Post by Temple Chambers

𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 In 𝘈 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘷 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 [2026] HKCFI 3169, Mimmie Chan J addressed the application of a Canadian bank ("Bank") to stay, or set aside, an enforcement order of a €30 million LCIA arbitral award ("Award") on the ground of public policy. The Bank argued that payment to the award creditor, a Russian commodities company (“Company”), would expose the Bank and its employees to criminal prosecution under Canadian sanctions laws. The judgment offers notable guidance on how the Court balances arbitral finality against the complexities of sanctions compliance.   In refusing to stay or set aside the enforcement order, Mimmie Chan J reaffirmed the narrow remit of the public policy ground in resisting court enforcement of arbitral awards, holding that: - The Court’s task is to identify whether a real risk of prosecution has been established, and if so, a balancing exercise then follows; a risk of prosecution under foreign law, where shown, does not automatically entitle a party to refuse compliance. - The Court weighs a range of factors including the extent of the risk of prosecution and the importance of the relief sought by the order. - A relevant matter for enquiry is whether there are alternative measures and arrangements which might enable the beneficiary of an award to receive what is owed in a way that would not contravene foreign sanctions or give rise to a real risk of prosecution. - Comity does not require the Court to refuse enforcement, nor to give effect to the public policy of a foreign State. The full judgment can be viewed here: https://lnkd.in/d3tG7pFX. Abraham Chan SC and William Wong, instructed by Georgiou Partnership LLP, acted for the Company. Tim Parker SC and Sheena Wong, instructed by Ashurst Hong Kong, acted for the Bank.