Arbitral institutions and rules are increasingly adapting their procedures to reflect how parties actually communicate in this digital age. The Hong Kong Arbitration Society (HKAS) Online Arbitration Rules are a prime example. They expressly provide that written communications, including a Notice of Arbitration, may be transmitted electronically – whether by e-mail, SMS, instant messaging, or other means capable of generating a record of transmission:[1]
2.1 Any written communication or Arbitration Documents pursuant to these Rules shall be deemed to be received by a Party or Arbitral Tribunal or by Hong Kong Arbitration Society if:
(a) transmitted by methods of electronic service including, amongst others, e-mail, SMS message, electronic message via Instant Communication Means, message in the Chatroom with the Arbitral Tribunal, facsimile, electronic data interchange, electronically via the internet or any other means of telecommunication that provides a record of its transmission, including the time and date, […].
Since the launch of its online platform in 2019, HKAS has relied on SMS notifications to support fully virtual proceedings.
A similar approach can be found in the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) Rules, which state that, unless the parties agree otherwise, all documents and notices relating to arbitration may be served by personal delivery, post, facsimile, e-mail, or any other electronic data interchange that can provide proof of delivery.[2] Other leading frameworks, including the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the CIETAC Arbitration Rules, and the SIAC Arbitration Rules, also allow for electronic service by e-mail, fax, or online platforms.[3]
Courts have increasingly acknowledged that as business correspondence shifts away from traditional post, arbitration must evolve accordingly. SMS notifications mirror the way many commercial parties already interact in their daily dealings, offering a fast and cost-efficient means of communication. Yet efficiency is not the only consideration. Whether such innovations always provide a fair and reliable method of informing respondents about arbitral proceedings remains an open – and contested – question.
Hong Kong’s Approach: Notice of Arbitration by SMS Is Valid, but Fairness Prevails
The recent Hong Kong case CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987 squarely addressed whether service of a Notice of Arbitration by SMS was sufficient.[4] The dispute arose after a borrower defaulted under a series of loan agreements. The lender commenced arbitration under the HKAS Online Arbitration Rules, serving the Notice of Arbitration via SMS. The message included a link to the notice itself, a username and temporary password for accessing the online platform, and the contact details of HKAS for any enquiries.
The borrower challenged the award, claiming he never received the initial SMS and arguing that the arbitration had proceeded with “abnormal lightning speed” – just three weeks from commencement to award – denying him a fair opportunity to defend himself.[5]
The High Court of Hong Kong dismissed these objections. It held that, by agreeing to arbitration under the HKAS Online Arbitration Rules, the borrower was taken to have accepted SMS as a valid means of communication.[6] The Court emphasised the distinction between “actual knowledge” of the proceedings and “proper notice” as required under section 86 of the Arbitration Ordinance, which reflects the UNCITRAL Model Law. Proper notice, the Court explained, does not mean that the party must have read the notice, only that it was served in a manner reasonably likely to bring the proceedings to the party’s attention. On this basis, the Court concluded that the borrower had been properly notified.[7]
The objection to the speed of the proceedings was also rejected. The Court noted that the rapid timeline was a feature of the HKAS Online Arbitration Rules, deliberately designed to promote efficiency. The borrower’s non-participation, it held, was a matter of choice rather than evidence of a denial of due process.[8]
Nevertheless, the Court expressed concern over two aspects of the proceedings. First, it criticised the lender for failing to provide the borrower with the supplemental loan agreements containing the arbitration clause when he requested the contracts. This omission, although not fatal to enforcement, was deemed serious enough to affect the allocation of costs. Second, the Court recommended that, in cases where a respondent does not participate, arbitrators or claimants should take steps to verify that notice has actually been received and understood.[9] Citing commentary by Gary Born, the Court endorsed the view that tribunals should make genuine efforts to secure the participation of absent parties in order to safeguard procedural fairness.[10]
The judgment confirms that SMS can constitute a valid service under institutional rules. Yet it also underscores that Hong Kong courts will demand more than technical compliance: they expect parties and tribunals to take proactive measures to ensure fairness and to avoid even the appearance of procedural disadvantage.
Singapore’s Emphasis on Actual Notice
The Singapore High Court reached a similar conclusion in Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui [2024] SGHC 189, but with a distinct emphasis on “actual notice”.[11] The dispute arose from a loan agreement between the claimant, Wang Bin, and the defendant’s husband, with the defendant, Zhong Sihui, acting as co-borrower. When repayment was not made, arbitration was commenced before the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA).[12] The tribunal issued an award ordering repayment of RMB 2.82 million plus interest and costs. The claimant then sought enforcement of the award in Singapore, where the defendant was said to hold assets.[13]
The defendant applied to set aside the ex parte enforcement order, arguing that she had never been properly notified of the arbitration.[14] In particular, she claimed that the SMS messages containing the arbitral papers were sent to a number registered in her husband’s name, and she denied instructing the lawyers who appeared in the arbitration on her behalf. She also alleged that the claimant had failed to make full and frank disclosure when applying for enforcement.[15]
The High Court dismissed the challenge. On the question of notice, the Court held on the balance of probabilities that the defendant did in fact have “actual notice” of the arbitration. The phone number was clearly linked to her: it was recorded in the loan agreement, appeared in immigration records, and was used in other official documentation. SCIA’s delivery logs confirmed that the SMS messages were not only delivered but also opened. Furthermore, the arbitration transcript recorded counsel acknowledging receipt of notice on her behalf.[16]
The Court also rejected the allegation of non-disclosure, noting that while the claimant’s affidavit could have been more precise, the full award had been disclosed and there was no intent to mislead. The enforcement order was therefore upheld, and costs were awarded against the defendant.[17]
The Court stressed that the ownership or formal registration of a mobile number is immaterial. What matters is whether the number was in the respondent’s custody and control. The judgment drew a careful distinction between proper notice – compliance with the relevant contract, institutional rules, or the International Arbitration Act – and actual notice, which requires evidence that the party truly became aware of the proceedings. In this case, the Court found both requirements satisfied.
The decision in Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui highlights Singapore’s pro-enforcement approach. SMS and other electronic methods can amount to valid service, but parties must be prepared to prove actual receipt and awareness with robust evidence such as delivery logs, institutional records, and related documentation. The lesson for practitioners is clear: when seeking enforcement, documentary proof of electronic service is often decisive in rebutting challenges under section 31(2)(c) of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (IAA).
Comparative Perspectives: “Proper Notice” Across Borders
The question of what constitutes “proper notice” is not unique to Hong Kong or Singapore but arises in arbitral practice worldwide. Courts in different jurisdictions continue to wrestle with the balance between procedural efficiency and the fundamental right to be heard.
In Lenmorniiproekt OAO v Arne Larsson & Partner Leasing Aktiebolag (2010), the Swedish Supreme Court refused enforcement of an arbitral award because the respondent had not actually received notice of the proceedings. The Court adopted a strict approach, requiring that notice must in fact reach the party, regardless of whether the arbitral institution had complied with its own procedures. This reflects Sweden’s strong emphasis on due process protections, even where efficiency might be sacrificed.[18]
By contrast, the Qatar Court of Appeal in 2022 endorsed a more flexible approach. It recognised electronic communications such as e-mail as valid methods of service, provided delivery and receipt could be demonstrated.[19]
These divergent approaches illustrate a gap in international arbitration. Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention allows enforcement of an award to be refused if the party against whom it is invoked was not given proper notice of the proceedings or was otherwise unable to present its case. Yet the Convention does not define “proper notice”, leaving its interpretation to national courts. The result is a patchwork of standards.[20] Courts in civil law jurisdictions often adopt more formalistic, high-threshold requirements, while common law courts, such as those in Hong Kong and Singapore, tend to apply a functional test – asking whether the method of service was reasonably calculated to bring the proceedings to the party’s attention.
Best Practices for Balancing Efficiency and Fairness
To ensure that efficiency does not undermine due process, both parties and arbitral institutions should exercise particular care when relying on SMS or other electronic methods of service. Where possible, notices should be transmitted through multiple channels – such as SMS, e-mail, and courier delivery – to reduce the risk that they go unnoticed. Equally important is the preservation of detailed records of service attempts, including system logs, screenshots, and delivery confirmations, as such evidence may prove decisive if enforcement is later challenged.
Arbitrators, for their part, should take proactive measures to verify whether a non-participating respondent has genuinely received and understood the notice of arbitration. This additional step not only enhances procedural fairness but also protects the enforceability of the award.
[1] Hong Kong Arbitration Society (HKAS) Online Arbitration Rules, Article 2; see also HKAS Website available: https://www.hkarbsoc.org.hk/odr/#/
[2] SCIA Arbitration Rules, Article 6(2).
[3] UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Article 2(1); SIAC Arbitration Rules, Rule 4.
[4] CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987.
[5] CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987, at [20]-[21], [43].
[6] CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987, at [29], [36], [39]-[42].
[7] CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987, at [41].
[8] CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987, at [41]-[47].
[9] CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987, at [56], [59].
[10] CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987, at [39]-[42].
[11] CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987, at [57].
[12] Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui [2024] SGHC 189, at [4]-[5].
[13] Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui [2024] SGHC 189, at [5].
[14] Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui [2024] SGHC 189, at [6]-[7].
[15] Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui [2024] SGHC 189, at [9].
[16] Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui [2024] SGHC 189, at [36]-[42].
[17] Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui [2024] SGHC 189, at [68].
[18] S. Dellepiane, Proper Notice: Common Problems in Interpreting Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention in Light of the Lernmorniiproekt Decision of the Swedish Supreme Court, in W.W. Park (ed.), Arbitration International, pp. 545–566.
[19] Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Qatar, 26 December 2022, DIFC-LCIA Case No. DL20362, paras. 6-7, available through Jus Mundi at: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-claimant-v-respondent-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-qatar-monday-26th-december-2022.
[20] S. Dellepiane, Proper Notice: Common Problems in Interpreting Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention in Light of the Lernmorniiproekt Decision of the Swedish Supreme Court, in W.W. Park (ed.), Arbitration International, pp. 545–566.