The End of Enforcement War: Hong Kong Court Reaffirmed Finality of Arbitral Award

(A) Introduction
 
The finality of arbitral awards is a main advantage of arbitration.[1] The statutory mechanism for challenging an arbitral award is narrow and time-bound.
 
In G, G v. CNG and SIL, [2026] HKCFI 902, date of judgment: 11 February 2026, [2] the Hong Kong Court addressed a fundamental question: can a party, which missed the three-month deadline to set aside an award under Section 81 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (the “Ordinance”), circumvent that statutory regime by commencing a fresh arbitration on the ground that the underlying contracts and the awards themselves were procured by fraud? In other words, does fraud “unravel all” so as to create a standalone cause of action outside the exclusive recourse provisions of the Model Law, or must any such challenge be brought before the supervisory court within the prescribed time limits?  
 
The Hong Kong Court answered “No”. It held that any challenge to an arbitral award must be brought before the supervisory court within the three-month time limit prescribed by Section 81 of the Ordinance. This exclusivity cannot be circumvented by reframing a challenge as an independent cause of action in a fresh arbitration, even where grave allegations of fraud or bribery are raised. Otherwise, the finality and certainty of the arbitral process would be undermined. Ultimately, the Court granted an anti-arbitration injunction and dismissed the application to stay enforcement of the original arbitral awards.
 
(B)  Facts
 
The dispute arises from a Share Purchase Agreement dated 18 December 2013 (“SPA”) made between the G Parties and CNG and a Shareholders Agreement dated 17 March 2014 (“SHA”). Both agreements contained arbitration clauses providing for Hong Kong-seated arbitration. [3]
 
In November 2020, the G Parties commenced arbitration against CNG (the “Original Arbitration”), which resulted in four partial awards (collectively referred to as “Awards”). [4]
 
In February and March 2025, the Hong Kong Court granted leave to enforce the 1^st and 3^rd Partial Awards as judgments (the “Enforcement Orders”). [5] CNG applied to stay the Enforcement Orders. Initially, the stay was sought on the ground of impossibility due to a foreign receivership order over the SIL shares. [6] After that ground failed, CNG relied on a new allegation that the G Parties bribed Mr. A, a key CNG negotiator during the 2010-2013 negotiations and that this fraud tainted both the underlying contracts and the arbitration process itself. [7]
 
On 26 June 2025, CNG applied for a stay of execution of the Enforcement Orders (the “Stay Application”). [8]

On 23 July 2025, it commenced a new arbitration (the "Bribery Arbitration"), seeking: [9]

(1)  The Set Aside Claim: A declaration that the Awards were procured by fraud and should be set aside.

(2) The Rescission/Damages Claim: An order rescinding the SPA and SHA due to bribery, with consequential relief including restitution of all sums paid and damages.
 
The G Parties objected to the Bribery Arbitration and applied for an anti-arbitration injunction (“Injunction Application”) on the following grounds: [10]

(1) Contractual Ground: Under the Arbitration Agreements in the SPA and the SHA, CNG agreed to Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration and accepted that the Hong Kong courts should have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over any challenge that may be made to the awards made in the arbitration (pursuant to section 81 of the Ordinance and Article 34 of the Model Law). As such, it was a breach of the Arbitration Agreement to challenge the Awards in any other forum, whether by way of a fresh arbitration, or otherwise.

(2) Abuse Ground: The claim to set aside the Awards on the ground of alleged fraud/bribery was: (i) collateral attack abuse, as it sought to collaterally attack the Awards and the Enforcement Orders; (ii) inconsistency abuse, since CNG affirmed the SHA and SPA because of its position taken in the related arbitrations, and cannot be permitted to raise the alleged bribery; and (iii) Finzi abuse, because CNG’s claim was based upon materials and evidence which could have been raised in the Original Arbitration, and it failed to show why the relevant evidence now relied upon could not have been obtained earlier, with reasonable diligence.
  
(C) Decision
 
The Court granted the Injunction Application and dismissed the Stay Application on the following grounds:

(1)  Contractual Ground: The Court held that under Section 81 of the Ordinance, the application to set aside an award was the exclusive recourse against any arbitral award. [11] Article 34 of the Model Law was intended to provide the only permissible method to challenge an arbitral award once made, in the interests of universal clarity, certainty and finality. Such challenge must be made by way of an application to the Court of First Instance (being the competent authority designated under Section 13(5)(b) of the Ordinance), on the grounds exhaustively set out in Article 34(2) of the Model Law and within the strict three-month time limit prescribed by Article 34(3) of the Model Law. [12] The alleged fraud itself did not take the recourse outside the scope of Article 34(1) of the Model Law. [13] The Bribery Arbitration, which commenced after the expiration of three-month period, was therefore non-compliant with Article 34(1) of the Model Law. [14]

(2) Abuse Ground: The Court found that the Bribery Arbitration was an abuse of process on the following grounds:

(i)  The “Set Aside Claim” was a direct challenge to the Awards. The “Rescission/Damages Claim” was , in substance, an indirect attack, as it sought to unwind the obligations and rights that the Awards had definitively established. Granting rescission of the contracts or repayment of damages awarded would fundamentally nullify the effect of the Awards. [15] 

(ii) CNG's conduct after discovering the alleged fraud was inconsistent with any genuine belief that the contracts or Awards were tainted. CNG took steps affirming the validity of the SPA, SHA and the Awards and pursuing claims under the same agreements. Such inconsistent conduct amounted to an abuse of process. [16]

(iii) CNG’s delay in raising the bribery allegations was not satisfactorily explained. Despite allegedly receiving a whistleblower tip-off in April 2024, CNG did not raise the allegations until its Stay Application in May 2025 and did not commenced the Bribery Arbitration until July 2025. Meanwhile, it took active steps in the related arbitrations that affirmed the contracts. This delay was inconsistent with any genuine belief in the seriousness of the alleged fraud. [17]

(iv) The Court found that the evidence adduced in support of the bribery allegations was weak and contradictory. This supported that the Bribery Arbitration was a vexatious tactic designed to delay enforcement rather than a genuine claim. [18]
 
(D) Key Takeaways

Implications

 
This case is significant on the following grounds:
 
(1) Exclusive Recourse and Absolute Time Limit

The three-month time limit to challenge an arbitral award under Section 81 of the Ordinance is absolute. The Court has no discretion to extend it, even where fraud is discovered after the arbitral award. The statutory regime provides the sole and exclusive route to challenge an arbitral award seated in Hong Kong. This exclusivity cannot be circumvented by framing a challenge as a new and independent cause of action in a fresh arbitration. Any attack on an award, whether direct or indirect, must be brought before the supervisory court within the prescribed time limits.

(2) Inconsistent Conduct Precludes Relief

A party cannot simultaneously affirm a contract by seeking benefits under it and later seek to rescind it on the ground of fraud. Where a party takes active steps in ongoing proceedings that are consistent with the validity of the contracts and awards, such as pursuing claims under the same agreements, it will be precluded from later mounting a challenge based on alleged fraud. Such inconsistent conduct amounts to an abuse of process.

(3) Allegations of Fraud will be Scrutinized by the Court

Serious allegations of fraud/ illegality do not automatically entitle a litigant to reopen final proceedings. The threshold for setting aside a judgment or award on the ground of fraud is very high. Unexplained delay in raising such allegations and weak or contradictory evidence will support a finding that the challenge is vexatious and designed to delay enforcement rather than a genuine claim.

Practical Guidance

The above case provides valuable guidance for parties seeking to challenge an award and drafting arbitration agreements.
 
(1) For Parties Drafting Arbitration Agreements
 
The arbitration agreement must clearly designate the seat and confirm that the courts of the seat shall have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over any challenge to an award.
 
(2) For Parties Seeking to Challenge an Award

(a) Act within three months: The clock starts running from the date on which the party making the application received the award. There are no exceptions.

(b) Do not affirm the contract or arbitral awards if you have doubts: If you believe the underlying contract and/or arbitral awards were procured by fraud, you must immediately stop taking steps that rely on their validity, for example, pursuing claims under the same agreement, or seeking benefits thereunder. Failure to do so will likely constitute an abuse of process and bar any subsequent challenge.

 

---

[1] https://hkiac.org/arbitration/what-is-arbitration/

[2] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=177649

[3] G, G v. CNG and SIL, [2026] HKCFI 902, date of judgment: 11 February 2026, §3

[4] Ibid, §4

[5] Ibid, §14

[6] Ibid, §11

[7] Ibid, §15

[8] Ibid, §2

[9] Ibid

[10] G, G v. CNG and SIL, [2026] HKCFI 902, date of judgment: 11 February 2026, §31-§32

[11] Ibid, §40

[12] Ibid, §45

[13] Ibid, §51

[14] Ibid, §60

[15] Ibid, §108

[16] Ibid, §111

[17] Ibid, §132

[18] Ibid, §163