Edward K H Ng

This article explores two possible pathways where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement, namely non-arbitrability and public policy. First, given that Hong Kong competition law contains a number of peculiarities that depart from the general international norm, there could be an argument that competition law issues may not be arbitrable. Second, courts are likely to find that Hong Kong competition law does relate to its local public policy. However, allegations of violation of competition law may not automatically mean that courts will intervene to refuse enforcement. There is strong argument that courts will only refuse enforcement where there are 'serious' violations.

Hong Kong courts currently use the double actionability rule to determine whether a party has an international tort claim-the double actionability rule is lagging behind many common law jurisdictions. The purpose of this article is to argue why the double actionability rule must be abolished. The article then explores the three approaches in international tort actions, namely (a) the 'proper law' of tort; (b) lex loci deliciti commissi; and (c) the 'most favourable law' approach. All three approaches to international torts have their shortcomings, and there is no fast solution in solving choice of law issues in international torts. However, it is suggested that Hong Kong should adopt the 'most favourable law' approach, as all of the drawbacks with this approach have been attended to in this article.