A creditor commences winding-up proceedings against a debtor company on the basis that the company is insolvent. The petition debt relates to a dispute within the ambit of the arbitration agreement between the creditor and the debtor. Should the Court either:- Uphold the parties’ agreement to arbitrate (and stay / dismiss the winding-up); or Allow the creditor to continue to pursue the debt in winding-up proceedings? In our previous article on the topic in August 2020, we discussed Lasmos approach and the inter-relationship between arbitration and insolvency proceedings through the cases of: (1) the HKCFI case Lasmos (Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426), (2) the English CA case Salford Estates(Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altormart Ltd (No 2) [2015] Ch 589), (3) the two HK CA cases But Ka Chon (But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873) and Sit Kwong Lam (Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220), and (4) the HKCFI case of Dayang (Dayang (HK) Marine Shipping Co., Limited v Asia Master Logistic Limited [2020] HKCFI 311). The common law position has now been further developed in a number of important Court decisions, including judgments from the highest Courts in HK and the UK, i.e. the HKCFA and the UK Privy Council hearing an appeal from the BVI Courts. In the HKCFA case of Re Guy Lam (Re Guy Kwok Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9), the traditional English position in Salford Estates is largely followed. By contrast, in the Privy Council case of Sian (Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16), the traditional English position in Salford Estates was held to be wrong in principle. This article seeks to re-visit and distil, at a very high level, the contrasting positions between the HK and the UK Courts, and explores two post-Sian HK cases reaffirming the Re Guy Lam approach through the principle of stare decisis (instead of following the Privy Council approach in Sian). These two recent HK decisions are – HKCFI case of Re Mega Gold (Re Mega Gold and Re Man Chun Sing Matthew, heard together in [2024] HKCFI 2286) and CA case of Re Inversion (Re Inversion Productions Ltd [2024] HKCA 884).

These are exciting times for sports in Hong Kong. With the Hong Kong team’s success at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics and Summer Paralympics, the opening of the Kai Tak Sports Park and the 15thNational Games (which Hong Kong is co-hosting together with Guangdong and Macao) in 2025, it is expected that interest in sports and the sports industry in Hong Kong will continue to grow. From the selection of athletes by sports clubs to the determination of the outcome of a game, anti-doping tests and sports-related commercial deals, disputes can arise at many stages along the sports industry chain. Some observers and commentators have suggested that Hong Kong would be assisted by having a comprehensive dispute resolution system to resolve the sports-related disputes which unavoidably arise from the growing sports industry.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently upheld the enforceability of a DIFC-LCIA arbitration clause, notwithstanding the fact that the DIFC-LCIA no longer exists.   The decision highlights the uncertainty that surrounds the enforceability of DIFC-LCIA arbitration clauses.

The Arbitration Act 2025 has become law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  The new Act is largely based on the recommendations made in the Law Commission’s Final Report, published following a public consultation seeking views on potential areas for reform. The new Act doesn’t represent a dramatic change to the arbitration framework in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Feedback from the Law Commission’s consultation was that the Arbitration Act 1996 works well and that significant reform was neither needed nor wanted. As a result, the new Act makes a series of discrete amendments to the 1996 Act, delivering incremental improvement as opposed to root and branch reform.