Reed Smith Client Alerts

Key takeaways

  • In CNG v. G and Another [2024] HKCFI 575, the Hong Kong court dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award for lack of due process.
  • Court emphasised that arbitral tribunal would be best placed to decide how to proceed with arbitration. Court would not interfere with tribunal’s case management decision in absence of serious denial of justice. Matters not raised with tribunal should not be brought before court for setting aside award or resisting enforcement.
  • Arbitration and litigation should not be “a game of buying time and competing in resources”.


The Applicant and the First Respondent were the shareholders of a company, SIL. In 2014, the Applicant, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent (an affiliated company of the First Respondent) entered into a shareholder’s agreement (SHA).

Pursuant to disputes that arose as to the rights and obligations of the parties under the SHA, the First and Second Respondent (collectively, the Respondents) commenced a Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre arbitration. On 8 February 2023, the tribunal issued an award in favour of the Respondents (the Award).

Subsequently, the Applicant applied to the Hong Kong Court of First Instance to set aside the Award on the grounds that the tribunal’s failure to consider key issues in the arbitration and its imposition of an unreasonable arbitration timetable led to the Applicant being unable to present its case.