Arbitration versus Insolvency: Balancing Party Autonomy and Public Policy

Min Kyung Kim & Jonathan Harris

International & Comparative Law Quarterly2026https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589326101419article
ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This article examines the tension between arbitration and insolvency in common law jurisdictions. Focusing on the divergence created by the English decision in Salford Estates and the Privy Council decision in Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda International Ltd , it critically assesses their approaches to disputes over a creditor’s standing to present a winding-up petition. Through comparative analysis, including consideration of the judgment of the courts of Singapore in AnAn Group PTE Ltd v VTB Bank , it argues that a correct understanding of the test in the Hong Kong judgment Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd , commonly known as Lasmos , provides a more principled framework, balancing party autonomy and insolvency principles.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589326101419

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{min2026,
  title        = {{Arbitration versus Insolvency: Balancing Party Autonomy and Public Policy}},
  author       = {Min Kyung Kim & Jonathan Harris},
  journal      = {International & Comparative Law Quarterly},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589326101419},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Arbitration versus Insolvency: Balancing Party Autonomy and Public Policy

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.