Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Since 2022, the Georgia General Assembly has passed several pieces of legislation providing significant impacts for civil litigation and litigants in the State’s courts. Together, the new laws indicate a legislative trend to reform certain practices, or unintentional consequences of judicial application of prior legislation, while also strengthening Georgia’s pro-businesses policies. Examples of the legislation enacted over the past three years include: the Apportionment Statute (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33) and the codification of the Apex Doctrine (O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26.1) in  response to appellate court decisions, as well as Georgia’s Bad Faith Failure to Settle Statute (O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1) and a brand new Tort Reform Package (Senate Bills 68 and 69), which establish additional guardrails around potential claims and liabilities in Georgia. Though the recent 2025 Tort Reform Package represents the legislature’s most comprehensive effort to introduce statutory reform for civil litigation, this package stands with the preceding legislation as a notable backdrop.

In CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987[1], Sir William Blair[2], sitting as Deputy High Court Judge in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (“Court”), rejected a borrower’s challenge to the enforcement of an arbitral award in favour of a moneylender. In doing so, the Court made some interesting observations in respect of certain procedural aspect of the case, in particular relating to the importance of giving proper notice of the arbitration.

On 11 July 2025, the Hong Kong Government gazetted the Construction Industry Security of Payment Rules (“Rules”)[1]. The Rules, made by the Chief Judge of the High Court under section 50 of the Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance (Cap 652) (“SOP Ordinance”), provide the practice and procedure to be followed in respect of applications to set aside or enforce a determination made in adjudication proceedings (“Applications”) under sections 48 and 49 of the SOP Ordinance.

In PI 1 and PI 2 v MR [1], the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (“Court”) dismissed the plaintiffs’ application to set aside an arbitral tribunal’s decision that it did have jurisdiction to hear a dispute. It is noteworthy that in this case, the Court applied a Privy Council decision on Cayman Islands law in determining whether the claims brought against a Cayman Islands company, in an arbitration seated in Hong Kong, were arbitrable. There were good reasons for this, as explained below.