NewsPublications

๐—›๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ž๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—–๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐˜€ ๐—๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—œ๐—บ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† ๐—˜๐˜…๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—”๐—ฟ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜€

25/08/2023

Last month, in the judgement of ๐˜š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜“๐˜ช๐˜ฉ๐˜ถ๐˜ข ๐˜ท ๐˜“๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ [2023] ๐˜๐˜’๐˜Š๐˜๐˜ 1954, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance confirmed that judicial immunity available to judges should also be extended to arbitrators in respect of their decision-making in the arbitral process, absent fraud or bad faith.

The court recognized that arbitrators fulfill a judicial or quasi-judicial role and their decision-making process is comparable in nature and process to those of judges, such that there is a need to protect the course of an arbitratorโ€™s independent judgement from threats of lawsuits and collateral attacks. As a result thereof, the court dismissed an application issued in a setting aside application for a letter of request to compel an arbitrator to give evidence on matters concerning the nature and extent of his participation in an arbitration hearing.

The above decision once again affirms the pro-arbitration stance of the Hong Kong courts.

To know more, please read our latest article for this update prepared by our Partnerย Simon Wong, and our Associatesย Pui Yee Cheryl Lo, andย Kathy Siu.