CI v IU [2025] HKCFI 4397 is a key decision on whether Hong Kong’s “opt‑in” appeals from arbitral awards on questions of law extends to points of foreign law. This ruling may make Hong Kong a more attractive jurisdiction than England for arbitration. Singapore has recently consulted on this very question.
A charterparty contained a common clause “Arbitration if any in Hong Kong English law to apply”. An arbitration was conducted under HKMAG Terms 2021. To coincide with the English position, HKMAG terms contain an opt-in to appeals on law under Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) Schedule 2.
An award was issued. The unsuccessful charterers sought leave to appeal questions of law. One threshold requirement, among others, for leave is that the question be one of general importance. The court was not persuaded of this on the merits, so views expressed on the foreign law issue were obiter.
Under the clause (a) any arbitration would be Hong Kong-seated, and (b) the contract governing law was English law. Owners contended appeals could only be on questions of Hong Kong law, whereas any errors of law in the case were necessarily of foreign (English) law and thus points of “fact”. The English equivalent Arbitration Act 1996 s.82 makes clear that appeals may only be on English law.
The court considered that a Hong Kong appeal is not confined to questions of Hong Kong law. The governing law being foreign/English did not rule out appeal, citing an English tax case Beard v R&C Commissioners [2025] EWCA Civ 385 that if a court applies its own legal skills to ascertain points of non-English law, errors in doing so will be errors of “law”. On the Hong Kong court’s view, there is no bright line excluding appeals on foreign law and whether a particular ruling is appealable will depend on what the tribunal decided and how it decided it.
CI v IU is consistent with recent cases holding that, particularly in cases governed by other common law systems, it is no longer necessary to call experts and the court can ascertain the “foreign” law itself by recourse to legal materials, eg Perry v Lopag Trust [2023] 1 WLR 3494 (PC) and Hyalroute Communication Group v ICBC [2025] HKCFI 2417 (direct submissions in Hong Kong on Cayman law), and leave to appeal is more likely to be given than in pure fact cases.
CI v IU provides useful guidance on a long uncertain point of Hong Kong law, although it remains to be reconsidered in future cases. If followed, it could do away with any artificial distinction between cases governed by Hong Kong law and English (or other similar) laws, paving the way for appeals and development of the law in suitable cases. It remains for a future case to consider whether and when a point of foreign law could meet the “general importance” test.
https://lnkd.in/ghNscpdM