Advertisement
Advertisement

Arbitration gains favour as an alternative to court cases

In the 1990s, when Christopher To tried to turn his peers on to alternative dispute resolution (ADR), he sometimes felt it was an uphill battle as most lawyers found there was more money to be made in conveyancing.

'They thought I was nuts!' said To, the former head of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC).

Fortunately, To had the last laugh. The centre's caseload was 602 last year, 448 in 2007, 394 in 2006 and 281 in 2005 - with increases expected for this year.

Things have changed since the 1990s, when most disputes arose from the construction sector. Alternative dispute resolution encompasses negotiation, mediation and arbitration - the latter two can be either binding or non-binding, depending on what the parties in a dispute agree to in advance.

Following the Civil Justice Reforms in January, and the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) opening a branch of the Secretariat of its International Court of Arbitration in Hong Kong late last year to administer arbitrations in the region, the star appears to be rising for those lawyers specialising in ADR. The chamber expects continued growth in demand for arbitration services.

Justin D'Agostino, a litigation and arbitration partner with Herbert Smith, said: 'Much of recent growth in commercial arbitration has occurred in Asia.'

Paul Mitchard, Queen's Counsel at Skadden Arps, believes Hong Kong has had a new mediation culture thrust upon it thanks to 'new rules of the High Court' which have impacted ADR - especially mediation.

The new rules seek to have more trained local mediators and it is something To reckoned was prudent. 'More professionals need to get trained as mediators because it is a service clients want,' To said. And that involves both practical experience and qualifications or else clients will go elsewhere and lawyers will lose out on new business. 'Even general practitioners should get [ADR] training.'

Although Andrew Dale, who is counsel to Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's Asian litigation group, expects to see more use of mediation in the coming months and years, he does not see it as a cure-all.

For mediation 'to be successful, appropriate preparation by lawyers and their clients is needed - it is not a magic wand', Dale said.

Nevertheless, To is undeterred in his belief because court proceedings typically take longer to play out. 'It [arbitration or mediation] is the right forum for people to solve their disputes,' said To, because those that absolutely need to be heard in court can be seen to quickly.

'Those who need money or a fast remedy can get the relief they need faster outside of court - it's a balanced approach in a civilised society,' he said.

However, as Robert Pe, Orrick's litigation head in Asia, observed, arbitration, like litigation, could be time consuming and expensive. Speedy resolution largely hinged 'on the conduct of the parties and their lawyers and on the skill and experience of the arbitrators dealing with the case'.

Mitchard thinks that Hong Kong is an attractive venue for ADR and its only real regional competitor is Singapore.

'Both have well developed and modern arbitration laws, a local arbitration institution, which international end-users and counsel are comfortable with, and a judiciary which is supportive of arbitration.' Timothy Hill, a dispute resolution partner with Lovells and chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (East Asia Branch), agreed. 'Hong Kong is ideally placed to become the leading centre for dispute resolution in the region. Not only do we have excellent facilities at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, but also a wide range of specialist professionals who can offer clients a diversity of expertise to suit their particular disputes.'

Mitchard believes that Hong Kong can rightly be viewed by foreign companies doing business on the mainland as close enough to the mainland, but not encumbered by cross-border arbitration rules which may not always be user friendly to overseas companies.

'Typically, when dealing with [mainland] counterparties, the Chinese party prefers to choose CIETAC arbitration [on the mainland], whereas the Western counterparty would prefer to use one of the international arbitration institutions and have the arbitration take place outside [the mainland],' said Richard Chalk, head of Asian dispute resolution at Freshfields.

'The reality is that foreign businesses are presently more comfortable with Hong Kong's common law system and the HKIAC than the mainland's arbitration laws and rules,' Mitchard said.

Post