1. Artificial intelligence-based arbitration assistant reportedly resolves its first dispute

In recent years, there has been considerable discussion on the place of technology in helping to streamline and improve the resolution of disputes, including artificial intelligence (AI). Among the potential uses for AI in dispute resolution are predictive analytics, document review, evidentiary analysis and even resolving disputes (via so-called "AI arbitrators").

An AI arbitration assistant created by the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission (GZAC) has reportedly resolved a commercial dispute between two Chinese parties. The AI assistant was quoted to have said, "Today's hearing has come to an end. I am currently analyzing the trial data and my opinion will be sent to the arbitration tribunal via email in five minutes."

While several institutions have discussed and addressed the potential for deciding disputes through AI decisionmakers, GZAC was an early proponent of online arbitration, launching its first Online Arbitration Rules in 2015. GZAC's AI assistant, named Zhong Xiaomen, reportedly aids dispute resolution by completing procedural tasks, carrying out multilingual translation, recognizing evidence and inputting viewpoints and statements.

The use of AI decisionmakers has remained fairly theoretical to date — perhaps due to ethical and legal considerations — but this decision may indicate the beginning of a potential paradigm shift in deciding disputes.

2. China introduces new measures related to foreign-related litigation in Chinese courts

Effective 1 January 2024, Chinese courts will be permitted to exercise jurisdiction over any case with a "proper connection" to China. Under the amendments to the Civil Procedure Law — its first substantive revision in 30 years — which largely pertain to foreign-related matters:

• Chinese courts will have wider jurisdiction in foreign-related civil and commercial litigation.
• Defendants in litigation in China's courts will have a greater ability to challenge Chinese courts' jurisdiction. New rules relating to parallel litigation provide that Chinese courts may exercise jurisdiction even where a dispute has already been filed elsewhere in certain circumstances.
• Service on foreign defendants will be made easier, including by allowing service on companies' legal representatives who are travelling to China.
• Numerous procedural sections have been amended, such as those related to upholding exclusive jurisdiction agreements and collecting evidence overseas.
• The rules pertaining to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards have been augmented.

Separately, a new Foreign State Immunity Law, which will permit litigation against foreign states under certain circumstances, took effect on 1 January 2024. Under the new law, the scope for proceedings against foreign states in connection with their commercial transactions and for enforcement actions against assets of foreign states within China increase substantially.

For arbitration-related matters, foreign states will not be immune from suit with respect to arbitration-related court proceedings that arise out of commercial activities or investment disputes, including proceedings brought under investment treaties.

With respect to scope, the Central People's Government has directed Hong Kong to follow this new law.

3. Hong Kong court declines to set aside enforcement order on the basis of a fully virtual arbitration

In the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, there has been an exponential increase in so-called "virtual arbitration." Put simply, virtual arbitration is a proceeding without in-person hearings (i.e., the hearings are held remotely using tools such as virtual meeting platforms).

In Sky Power Construction Engineering Ltd v. Iraero Airlines JSC, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that a fully virtual arbitration (seated in London, under LCIA Rules) was not a permissible ground for setting aside an enforcement order. In this case, the parties had originally agreed to a "semi-virtual" hearing with most participants attending in-person and others joining remotely. Subsequently, the applicant proposed a fully virtual hearing because their only factual witness was unable to travel, but the respondent objected.

The arbitrator allowed the fully virtual hearing to proceed and an award was issued in favor of the applicant. Leave was then granted to enforce the award in Hong Kong. In deciding not to grant the respondent an extension of time to set aside the enforcement order, the court noted that:

• Remote hearings are commonplace.
• The arbitrator had wide discretion in the exercise of his/her case management powers.
• It was not for the court to question or interfere in the arbitrator’s exercise of his/her discretionary case management powers.
• Any inconvenience was suffered by both parties, so there was no basis to claim that the arbitrator had failed to act fairly and impartially.
• The court did not consider that the outcome of the arbitration could have been different if the hearing had not been conducted on a fully virtual basis, so it could not see any real injustice or prejudice to the respondent.

4. Singapore court refuses to order disclosure of tribunal's deliberations

In CZT v. CZU, the Singapore International Commercial Court confirmed that it would "take a very compelling case" to overcome policy reasons underlying the confidentiality of an arbitral tribunal's deliberations. Although there is no statutory provision in Singapore that expressly protects the confidentiality of arbitrators' deliberations, the court found that such deliberations are nevertheless confidential as an implied obligation of the law.

The court recognized confidentiality as a necessary prerequisite for frank discussions between arbitrators and the protection of deliberations from outside scrutiny which could give rise to spurious annulment or enforcement challenges. Only on the rarest of occasions, such as cases involving allegations of corruption, would the disclosure of arbitrators' deliberations be ordered.

SICC's decision represents a welcome clarification of the scope of confidentiality in arbitrations. On one hand, the court must consider the public policy considerations of preserving the confidentiality of a tribunal's deliberations to facilitate a frank and constructive exchange of views. On the other, there are valid arguments that the confidentiality of deliberations should yield where considerations arise related to due process, the interests of justice and preserving Singapore's integrity and reputation as a seat of arbitration.

***

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this alert, please contact us.