As the geopolitical landscape shifts,
: Leading commentators, such as Mau, Lau & Wong in Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance Commentary , emphasize that the "opt-in" nature of Schedule 2 (sections 20–22) traps the unwary. Unlike England’s Arbitration Act 1996, where appeals on points of law are default, in Hong Kong they require an express agreement. Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd v Pacific China Holdings Ltd (2012) confirmed that silence means no appeal. : Under Section 84 (domestic) and Section 92
:
Under Section 84 (domestic) and Section 92 (international via the New York Convention), Hong Kong provides a streamlined enforcement mechanism. Notably, the Ordinance does not permit a court to re-examine the merits. Commentary highlights that Hong Kong’s enforcement rate exceeds 99%, with reported refusals limited to rare cases of procedural unfairness (e.g., Gao Haiyan v. Keeneye Holdings [2011] HKCFA 50, involving undisclosed bias of an arbitrator). Keeneye Holdings [2011] HKCFA 50, involving undisclosed bias
: Section 84(4) requires a stay of enforcement if the courts of the seat (e.g., Mainland) have a pending set-aside application. Commentators note the practical trap: Parties often confuse this with the New York Convention’s "status quo" requirement. Keeneye Holdings [2011] HKCFA 50
: Leading commentary cites Company A v Company B (2023) —the first Hong Kong case where an EA award was enforced. The annotation clarifies that EA decisions are final and binding but not technically "awards" for the purpose of set-aside under Art. 34. Rather, they are enforced via Court orders under s.60.