQ and 98ZR for ORFS agreements; Article 44 of the HKIAC Rules.

Stage 3. Running the arbitration and the award

Step 11. Check whether the Expedited Procedure applies. From 1 January 2026 the threshold is HKD 50,000,000, and the award is due within six months of transmission of the file to the tribunal.

Step 12. Consider early determination under Article 43 of the Rules where part of the claim is manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Step 13. Take every procedural objection to the tribunal immediately. The 2026 case law expressly characterises keeping an objection “up its sleeve” as a breach of the duty of good faith that costs the right to rely on it.

Stage 4. Setting aside and enforcement

Step 14. Remember the three-month limit for a setting-aside application under Article 34(3) of the Model Law as enacted by section 81 of Cap. 609.

Step 15. Choose the correct enforcement regime: general (ss. 84–86), New York Convention (ss. 87–91), Mainland China (ss. 92–98) or Macao (ss. 98A–98D). A Mainland award is not enforced under the Convention.

Step 16. Where assets sit in both places, use the simultaneous route to the Hong Kong and Mainland courts, opened up by the repeal of sections 93 and 97 by Ordinance No. 1 of 2021.

Incorporating the Hong Kong company that will be party to the contract is covered separately: Hong Kong company registration in 2026. Keeping it in good standing is what preserves its capacity to be a party to the arbitration: mandatory annual compliance for Hong Kong companies in 2026.

Common Mistakes and What Each One Costs

Mistake 1. Planning a transaction around “the 2026 arbitration law reform”. No reforming statute has been enacted or introduced; Cap. 609 stands as at 16 December 2022. The cost: a clause built around a mechanism that does not exist — a “restored right of appeal on a question of law”, for instance. Such a clause delivers nothing, and the right of appeal cannot be recovered retrospectively: the only route is an express opt-in to section 5 of Schedule 2, which had to be in the contract when it was signed.

Mistake 2. Assuming Schedule 2 applies automatically. Automatic application under section 100 reaches only domestic arbitration agreements entered into before 1 June 2017. The cost: a party counts on an appeal on a question of law, receives an award containing what it regards as an obvious legal error, and discovers that only a setting-aside application under section 81 is available — where an error of law is not a ground. The case is finally lost.

Mistake 3. Enforcing a Mainland Chinese award in Hong Kong under the New York Convention. The Convention does not operate between Hong Kong and the Mainland; Division 2 of Part 10 of Cap. 609 (ss. 92–98) does. The cost: an application filed on the wrong statutory basis, time lost, and the limitation period for enforcement continuing to run.

Mistake 4. Withholding a procedural objection from the tribunal and saving it for enforcement. The 2026 case law characterises this expressly as a breach of the duty of good faith. The cost: waiver and estoppel, plus costs. In LY v HW costs were awarded on an indemnity basis — materially more than an ordinary costs order.

Mistake 5. Relying on an emergency arbitrator outside Hong Kong to obtain monetary security. Section 22B(2) permits enforcement of foreign emergency relief only where it consists exclusively of temporary measures preserving the status quo or preventing harm to the arbitral process. The cost: an emergency decision obtained, the HKD 250,000 deposit spent, and enforcement refused in Hong Kong.

Mistake 6. Assuming an arbitration clause blocks a winding-up petition. Hyalroute [2025] HKCFI 2417 held the opposite: winding-up proceedings do not finally resolve the dispute, so resorting to them does not breach the arbitration agreement. The cost: the anti-suit application refused, costs awarded, and the offshore winding-up running in parallel with the arbitration.

Mistake 7. Not checking the Expedited Procedure threshold against the filing date. The threshold attaches not to the date of the contract but to the date the Notice of Arbitration is submitted: HKD 25,000,000 until 31 December 2025 and HKD 50,000,000 from 1 January 2026. The cost: timetable and budget planned on the wrong basis — a full procedure where a six-month expedited one was available, or the reverse.

Mistake 8. Failing to disclose third party funding or an ORFS agreement. Disclosure is mandatory both by statute (sections 98U, 98V, 98ZQ and 98ZR of Cap. 609) and under Article 44 of the HKIAC Rules. The cost: consequences under sections 98W and 98ZS and, at worst, a procedural-irregularity argument for the other side on a challenge to the award.

Mistake 9. Entering an ORFS agreement that covers personal injuries claims. Section 98ZL renders the agreement void and unenforceable to that extent. The cost: work performed with no valid basis for payment on that part of the matter.

Mistake 10. Relying on Articles 35 and 36 of the Model Law on enforcement in Hong Kong. Sections 82 and 83 of Cap. 609 expressly deprive both articles of effect. The cost: a case built on provisions that do not operate in the jurisdiction, corrected mid-hearing.

Who Hong Kong Arbitration Suits, Who It Does Not, and When Professional Review Is Essential

Who it suits

Parties contracting with Chinese counterparties holding assets in Mainland China. Access to Mainland court interim relief before an award, and the special recognition regime, cannot be replicated by choosing any other seat.

Corporate and shareholder disputes over structures with offshore holding companies. This is HKIAC’s largest category — 23.6% in 2025 — and the presence of British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands law among the governing laws reflects exactly that practice.

Maritime and commodity disputes. Maritime accounted for 19.9% and sale of goods for 14.2%.

Cryptocurrency and blockchain disputes. This category made up 7.2% of HKIAC cases in 2025 — a substantial share for a relatively new practice.

Parties to contracts governed by CIS-country law. Kazakhstan law and Russian Federation law both appear among the governing laws in HKIAC’s 2025 statistics.

Who it does not suit

Parties who want judicial review of the tribunal’s legal conclusions by default. Since 1 June 2017 there is none; a deliberate opt-in at signature is required.

Disputes with no Asian nexus and no Mainland assets. Hong Kong’s principal advantage does not operate in that configuration, and the cost is comparable to the alternatives.

Personal injuries claims expecting success-fee funding. Section 98ZL excludes them from the ORFS regime outright.

When professional review is essential

• Before signing, where the parties want to preserve or exclude Schedule 2 — the choice cannot be revisited later.

• Where the counterparty holds Mainland assets — an application under the Arrangement goes through a qualified institution and must satisfy Mainland procedural formalities.

• Where the clause is multi-tiered — after C v D the structure of pre-arbitration conditions affects tactics but not jurisdiction.

• Where the dispute is funded — Parts 10A and 10B are mutually exclusive, and mixing them creates a risk of invalidity.

• Where parallel proceedings are on foot abroad — anti-suit relief moves quickly and needs immediate assessment against Ever Judger and Hyalroute.

UPPERSETUP handles Hong Kong company incorporation and the contractual and tax administration that follows.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which statute governs arbitration in Hong Kong?

The Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), in force since 1 June 2011 under L.N. 38 of 2011. It is built on the 2006 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the full text of which is set out in Schedule 1. The consolidated text of Cap. 609 carries a version date of 16 December 2022.

Was there an arbitration law reform in Hong Kong in 2026?

No. As at this article’s verification date no reforming statute has been enacted or introduced into the Legislative Council, and the Council’s bills database contains no arbitration bill for 2024, 2025 or 2026. The Department of Justice established a Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform in October 2025 and has stated the aim of advancing the legislative work within 2026, but no specific proposals have been officially published.

Can a Hong Kong arbitral award be appealed on the merits?

Only if the parties expressly opted into section 5 of Schedule 2 to Cap. 609. Schedule 2 applies automatically only to domestic arbitration agreements entered into before 1 June 2017. Otherwise the sole recourse is a setting-aside application under section 81, where an error of law by the tribunal is not a ground.

What does it cost to file an arbitration at HKIAC?

The Registration Fee on submitting a Notice of Arbitration is HKD 10,000 for cases filed on or after 1 January 2026. HKIAC’s administrative fee depends on the amount in dispute and is capped at HKD 440,000. The arbitrator’s fees run either on an hourly rate capped at HKD 7,500 per hour or on the ad valorem scale, capped at HKD 13,831,400 per arbitrator.

How many cases did HKIAC handle in 2025?

582 new cases: 388 arbitrations, 9 mediations and 185 domain name disputes. Of the 388 arbitrations, 281 were administered by HKIAC under its Rules. The total amount in dispute was HKD 126.2 billion, approximately USD 16.2 billion.

Can a Hong Kong arbitration obtain asset preservation in Mainland China?

Yes, under the Arrangement on mutual assistance in court-ordered interim measures, effective from 1 October 2019, where the proceedings are administered by a qualified institution on the Hong Kong Department of Justice’s list. In 2025 HKIAC processed 34 such applications to 13 Mainland courts, and 17 preservation orders were granted covering RMB 5.0 billion.

How is a Mainland Chinese award enforced in Hong Kong?

Under sections 92 to 98 of Cap. 609, not under the New York Convention: the Convention does not operate between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Since the repeal of sections 93 and 97 by Ordinance No. 1 of 2021, enforcement applications may be made in the Hong Kong and Mainland courts simultaneously.

Is third party funding of arbitration permitted in Hong Kong?

Yes, since 23 June 2017 under Part 10A of Cap. 609, with the disclosure provisions in force from 1 February 2019. Funding must be disclosed under sections 98U and 98V. Part 10A does not extend to lawyers acting for parties in the arbitration — they fall under Part 10B on ORFS.

Can a lawyer agree a success fee for a Hong Kong arbitration?

Yes, since 16 December 2022 under Part 10B of Cap. 609, in three forms: a conditional fee agreement, a damages-based agreement and a hybrid damages-based agreement. The agreement is void and unenforceable so far as it relates to personal injuries claims (section 98ZL).

What is the threshold for HKIAC’s Expedited Procedure?

HKD 50,000,000 for cases filed on or after 1 January 2026; previously HKD 25,000,000. The threshold is not in the Rules text but on HKIAC’s website: Article 42.1(a) of the 2024 Rules refers to the amount set by HKIAC as at the date the Notice of Arbitration is submitted.

Does an arbitration clause protect against a winding-up petition against the counterparty?

Not necessarily. In Hyalroute [2025] HKCFI 2417 the Hong Kong court refused an anti-suit injunction sought to restrain Cayman winding-up proceedings, holding that such proceedings do not finally resolve the dispute and that resorting to them therefore does not breach the arbitration agreement.

How many arbitral institutions operate in Hong Kong?

On the Government’s official statement of 24 June 2026, at least nine. The Department of Justice names HKIAC, the ICC-ICA Asia Office, the Hong Kong centres of CIETAC and CMAC, eBRAM, the AALCO regional centre, the South China International Arbitration Center (HK) and HKMAG. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has no office of its own in Hong Kong.

Key Takeaways

• Arbitration in Hong Kong is governed by the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), in force since 1 June 2011 under L.N. 38 of 2011 and built on the 2006 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

• The consolidated text of Cap. 609 carries a version date of 16 December 2022. That is the date the statute last changed — Ordinance No. 6 of 2022 on outcome related fee structures.

• No arbitration law reform was enacted in Hong Kong in 2026. The Department of Justice established a Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform in October 2025 and has stated the aim of advancing the legislative work within 2026; there is no bill.

• Cap. 609 is Ordinance No. 17 of 2010, gazetted on 12 November 2010. Seven ordinances have amended it: six arbitration-specific — Nos. 7 of 2013, 11 of 2015, 5 of 2017, 6 of 2017, 1 of 2021 and 6 of 2022 — plus one consequential, No. 28 of 2012 (the Companies Ordinance), which touched only the definition of “HKIAC”.

• Articles 35 and 36 of the Model Law have no effect in Hong Kong (sections 82 and 83). Enforcement and refusal grounds are governed by Part 10 of Cap. 609.

• Hong Kong operates four enforcement regimes: general (ss. 84–86), New York Convention (ss. 87–91), Mainland China (ss. 92–98) and Macao (ss. 98A–98D).

• Schedule 2 applies automatically only to domestic arbitration agreements entered into before 1 June 2017. A right of appeal on a question of law today requires an express opt-in.

• Third party funding has been permitted by Part 10A since 2017 and success fees for lawyers by Part 10B since 16 December 2022. The regimes are mutually exclusive (sections 98O, 98OA and 98Z).

• Mainland court interim relief has been available since 1 October 2019. In 2025: 34 applications to 13 Mainland courts, 17 granted, RMB 5.0 billion of assets preserved.

• HKIAC in 2025: 582 new cases, 388 arbitrations, HKD 126.2 billion in dispute, 84.3% international, parties from 61 jurisdictions, 96.6% seated in Hong Kong.

• HKIAC’s fees changed on 1 January 2026: Registration Fee HKD 10,000, maximum administrative fee HKD 440,000, arbitrator’s hourly cap HKD 7,500, ad valorem maximum HKD 13,831,400.

• HKIAC’s Expedited Procedure threshold doubled on 1 January 2026 to HKD 50,000,000.

• The 2026 case law has hardened the duty to object in time: withholding an objection until enforcement is characterised as a breach of the duty of good faith, and an unsuccessful challenge to an award can attract costs on an indemnity basis.

Summary

Arbitration in Hong Kong is governed by the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), in force from 1 June 2011 and built on the 2006 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law; the consolidated text carries a version date of 16 December 2022 and has not changed since. The statute, enacted as Ordinance No. 17 of 2010, has been amended by six arbitration-specific ordinances — Nos. 7 of 2013 (Macao awards, ss. 98A–98D), No. 11 of 2015, No. 5 of 2017 (arbitrability of intellectual property, Part 11A), No. 6 of 2017 (third party funding, Part 10A), No. 1 of 2021 (the Supplemental Arrangement with Mainland China, repealing ss. 93 and 97) and No. 6 of 2022 (outcome related fee structures, Part 10B). No 2026 arbitration law reform has been enacted or introduced into the Legislative Council: the Department of Justice established a Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform in October 2025, chaired by the Secretary for Justice, Mr Paul Lam, SC, held its first meeting on 17 November 2025 and has stated the aim of advancing the legislative work within 2026. An award may be set aside only under section 81 of Cap. 609 on the Article 34 Model Law grounds; an appeal on a question of law is available only under section 5 of Schedule 2, which applies automatically only to domestic arbitration agreements entered into before 1 June 2017. Mainland Chinese awards are enforced under sections 92 to 98 of Cap. 609, not under the New York Convention. HKIAC registered 582 new cases in 2025, including 388 arbitrations and 185 domain name disputes, with a total amount in dispute of HKD 126.2 billion, of which 84.3% of arbitrations were international, parties came from 61 jurisdictions and 96.6% of proceedings were seated in Hong Kong. From 1 January 2026 HKIAC’s Registration Fee is HKD 10,000, its maximum administrative fee HKD 440,000, the arbitrator’s hourly cap HKD 7,500 per hour, the ad valorem maximum HKD 13,831,400 per arbitrator, and the Expedited Procedure threshold HKD 50,000,000.

Sources

Every link points to a primary source: Hong Kong’s official legislation portal, government departments, the Judiciary, and the arbitral institution itself.

Disclaimer

This material is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, financial, investment or consulting advice. Before taking any decision, individual professional advice should be obtained, taking into account the specific circumstances, jurisdiction, company status and the regulators’ current requirements.

Publication date: August 2026.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get expert materials and special offers on citizenship and residence by investment. Once a week, no spam.

All services on the platform

Everything you need to start and run a business - in one place

2–10 days
Company Setup
Hong Kong company with a complete set of incorporation documents
Start
Monthly
Accounting and Tax Services
Accounting services in accordance with HKFRS, including monthly reporting.
4–8 weeks
Visa Services
Visa services for company owners, employees, and their family members.
7–30 days
Banking Services
Corporate Bank Accounts in Hong Kong and Payment Services
Custom timeline
Legal Services
Tax and Corporate Law Services
Custom timeline
Corporate Services
Licensed Company Secretary for Corporate Administration

All service providers on a single platform

International Free Zone Authority

Meydan Free Zone

Ajman Free Zone

Ajman Media City Free Zone

Sharjah Media City

Send WhatsApp message