BCLP logo

张志恒 Cheung

张志恒 Cheung

Senior Associate

London

律师

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 4844

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share
中文

Biography

张律师是本所伦敦办公室律师。他专门从事国际商业和投资仲裁业务。

张律师具有处理于国际商会理事会(ICC)，伦敦国际仲裁院(LCIA)，香港国际仲裁中心(HKIAC)，新加坡国际仲裁中心(SIAC)及国际投资争端解决中心(ICSID)进行的国际仲裁案件的经验。他也具有处理于英格兰，香港特别行政区和美国各地法庭的仲裁相关程序的经验。

张律师曾处理的案件涉及不同地区的管辖法律，包括英格兰，中国，香港特别行政区，俄罗斯，纽约和加利福尼亚。这些案件涉及股东，能源，建筑，供应链，知识产权和科技纠纷。

张律师曾在2019年2月28日于伦敦玛丽女王大学(Queen Mary University of London)发表关于国际仲裁网络安全的演讲。

Areas of Focus

Banking & Finance Disputes Banking & Finance Disputes

Business & Commercial Disputes Business & Commercial Disputes

Intellectual Property & Technology Disputes Intellectual Property & Technology Disputes

Licensing Licensing

Energy Transition Energy Transition

  • Banking & Finance Disputes

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Intellectual Property & Technology Disputes

  • Licensing

  • Energy Transition

Spoken languages

  • English
  • Chinese (Cantonese)
  • Chinese (Mandarin)

Admissions

  • England and Wales

    Hong Kong

Related capabilities

International Arbitration International Arbitration

Energy Transition Energy Transition

Banking & Finance Disputes Banking & Finance Disputes

Litigation & Dispute Resolution Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Regulation, Compliance & Advisory Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

Licensing Licensing

Intellectual Property & Technology Disputes Intellectual Property & Technology Disputes

  • International Arbitration

  • Energy Transition

  • Banking & Finance Disputes

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • Licensing

  • Intellectual Property & Technology Disputes

Experience

  • Advising and acting for an American corporation with respect to its potential dispute against the seller, purchasers and carrier of teak wood cargoes financed by the corporation as factor.
  • Acted for Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, a Pakistani integrated gas company, and successfully opposed an application under s. 68 of the Arbitration Act to set aside an LCIA award before the English Commercial Court.
  • Acted for Access Business Group in an ICSID arbitration against Mexico with respect to a USD 2.7 billion expropriation claim under Annex 14-C of the USMCA.
  • Acted for an investment fund in a HKIAC arbitration concerning additional payment due from the fund’s sale of a pharmaceutical company and the legal status of that company’s patents.
  • Acted for Plaza Centers N.V. in an investment arbitration against Romania (ICSID ARB/22/15) concerning the development of the Dambovita Center site in downtown Bucharest, Romania. Approximately EUR 262 million is at stake.
  • Acted for a joint-venture party in an LCIA arbitration seated in London concerning his partner’s fraudulent appropriation of the joint venture’s assets, the settlement and de-merger of the joint venture, and the termination of various consultancy agreements relating to the joint venture.
  • Acted for a North American health services provider in an ICC arbitration seated in France against a Caribbean state with respect to the amount owed under a build and operate arrangement of hospitals in the Caribbean state.
  • Acted for multiple subscribers to a failed “initial coin offering” in a group LCIA arbitration seated in London with respect to the issuer’s failure to register its offering and selling of cryptocurrency with the US SEC.
  • Acted for a sub-contractor in a HKIAC arbitration and ancillary Hong Kong High Court proceedings with respect to the construction of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong high speed railway project in Hong Kong. Approximately US$30million was at stake.
  • Acted for a global technology manufacturer and supplier in a HKIAC arbitration. The dispute arose from various sale and purchase agreements, governed by Hong Kong and Chinese (PRC) law. Approximately US$300million was at stake.

Resources

Publications

  • “Unilateral Option Clauses to Arbitration: The Debate Continues”, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 25 February 2020.
  • “Cybersecurity in International Arbitration”, Queen Mary University of London, 28 February 2019.

Related insights

View all related insightsIcon: arrow

Insights
Mar 16, 2026

Latest Development in the USD 50 Billion Yukos Saga

On 2 March 2026, Mr Justice Bright of the English Commercial Court dismissed Russia’s objections to enforcement of arbitration awards worth more than USD 50 billion in favour of the former shareholders of Yukos. Russia only succeeded in preventing the enforcement of costs awarded to the Yukos shareholders in the arbitrations, which totalled c. USD 50 million plus interest. This first instance judgment by the English court is another setback for Russia in the Yukos saga since the Dutch Supreme Court’s conclusive dismissal in October 2025 of its attempt to set aside the awards. In addition, Mr Justice Bright took this opportunity to provide important clarifications on the principles and approaches applicable in considering a public policy objection to enforcement under section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act of 1996. In confirming and summarising the pro-enforcement regime of the English courts, Mr Justice Bright commented that: “…litigation of this kind is not a moral beauty contest. Despite the references above to public policy and universal morality, it has not been the function of this judgment to grade either [the former shareholders of Yukos] or the Russian Federation for morality; nor for beauty. In investor-state disputes, these qualities are not always present in abundance. The New York Convention and the implementing provisions in ss. 101-103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 are inherently pro-enforcement. Within the parameters set by the authorities that I have discussed, they can be relied on by sinners, no less than by saints. It is difficult for any defendant to resist enforcement of a valid New York Convention arbitration award; especially when (as here) the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is no longer open to challenge. The moral failings that the Russian Federation has alleged… whether or not they could be made out at trial, are simply incapable of affording any defence – save to the very limited extent that I have indicated in relation to costs.” This note provides a brief background of the dispute between Russia and the Yukos shareholders. It focuses on Mr Justice Bright’s articulation of the applicable principles to section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act and their wider implication for parties looking to rely on allegations of fraud, corruption or illegalities in resisting enforcement of an arbitration award under the New York Convention.

Related insights

Insights
Jul 14, 2026
Achmea Induced Clarity on Sovereign Immunity in the US and the UK
Insights
Mar 16, 2026
Latest Development in the USD 50 Billion Yukos Saga
On 2 March 2026, Mr Justice Bright of the English Commercial Court dismissed Russia’s objections to enforcement of arbitration awards worth more than USD 50 billion in favour of the former shareholders of Yukos. Russia only succeeded in preventing the enforcement of costs awarded to the Yukos shareholders in the arbitrations, which totalled c. USD 50 million plus interest. This first instance judgment by the English court is another setback for Russia in the Yukos saga since the Dutch Supreme Court’s conclusive dismissal in October 2025 of its attempt to set aside the awards. In addition, Mr Justice Bright took this opportunity to provide important clarifications on the principles and approaches applicable in considering a public policy objection to enforcement under section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act of 1996. In confirming and summarising the pro-enforcement regime of the English courts, Mr Justice Bright commented that: “…litigation of this kind is not a moral beauty contest. Despite the references above to public policy and universal morality, it has not been the function of this judgment to grade either [the former shareholders of Yukos] or the Russian Federation for morality; nor for beauty. In investor-state disputes, these qualities are not always present in abundance. The New York Convention and the implementing provisions in ss. 101-103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 are inherently pro-enforcement. Within the parameters set by the authorities that I have discussed, they can be relied on by sinners, no less than by saints. It is difficult for any defendant to resist enforcement of a valid New York Convention arbitration award; especially when (as here) the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is no longer open to challenge. The moral failings that the Russian Federation has alleged… whether or not they could be made out at trial, are simply incapable of affording any defence – save to the very limited extent that I have indicated in relation to costs.” This note provides a brief background of the dispute between Russia and the Yukos shareholders. It focuses on Mr Justice Bright’s articulation of the applicable principles to section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act and their wider implication for parties looking to rely on allegations of fraud, corruption or illegalities in resisting enforcement of an arbitration award under the New York Convention.
Insights
Sep 04, 2025
Impact of the ICJ’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion on Investment Treaty Disputes
Insights
Jul 30, 2025
Interim Romanian Administration Called for a Quick Resolution of the Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Conflict
Insights
Jan 05, 2024
The Vis Moot’s new AI rules: reflecting current sentiment & foreshadowing issues in practice
Insights
May 09, 2022
International Law Recourse for Potential Expropriation of Foreign Assets by Russia
Insights
Mar 28, 2022
Pre-conditions to arbitration: Admissibility v jurisdiction approaches from England and Hong Kong SAR
Insights
Jun 29, 2021
Composite Requests: One Step Forward or Two Steps Back?
Insights
Nov 11, 2020
Court-Ordered Measures in Support of Arbitration