Arbitration in Hong Kong: Cap 609, HKIAC 2024 Rules, fees and enforcement

The short version

• Arbitration in Hong Kong runs under one statute, the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609), in force since 1 June 2011. It gives the Model Law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) force of law and covers domestic and international cases under a single regime.
• New cases at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) use the 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules, which apply to a Notice of Arbitration submitted on or after 1 June 2024 (art 1.4).
• In the 2025 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London, respondents could name up to five seats. London was named by 34% and Singapore and Hong Kong by 31% each.
• From 1 January 2026 the Expedited Procedure covers claims up to HK$50,000,000, the registration fee is HK$10,000 and the hourly fee cap is HK$7,500 per arbitrator.
• An award can be set aside only on the Model Law article 34 grounds, within three months of receipt (s 81). There is no appeal on the merits unless the parties opted in under Schedule 2.
• The Department of Justice (DoJ) consulted from 28 September to 27 October 2026 on the Working Group’s recommendations on 25 issues under Cap 609, several of which propose no change, with a bill aimed at the Legislative Council in early 2027. On AI it proposes no change for now (Issue 17).^{1,5,6,9,25,26}

What law governs arbitration in Hong Kong?

One statute governs arbitration in Hong Kong. The Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) has been in force since 1 June 2011, when it replaced the old Cap 341 and merged the separate domestic and international regimes into one. There is no separate Hong Kong arbitration Act.^1,19

The Model Law is UNCITRAL’s 1985 template for national arbitration laws, amended in 2006. Section 4 of Cap 609 gives it force of law, and s 2(1) defines it as the text adopted on 21 June 1985 and amended on 7 July 2006, which is set out in Schedule 1. UNCITRAL lists Hong Kong, China from 2010, and the Ordinance started the next year. The object of the Ordinance is “the fair and speedy resolution of disputes by arbitration without unnecessary expense” (s 3(1)), and a court may step in only where the Ordinance says so (s 3(2)).^1,4

The Ordinance applies where the seat of the arbitration is in Hong Kong (s 5(1)). The seat is the arbitration’s legal home, whose law governs the procedure and whose courts supervise the case. For a foreign seat only listed provisions apply, including ss 20, 21, 45, 60, 61 and Part 10 (s 5(2)). Proceedings are private: unless the parties agree otherwise, no one may publish or disclose information about the arbitration or the award (s 18), and court hearings under the Ordinance are closed by default, with the court controlling what may be reported (ss 16, 17).¹

Schedule 2 holds a set of opt-in provisions (ss 99 to 101). Parties can choose a sole arbitrator, court consolidation, a court decision on a preliminary question of law, a challenge for serious irregularity and an appeal on a question of law. Schedule 2 applies automatically to an agreement that calls the arbitration “domestic” and was made before, or within six years after, 1 June 2011, a window we read as ending on 1 June 2017 (s 100). Funding has widened over time: third-party funding, where an outside funder pays a party’s costs for a share of any recovery, has been allowed since 1 February 2019 (Part 10A), and outcome-related fee structures took full effect on 16 December 2022 (Part 10B and Cap 609D).^1,2,19

Hong Kong is covered by the New York Convention, the 1958 treaty on recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards. It was extended to Hong Kong on 1 July 1997 through China, subject to China’s reciprocity and commercial-matters reservations. The reciprocity reservation is a limit under which a state applies the Convention only to awards made in another contracting state; the commercial reservation limits it to disputes the law treats as commercial. For how AI fits into this framework, see AI in arbitration.³

Why do parties choose Hong Kong as a seat, or not?

Hong Kong ranks among the most preferred seats, and the figures hold up. In the 2025 Queen Mary survey, respondents could name up to five seats. London was named by 34% and Singapore and Hong Kong by 31% each (Chart 3, printed p 7). In Asia-Pacific, Hong Kong was named by 45% and Singapore by 40% (Chart 2, printed p 6). For rules, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules were named by 39%, and the HKIAC and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules by 25% each (Chart 5, printed p 10).⁵

The government reads the same survey the same way: Hong Kong as the most preferred seat in Asia-Pacific, and joint second globally with Singapore. Of the HKIAC arbitrations begun in 2025, 84.3% were international, parties came from 61 jurisdictions, and 96.6% were seated in Hong Kong. The fuller caseload sits under time and cost below.^12,13,24

Hong Kong is open to outside participants. Foreign lawyers can act in Hong Kong arbitrations, because s 63 disapplies the Legal Practitioners Ordinance restrictions for arbitral proceedings. Since November 2020 the government has offered institutions office space at the Hong Kong Legal Hub, and from 1 March 2025 an immigration facilitation scheme lets eligible participants attend arbitrations in Hong Kong as visitors without an employment visa. One feature is specific to Hong Kong: parties to Hong Kong-seated arbitrations at designated institutions can seek interim measures from Mainland courts, which we set out under the courts below.^1,19,24

Some commentary asks whether Hong Kong is still a safe seat. The record answers it. HKIAC arbitrations rose from 344 in 2022 to 388 in 2025, the amount in dispute rose from HK$43.1 billion to HK$126.2 billion, and the 2025 Queen Mary survey keeps Hong Kong level with Singapore. We state this from the figures and cite no opinion piece. For the main comparator seats, see arbitration in Singapore and arbitration in London.^5,12

Which institutions run arbitrations in Hong Kong, and under what rules?

HKIAC, established in 1985, is the main institution. Under Cap 609 it is the default appointing authority and decides whether a case goes to a sole arbitrator or to three where the parties do not. Its 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules apply to a Notice submitted on or after 1 June 2024 (art 1.4). The 2024 edition added diversity (art 9A), information security (arts 13.1, 45A) and environmental impact (art 13.1). It also gave wider powers to decide preliminary issues (art 13.6) and to revoke an arbitrator’s appointment in exceptional cases (art 13.10), set tighter closing and award time limits (art 31.1), and added a model-clause option for how the tribunal is paid. Multi-party tools cover joinder (art 27), consolidation (art 28), a single arbitration under multiple contracts (art 29) and concurrent proceedings (art 30).^1,6,7,8

Other bodies have a Hong Kong presence, all as listed by the DoJ: the ICC International Court of Arbitration Asia Office (2008), the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Hong Kong Arbitration Centre (2012), the China Maritime Arbitration Commission Hong Kong Arbitration Centre (2014), the eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre (2018), the Hong Kong Maritime Arbitration Group (independent since 2019), the South China International Arbitration Center (HK) (2019) and the AALCO (Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization) Hong Kong Regional Arbitration Centre (2021). As at 27 January 2026 nine bodies qualified under the Mainland Interim Measures Arrangement: HKIAC and all of the above except the China Maritime Arbitration Commission centre, plus the Shanghai International Arbitration (Hong Kong) Center and the Asia Pacific International Arbitration Chamber Hong Kong Arbitration Center.^19,21

A separate body sits alongside them for mediation. The Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) was signed in Hong Kong on 30 May 2025 and entered into force on 29 August 2025. IOMed is headquartered in Hong Kong and began operating on 20 October 2025; it describes itself as the first intergovernmental legal body for resolving international disputes through mediation. It mediates rather than arbitrates, so it sits outside the rest of this guide. See also HKIAC in our AI rules tracker.^30,31

What should the arbitration clause say, and what can be arbitrated?

A Hong Kong arbitration clause should name the seat, the number of arbitrators (one or three), the language and how the tribunal is paid, and refer disputes to the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules; the HKIAC model clause covers each. The agreement must be in writing, which includes an electronic communication that can be accessed later (s 19, giving effect to Option I of Model Law art 7). If one side sues despite an arbitration agreement, the court shall refer the parties to arbitration unless the agreement is “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed”, and must stay the court action (s 20). A decision to refer cannot be appealed (s 20(8)); a refusal can be appealed only with the court’s leave (s 20(9)).^1,15

The model clause sends disputes “arising out of or relating to this contract” to arbitration under the HKIAC Rules, and sets the tribunal’s fee basis as either hourly rates under Schedule 2 or the sum in dispute under Schedule 3. HKIAC advises stating the law of the arbitration clause, in particular where the law of the main contract and the law of the seat differ. For an express Schedule 2 opt-in, the model clauses point drafters to s 99 and warn about the automatic opt-in under ss 100 and 101.^1,15

Most commercial disputes can be arbitrated. Intellectual-property disputes may be arbitrated, whether the point is the main issue or an incidental one (Part 11A, s 103D). A set of referenced arbitration rules forms part of the agreement (s 2(2)). The law that governs the arbitration agreement has no statutory rule for now, and Issue 11 of the 2026 consultation proposes the law of the seat as the default unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. For drafting a clause in the AI era, see AI in arbitration.^1,26

How does an HKIAC arbitration run, step by step?

An HKIAC arbitration starts on the day HKIAC receives the Notice of Arbitration, and the registration fee is due with it (arts 4.2, 4.4). The respondent files an Answer within 30 days of receiving the Notice (art 5.1). If the parties have not agreed the number of arbitrators within 30 days, HKIAC decides whether the case goes to a sole arbitrator or to three (art 6.1). The parties also tell HKIAC within 30 days how the tribunal is to be paid; if they do not agree, hourly rates under Schedule 2 apply (art 10.1).^6,9

Once in place, the tribunal sets a provisional timetable early (art 13.2) and may appoint a secretary (art 13.4). It can decide, by early determination, one or more points of law or fact that are “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction” (art 43.1). Where a party applied before the tribunal was constituted and HKIAC granted it, the whole case runs on the Expedited Procedure (art 42). The tribunal must declare the proceedings closed no later than 45 days after the last directed substantive submissions (art 31.1), and the award follows within three months of closure (art 31.2). In the Expedited Procedure the award is due within six months of the case file being transmitted to the tribunal (art 42.2(f)).⁶

How long does arbitration in Hong Kong take, and what does it cost?

How long an HKIAC arbitration takes depends on the track, and what it costs depends mainly on the amount in dispute. The Rules set the award clock, three months from closure in a standard case (art 31.2) and six months in the Expedited Procedure (art 42.2(f)). We give no average duration, because HKIAC publishes none we could find. HKIAC caps its own costs, which it points to as a feature that sets it apart. The fee schedule below applies to all cases filed on or after 1 January 2026.^6,9,12

• Worked example, HK$50,000,000 in dispute: HKIAC’s administrative fee is HK$174,900 (HK$162,800 plus 0.1210% of the HK$10 million above HK$40 million), and the Schedule 3 maximum is HK$925,760 per arbitrator (HK$877,360 plus 0.4840% of that HK$10 million). We recomputed both from the fee bands.
• What changed on 1 January 2026: the Expedited threshold doubled from HK$25 million to HK$50 million; the registration fee rose from HK$8,000 to HK$10,000; and the hourly cap rose from HK$6,500 to HK$7,500, its first change since 2013. Hourly rates are now the default fee basis.
• A December 2025 HKIAC study of more than 1,400 arbitrator appointments over 2020 to 2024 found that average hourly rates rose with dispute size and that most rates under the HKIAC Rules sat below the then HK$6,500 cap.
• Who pays: the tribunal can direct in the award who bears the costs of the arbitration, including its own fees and expenses (Cap 609 s 74).^1,9,10,11

The 2025 caseload gives a sense of scale. HKIAC handled 582 matters, of which 388 were arbitrations (281 administered), with HK$126.2 billion (about US$16.2 billion) in dispute and an average administered dispute of HK$418.8 million (about US$53.7 million). There were 35 Expedited applications (32 granted) and 95 hearings, 32 of them fully or partly virtual. These cover HKIAC only, not ad hoc or other-institution cases.^12,13,33

What do the Hong Kong courts do during an arbitration?

The Hong Kong courts support the arbitration and step in only where the Ordinance allows. “Court” in the Ordinance means the Court of First Instance of the High Court (s 2). Arbitration applications go to its Construction and Arbitration List under Practice Direction 6.1, in effect from 2 January 2021, which still refers to the repealed Cap 341.^1,29

Their powers are set out by section. A court can grant interim measures for arbitrations seated in or outside Hong Kong (s 45(2), not appealable under s 45(10)), make orders over property (s 60), help take evidence (s 55), and enforce a tribunal’s orders, including foreign ones, with leave (s 61), as well as an emergency arbitrator’s relief (s 22B). On jurisdiction, a party can ask the court within 30 days to review a tribunal’s ruling that it has jurisdiction, with no further appeal (s 34); a ruling of no jurisdiction cannot be appealed, and the court then decides the dispute if it has jurisdiction (s 34(4), (5)).¹

The Mainland Interim Measures Arrangement, signed on 2 April 2019 and in force from 1 October 2019, is the standout of the Hong Kong regime. A party to a Hong Kong-seated arbitration at a qualifying institution can apply, through that institution, to a Mainland Intermediate People’s Court to preserve assets, evidence or conduct. The reverse direction lets a party to a Mainland arbitration apply to the Hong Kong courts (art 6). In 2025 HKIAC processed 34 applications to 13 Mainland courts, seeking to preserve RMB 10.9 billion (about US$1.6 billion). Since the Arrangement began, 126 of 133 known decisions have granted preservation, covering RMB 30.8 billion (about US$4.6 billion). For the Mainland court side, see arbitration in China.^12,14,20

Can you appeal or set aside an award in Hong Kong?

There is no appeal on the merits. Setting aside under s 81 applies Model Law article 34 as the only recourse against an award, on the article 34(2) grounds alone, and the application must be made within three months of receiving the award (art 34(3)). A court cannot set aside or remit an award for an error of fact or law on the face of the award (s 81(3)), any appeal from the court’s decision needs leave (s 81(4)), and an award is final and binding unless the parties agree otherwise (s 73). This is an application to set aside, meaning a court at the seat cancels the award.¹

The parties can add two routes by opting in to Schedule 2: a challenge for serious irregularity (Sch 2 s 4) and an appeal on a question of law (Sch 2 ss 5, 6), where leave needs the decision to be “obviously wrong” or the question to be of general importance and the decision “at least open to serious doubt” (s 6(4)). Hong Kong takes an opt-in approach to appeals on law: a party who wants that right must provide for it in the arbitration agreement (consultation paper para 26.4, printed p 282).^1,27

The 2026 consultation proposes changes here (Issues 20 to 25), including a longer set-aside limit for fraud or corruption, a right of judicial review of negative jurisdiction rulings, and refinements to the appeal on a question of law; it adds no new “manifest disregard of the law” ground. As the consultation paper describes it, the Court of Final Appeal in C v D [2023] HKCFA 16 found a “substantial overlap” between the grounds under sections 34 and 81 of the Ordinance (para 23.18.1, fn 694). We did not open that judgment and rely on the paper’s account.^26,27

How are awards enforced in and from Hong Kong?

Under s 84 the court may give leave to enforce an award, wherever it was made, and enter judgment in its terms. New York Convention awards, which the Ordinance defines to exclude awards made in China, are enforced under Part 10 Division 2 (ss 87 to 91), and the grounds for refusing them are exhaustive: enforcement “may not be refused except as mentioned in this section” (s 89(1)). Leave is sought without notice; enforcement is automatically stayed while the debtor applies within 14 days of service to set the order aside, and Issue 3 of the 2026 review proposes removing that automatic stay (consultation paper para 4.1, printed pp 26 to 27).^1,26,27

Mainland China awards run on a separate track, not the Convention. Under the 1999 Arrangement, applications go to a Mainland Intermediate People’s Court or the Hong Kong High Court, with the limitation period of the place of enforcement and refusal grounds that include Mainland public interests or Hong Kong public policy. The Supplemental Arrangement, signed in Shenzhen on 27 November 2020, added recognition as well as enforcement, allowed applications in both places at once capped at the award amount, and allowed preservation measures; the DoJ says it was fully implemented on 19 May 2021. On the Hong Kong side, Mainland awards are enforced under ss 92 to 98 (ss 93 and 97 were repealed in 2021), and Macao awards under ss 98A to 98D.^1,19,22,23

A Hong Kong award is enforced abroad under the New York Convention, the 1958 treaty on recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, which has 172 parties; see New York Convention grounds. For enforcing against a Mainland counterparty, see arbitration in China.³

What changed recently, and what is pending?

The live reform is a review of Cap 609. A Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform was set up in October 2025. The DoJ consulted from 28 September to 27 October 2026 on the Working Group’s recommendations on 25 issues, several of which propose no change, grouped into speed and convenience, confidentiality, scope, and fairness and justice. It aims to introduce a bill into the Legislative Council in early 2027 and to complete the amendments within 2027.^17,24,25

The current edition of the HKIAC Rules is still the 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules; we found no 2025 or 2026 edition, and the 1 January 2026 change was to the Schedule of Fees, not the Rules. Dated changes already in place: HKIAC’s Expedited threshold and fees changed on 1 January 2026; the Greater Bay Area (the Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao region) arbitrator panel was promulgated on 30 December 2025; the immigration facilitation scheme took its current, regularised form on 1 March 2025; and IOMed entered into force on 29 August 2025. Earlier changes were outcome-related fee structures in 2022, the Mainland-award amendments in 2021, the 2020 Supplemental Arrangement, the 2019 Interim Measures Arrangement, third-party funding in 2019 and intellectual-property arbitration in 2018.^{1,10,18,19,31}

What do Hong Kong’s courts, institutions and law say about AI in arbitration?

The Ordinance does not regulate AI, and Hong Kong has no dedicated AI framework; AI users work within existing sectoral laws and guidance (consultation paper paras 18.4, 18.5, printed pp 199 to 200). On the question whether Cap 609 should cater for AI, the government’s position is that there is “no immediate need to amend” the Ordinance and that a “light-touch regulatory approach may be more appropriate at this stage” (Issue 17; para 18.17, printed p 206).^26,27

The paper raises, but does not decide, whether an AI could be an arbitrator: because an arbitrator is presumed to be a person under ss 24 and 25, it says an “AI arbitrator” may not be legally permissible (fn 504, printed p 206). On HKIAC, the paper is “not aware of any practice note / guideline / statement on the use of AI” published by it (fn 503, printed p 204). The 2024 Rules contain no AI provision, though they ask the tribunal to have regard to the “effective use of technology, information security” (art 13.1) and let it direct on information security and rule on breaches (art 45A).^6,27

HKIAC does use AI in one published way. In April 2025 it said it would use a generative-AI tool to summarise its procedural decisions for the HKIAC Case Digest, free from 1 July 2025. The Judiciary’s July 2024 generative-AI guidelines bind judges and court staff, not tribunals: judicial decisions must be made personally and independently with no delegation to AI (para 6), output must be checked and verified (para 8), only Judiciary devices may be used and no confidential information put into public chatbots (paras 9, 10), and using generative AI for legal analysis is “not recommended” (para 20).^16,28

For the wider picture, see the AI in arbitration pillar and, for the region, AI in dispute resolution in South-East Asia. CIETAC’s own AI position is handled in arbitration in China, a nearby institution’s approach in SIAC and AI, and drafting an award with AI help in AI and setting aside awards and AI award drafting. In our reading the safe practice is to raise AI tools at the first case management conference and record what is agreed in Procedural Order No. 1; the 2024 Rules do not require this.⁶

What is still open?

• Whether the 2026 bill passes and in what form, including the seat-law default for the arbitration agreement, removing the automatic stay of enforcement, summary disposal, trust-dispute arbitration and the appeal on a question of law.
• Whether HKIAC will publish AI guidance. We found none in its news listing to 30 October 2026.
• Whether an “AI arbitrator” is permissible under ss 24 and 25, which the consultation paper leaves open.
• How a Hong Kong court would treat an award drafted with heavy AI help under the set-aside grounds. We found no Hong Kong case (s 81).
• HKIAC publishes no average case duration, so we give none.
• IOMed’s exact membership count moves between its listings, and its headquarters agreement is still marked as coming.^{1,12,18,26,27,32}