HONG KONG 2026-1

High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, 11 February 2025

(Techteryx Ltd (suing on behalf of itself and the First Defendant) v. Legacy Trust Company Limited et al.)

11 - 02 - 2025

HONG KONG 2026-1

Yearbook Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, S. W. Schill (ed.), Vol. LI (2026)
Jurisdiction Hong Kong
Summary

The Court of First Instance stayed the second defendant’s application for a stay, even though the plaintiff was not a signatory of the contract containing the arbitration clause, finding that the claimant had “stepped in the shoes” of a signatory, another defendant, by bringing claims on its behalf. Further, the claim that the arbitration agreement was null and void on grounds of public policy failed, because the allegations pf fraud were brought against the underlying contract, not the arbitration agreement itself.

(The stay application of another defendant was granted by the Court in HONG KONG 2026-2.)

Related topics
201

The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.

Scope of arbitration agreement
220

The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.

"Null and void", etc.
221

The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.

Law applicable to "Null and void", etc. (for formal validity and applicable law, see Art. II, ¶204)
222

The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.

Arbitrator's competence and separability of the arbitration clause
226

Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.

Third parties (see also Art. I sub F "problems concerning the identity of the respondent", ¶106)
HONG KONG 2026-1