Janice Li
I am currently an associate in DLA Piper's litigation and regulatory group. I am a solicitor admitted in the High Court of Hong Kong and an US attorney qualified to practice law in the New York State.
My practice focuses on international arbitration and commercial litigation. I have handled disputes covering areas including financial instruments, licensing and distribution, construction, insurance, international trade and sale of goods, shipping, energy and natural resources and general commercial disputes in the High Court of Hong Kong, and arbitrations seated in jurisdictions including Hong Kong, Singapore, London, the US and Mainland China.
I have advised clients in all aspects of disputes including asset preservation, injunctions, as well as enforcement of arbitral awards in various jurisdictions.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2020
Experience
- Kennedys (2018 - 2022)
Qualifications
- PCLL (2018)
- Juris Doctor (2017)
Education
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (2018)
8 Contributions by Janice Li
PRACTICE NOTES
Enforcing Mainland China arbitral awards in Hong Kong: common law and statutory routes (Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609)
Before the handover on 1 July 1997, both Hong Kong and the Mainland were already parties to the New York Convention. That Convention, however, only regulates the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards between distinct contracting states, and does not extend to enforcement between provinces or regions within a single state. To overcome this enforcement gap, the authorities in Hong Kong and the Mainland entered into the ‘Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’...
Note: Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis®.
Mainland awards
A party successful in a Mainland arbitration may pursue enforcement of the award in Hong Kong by either:
relying on the common law, by issuing proceedings founded on an implied promise to honour the award (commonly known as an ‘action on the award’); or
proceeding under statute, through the summary procedure in the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609).
This statutory route removes the need to follow all the formal steps of an action to enforce an award. The prevailing party may apply ex parte, supported by an affidavit, for leave of the court to enforce the award as though it were a court judgment...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Freezing injunctions in support of arbitration in Hong Kong: court and tribunal powers, procedure and criteria (including support for foreign-seated proceedings)
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained .
In line with its authority to order interim relief in aid of arbitration, the Hong Kong court, under the Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 (AO), may grant freezing injunctions (formerly referred to as Mareva injunctions) in support of arbitral proceedings. Securing such relief is demanding and should not be approached casually. For the position under English law, see Practice Note: Freezing injunctions in support of arbitration (England and Wales).
Powers of the court to grant interim measures (generally)
The court’s ability to award interim measures arises under AO, ss 21 and 45. Section 21 makes clear that requesting, before or during arbitration, a protective interim measure from the court is compatible with an arbitration agreement, and that the court may grant such relief. Under s 45, the court may, for arbitral proceedings commenced or to be commenced in or outside Hong Kong, issue an interim measure, which can include an interim injunction. The court may exercise these powers irrespective of whether...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609): Model Law framework, scope, tribunal jurisdiction, court support and enforcement, seat and confidentiality
Scope
The Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO) governs any arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement that designates Hong Kong as the seat, irrespective of whether the agreement was concluded in Hong Kong. AO applies to both domestic and international arbitrations. If the seat lies outside Hong Kong, only selected provisions of AO apply, including:
stay of court proceedings where the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement (AO, s 20)
interim measures ordered by a court in support of an arbitration (AO, ss 21, 45, 60)
enforcement of emergency relief issued by emergency arbitrators (AO, ss 22A–22B)
enforcement of the arbitral tribunal’s orders and directions (AO, s 61)
recognition and enforcement of awards (AO, ss 82–98)
The provisions of AO (subject to limited exceptions) also extend to statutory arbitrations under other ordinances, so long as AO is consistent with that ordinance (AO, s 5). These applications operate irrespective of the arbitration’s domestic or cross-border character under AO, in each relevant case.
Structure of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609)
The former Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 341) maintained separate, distinct regimes for domestic and international arbitrations. International arbitrations were governed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law, while...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance: scope, Model Law structure, tribunal jurisdiction and separability, seat selection, confidentiality, court support and enforcement, including emergency relief—an archived practitioner guide
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.
Scope of the Arbitration Ordinance
The Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 (AO), governs arbitrations conducted under an arbitration agreement that designates Hong Kong as the seat. This holds true irrespective of whether the agreement was entered into in Hong Kong. The AO applies to both domestic and international arbitrations.
Where the seat is outside Hong Kong, only particular AO provisions continue to apply, namely:
the stay of any court proceedings where the matter is subject to an arbitration agreement (AO, s 20)
interim measures ordered by the court in support of arbitration within and outside Hong Kong (AO, ss 21, 45, 60)
enforcement of emergency relief granted by emergency arbitrators (AO, ss 22A, 22B)
enforcement of orders and directions made by the arbitral tribunal (AO, s 61)
recognition and enforcement of awards (AO, ss 82–98)
Save for certain exceptions, the AO’s provisions also apply to statutory arbitrations under other ordinances, so long as the AO is consistent with that other ordinance (AO, s 5).
Structure of the AO
The old Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 341, operated separate, distinct regimes...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Hong Kong courts’ powers supporting arbitration: stays, interim injunctions, asset/evidence preservation, receivers and security—legal tests and procedures for court applications, including emergency arbitrator relief and anti-suit injunctions
The court may, under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO), order a variety of interim relief to support arbitration proceedings. These measures are chiefly intended to ensure the arbitral process is respected, prevent any award from being frustrated, regulate the behaviour of the parties, and preserve assets or evidence. It should also be noted that the arbitral tribunal has corresponding powers to grant interim measures under AO, s 35. Note: Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis®.
Power of the court to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration
Under AO, s 20, the court may stay proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration on a party’s request where the action is the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless the arbitration agreement is invalid, inoperative or incapable of being performed. In Hong Kong, the courts consistently uphold the primacy of the arbitration agreement once it is shown that the matter falls within such an agreement (Polytec Overseas Ltd (保利達國際有限公司) v Grand Dragon International Holdings Co Ltd (龍浩國際集團有限公司) [2017] HKCU 878)...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Hong Kong freezing (Mareva) injunctions in support of arbitration: court and tribunal powers, criteria, third-party (Chabra), procedure and enforcement
In line with its authority to issue interim relief in aid of arbitration, the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO) permits the court to grant freezing injunctions (Mareva injunctions) in support of arbitral proceedings. The criteria for obtaining such relief broadly mirror those applied to freezing orders in standard court actions. Note: The Hong Kong judgments referred to below are not reported by LexisNexis®...
Powers of the court to grant interim measures (generally)
The court may grant interim measures under AO, ss 21 and 45.
AO, s 21 confirms that, before or during arbitral proceedings, a party may seek an interim protective measure from the court without offending the arbitration agreement, and the court may grant that relief.
AO, s 45 provides that, in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced or to be commenced in or outside Hong Kong, the court can grant interim measures, including interim injunctions.
These judicial powers exist irrespective of whether an arbitral tribunal has comparable powers under AO, s 35. The court...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Hong Kong: court powers to stay proceedings and grant interim measures in support of arbitration; application procedures, Mainland China arrangement, and emergency arbitrator enforcement
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained.
Under the Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 (AO), the Hong Kong court may grant a range of interim measures in aid of arbitration proceedings. Such measures are principally intended to uphold the arbitral process, avoid frustration of the award, regulate how the parties conduct themselves, and protect assets or evidence. The arbitral tribunal also has corresponding powers to grant interim measures under AO, s 35. Note: the Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis® UK.
Power of the court to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration
Where a party so requests, the court can stay its proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration if the action is brought in a matter that is subject to an arbitration agreement, unless that agreement is invalid, inoperative, or incapable of being performed (AO, s 20). When deciding whether to grant a stay, the court may adopt the four-staged test laid down in Tommy CP Sze v Li & Fung (Trading) [2003] 1 HKC 418, as approved in Polytec Overseas Ltd v Grand Dragon International Holdings [2017]...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Mainland China–Hong Kong Arrangement on Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitration: institutional scope, procedures, evidential tests and practice under PRC and HKSAR law
On 2 April 2019, the HKSAR Government and the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) executed the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings (the Arrangement). Effective from 1 October 2019, the Arrangement makes Hong Kong the first jurisdiction with a formalised legal channel with Mainland China through which parties may apply to Mainland courts for interim measures backing institution-administered arbitrations seated in Hong Kong. Conversely, parties to Mainland China institutional arbitrations may likewise seek interim measures from the Hong Kong courts in support of those proceedings, irrespective of the arbitral seat. Note: The Hong Kong judgments referred to below are not reported by LexisNexis®.
Background
Hong Kong and Mainland China already maintain reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of arbitral awards and court judgments. Although section 45 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO) provides a jurisdictional foundation for HKSAR courts to grant interim measures in aid of arbitrations seated outside Hong Kong (including Mainland China), the Arrangement makes Hong Kong the only jurisdiction in which parties to arbitral proceedings have a specific pathway enabling direct applications to PRC courts for interim relief...
Arbitration
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
