HONG KONG SAR, CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Frederick Hui and Samuel Li, Zhong Lun Law Firm
appoint the chair – if a party or the co‑arbitrators fail to act within the specified time, the court/ appointing authority steps in. There is no single built-in rule for how to appoint arbi - trators in multiparty cases. If the arbitration clause does not provide a workable mechanism or the pro - cess breaks down, the court or an appointing authority can step in to set up a fair process and make appoint - ments so no side has an unfair advantage. Many institutional arbitration rules (such as HKIAC’s) already include clear steps for multiparty situations. For example, if multiple claimants or respondents cannot agree on a joint nominee, the institution can appoint the whole tribunal to preserve equality. In ad hoc arbitrations without such rules, the court or appointing authority can make the necessary appoint - ments, considering party equality and any agreed qualifications. To avoid uncertainty, parties often adopt institutional rules or draft explicit multiparty appointment terms in their contracts. 4.3 Court Intervention As mentioned in 4.2 Default Procedures , the Court of First Instance (or an appointing authority such as HKIAC, if designated) may make appointments when the agreed arbitrator appointment procedure fails. The court can also decide challenges to arbitrators (for justifiable doubts as to impartiality/independence or lack of agreed qualifications) after institutional/con - tractual processes are exhausted, and remove arbitra - tors who are unable to perform or who unduly delay. Limitations are significant and reflect a pro‑arbitration, minimal‑intervention policy. The court will honour the parties’ agreed procedure and any chosen institutional rules, stepping in only when that mechanism breaks down or is incapable of being performed. When appointing, the court must consider any agreed quali - fications, the need for independence and impartiality, and – where appropriate – nationality considerations. Its role is not to review the merits, choose “friendly” arbitrators or second‑guess institutional case man - agement. Decisions on appointment are generally not appealable, and court intervention is confined to the specific statutory gateways (appointment, challenge/ removal, replacement after termination), leaving the
arbitral tribunal to handle jurisdiction and case con - duct. 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators The AO sets out specific procedures and grounds for challenging or removing arbitrators. A party may chal - lenge an arbitrator if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, or if the arbitrator does not possess qualifications agreed by the parties. Challenges gen - erally follow the procedure the parties agreed (often institutional rules). If that process is unsuccessful, the challenging party may apply to the Court of First Instance within 30 days as per Section 26 of the AO. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements Hong Kong law imposes clear, ongoing duties of inde - pendence, impartiality and disclosure. Under the AO, an arbitrator must be impartial and independent; a party may challenge an arbitrator if circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts about these conditions or if agreed qualifications cannot be met. Prospective and sitting arbitrators must disclose without delay any circumstances likely to give rise to such doubts, and this duty continues throughout the proceedings. Typi - cal disclosure topics include professional, financial or personal relationships with the parties, lawyers, wit - nesses and affiliates, repeat appointments and signifi - cant prior work. While the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest are not law, Hong Kong courts and tribunals frequently use them as persuasive guidance. The 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (the “2024 HKIAC Rules”) reinforce and operationalise these standards. Arbitrator candidates must sign statements of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence, and disclose any potential conflicts. The arbitrators’ disclosure obligation continues after appointment. HKIAC can decide challenges for justi - fiable doubts regarding impartiality/independence or lack of agreed qualifications and may remove/replace arbitrators who fail to act or are unable to perform. In practice, robust, early disclosure is encouraged; non‑disclosure of a material connection can itself sup - port a challenge, whereas trivial or fully disclosed links seldom do. Parties may agree on specific qualifica - tions, but they cannot contract out of the core duties of impartiality, independence and disclosure.
427 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook