One of the traditional advantages of litigation over arbitration is the availability of summary judgment procedures, which allow courts to dispose of unmeritorious claims or defences at an early stage. To achieve similar efficiencies, institutions such as the HKIAC, SIAC, and ICC have introduced early or summary determination procedures, enabling tribunals to dismiss claims or defences that are manifestly without merit. The Hong Kong Court of First Instance recently considered the validity of such procedures in A v B1 and B2 [2026] HKCFI 2444, providing important guidance on the HKIAC’s Early Determination Procedure (EDP) and the courts’ approach to challenges against awards made under it.
The dispute arose from agreements involving the sale of corporate vehicles holding real estate assets. Certain portions of the purchase price were retained as “holdback amounts,” payable upon the fulfilment or waiver of specified conditions by 18 January 2023. After the defendants refused the plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and the conditions remained unsatisfied, the defendants retained the holdback amounts. The plaintiff commenced HKIAC arbitration, alleging that the refusal of the extension was unreasonable and that the defendants were not entitled to retain the funds. The defendants invoked the EDP, seeking dismissal of the claims. Following written and oral submissions, the tribunal granted the application, dismissed the claims, and subsequently ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs.
The plaintiff applied to set aside both awards, arguing that the tribunal failed to properly identify the issues suitable for early determination, denied it a fair opportunity to present its case, exceeded its jurisdiction, and issued an award that was inconsistent and contrary to public policy. It also challenged the Costs Award on the basis that it had insufficient opportunity to contest the defendants’ legal fees.
The Court rejected all of the plaintiff’s arguments. It held that the issues for early determination had been sufficiently identified, that the plaintiff had been afforded multiple opportunities to present its case, and that any procedural irregularities were minor and effectively waived through participation without objection. The tribunal was also found to have acted within its jurisdiction, while the Costs Award fell within the tribunal’s broad discretion to assess costs.
The decision is significant because it confirms that awards rendered under early determination procedures can withstand judicial scrutiny where parties are given a fair opportunity to be heard. It also reinforces the principle that minor procedural imperfections, absent real prejudice, will not justify setting aside an arbitral award. More broadly, the judgment reflects Hong Kong’s pro-arbitration stance and its continued reluctance to interfere with arbitral awards except in exceptional cases involving genuine procedural unfairness or excess of jurisdiction.
