Under Articles 21L and 21M of the High Court Ordinance, the Hong Kong Court has broad jurisdiction to grant an application for interim measures to support arbitration proceedings inside or outside Hong Kong, provided that such proceedings result in an arbitral award that is ultimately enforceable in Hong Kong. § 58 HKAO authorizes the Tribunal to extend the time limit for filing an appeal where an arbitration agreement provides that a claim is time-barred, unless it is referred to arbitration within a specified period of time if the Tribunal is satisfied that (i) at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the circumstances of the claim were beyond the proper consideration of the parties and that it is only: extend the time limit; or (ii) the conduct of one party renders unfair the other party`s compliance with the strict terms of the agreement. “5. Given that one of the terms of the agreement governs the contract by the rules of the Refined Sugar Association, London, treating them as expressly inserted in the agreement, Article 8 of the Refined Sugar Association, London, leaves no doubt that the parties have not only accepted English law as the law governing the treaty, but that disputes and arbitration are also subject to the law of England. The seat of the arbitration is, it must be admitted, England. (Highlighted only here.) The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules 2018 contains a mechanism of individual proceedings in multiple contracts, designed to deal with a situation in which disputes may arise in a series of interconnected transactions. Article 29 of the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules 2018 provides that claims arising out of or related to more than one contract may be subject to a single arbitration procedure, provided that the applicability of Part I to international arbitration has again been challenged before a Grand Chamber of Bharat Aluminium Co against Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc (BALCO). (5) The case was brought before the Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court. In the course of the proceedings, the Tribunal reviewed the law established by Bhatia International and Venture Global. In the BALCO case, the Supreme Court upheld the territorial principle and ruled that arbitration proceedings outside India would not attract Part I. However, the tribunal decided that arbitration proceedings, including international arbitration, based in India were governed by Part I.
The BALCO judgment was forward-looking (i.e. the arbitration agreements signed following the BALCO judgment (6 September 2012 (6)). Therefore, all arbitration agreements entered into prior to September 6, 2012 continued to be regulated by Bhatia International. What legislation applies to arbitration in your jurisdiction? `27. The treaty law in force in this case is expressly recognised as the law in force in India and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Delhi courts in all matters arising out of the treaty, and the parties have not opted explicitly or implicitly for any right other than Indian law with respect to the agreement contained in the arbitration clause. The law applicable to the arbitration agreement is indeed that in force in India and the competent courts of that country must necessarily have jurisdiction over all arbitration matters. Neither the rules of procedure contractually adopted by the parties for the application of arbitration procedures (the ICC Rules), nor the mandatory requirements of the procedure followed in the courts of the country where the arbitration is taking place can, in any way, replace the superior jurisdiction and control of Indian law and courts. . . .