HKIAC Secretary-General Joanne Lau on Hong Kong's neutrality, Indian parties and more

Joanne Lau was a partner in Allen & Overy's international arbitration practice, where she spent close to 12 years, before taking over as Secretary-General of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) in early 2024.

In this conversation with Bar & Bench's Pallavi Saluja, Lau discusses what changed once she moved from advising parties to running an institution, the sharp rise in HKIAC's caseload and how she responds when international parties raise questions about Hong Kong's neutrality given its relationship with mainland China.

She also addresses HKIAC's position relative to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the London Centre for International Arbitration (LCIA) and lays out her pitch for why Indian parties should look to Hong Kong.

[Watch Interview]

Edited excerpts follow.

Pallavi Saluja (PS): You moved from Allen & Overy to Secretary-General at HKIAC. What prompted that shift?

Joanne Lau (JL): To be honest, it's not an easy decision because I spent close to 12 years with the firm and it was a very rewarding experience. At the same time, I think the role at HKIAC is a very unique one. You don't get the opportunity to lead a world-leading arbitral institution every day. I was drawn by the chance to create positive change in the arbitration landscape, at an institution I was already very familiar with and fond of. So I just took the chance to do something different and haven’t looked back.

PS: HKAIC's case load and disputes value have grown significantly in recent years. What's actually driving that growth? Is it larger disputes, more matters or new sectors?

JL: We're very pleased to see that growth and honestly, it's all of those factors. By region, HKIAC has always handled a lot of international China-related cases - mainland Chinese parties on one side, parties from the rest of the world on the other and that continues to contribute significantly. Beyond that, we've seen growing global reach: the Middle East, Latin America and Africa are increasingly interested in Hong Kong arbitration and contributing cases. Russia-related cases are another area we've seen grow considerably in Hong Kong.

By sector, we continue to see a lot of corporate shareholder disputes, particularly high-value share redemption disputes, which have been a major contributor to overall case value. Hong Kong's IPO market is quite strong right now, so we may see fewer of those going forward, but for now they remain significant. Tech disputes are another growth area, cryptocurrency in particular, where we've seen everything from small cases to some genuinely mega-sized disputes coming to Hong Kong.

PS: What changes have you introduced since becoming Secretary-General?

JL: I joined HKIAC in early 2024 and we introduced a new set of Administered Arbitration Rules in June 2024. Not a complete overhaul, but a refined, improved version. On global presence, my team and I have made a conscious effort over the past couple of years to increase our visibility internationally - the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and a lot of travel to Africa, with more planned. We've also put real intentional thought into expanding our pool of arbitrators, to bring in more diversity and ensure we know who the quality arbitrators are across different jurisdictions.

Despite these changes, our ethos remains constant. We're a very user-centric institution, prioritising the quality and efficiency of our case management and appointment decisions. As for what's next, I can't share full details yet, but we're working on a project looking at how technology can improve institutional case management.

PS: Are you coming up with some rules or guidelines on AI?

JL: That is something that we're watching really closely. We don't have AI-specific guidelines yet. The one thing that we've started doing is tracking and paying attention to what is being put into procedural orders by tribunals. It's really interesting because we have started seeing tribunals and counsel proposing AI-specific provisions in their PO1, regulating when tribunals should make disclosure or when counsel should make disclosure. So it's definitely a space that we're continuing to monitor closely.

PS: You also mentioned diversity in the appointment of arbitrators. I just wanted to share some stats on diversity in arbitrator appointments. LCIA pointed out that in 2024, the LCIA court selected women in 45% of its appointments from 47 jurisdictions. Does HKIAC track and disclose similar numbers? Where does it actually stand?

JL: Diversity matters enormously to HKIAC. Across all the international arbitration institutions, everyone is making a real effort here, which is encouraging. We signed the ERA Pledge in 2016 and since then we've made concrete changes to how we appoint. For any direct appointment, the recommendation goes through our Appointments Committee. If a proposed list doesn't include a female candidate, the Secretariat has to explain why. We were also the first international arbitration institution to introduce a diversity provision directly into our rules, which appeared in our 2024 rules.

In terms of numbers: in 2025, we made 410 arbitrator appointments or confirmations. And of the direct appointments made by HKIAC, roughly 36 per cent were female arbitrators. Progress is being made, but there's more to do. Diversity for us is a genuinely multidimensional issue: not just gender, but regional representation, cultural representation and professional background. It's something we think about constantly, not just at the appointment stage but in how we build engagement across international arbitration more broadly.

PS: Hong Kong's position as a seat has inevitably been discussed alongside broader questions about its relationship with mainland China. How do you respond when international parties raise concerns about neutrality and independence when choosing Hong Kong as a seat?

JL: I think being Hong Kong-born and having practiced in Hong Kong and international arbitration for a long time, I can say without a doubt it operates as a very independent neutral jurisdiction for arbitration. The concept of "one country, two systems" is second nature to those of us familiar with Hong Kong and mainland China, but it may not be as well understood elsewhere. So there's more HKIAC can do to explain that. 

Hong Kong is a sophisticated common law jurisdiction with its own arbitration regime and a genuinely pro-arbitration, independent judiciary. That's core to why it remains a leading arbitration hub.

It helps to unpack what "neutrality and independence" actually means to commercial parties.

First, parties want decision-makers who are fair and unbiased and in HKIAC cases, parties choose their own arbitrators, so there's no loss of control there. Second, courts: parties don't want the seat's courts interfering with how arbitration is run and Hong Kong court decisions are consistently pro-arbitration, with minimal judicial interference. Third, enforcement - parties don't want their Hong Kong awards set aside for no good reason and HKIAC arbitrations have concrete enforcement and interim measure advantages because of the specific arrangements between Hong Kong and mainland China.

Once you unpack it that way, Hong Kong and HKIAC arbitration offer real assurance of a neutral, professional, efficient process, particularly for disputes with a mainland Chinese nexus.

PS:  You also mentioned how parties can appoint their own arbitrators. There have been discussions in India that parties should let institutions appoint arbitrators. What do you have to say about that? Do you get more of that?

JL: I wouldn't say I've seen a noticeable trend of parties wanting to hand appointments entirely to institutions. What we have seen is parties being more vocal about what kind of arbitrator they want. Even when they can't jointly nominate a sole arbitrator, they'll give us specific criteria rather than simply deferring to us. We've also seen more bespoke procedures. For example, parties designing their own appointment process rather than leaving it entirely to the institution.

That said, I think one reason some parties would prefer the institution handle the whole process is a belief that institutions have greater visibility and intelligence on who the best arbitrators actually are. At HKIAC, we have a robust process: proposed candidates go through our Appointments Committee every time, not just the Secretariat. And our 2024 rules introduced a provision letting us take efficiency and integrity into account when confirming arbitrators, giving the institution power to step in when something is seriously wrong, though that remains very rare.

PS: How much Indian party or counsel activity does HKIAC actually see today compared to institutions like SIAC or ICC?

JL: Indian parties have consistently used Hong Kong arbitration, especially since 2012, when Hong Kong arbitral awards became specifically recognised and enforceable in India. That said, I think Indian party and counsel participation in HKIAC cases can definitely grow further, particularly given the size and dynamism of the Indian economy. There's more HKIAC should do to engage that market.

One additional point: beyond parties and counsel, we're also very interested in Indian arbitrators. I mentioned the growth in Russia-related cases and that's an area where we've seen increased participation from Indian arbitrators. We want to grow that involvement more broadly, not just in those cases.

PS: Do you still see HKIAC as a third choice behind SIAC and LCIA?

JL: I wouldn't see it that way and I don't see institutions as direct competitors ranked against each other, as every transaction and negotiation is different and each institution and seat has its own strengths and challenges. 

What we want is for HKIAC to be a genuine choice for parties, including Indian parties, for our strengths to be well known enough that we're on the menu when they're considering their optimal forum. In my private practice days, I did a lot of India-related work and many HKIAC cases as counsel and I genuinely believe HKIAC arbitration is a strong choice for Indian parties. I hope we'll see more of that.

PS: There is a push for institutional arbitration in India. What have you seen so far and is there anything you would suggest for Indian arbitration institutions?

JL: The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration's (MCIA) ten-year anniversary is a real milestone and it's doing very well. Every institution has its own journey, its own opportunities and challenges, and no two experiences are the same. Speaking for Hong Kong specifically, what's interesting is that we never had a top-down approach to developing international arbitration; it was always bottom-up and grassroots. HKIAC was born because the business community needed an arbitration centre as cross-border trade and commerce grew, and business and legal professionals came together to build that hub organically. In that sense, there could be real parallels with India, a vibrant economy alongside a vibrant business and legal professional community. As long as that community keeps moving in the right direction on valuing international arbitration, it will only grow stronger as a dispute resolution hub.