Arbitration and Oppression Claims under Cayman Law (PI 1 & PI 2 v MR)

In this decision, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance dismissed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) challenging an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction over a shareholder dispute involving allegations of oppressive and discriminatory conduct. The court held that such claims while potentially relevant to a future winding-up petition under the Cayman Islands Companies Act, were both arbitrable and within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Drawing on the Privy Council’s reasoning in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2024] Bus LR 190, the court clarified that arbitral tribunals may determine factual disputes underlying such petitions even if statutory remedies remain solely within the Cayman courts. This decision confirms Hong Kong’s alignment with a pro-arbitration position in corporate disputes involving offshore structures.