Emergency Arbitrator Relief:

ARTICLES
A Practical Guide
By Matthew Hodgson, Jae Hee Suh & Kellie Yi

Overview
Under most major arbitral rules, including those of of great practical significance. Without orders to
the KCAB, parties may apply for emergency interim preserve evidence, prevent abusive action such as
relief even prior to the constitution of the main tribunal. parallel proceedings, or restore or maintain status quo,
The application is heard by an emergency arbitrator the ultimate objective of the arbitral proceedings may
(EA), who is specially appointed for this purpose. be undermined.

In our experience, the EA procedure is a powerful Prior to the introduction of the EA procedure,
legal and strategic tool when employed correctly, and there was a substantial gap between the onset of the
certainly an option which should be considered in dispute and constitution of the tribunal, during which
appropriate cases. However, statistics and anecdotal a party in need of urgent interim relief had to resort to
evidence suggest that the procedure may be underused, national courts. This was not always a desirable course,
possibly due to lack of familiarity with the procedure for various reasons including limited confidentiality
1)
or other concerns. and the unpredictability of the approaches of national
courts. Further, certain types of remedies (for example,
This article therefore seeks to provide a practical orders for specific performance) may not be available
guide to the EA procedure. It (i) surveys the availability in the relevant courts.
of the procedure and the applicable standards for
relief; (ii) compares the EA relief with court-granted The EA procedure now forms part of most major
interim relief and considers the relevant factors in arbitral rules, including the KCAB, SIAC, HKIAC,
choosing between the two; and (iii) considers some LCIA, ICC, SCC, ICDR, ACICA and SCIA rules.
topical issues relating to the EA procedure in more Typical features of the EA procedure are as follows.
detail, namely the enforceability of the EA relief and The details of these features vary across different rules:
the "interim-interim" EA relief.
• Applications for emergency relief may be made
Availability of the EA procedure concurrently with or following the submission of the
The ability to obtain urgent interim relief is often Notice of Arbitration/Request for Arbitration, before
the constitution of the main tribunal.2) The ICC Rules
allow for the application for emergency relief to be
1) For example, the 2015 Queen Mary International Arbitration
Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International filed before the filing of the Request for Arbitration,
Arbitration found that only a minority of respondents (around
34%) had experience with the EA procedure. Further, 46% but the EA proceedings may be terminated by the
of respondents responded that they would look to domestic
courts for urgent relief before the constitution of the main
tribunal, versus 29% who responded that they would opt for
an EA. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of 93% were
in favour of the inclusion of the EA procedure in institutional 2) See, for example, Appendix 3, Article 1.1 of the 2016 KCAB
rules. International Arbitration Rules.

Korean Arbitration Review • 17

 ICC President if a Request for Arbitration is not Standards for granting EA relief
received by the Secretariat within 10 days of its receipt Most institutional rules are notably silent on the
of the EA application, unless the EA determines that a applicable standards for granting EA relief, and there is
longer period of time is necessary (Appendix V, Article no universally applicable test. The rules typically grant
1.6 of the 2017 ICC Rules). a wide discretion to EAs, circumscribed only by the
broad concept of appropriateness (KCAB), urgency
• Upon receiving the application, the institution (ICC, HKIAC) or necessity (SIAC).
appoints an EA within two or three days of receipt
of the application. 3) SIAC, ACICA and SCC However, in practice, EAs find the standards
specify shorter timeframes of 1 day, 1 business day applicable to the main tribunal when granting interim
and 24 hours respectively (Schedule 1, paragraph 3 measures instructive, and do not significantly depart
of the 2016 SIAC Rules/Schedule 1, Article 2 of the from them. 7) For example, many tribunals refer to
2016 ACICA Rules /Appendix II, Article 4 of the Article 17A of the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law as
2017 SCC Rules). persuasive authority.8)

• Typically, the EA must render a decision within We consider below the three key factors EAs
around two weeks of his appointment, unless the typically require, based on our experience with the
4)
institution grants an extension. SCC and ACICA EA procedure as counsel and publicly available
provide for shorter periods of five days and five information on EA decisions9): (i) urgency/irreparable
business days respectively (Appendix II, Article 8 of harm; (ii) proportionality/balance of convenience;
the 2017 SCC Rules/Schedule 1, Article 3 of the and (iii) likelihood of success on the merits.
2016 ACICA Rules).
1. Urgency/irreparable harm
• The main tribunal, once constituted, may confirm, The interconnected requirements of urgency and
5)
vary or revoke the EA's decision. Most rules also
provide that the EA's decision ceases to be binding
7) The 2016 ACICA Rules, the only major arbitral rules to date which
if the main tribunal is not constituted within a specifically set out the criteria for granting EA relief, adopt the same
standards for EA relief and for interim measures of the main tribunal
prescribed period (typically around 3 months).6) (namely, irreparable harm, balance of convenience and likelihood of
success on the merits).

8) 
This accords with our experience as counsel, as well as
several EA decisions referred to in the SCC Practice Note
on Emergency Arbitrator Decisions Rendered 2015-2016, for
3) 
See, for example, Appendix 3, Article 2.4 of the 2016 example Case No. EA 2016/150. Article 17A(1) (Conditions for
KCAB International Arbitration Rules, which provides that granting interim measures) of the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law
the Secretariat shall endeavour to appoint an EA within provides that the applicant of interim measures must satisfy
two business days from its receipt of the application for the arbitral tribunal that: (a) harm not adequately reparable by
Emergency Measures. an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not
ordered, and such harm substantially outweighs the harm that
4) See, for example, Appendix 3, Article 3.4 of the 2016 KCAB is likely to result to the party against whom the measure is
International Arbitration Rules, which provides that the directed if the measure is granted; and (b) there is a reasonable
EA shall make a decision on an application for Emergency possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits
Measures within 15 days from his or her appointment, of the claim. The determination on this possibility shall not
subject to the Secretariat's power to extend the time limit affect the discretion of the arbitral tribunal in making any
if all parties agree or other exceptional circumstances exist, subsequent determwination. These provisions are mirrored in
such as when the case is complex. section 18-2 of the Korean Arbitration Act 2016.

5) See, for example, Appendix 3, Article 4.2 of the 2016 KCAB 9) In preparing the article, we have referred to the summary of
International Arbitration Rules. EA decisions published by the SCC (The Arbitration Institute
of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) in the SCC Practice
6) See, for example, Appendix 3, Article 3.6 of the 2016 KCAB Note on Emergency Arbitrator Decisions Rendered 2015-
International Arbitration Rules. 2016 and the SCC Practice: Emergency Arbitrator Decision
between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013.

18 • The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board

irreparable harm are often considered together by EAs. would most likely be honored by the respondent, and

ARTICLES
In essence, the applicant must demonstrate that urgent if not honored then successfully enforced against the
interim measures are necessary to avoid irreparable harm. respondent (SCC Case No. EA 010/2012).

In the EA context, the requirement of urgency We have successfully met the urgency and irreparable
means that the applicant must demonstrate why it harm requirements in a number of EA applications
cannot await the constitution of the main tribunal, for anti-suit injunctions where, in breach of the
which may take a few months. In one case, we acted arbitration agreement, the counterparties took steps to
as counsel for a Korean company which supplied bring proceedings in local courts or a different dispute
certain components for incorporation into the resolution forum. In one case, the counterparty had
counterparty's products. A dispute arose between the unsuccessfully attempted to secure anti-arbitration
parties regarding the counterparty's obligations under injunctions from the local courts. The EAs in these
the supply contract and our client refused to continue cases found that referring the dispute to another forum
supplying the components. The counterparty brought in breach of the arbitration agreement would cause
an EA application requesting an order that our client irreparable damage to the arbitration process itself.
continue to supply the components. We successfully
resisted the application by showing that the urgency 2. Proportionality/balance of convenience
requirement was not met because the counterparty had In deciding whether to grant relief, EAs typically
enough components from previous shipments such balance the potential harm the applicant is likely
that, even in the worst case scenario, the supply would to suffer if the interim relief is not granted against
not run out before the main tribunal was constituted. the harm to the respondent that would result if
the interim relief were granted and the respondent
As to the requirement of irreparable harm, eventually prevailed, and consider whether the former
EAs typically consider whether the harm may be substantially outweighs the latter. As one SCC EA
adequately compensated by way of damages. Whilst summarised, "if the negative impact of the requested
the possibility of monetary compensation does not relief is disproportionate to its benefit, then either the
necessarily eliminate the possibility of EA relief, EAs request must be declined or the relief redesigned to reduce
typically require an additional aggravating factor over the burden on the subject party" (see SCC Case No. EA
and above financial harm. For example, irreparable 2016/046).
harm was found to exist where the absence of relief
would leave the applicant with insufficient cash flows In one of our matters as counsel, we acted for a joint
to continue its operations (eg , SCC Case No. EA venture which engaged a construction company (the
2015/002) or where there was a reason to assume that respondent) for the supply of certain infrastructure.
the respondent was actively undertaking measures to Our client terminated the construction agreement for
dissipate or otherwise make its assets unavailable for a number of reasons, including that the respondent had
enforcement (eg, SCC EA 070/2011). In contrast, entered into a creditors' voluntary arrangement, and
EA relief was denied where the EA found that the called on the on-demand refund guarantees advanced
applicant would suffer substantial (but not irreparable) by a Korean bank. The respondent commenced
harm and, given the size and reputation of the proceedings before the Korean courts to injunct the
respondent's parent company, even a substantial award bank from paying the on-demand guarantee and we

Korean Arbitration Review • 19

 started the EA proceedings to stop the respondent In practice, this requirement has been couched
from continuing with the Korean proceedings. The in different ways by different EAs: some EAs have
EA ruled in our client's favour, finding that the harm referred to a "prima facie" standard, whereas others
which would be suffered by our client in being denied have adopted what appears to be a somewhat stricter
the right to call on the on-demand guarantees and standard of "reasonable prospect of success". There
consequently having to enforce damages "in a queue" is, however, a general consensus that the standard
behind the respondent's prioritised creditors in of review to be undertaken by an EA must be of
insolvency would far outweigh the prospect of hardship a preliminary nature and should fall short of the
on the part of the respondent in the reverse scenario standard of review required of the main tribunal.
(ie, if the respondent were to eventually prevail and be
faced with enforcing damages against our client). Given the limited submissions and evidence that
would be available at the time of an EA application,
In practice, this balancing exercise means that it may be difficult to satisfy this requirement if, at a
EAs may be hesitant to grant relief if the respondent high level, both parties' cases appear finely balanced.
offers some undertaking or security which may be In practice, both the applicant and the EA would have
inferior to the relief requested but which still addresses to be wary of unmeritorious challenges which may be
10)
the applicant's concerns to an extent. This would raised by the respondent to thwart the application.
obviously depend on the facts of the case and the
nature of the undertaking or security offered. Choosing between the EA relief and the
court relief
EAs may also grant the request in part so as to Relationship between the EA relief and the court relief
limit the harm to the respondent. It should also be The national courts generally enjoy concurrent
noted that institutional rules typically grant EAs the jurisdiction with the EAs in granting interim relief
power to order security for costs to protect against pending constitution of the main tribunal. Similarly,
damage caused by wrongly granted EA relief (see, for institutional rules do not bar parties from seeking
example, Article 32.2 of the 2016 KCAB International interim relief from national courts. However, some
Arbitration Rules, which applies to EAs by virtue of national laws require that the courts consider whether
Article 3 of Appendix 3). an effective remedy could be provided in the arbitral
proceedings, and the availability of the EA procedure
3. Likelihood of success on the merits may limit the parties' recourse to the courts.
EAs typically require the applicant to demonstrate a
degree of likelihood of success on the merits. If there is For example, section 44(5) of the English Arbitration
little or no chance that the applicant would ultimately Act provides that the court shall act "only if or to the
succeed on the merits, it would serve little purpose and extent that the arbitral tribunal, any arbitral or other
be inequitable for the EA relief to be granted. However, institution or person vested by the parties with power in
neither the EA's decision nor its reasoning concerning the that regard, has no power or is unable for the time being
merits of the case would be binding on the main tribunal. to act effectively". In Gerald Metals SA v Timis [2016]
EWHC 2327, the English High Court confirmed
10) Such undertaking or security may also be relevant to the EA's that the effect of section 44(5) is that the courts will
assessment of the urgency/irreparable harm requirement
considered above. only have the power to grant urgent relief in support

20 • The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board

of arbitral proceedings where effective relief cannot relevant national courts) and individual party's needs.

ARTICLES
be granted in a timely manner in the arbitration (for
example, because there is insufficient time and the • Confidentiality: Whilst confidentiality is considered
application needs to be made ex parte). In assessing to be one of the main advantages of arbitration,
whether this is the case, the courts will take into proceedings before the courts are normally public.
account both the EA procedure (Article 9B of the
2014 LCIA Rules) and the procedure for expedited • T iming : As discussed above, the EA procedure
formation of the arbitral tribunal in cases of "exceptional typically takes about two weeks under most
urgency" (Article 9A of the 2014 LCIA Rules). institutional rules. This timeframe may not be
Similarly, section 12A(6) of the Singapore International quick enough in certain cases. In contrast, national
Arbitration Act provides that the court may order courts in a number of jurisdictions offer relief within
interim measures "only if and to the extent that" the a matter of days, or even on the same day as the
arbitral tribunal (which is defined in section 2(1) of the application. One potential way in which this gap
Act to include an EA) has no power or is unable for the between the EA relief and the court relief may be
time being to act effectively. The equivalent provisions narrowed is through "interim-interim" relief, which is
do not exist in the Korean Arbitration Act or the Hong considered in more detail below.
Kong Arbitration Ordinance.
• Need to bind third parties: Given the consensual
Whilst the above provision will likely cause some nature of arbitration, EA relief may only bind the
concerns about availability of court-granted interim parties to the arbitration, and any measure directed
relief in England and Singapore related matters, it to a third party may only be sought before the
appears likely that the national courts would step in national courts (for example, in the case of a freezing
and exercise their powers in cases where the difference injunction against a third party bank).
between the EA relief and the court relief is sufficiently
material and where the EA is unable to provide an • Ex parte: An ex parte application, or an application
effective remedy (for example, as recognised in the for relief without notice to the counterparty, is
Gerald Metals case, where an ex parte application is not available under most institutional rules. One
required). The parties should carefully consider the exception is the 2012 SCIA Rules, Article 26(3) of
position under the relevant jurisdiction(s) from the which permits ex parte relief to be granted by way
outset so as to obtain a comprehensive and realistic of a preliminary order in exceptional circumstances,
picture of their available options. provided that the notice is given no later than the
preliminary order and that the respondent is granted
Practical considerations in choosing between the EA relief an opportunity to be heard immediately thereafter.
and the court relief The parties will therefore have to resort to national
When both EA relief and court relief are viable courts if notice to the counterparty will defeat
options, the parties should choose between the two the remedy. Many national courts offer ex parte
options by carefully considering various factors, applications for interim relief if certain requirements
including the following. The relative importance of are met (for example, if it is urgent and necessary for
each factor will vary depending on facts of the case preserving evidence and/or assets).
(including, in particular, the characteristics of the

Korean Arbitration Review • 21

 • Costs: The costs of bringing the relevant application ny emergency relief granted, whether in or outside Hong
should also be considered and compared, including Kong, by an emergency arbitrator under the relevant
the administrative fees for the different fora and the arbitration rules is enforceable in the same manner as an
legal fees required. However, it should be noted order or direction of the Court that has the same effect,
that resorting to national courts for interim relief but only with the leave of the Court". In comparison,
may not entirely obviate the need to incur costs for Sing apore amended the definition of "arbitral
arbitration, as the validity of the court relief is often tribunal" in section 2(1) of the Singapore International
made conditional upon commencement of arbitral Arbitration Act to include an EA, thereby broadening
proceedings within a certain timeframe. the scope of the "orders and directions" enforceable
pursuant to section 12(6) of the Act to include EA
• E nforceability/consequences of non-compliance: decisions. Unlike the Hong Kong provision, however,
Whilst court-ordered interim measures are directly section 12(6) of the Singapore International Arbitration
enforceable, the enforceability of EA decisions is Act does not specifically provide for the enforceability
uncertain in many jurisdictions. Further, whilst a breach of foreign (ie, not Singapore-seated) EA decisions.
of court-ordered interim measures would have serious
repercussions (potentially amounting to contempt of According to the 2015 Queen Mary International
court), the consequences for non-compliance with EA Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in
decisions are less concrete. Local law advice should International Arbitration, 79% of respondents pointed
be sought at an early stage to clarify the prospects of to concerns about the enforceability of EA decisions as
enforcement in the relevant jurisdictions. one of the most significant factors impacting their choice
between national courts and the EA procedure. Further,
Topical issues relating to limitations of the a substantial majority of respondents (78%) were in
EA procedure favour of decisions rendered by EAs being enforceable
The EA procedure, whilst providing an important in the same way as arbitral awards. It remains to be seen
alternative to national courts, is not without its whether other jurisdictions would follow the approach
limitations. We consider here some topical issues adopted by Singapore and Hong Kong.
relating to the two main drawbacks of the EA
procedure: enforceability and timing. In practice, the best deterrent of non-compliance
appears to be the parties' perception that non-
Enforceability of EA relief compliance may adversely affect the main tribunal's
As mentioned, enforceability of EA decisions is opinion of the party. Parties would not wish for their
uncertain in most jurisdictions. The two exceptions to non-compliance with the EA decision to impact
this general position are Singapore and Hong Kong. the main tribunal's decision as to costs and/or even,
In 2012 and 2013 respectively, Singapore and Hong indirectly, the merits of the dispute. Further, normally,
Kong made legislative amendments to expressly provide arbitral rules expressly require parties to comply with
for the enforceability of EA decisions. The Hong EA decisions. Non-compliance therefore amounts
Kong approach is wider of the two, and recognises to a breach of the applicable arbitration rules. For
the enforceability of both Hong Kong and foreign example, Article 3.5 of Appendix 3 of the 2016 KCAB
EA decisions pursuant to section 22B(1) of the Hong International Arbitration Rules provides that the
Kong Arbitration Ordinance, which provides that "[a] parties are bound by, and shall carry out, the emergency

22 • The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board

measures ordered by the EA. to order preliminar y relief without giving the

ARTICLES
counterparty the opportunity to make submissions.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the degree of
voluntary compliance is relatively high, but clearly As discussed above, the 2012 SCIA Rules go further
far from absolute. In our experience, some but not and provide that a preliminary order may be made ex
all counterparties voluntarily complied with the EA parte, or without notice to the parties (Article 26.3),
decisions, and, in some cases, we were forced to bring but such power is subject to a number of conditions:
enforcement proceedings before the counterparties (i) there must be exceptional circumstances; (ii)
eventually complied. However, even in cases of non- notice to the counterparty must be given at the latest
compliance, the EA decisions in our favour were together with the preliminary order; and (iii) the
instrumental in enabling us to reach a favourable respondent must be granted an opportunity to be
settlement or obtain costs awards from the main heard immediately thereafter.
tribunals who took a poor view of the counterparties'
non-compliance. The EA relief may therefore provide However, even with respect to other institutional
a strategic advantage even where there are concerns rules which are silent on the issue, it is arguable that
about enforceability. the EAs should have the power to order such "interim-
interim" relief, and some commentators have suggested
Interim-interim relief that such measures are "conceivable" under institutional
As discussed above, sometimes the parties have no rules which are silent on the issue.11) The arguments in
choice but to resort to national courts for interim relief support include the following: (i) there is no express
because the relief is required with extreme urgency (ie, prohibition of such preliminary relief in the rules and
within a matter of days). the EAs enjoy a wide procedural discretion; (ii) in
some cases, the eventual EA relief may have no or little
A potential way in which this "timing gap" between practical value without such preliminary relief; and
the EA relief and the court relief may be addressed is (iii) different safeguards are available to control the
through the "interim-interim" relief, or interim relief potential adverse effects to the counterparty, including
granted pending the final decision of the EA. Only the EA's power to order security and modif y or
two major arbitration rules expressly address the invalidate its previous decision. The main hurdle to the
possibility of such preliminary order, namely the 2016 availability of the "interim-interim" relief is its potential
SIAC Rules and the 2012 SCIA Rules. conflict with the requirement under most institutional
rules that the EAs give both parties a reasonable
Schedule 1, paragraph 8 of the 2016 SIAC Rules opportunity to present their case. Where time permits,
provides that "[t]he Emergency Arbitrator shall have the applicant of such preliminary relief may wish to
the power to order or award any interim relief that he
deems necessary, including preliminary orders that 11) 
For example, analysing the ICC rules, Boog argues that
"nothing in the [ICC] Emergency Arbitrator Rules prohibits the
may be made pending any hearing, telephone or video emergency arbitrator from making such a preliminary order."
(See Christopher Boog, 'Chapter 4, Part II: Commentary on the
conference or written submissions by the parties" ICC Rules, Appendix V [Emergency arbitrator rules], in Manuel
Arroyo (ed), Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner's
[emphasis added]. As long as the counterparty is Guide, Kluwer Law International 2013), pp. 836 – 837.)
Similarly, Fry, Greenberg and Mazza remark that "an initial
notified of the EA application (as required under order before the responding party has filed its response"
is "conceivable" under the ICC rules [emphasis added]. (See
Schedule 1, paragraph 1), the EA has a discretion J. Fry, S. Greenberg and F. Mazza, The Secretariat's Guide to
ICC Arbitration, ICC, 2012, No. 3-1058.)

Korean Arbitration Review • 23

 suggest a mechanism which provides the responding This article has given an over view of the EA
party at least some opportunity to present its case. procedure under the different institutional rules,
the applicable standard of relief, the factors to be
It remains to be seen whether the parties, the EAs, and considered in choosing between the EA relief and the
the arbitral institutions will embrace the wider availability court relief, and some ways in which the limitations of
of the "interim-interim" relief, and further reduce the the procedure have been addressed.
discrepancy between the EA relief and the court relief.
Whilst the limitations of the EA procedure may
Conclusion mean recourse to national courts is sometimes the
The EA procedure can be an invaluable tool to preferable option, it is hoped that improvements
parties in need of urgent interim relief, and sometimes in the enforceability of EA decisions and the wider
the only avenue of redress available. Further, a availability of "interim-interim" relief will enhance
favourable EA decision may provide a strategic the usefulness of the procedure and narrow the gap
advantage in the settlement discussions and/or the between EA relief and court relief.
main arbitral proceedings.

Matthew specialises in international arbitration. Since joining Allen & Overy in 2005, he has
acted as counsel and advocate in commercial arbitrations under all major arbitral rules,
including the HKIAC, ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and UNCITRAL rules. He is qualified as a solicitor
in England & Wales and Hong Kong, and as an attorney in New York.
Matthew has particular experience of disputes relating to energy, infrastructure and mining
Matthew Hodgson projects, joint ventures, distribution agreements, financial instruments and post M&A matters.
(Allen & Overy Hong Kong) His clients are in a diverse range of industries, including financial institutions, energy and
infrastructure, telecommunications, life sciences and technology.
He has also represented clients in a large number of investment treaty disputes worldwide
under the ICSID and UNCITRAL rules. This has included successfully representing investors
in ICSID claims against Sri Lanka and the Philippines, and representing the Governments of
Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic, Pakistan and Poland, including in several claims valued at over
US$1 billion.
Recognised as a leading arbitration practitioner by the main directories since 2012 (Chambers
Global, Legal 500), he was listed by Who's Who Legal – Future Leaders Arbitration (2017)
and featured in the main list in 2018.

24 • The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board

 ARTICLES
Jae Hee is a Korean lawyer in Allen & Overy's international arbitration team based in
Singapore. Before joining the Singapore office, Jae Hee practiced arbitration in Allen & Overy's
Hong Kong and London offices. Jae Hee has represented clients in the energy, infrastructure,
finance, pharmaceutical and telecommunications sectors for both commercial and investment
treaty arbitrations under various rules including the ICSID, ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, HKIAC and
SIAC rules. She has also advised in relation to enforcing and challenging arbitral awards in
Jae Hee Suh
different jurisdictions.
(Allen & Overy Singapore)
Jae Hee studied law at Oxford University (Magdalen College) as a scholar, graduating with the
top overall score in her college.
Jae Hee is a fluent Korean speaker and is a solicitor admitted in Hong Kong.

Kellie is a Korean lawyer in Allen & Overy's international arbitration team based out of the
Hong Kong office. Prior to joining Allen & Overy, Kellie was a senior in-house counsel for
Hyundai Heavy Industries where she managed legal issues and assessed legal/commercial
risks and liabilities for the shipbuilding, engine and offshore engineering divisions of the
company. Kellie has also previously worked at an international law firm in US and clerked for
United States Court of Appeals 5th Circuit.
Kellie Yi
(Allen & Overy Hong Kong) Kellie has experience across a range of institutional and ad hoc arbitrations in Europe, Middle
East, Latin America and Asia for disputes relating to shipbuilding, engineering, onshore &
offshore energy related projects, equipment manufacturing and long-term supply agreements.
She has experience in EPC, Procurement, Security Agreements, JVs and related supply and
financial agreements for major international constructions projects. She has managed and
advised on arbitrations in various jurisdictions under different major international arbitration
rules, mainly ICC, LDIC, LMAA, HKIAC, SIAC, and UNCITRAL.
Kellie is a fluent Korean speaker.

Korean Arbitration Review • 25