Update: arbitrating a construction or infrastructure

Hong Kong-seated arbitration under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) and the 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules – effective 1 June 2024 – has become the dominant route for resolving construction and infrastructure disputes across the Asia-Pacific corridor. The reason is straightforward: an award made in Hong Kong can be enforced in over 170 New York Convention states and, critically, against assets on the Mainland through the dedicated Mainland–Hong Kong Arrangements.

This briefing sets out what has changed, who it affects, and the immediate steps a claimant or responding party should take.

What Changed and Why It Matters for Construction Disputes

The 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules introduced several refinements that bear directly on construction and infrastructure matters. Emergency arbitrator proceedings are now ordinarily completed within 14 days of file transmission – a timeline that can preserve a project-site injunction or a payment-guarantee call before assets move.

Proceedings must close no later than 45 days after the last directed substantive submissions. The tribunal then has three months from closure to deliver its award in an ordinary arbitration. For expedited proceedings, the award must come within six months of file transfer to the tribunal, which suits mid-value construction disputes where speed matters more than elaborate procedural rounds.

On the enforcement side, the position sharpened significantly when the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) came into force on 29 January 2024. Arbitral awards made in Hong Kong continue to run via the 1999 Arrangement and its 2020 Supplemental Arrangement – not Cap. 645 – but the combined regime now gives a claimant simultaneous enforcement options on both sides of the boundary. That matters enormously for a contractor or employer whose counterparty holds assets in both places.

For cross-border construction projects – joint ventures across the Greater Bay Area, infrastructure schemes with BVI or Cayman holding entities above a Mainland operating company, or offshore-financed projects with Hong Kong-law security packages – the asset endgame is where disputes are won or lost. A claimant who secures a Hong Kong-seated award but fails to apply for interim measures in Mainland courts in the correct sequence may find the counterparty's assets dissipated before registration is complete. The Interim-Measures Arrangement, in force since 1 October 2019, permits a party to a Hong Kong-seated arbitration to seek preservation orders from Mainland people's courts before or during the arbitral proceedings. Counsel on our desk sees this step missed or mistimed more than any other in the construction context.

Who Is Affected Across the Corridor

The immediate audience is any party with a live or anticipated construction or infrastructure dispute where: the contract seat is Hong Kong or the HKIAC; the respondent or its assets sit on the Mainland, in the BVI, the Cayman Islands, Singapore, or the UAE; and the governing law is Hong Kong, English, or another common-law system.

This includes general contractors, employers, engineering consultants, and lenders whose security sits above a project SPV. It equally covers sponsors of Belt and Road-linked schemes, where the asset corridors often run from a Hong Kong hub into Southeast Asia or the Middle East, and the counterparty risk is multi-jurisdictional by design.

In our cross-border practice, we regularly advise parties on both sides of construction arbitrations where the contract was drafted in one jurisdiction, the project sits in another, and the respondent's liquid assets are in a third. The structural complexity is not unusual. What is unusual – and often costly – is treating the arbitration as a self-contained exercise when the enforcement route runs across at least two legal systems from the outset.

What to Do Now

Three actions are immediately relevant.

Audit the arbitration agreement. Check whether it designates Hong Kong as the seat (not merely the venue), names the HKIAC, and incorporates a governing set of rules. An agreement that is silent on the seat or rules introduces delay and jurisdictional argument at the worst possible time.
Map the asset picture before commencing. If the respondent holds assets on the Mainland, the sequence of steps – arbitration commencement, interim-measures application under the 2019 Arrangement, award registration – must be planned as a single workflow, not three separate steps. Errors in sequence cannot easily be corrected after the fact.
Consider the enforcement route at the contract stage, not after the dispute arises. For infrastructure projects with cross-border security packages, the question of where an award will ultimately land should inform the governing law, the seat, and the security structure from the outset.

The sequence above describes the standard position. Your matter turns on the contract documents, the jurisdictions actually engaged, and the order of steps – which is where the route is won or lost.

For a structured assessment of your construction or infrastructure arbitration across the relevant jurisdictions, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

See also our work on post-award asset tracing across jurisdictions and our analysis of setting aside a Hong Kong arbitral award. For the full scope of our disputes and arbitration practice, visit our Disputes & Arbitration page.

Frequently asked questions

What documents are needed for arbitrating a construction or infrastructure dispute in Asia?

The core documents are the arbitration agreement (typically embedded in the construction contract), the notice of arbitration, and the relevant project records – contract drawings, variation orders, payment certificates, and contemporaneous correspondence. Where the seat is Hong Kong and the HKIAC administers the reference, the Rules specify formal requirements for the notice and the response. For cross-border enforcement, a certified copy of the final award and relevant court certificates are also required. Parties should verify the current document requirements with their legal team before filing.

What is the first step in arbitrating a construction or infrastructure dispute in Asia?

The first step is a careful review of the arbitration clause to confirm the seat, the administering institution, and the applicable rules. Before serving a notice of arbitration, counsel should also assess the counterparty's asset position and whether an interim-measures application in a Mainland court is required simultaneously or immediately after commencement – particularly where the respondent's assets are on the Mainland and the arbitration will be seated in Hong Kong.

What does the route look like for arbitrating a construction or infrastructure dispute in Asia?

A Hong Kong-seated HKIAC construction arbitration typically runs from notice of arbitration through constitution of the tribunal, pleadings, document production, hearings, and award. The expedited procedure may produce an award within six months of file transfer. Enforcement then follows via the New York Convention in most jurisdictions, or via the Mainland–Hong Kong Arrangements against Mainland assets. Interim relief is available from Hong Kong courts and, under the 2019 Arrangement, from Mainland people's courts, at any point after arbitration has commenced.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

Update: arbitrating a construction or infrastructure dispute in Asia

What Changed and Why It Matters for Construction Disputes

Who Is Affected Across the Corridor

What to Do Now

Frequently asked questions

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

Related