The Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance Commentary And Annotations !!better!! Jun 2026

: Guidance on how the court is likely to apply new provisions in practice, such as those regarding confidentiality and "arb-med" procedures.

A statute provides the "what," but a commentary provides the "how" and the "why." The Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance: Commentary and Annotations serves as the bridge between legislative theory and judicial practice. In the realm of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where confidentiality and procedural flexibility reign, the interpretation of rules is often contested. : Guidance on how the court is likely

Article 34 of the Model Law, as applied via Section 73, provides the exclusive grounds for setting aside an award (e.g., incapacity, invalid arbitration agreement, breach of natural justice, public policy). Hong Kong courts have adopted a narrow, pro-enforcement interpretation. In Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd v. Pacific China Holdings Ltd (2012) 15 HKCFAR 437, the Court of Final Appeal held that “public policy” refers only to Hong Kong’s most basic notions of morality and justice, not mere legal error. Annotations consistently praise this approach as enhancing the finality of awards and discouraging frivolous set-aside applications. Article 34 of the Model Law, as applied

: The Hong Kong TPF Code of Practice is annotated as a mandatory adjunct to the AO. Practitioners note the "disclosure obligations" in s.98T—funding must be disclosed to the tribunal and all other parties, including the funding agreement's existence, though not its commercial terms. Violation can lead to adverse costs orders ( Xu v. Chen [2022] HKCA ). Pacific China Holdings Ltd (2012) 15 HKCFAR 437,