Mr William Leung

William Leung


Arbitration & ADR

Court affirms need for unsatisfied tax claim to use tax gathering defence
Hong Kong | 10 June 2021

It is trite law that the Hong Kong courts will not enforce a foreign arbitral award if it amounts to indirect enforcement of foreign laws. In the context of tax law, a defence known as the 'tax gathering' defence exists, under which a foreign award will not be enforced if it would, in effect, help foreign states to collect taxes. However, the requirements of this defence have been unclear. Now, a recent case has affirmed that an unsatisfied tax claim is a prerequisite for the tax gathering defence.

Two instances in which statutory regime amounts to deference of arbitration
Hong Kong | 16 July 2020

The Hong Kong courts' pro-arbitration attitude is evident from the continuous refinement of their dispute resolution mechanism. Such efforts are distinctly remarkable in commercial contexts, as demonstrated by the dynamics between the statutory company regime and the arbitration regime. Observing such intriguing interplay between the two regimes, this article examines recent decisions in disputes arising from corporate affairs and disputes relating to insolvency.

Successful completion of cross-border asset preservation worth more than $20 million
Hong Kong | 19 December 2019

In September 2019 the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court adopted the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-Ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (MAA). Pursuant to the MAA, a mainland court recently assisted the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) in an arbitration which had been referred to it by the HKIAC.

Enforcement courts' residual discretion under New York Convention: active and passive remedies
International | 13 December 2018

The New York Convention and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law differentiate between the one-shot principle and the choice of remedies principle. Under the choice of remedies principle, award debtors may choose both active and passive remedies. Therefore, even if an award debtor does not use or pursue active remedies to challenge a preliminary ruling or set aside an award, it may resist the award's enforcement by passive means.