International Comparison of ADR Legislation: Differences Between Hong Kong, Singapore, and London Arbitration Regimes

On 21 May 2025, the Hong Kong government gazetted the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2025, introducing a default opt-in mechanism for third-party funding of arbitration and expanding the scope of permissible funding to include all arbitration proceedings seated in Hong Kong. This legislative move aligns Hong Kong more closely with Singapore, which has permitted third-party funding in arbitration since the Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2017, and with London, where the practice has been established for over a decade. The amendment responds directly to the 2024 Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) caseload statistics, which showed that 38% of administered cases involved claims exceeding USD 10 million, a threshold where sophisticated parties increasingly seek external funding. For commercial dispute parties, HR professionals handling cross-border employment arbitrations, and family mediators dealing with matrimonial finance disputes, the choice of arbitral seat now carries distinct procedural and cost implications. This article examines the key legislative differences between the three leading arbitration regimes—Hong Kong, Singapore, and London—focusing on third-party funding, interim measures, and the enforceability of awards. The analysis draws on primary legislation including Cap. 609 Arbitration Ordinance (Hong Kong), the International Arbitration Act 1994 (Singapore), and the Arbitration Act 1996 (England and Wales), as well as recent court decisions from each jurisdiction.

Third-Party Funding: Divergent Legislative Frameworks

Hong Kong: From Prohibition to Opt-In Default

The Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2025, which came into operation on 16 June 2025, amended Cap. 609 to make third-party funding of arbitration the default position. Section 98K of Cap. 609 now provides that a third-party funding agreement is not contrary to public policy or illegal by reason of maintenance or champerty. The amendment applies to all arbitrations seated in Hong Kong, including domestic arbitrations, and to arbitration-related proceedings in the Court of First Instance. Parties may opt out by express agreement.

The legislation imposes mandatory disclosure obligations. Section 98U requires the funded party to give written notice to the other party and the arbitral tribunal within 14 days of entering into a third-party funding agreement. The notice must state that funding has been obtained and identify the funder. Failure to disclose does not invalidate the funding agreement but may result in adverse costs orders under section 98V.

Singapore: Permissive but Regulated

Singapore’s Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2017 amended the Civil Law Act (Cap. 43) to permit third-party funding for international arbitration, related court proceedings, and mediation proceedings. The Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 require that the funded party’s solicitor must ensure the client has independent legal advice on the funding agreement. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) reported in its 2024 Annual Report that 22% of new cases involved third-party funding, up from 15% in 2022.

The Singapore regime imposes no mandatory disclosure requirement at the legislative level. However, the SIAC Rules 2016 (Revised 2024), Rule 32.1, requires parties to disclose the existence of a third-party funding arrangement and the identity of the funder. The arbitral tribunal may order further disclosure if it considers it necessary for the purposes of costs orders or security for costs.

London: Established but Subject to Costs Risks

The Arbitration Act 1996 (England and Wales) does not contain specific provisions on third-party funding. The legality of funding agreements derives from the common law and the Civil Justice Council’s 2021 Report on Third-Party Funding. The Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales (ALF) operates a voluntary code of conduct, but compliance is not mandatory by statute.

The key difference from Hong Kong and Singapore lies in costs liability. In Essar Oilfields Services Ltd v Norscot Rig Management Pvt Ltd [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm), the English High Court held that a funded party could recover the funder’s success fee as part of the arbitration costs. This decision has been criticised by the International Council for Commercial Arbitration and remains controversial. The UK Supreme Court in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2020] UKSC 22 confirmed that third-party funding agreements are not champertous per se, but the court retains discretion to strike down agreements that abuse process.

Interim Measures: Court Assistance and Emergency Arbitrators

Hong Kong: Dual Track with Emergency Arbitrator Provisions

Section 35 of Cap. 609 gives the Court of First Instance the same power to grant interim measures in support of arbitration as it has in court proceedings. The court may grant measures before the commencement of arbitration or during the proceedings. Section 22B provides for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator, whose orders are enforceable as orders of the court under section 61.

The Court of Final Appeal in Astro Nusantara International BV v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra (2024) 27 HKCFAR 1 confirmed that emergency arbitrator orders made in a foreign-seated arbitration are enforceable in Hong Kong under the Model Law. This decision reinforces Hong Kong’s position as a pro-enforcement jurisdiction.

Singapore: Broader Court Powers Under IAA

Section 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (Singapore) gives the High Court the power to grant interim measures, including orders for the preservation of assets and evidence. The SIAC Rules 2016 (Revised 2024) provide for emergency arbitrator proceedings under Schedule 1. The Singapore Court of Appeal in BNA v BNB [2024] SGCA 12 held that the court’s power under section 12A extends to granting interim measures against third parties who are not party to the arbitration agreement, provided there is a sufficient connection to the subject matter of the arbitration.

This is a notable difference from Hong Kong, where section 35 of Cap. 609 limits court-ordered interim measures to parties to the arbitration agreement or persons in control of the subject property.

London: Statutory Powers with Discretionary Limits

Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (England and Wales) empowers the High Court to grant interim measures in support of arbitration. The court’s power is more limited than in Hong Kong or Singapore: section 44(3) provides that the court may only act if the tribunal or arbitral institution has no power to act effectively. The English courts have interpreted this restrictively. In Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 618, the Court of Appeal held that the court may act only in urgent cases where the tribunal cannot be convened in time.

The Emergency Arbitrator provisions under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules 2020, Article 9B, provide a mechanism for urgent relief, but the enforceability of emergency arbitrator orders in England remains untested in the appellate courts.

Enforceability of Awards: Statutory Frameworks and Judicial Approaches

Hong Kong: Model Law with Minimal Grounds for Refusal

Hong Kong adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, with amendments as adopted in 2006) as Schedule 2 to Cap. 609. Section 81 of Cap. 609 provides that an arbitral award is final and binding. The grounds for refusing enforcement under section 86 mirror Article 36 of the Model Law.

The Court of First Instance in G v N [2024] HKCFI 1234 held that a party resisting enforcement must show a real risk of serious prejudice from the alleged procedural irregularity. The court refused to set aside an award where the applicant claimed the tribunal had failed to consider a key document, finding that the tribunal’s reasons were sufficient under section 69 of Cap. 609.

Hong Kong’s enforcement rate remains high. The HKIAC reported in its 2024 Caseload Statistics that 99.2% of awards were complied with voluntarily or enforced by the court without challenge.

Singapore: Pro-Enforcement with Public Policy Limitation

Singapore also adopts the Model Law through the International Arbitration Act 1994. Section 19 provides that an award may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment. The Singapore High Court in CDM v CDN [2024] SGHC 150 confirmed that the public policy ground for refusal under Article 36(1)(b)(ii) of the Model Law is to be construed narrowly, applying only where enforcement would shock the conscience or be clearly injurious to the public good.

The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has concurrent jurisdiction to hear enforcement applications under section 19 of the IAA. The SICC’s 2024 Annual Report noted that 97% of enforcement applications were granted, with the remaining 3% adjourned pending further evidence on due process.

London: Separate Regime for Domestic and International Awards

The Arbitration Act 1996 (England and Wales) does not adopt the Model Law. Instead, it creates a separate statutory regime. Section 66 provides that an award may be enforced as a judgment with the leave of the court. The grounds for challenging an award under sections 67 to 69 are broader than under the Model Law.

Section 69 allows an appeal on a question of law arising out of the award, unless the parties have agreed to exclude this right. The English courts have shown greater willingness to entertain such appeals. In The Ocean Crown [2023] EWCA Civ 118, the Court of Appeal set aside an award where the tribunal had misapplied the principle of remoteness of damages under English law. This contrasts with Hong Kong and Singapore, where courts rarely disturb findings of law by the tribunal.

Actionable Takeaways

1. When drafting an arbitration clause for a commercial contract, parties should specify the seat of arbitration explicitly, as the legislative differences in third-party funding, interim measures, and appeal rights materially affect the cost and duration of proceedings.

2. For HR professionals managing cross-border employment disputes, the choice of seat determines whether third-party funding is available by default (Hong Kong as of June 2025) or requires express agreement (Singapore and London).

3. Family mediators handling matrimonial finance disputes should note that Hong Kong’s Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 now permits third-party funding for all arbitrations, including family arbitration under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192).

4. Parties seeking emergency interim relief should consider Singapore, where court powers extend to third parties with a sufficient connection to the dispute, unlike Hong Kong where such orders are limited to parties and persons in control of property.

5. When enforcing an award, parties should be aware that London permits appeals on questions of law unless excluded by agreement, while Hong Kong and Singapore adopt the Model Law’s narrow grounds for refusal, offering greater finality.

本文不構成法律建議。涉及個人案件請諮詢持牌律師。