Hong Kong

Published in Asian-mena Counsel: Dispute Resolution Special Report 2020

Screenshot 2020-09-08 at 5.41.41 PM

Kenix Yuen and Felda Yeung of Gall explore the appetite for this form of alternative dispute resolution.


Hong Kong has been trying for over a decade to grow the commercial space’s appetite for mediation as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism to resolving commercial disputes. Hong Kong first introduced mediation as a voluntary resolution process under the Civil Justice Reform (CJR) on April 2, 2009. On January 1, 2013, the Hong Kong Mediation Ordinance came into force, providing both a regulatory framework for mediation’s promotion as well as its confidentiality. The Practice Direction on Mediation (PD 31), meanwhile, came into effect on November 1, 2014 and created a framework for mediation. Under PD 31, parties are encouraged to attempt mediation and the Court may make an adverse costs order against a party who unreasonably fails to engage in mediation.

Benefits and pitfalls of mediation

Mediation is a faster, more efficient and confidential approach to remedying disputes, and it is also conducted on a without prejudice basis allowing companies to explore settlement without litigation or arbitration. Mediation is particularly useful when a commercial dispute could potentially damage a company’s reputation. For example, in view of the size of the claim, general litigation risk and the potential reputational damage which can be caused by a published judgment, a client may be keen to explore settlement on reasonable commercial terms at an early stage and maintain the business relationship with the opposing party. This would be seen as a “win-win” result.

The success of any mediation does lie in several key factors though. These include the mediator’s skill; the parties’ willingness to settle; the attitude of the parties’ legal representatives; the respective strengths of the parties’ cases, and whether there are any other consequences that are not within the control of both parties.

The difficulty of cross-border mediation

Cross-border disputes can be even harder to resolve by way of mediation. Litigation is preferred as having a judgment in place may allow parties to insulate themselves from possible regulatory consequences. Difficulties may be brought about not only by the differences between the laws of the jurisdictions, but cultural differences and differences in legal practice too.

The case of Gao Haiyan & Anor v Keeneye Holdings Ltd1, however, can give some reassurances to parties seeking cross-border mediation. In Gao Haiyan, the Court of Appeal dismissed the public policy objection to an award rendered as part of a PRC mediation which the first instance judge found to give rise to “apparent bias”. The higher court agreed that “one might share the learned Judge’s unease about the way in which the mediation was conducted because mediation is normally conducted differently in Hong Kong” but nonetheless determined that, because the procedures were common practice in China, there was no apparent bias and no public policy basis for refusal.

Screenshot 2020-09-08 at 5.48.30 PM

Gao Haiyan was later applied in N v W2 — it appears that the standard of illegality to justify a refusal to enforce an arbitration award on public policy grounds (despite its high threshold) varies according to the customs and procedures in different jurisdictions. As the Court in N v W confirmed: “bearing in mind the objectives of the [Arbitration] Ordinance and the policy of the Court to uphold the validity of arbitration agreements and the finality of arbitral awards, the Court would only exercise its discretion to set aside an award for the arbitrator’s misconduct under section 25 of the Ordinance, if there was likewise serious, even egregious, conduct of the arbitrator which offends the Court’s most basic notions of justice, morality, and fairness, and which results in a denial of due process and serious prejudice to a party.”

Further developments in Hong Kong

Hong Kong launched the Mediate First campaign in May 2009, with more than 100 companies and trade organisations pledging to consider the use of mediation before resorting to other means of dispute resolution. Since then, however, the number has only grown to just over 650, suggesting that the commercial sector has been slow to embrace mediation as an ADR. The Hong Kong government continues its commitment to encourage mediation.

The opening of the West Kowloon Mediation Centre in 2018 marked the first facility dedicated to mediation in Hong Kong and, also in 2018, the eBRAM Centre (Electronic Business-Related Arbitration and Mediation) was set up. This is funded by the Hong Kong government and is an online platform for deal-making and dispute resolution including mediation within the Greater Bay Area and Belt & Road countries.

There is plenty of room for growth in ADR in Hong Kong and only time will tell if there is a strong, lasting appetite for mediation as a means of resolving disputes.


1.  [2012] 1 HKC 335
2.  [2019] 3 HKC 161


Screenshot 2020-09-08 at 5.31.50 PM

W: www.gallhk.com

E: kenixyuen@gallhk.com
E: feldayeung@gallhk.com

Official Publication: Asian-mena Counsel

Click Here to read the full issue of Asian-mena Counsel: Dispute Resolution Special Report 2020.

Related Articles
ADR in the time of Covid-19, and why virtual and hybrid hearings are here to stay
To many practitioners’ surprise, virtual hearings have not been as difficult as feared ...
Service innovations to meet the pandemic challenge
How to provide effective services while keeping the outbreak under control is an unprecedented challenge ...
Shifting landscape of international arbitration in China
In China, amateurs may regard a city-named arbitration institution as the one only handling local arbitration cases. It is not, as a matter of fact ...
Related Articles by Jurisdiction
Computer Forensics and the Rise of the Drone
With more people being confined to their homes in different parts of the globe, hobbyists will be finding new uses for their drones ...
Further transparency in respect of Cayman Islands companies
The Cayman Islands has often been referred to pejoratively as a “secrecy jurisdiction”. The two main supports for the secrecy allegation were on the one hand the existence of “secrecy” legislation, The Confidential Relationship Preservation Law (CRPL) dating back to ...
Anti-Trust & Competition Special Report
Keeping Hong Kong competitive Rose Webb, chief executive officer of the Competition Commission of Hong Kong, talks about the city’s new Competition Ordinance.
Recent examples of consent decrees in Korea and their implications
Latest Articles
New regulation on the prohibition of sales of alcoholic beverages online
In line with evolving trends in technology, certain entrepreneurs and retailers have started using online channels to sell alcoholic beverages, which makes it difficult to ensure the sale of such beverages is in accordance with existing laws ...