Summary

In Bank v. Guarantor & Others [2026] HKCFI 1818, a bank (the Bank) commenced arbitration before the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration against the second Defendant, a guarantor (the Guarantor), under a written guarantee contract (the Contract). The Guarantor had guaranteed the obligations of the first Defendant. On 25 June 2025, the tribunal issued an award ordering the first Defendant to pay the Bank the principal loan amount and holding the Guarantor jointly and severally liable for that debt.

On 28 August 2025, the Bank obtained leave to enforce the award as a judgment of the Hong Kong Court. On 8 October 2025, the Guarantor applied to set aside the enforcement order on three grounds: (i) the arbitral procedure did not comply with the parties’ agreement; (ii) the Guarantor was unable to present its case; and (iii) enforcement would be contrary to public policy.

The Court of First Instance (the Court) rejected all three grounds. It ordered costs on an indemnity basis against the Guarantor, criticising it for pursuing a meritless application despite having the benefit of legal advice.

The Court’s analysis

Ground 1: Non-compliance with pre-arbitration steps – failure to conduct amicable discussions

The Guarantor argued that clause 15.2 of the Contract required the parties to engage in “amicable discussions” before referring any dispute to arbitration, and alleged that no such discussions had taken place between the Bank and the Guarantor. 

The Court rejected this ground on several bases. First, relying on C v. D (2023) 26 HKCFAR 216, it held that the fulfilment of pre-arbitration conditions is an admissibility issue and does not go to the tribunal’s jurisdiction. A tribunal’s finding on admissibility is not reviewable by a Hong Kong court unless the parties have clearly provided otherwise. Second, the Bank adduced evidence that amicable discussions did take place, attended by the Guarantor’s CEO and CFO. Third, the Guarantor never raised this objection before the tribunal. Applying Hebei Import and Export Corp v. Polyteck Engineering Co Ltd (1999) 2 HKCFAR 111, the Court held that the Guarantor had breached its duty of good faith and deprived the tribunal of any opportunity to rectify the alleged irregularity. The Guarantor was therefore estopped from relying on this ground to resist enforcement.

Ground 2: Inability to present its case on the issue of authority

The Guarantor claimed that it had no reasonable opportunity to present its case on whether it had authority to enter into the Contract, an issue that would have required evidence of Cayman law (the Guarantor being incorporated in the Cayman Islands). The Court rejected this ground. It held that the Guarantor could not “sit on its hands” and expect the tribunal to invite submissions on what the Guarantor considered a critical issue. The Guarantor had been given the opportunity to make written submissions on authority but never sought to adduce evidence of Cayman law – or any other law – when it plainly could have done so. That opportunity having passed, the Guarantor could not reopen the issue in court. The Court also found no basis for any prejudice to the Guarantor. This ground accordingly failed.

Ground 3: Enforcement contrary to public policy

Finally, the Guarantor raised novel arguments that enforcement of the award would contravene Hong Kong public policy. First, the Guarantor relied on Mainland policies from 2022 directing banks to support the real estate sector. It also invoked 1999 guidelines issued by the Hong Kong Association of Banks and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) on how banks should deal with borrowers experiencing financial difficulties. The Guarantor argued that, by reference to these guidelines, the Bank should have supported the Guarantor’s group, ensured it had sufficient liquidity, and offered restructuring options – rather than commencing arbitration.

The Court rejected this argument. It held that the HKMA guidelines are entirely voluntary and do not bind any bank in Hong Kong. The Mainland policies likewise have no application in Hong Kong. By contrast, the Court emphasised Hong Kong’s public policy of recognising and upholding consensual agreements – including arbitration agreements – and treating arbitral awards as final and binding unless specific statutory grounds for challenge are established.

Second, the Guarantor argued that enforcement would “facilitate or condone” the Bank’s breach of Mainland foreign exchange control regulations, contending that the Contract (being an offshore guarantee securing an onshore debt) was subject to registration requirements under the Provisions on Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantee and the Measures for the Registration of Foreign Debt (the Measures), and that such registration had not been completed. 

The Court found that the Measures have no effect in Hong Kong. The Bank had a branch and registered place of business in Hong Kong, so no cross-border remittance was required. Further, any breach of the Measures would not render the Contract void – it would only attract administrative penalties. Finally, the Guarantor never raised the issue of breach of PRC law or regulations before the tribunal, despite its purported importance. The Court held that the Guarantor had thereby waived its right to do so at the enforcement stage.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that there was no palpable illegality on the face of the award and nothing “shocking to the conscience” of the Hong Kong Court in this case, applying A v. R (Arbitration: Enforcement) [2009] 3 HKLRD and Hebei Import & Export Corp v. Polytek Engineering Co Ltd (1999) 2 HKCFAR 111, 139. 

Court’s ruling

The Court dismissed the Guarantor’s application to set aside enforcement of the award, and awarded costs to the Bank on an indemnity basis.

Comment

The Court’s decision reinforces several important principles for parties engaged in cross-border arbitration and enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong:

1. Pre-arbitration steps go to admissibility, not jurisdiction. Parties cannot resist enforcement on the basis that pre-arbitration steps – such as amicable negotiation or mediation – were not followed. Following C v. D, an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on the admissibility of claims, and a Hong Kong court will not review that finding.
2. An arbitral party’s duty of good faith. Parties must assist the tribunal in good faith, raise objections promptly, and alert the tribunal to any procedural irregularities without delay. Courts will not assist parties who “sit on their hands”. A party that fails to raise an objection during the arbitration will be treated as having waived the right to do so at enforcement. This applies to both procedural and substantive issues.
3. Limits of the public policy ground. Non-binding guidelines issued by financial regulators and Mainland government policies do not constitute public policy grounds for refusing enforcement in Hong Kong. This is especially so where the counterparty conducts business in Hong Kong and is not subject to Mainland regulations. Parties must give careful thought to what properly constitutes public policy before invoking this ground.
4. Meritless challenges carry adverse costs consequences. The Court awarded indemnity costs to the Bank and explicitly criticised the Guarantor – and its legal advisors – for pursuing a hopeless application. This serves as a warning that enforcement of arbitral awards in Hong Kong can only be resisted on narrow statutory grounds, and unmeritorious challenges will attract adverse costs orders.

Client Alert 2026-088