Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) has the potential to make significant changes to various aspects of the practice of law. It is possible that many lawyers will incorporate AI in doing legal work, one way or the other and to some degree or other, in the foreseeable future. However, while AI is a powerful tool at lawyers’ disposal, work generated by AI can contain errors, and AI has the potential to “hallucinate”, i.e. make up false information or something that does not in fact exist. In two recent court cases in Canada and the UK, the lawyers submitted to the courts case authorities that did not exist, leading the other side’s lawyers and the court to suspect that those cases had been (mis-)generated by the use of AI.

In Sze Fung Engineering Limited v Trevi Construction Company Limited [2025] HKCA 278[1], the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (“CA”) ruled that the “back to back” wording in that case was not a “pay when paid” clause, but governed only the timing of payment.

The without prejudice (“WP”) rule generally prevents statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute from being put before the court as evidence. Usually, these statements are made in communications between the opposing parties to a dispute. Can WP privilege attach to documents produced by third parties who are not parties to the dispute? This was a question before a deputy judge of the English High Court (“Court”) in BNP Paribas Depositary Services Ltd v Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Ltd [2024] EWHC 2575 (TCC)[1].

In Y and Another v GI and Another [2025] HKCFI 1317[1], the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (“Court”) allowed the defendant’s application for security for costs against the plaintiffs in respect of the plaintiffs’ application to set aside an arbitral award. In doing so, the Court found that the plaintiffs were resident outside Hong Kong, had no assets available in Hong Kong and the setting aside application had little prospect of success.