{"id":28435,"date":"2019-10-04T00:42:27","date_gmt":"2019-10-04T00:42:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/asiallians.com\/en\/taiwan-legal-update-trade-talks-held-london-bubble-milk-tea-billion-dollar-industry-2\/"},"modified":"2019-10-28T06:59:56","modified_gmt":"2019-10-28T06:59:56","slug":"taiwan-legal-update-trade-talks-held-london-bubble-milk-tea-billion-dollar-industry-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/asiallians.com\/en\/taiwan-legal-update-trade-talks-held-london-bubble-milk-tea-billion-dollar-industry-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Asia Laws: Arrangement on the Mutual Assistance and Protection of the Arbitration Procedures by the Mainland and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Courts” \u300a\u5173\u4e8e\u5185\u5730\u4e0e\u9999\u6e2f\u7279\u522b\u884c\u653f\u533a\u6cd5\u9662\u5c31\u4ef2\u88c1\u7a0b\u5e8f\u76f8\u4e92\u534f\u52a9\u4fdd\u5168\u7684\u5b89\u6392"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”center” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” padding_top=”50″ padding_bottom=”50″ css_animation=””][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1517373139965{background-image: url(http:\/\/asiallians.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Picture1.png?id=18554) !important;}”][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text] Executive Summary<\/span><\/strong>[\/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”70px”][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” padding_bottom=”100″ css_animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]Earlier this year, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China announced the pending introduction of the \u201cgroundbreaking”\u00a0“Arrangement on the Mutual Assistance and Protection of the Arbitration Procedures by the Mainland and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Courts” <\/em>\u300a\u5173\u4e8e\u5185\u5730\u4e0e\u9999\u6e2f\u7279\u522b\u884c\u653f\u533a\u6cd5\u9662\u5c31\u4ef2\u88c1\u7a0b\u5e8f\u76f8\u4e92\u534f\u52a9\u4fdd\u5168\u7684\u5b89\u6392<\/em>(\u201cArrangement<\/em>). Concisely, it allows parties to Hong Kong arbitrations to apply directly to an Intermediate People’s Court in the Mainland for the preservation of property, assets or conduct and also preservation orders. Furthermore, it enables parties to Mainland arbitrations to apply directly to the Hong Kong High Court for injunctions and other interim measures.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On 1st October, Hong Kong became the first jurisdiction outside the Mainland where, as a seat of arbitration, parties to arbitral proceedings administered by its arbitral institutions would be able to apply to the Mainland courts for interim measures. A formal mechanism has not previously existed. Once enacted, parties are no longer bound to arbitrate in Mainland China if they wish to have recourse to such measures. They will also enjoy the alternative option of a Hong Kong seat. This benefits parties who seek to enforce arbitration awards in the Mainland.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Naturally, this will facilitate and increase cross border applications for urgent preservation measures. In light of the Greater Bay Development Plan and the Belt and Road Initiative, Hong Kong is uniquely placed to benefit from the\u00a0Arrangement.\u00a0<\/em>As the only jurisdiction to have such an agreement with the Mainland, Hong Kong is poised to be the \u201cneutral seat\u201d for Sino-international disputes.<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”center” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” padding_top=”50″ padding_bottom=”50″ css_animation=””][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1517373139965{background-image: url(http:\/\/asiallians.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Picture1.png?id=18554) !important;}”][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text] Background<\/span><\/strong>[\/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”70px”][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” padding_bottom=”100″ css_animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]Mainland China has historically been hesitant to accept applications for interim measures from parties commencing arbitration outside of the region. However, Courts have indicated they may be receptive to granting interim measures in aid of Hong Kong-seated arbitrations in the last few years.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Most notably, Talpa v. Shanghai Caixing (2016), where a Beijing Court granted interim measures to a Hong Kong seated arbitration. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief from the Beijing IP court, even though the license agreement provided for Hong Kong law and arbitration. It held that the claim was for \u201ctrademark infringement\u2019 and not \u201cbreach of contract\u201d thus, the Beijing IP court has jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In\u00a0Ocean Eleven Shipping Corporation v. Lao Kai Yuan Mining Sole Co., Ltd (2016)\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Guangdong Yuehua International Trade Holdings Limited v. Sino-Tide Holdings Limited & Ke Junxiang (2016)<\/em>, Mainland courts were allowed to grand relief without specifying a legal basis. These specific cases further emphasized the need for formal arrangements.<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”center” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” padding_top=”50″ padding_bottom=”50″ css_animation=””][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1517373139965{background-image: url(http:\/\/asiallians.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Picture1.png?id=18554) !important;}”][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text] Provisions <\/span><\/strong>[\/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”70px”][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” padding_bottom=”100″ css_animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]In the context of mainland China, the term \u201cinterim measure\u201d refers to property preservation, evidence preservation, and conduct preservation. In the context of Hong Kong, the concept refers to injunctions and other interim measures for maintaining or restoring the status quo, pending determination of the dispute; taking action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral proceedings; preserving assets; or preserving evidence that may be relevant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Under section 45 (5) 9b) of the\u00a0Arbitration Ordinance,\u00a0<\/em>Hong Kong courts may grant interim measures in aid of an arbitration seated outside Hong Kong, as long as\u00a0<\/em>the interim measure sought abides by legislation. The Supreme People’s Court is yet to announce the applicable test or guidance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the Arrangement, \u201carbitral proceedings\u201d refer to proceedings seated in Hong Kong and administered by any of the following institutions or permanent offices under\u00a0Article 2<\/em>:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n