The Enka v. Chubb/Anupam Mittal v. Westbridge Controversies: Why Not the Hong Kong (Partial) Solution?

Abstract

This paper explores the critical theme of determining the governing law of arbitration agreements amidst the intricate landscape of international arbitration. Focusing on divergent approaches from key jurisdictions, including England and Wales, Singapore, and Hong Kong, it elucidates the challenges posed by varying legal frameworks. Recent developments, such as potential statutory adjustments in England and Wales influenced by recommendations from the English Law Commission, underscore the need for clarity in governing law determinations. The controversial ‘composite test’ approach in Anupam Mittal v. Westbridge and the traditional English approach in Enka v. Chubb exemplifies the global concerns surrounding these divergent approaches, highlighting the complexities faced by common law courts worldwide. Drawing on these cases, the paper emphasizes the importance of parties expressly choosing the governing law of arbitration agreements to mitigate uncertainties. It underscores the potential positive contributions of model clauses and jurisdiction-specific approaches, such as the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) model clause and Hong Kong’s guidance for HKIAC arbitrations. The paper also addresses enforcement challenges, particularly in light of Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. It discusses the discretionary invocation of the public policy exception and its impact on enforcement efficacy, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach transcending contractual formalism.