Arb-Med in Hong Kong: Corrected Position Or Enduring Suspicion?
Journal article | December 2013 | Available for purchase & free for members
In Gao Haiyan and another v Keeneye Holdings and another (Gao v Keeneye), the Hong Kong Court of Appeal upheld the validity of arb-med in Hong Kong, reversing the first instance decision. While this decision allows commercial parties to breathe a sigh of relief, strong views about the fallibility of arbmed still permeate the Hong Kong judiciary. Whereas arb-med is an entrenched method of alternative dispute resolution in Europe and in other parts of Asia, in the bustling commercial world of Hong Kong suspicions endure about the practice. In this article we explore whether those suspicions have been eradicated by the Court of Appeal’s decision or whether deep-seated distrust for arb-med endures.
We thank the author of this article Dr Josh Wilson SC and William E M Lye and the journal editor Russell Thirgood for their contribution to this journal.