Singapore Convention on Mediated Settlement Agreements to enter into force on 12 September 2020

From 12 September 2020, all international settlement agreements resulting from mediation will potentially be able to be enforced under the new Singapore Convention, regardless of where in the world the mediation took place.

Article 14 of the Singapore Convention provides that it will enter into force six months after three signatory states have ratified it into their domestic law. We have previously reported that Fiji and Singapore deposited their instruments of ratification on 25 February 2020. On 12 March 2020, Qatar became the third state to ratify the Convention, meaning that the Convention will enter into force on 12 September 2020 – just over a year after its signing ceremony on 7 August 2019.

At this stage, the Convention will only apply where a settlement agreement is sought to be enforced (or relied on as a defence) in the ratifying states – Singapore, Qatar or Fiji. However, given that 49 other countries have already taken the first step of signing the Convention (including China and the US), it seems likely that this list could soon increase substantially.

For more detail on when and how the new Convention will operate (including what qualifies as an ‘international’ settlement agreement), see our earlier post here.

The Convention’s imminent entry into force presents an opportune moment for a refresher on some of the practical issues that emerge from its legal framework. Jan O’Neill in our London disputes team has published a post on the Practical Law Dispute Resolution Blog discussing a number of such practical issues, which those involved in mediations should be turning their minds to now. Click here to read that post.

 

Tomas Furlong
Tomas Furlong
Partner, Singapore
+65 6868 8085
Gitta Satryani
Gitta Satryani
Of Counsel, Singapore
+65 6868 8067
Priya Aswani
Priya Aswani
Professional Support Lawyer
+65 6868 8077

Singapore and Fiji ratify the Singapore Convention on Mediated Settlement Agreements taking a significant step towards its entry into force

Yesterday, on 25 February 2020, Singapore and Fiji became the first two countries to deposit at the United Nations Headquarters their instruments of ratification of the Singapore Convention, more formally known as the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation. Singapore and Fiji have taken an important step towards bringing the Singapore Convention closer to coming into force.

The Convention will commence operation six months after three signatory states have ratified it into their domestic law.  All it will now take therefore, for the clock to start ticking, is one more signatory state to deposit its instrument of ratification at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Earlier this month, on 4 February 2020, the Singapore Convention on Mediation Bill was passed into law, though its provisions have yet to come into effect.  The Bill was effectively fast-tracked through the Singapore Parliament given it was only tabled on 6 January 2020 for its first reading.  The main purpose of enacting the Bill was to implement the Convention in Singapore and therefore allow for ratification.

The Singapore Convention was first opened during a signing ceremony and conference held in Singapore on 7 August 2019, where Singapore hosted more than 1500 delegates from 70 countries.  46 countries signed the Convention on the day.  In the months following the signing ceremony, 6 other countries signed the Convention bringing the current total number of signatories to the Convention to 52.  For more information on the signing ceremony and conference in August 2019, please click here and here to read our previous posts.  A full current list of the signatories can be found at the foot of this blog post.

Speaking in Parliament on 3 February 2020, during the second reading of the Bill, Senior Minister of State for Law in Singapore Edwin Tong stated that a key challenge that parties face when dealing with a business dispute which has settled is ensuring the counterparty complies with the terms of the agreement. While a mediated settlement agreement is contractually binding, it is not itself directly enforceable in courts unlike a court judgment or an arbitral award.  He emphasised that this difficulty was also highlighted by the 2016 Global Pound Conference Survey where respondents indicated that legislation or conventions that promote the recognition and enforcement of settlements including those reached in mediation would most improve commercial dispute resolution.

The Singapore Convention is an answer to a number of themes we observed at the Global Pound Conference series. That series sought the views of thousands of dispute resolution stakeholders across the globe on various issues, including which developments would most improve commercial dispute resolution.   The Convention’s proper impact however, and in particular whether it will be as significant as the New York Convention, remains to be seen. Meaningful engagement by signatory states through their domestic institutions, practitioners and businesses is required. In addition, making effort to promote ratification by signatory states will be important, as will be continued engagement with states that have not yet signed the Convention. Singapore and Fiji’s ratification, nevertheless, is an important step forward in building this international framework supportive of mediation.

 

Signatories as at 25 February 2020: Afghanistan, Armenia (26 Sep 2019), Belarus, Belize, Brunei, Chad (26 Sep 2019), Chile, China, Colombia, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador (25 Sep 2019), Kingdom of Eswatini, Fiji, Gabon (25 Sep 2019), Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau (26 Sep 2019), Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Montenegro, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Palau, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda (28 Jan 2020), South Korea, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, the US, Uruguay and Venezuela. The rest of the countries signed the Convention on 7 August 2019.

 

Tomas Furlong
Tomas Furlong
Partner, Singapore
+65 6868 8085
Gitta Satryani
Gitta Satryani
Of Counsel, Singapore
+65 6868 8067
Priya Aswani
Priya Aswani
Professional Support Lawyer
+65 6868 8077

Malaysia: Disputes over terms of settlement underscore the importance of robustly drafted settlement agreements

As the spotlight shines on mediated settlements with the signing of the Singapore Convention on Mediation on 7 August 2019, it is timely to recall that settlement agreements, like any other contract, are only as useful as they are enforceable.  While parties may often feel that they have completed the hard work in reaching a negotiated settlement, it is crucial that the settlement is documented carefully to avoid subsequent disputes.  Two recent decisions in the Malaysian courts are instructive examples of how ambiguity in settlement agreements can be the cause of further costly and time-consuming litigation rather than putting an end to it.

Peter Godwin, Nicholas Hoh, Daniel Chua and Rebecca Pang of our Kuala Lumpur office consider the decisions below.

Reebok (M) Sdn Bhd  v CIMB Bank Berhad (Civil Appeal No. W-02(NCVC)(W)-2459/2017)

On 24 September 2010, the High Court granted summary judgment against Reebok in the sum of:

  1. RM5,329,067,93 and interest due under CIMB Bank’s overdraft facilities; and
  2. RM589,074.67 and interest due under CIMB Bank’s term loan facilities
    (together the Judgment Sum).

On 18 March 2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement for the payment of the outstanding Judgment Sum, which included the following terms:

  • That the amount of “RM4,990,000 as at 18 [March] 2011” be repaid in 71 monthly instalments of RM50,000 per month, and a final bullet payment of the balance of the total outstanding sum in the 72nd month.
  • That CIMB Bank will proceed to execute the judgment of the High Court by foreclosing on Reebok’s property in the event of default of payment.

CIMB Bank attempted to foreclose on Reebok’s property in 2015, alleging that Reebok had failed to make timely payments.  However, this action was discontinued when it was discovered that a competing creditor had already foreclosed on the property.  In response, Reebok claimed against CIMB Bank that it had paid RM532,746.75 in excess of the agreed settlement amount of RM4,990,000, on the basis that the settlement agreement did not refer to interest on the principal sum of RM4,990,000.

Among the issues before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were as follows:

  • First, whether CIMB Bank was entitled to claim interest on the Judgment Sum when its repayment was subject to the terms of the settlement agreement
  • Second, whether CIMB Bank must first terminate the settlement agreement before executing the judgment by commencing foreclosure proceedings

Both the High Court and Court of Appeal rejected Reebok’s claim for repayment, finding that:

  • CIMB Bank was entitled to claim interest on the Judgment Sum as there were no express words in the Settlement Agreement stating that RM4,990,000 was a final sum.  Instead, the Settlement Agreement expressed the Judgment Sum to be the amount “as at 18 [March] 2011”.  This meant that the terms of the Settlement Agreement were sufficiently broad to include interest on the sums payable under it.
  • There was no need to expressly terminate the Settlement Agreement prior to executing the judgment, given that the Settlement Agreement expressly provided that CIMB Bank could proceed to execute the judgment in the event of default upon any instalment payment.  This fell squarely within the Court of Appeal’s requirement that, “[a] party who wishes to revive his original claim in the event of the other party’s inability to comply with his obligation under the terms of the settlement should incorporate such term in the settlement agreement to give effect”.

Kamil Azman bin Abdul Razak & Ors  v Amanah Raya Berhad & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-110-10/2017(W))

In 2009, the Appellants (consisting of Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman, amongst others) commenced proceedings against the Respondents (consisting of Amanah Raya Berhad (ARB), Amanah Raya Development Sdn Bhd (ARD) and Amanah Raya Capital Sdn Bhd (ARC) for breach of trust, alleging that the Respondents mismanaged a trust (Trust) settled by one of the Appellants.  A consent judgment was recorded in 2010 to compromise the suit, on the following terms (Consent Judgment):

  • The maturity of the loan facilities granted by ARC to both Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman respectively is extended to 27 July 2012 on an interest-free basis (Clauses 1 to 3).
  • In the event that only part payment(s) of the amount(s) payable are made by the Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman on 27 July 2012, and subject only to the condition that the amount remaining outstanding as at 27 July 2012 from Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman do not exceed RM2,000,000, the parties shall within three months from 27 July 2012 (unless mutually extended by the parties) enter into negotiations to restructure their respective Loan Facilities which shall take into account the Abdul Razak’s 25% interest in the Joint-Venture Agreement referred to in Clause 9 of the Consent Judgment (below) and the assignment of the said interest to ARC towards the repayment of the outstanding sums under the Loan Facilities (Clause 5).
  • Abdul Razak, Kamil Azman, and their nominated entity (the Trust) shall enter into a Joint Venture Agreement (JV Agreement), in form and substance as pre-agreed between the Appellants and ARD by 11 August 2010 (Clause 9).
  • The parties agree that they shall have no further claims against each other and undertake not to raise the allegations raised in this action in the future (Clause 10).

Two years after the Consent Judgment was recorded, no JV Agreement had been concluded in light of disagreements between the parties as to the legal capacity of the Trust to be a party to the intended JV Agreement.  Nor was any payment on the Loan Facilities made.  As a result, the Appellants and Respondents commenced a series of cross-claims against each other. The Appellants sought, amongst other claims, specific performance of the JV Agreement, whereas the Respondent sought, amongst claims, a declaration that ARB was released from any obligation to enter into the JV Agreement, and that Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman repay the loan facilities with interest.

The High Court and Court of Appeal held that:

  • The Respondents were released from their obligation to conclude the JV Agreement.
  • The Appellants were to repay the Respondents the loan amount with interest.

On appeal to the Federal Court, the critical issue for determination was whether the Consent Judgment consisted of mutual promises and obligations which were dependent upon each other, to the effect that the performance of one (the repayment of the loan facilities) was dependent upon the fulfilment of the other (the conclusion of the JV Agreement between the parties).  In support of this, the Appellants argued:

  • First, that the Consent Judgment created mutual obligations on the basis that (i) the parties agreed to extend the loan repayment date to post-date the envisaged signing of the JV Agreement, and (ii) Clause 5 of the Consent Judgment envisages the restructuring of the loan facilities would include Abdul Razak’s 25% interest in the JV Agreement as some form of collateral.
  • Second, that the clauses in the Consent Judgment depict a particular order of performance so as to enable the court to either apply section 53 of the Contracts Act 1950 (Act), or to employ a common sense order of precedence set out in section 55 of the Act.  These provisions read as follows:

53. Order of performance of reciprocal promises

Where the order in which reciprocal promises are to be performed is expressly fixed by the contract, they shall be performed in that order; and, where the order is not expressly fixed by the contract, they shall be performed in that order which the nature of the transaction requires.

55. Effect of default as to that promise which should be first performed, in contract consisting of reciprocal promises

When a contract consists of reciprocal promises, such that one of them cannot be performed, or that its performance cannot be claimed till the other has been performed, and the promisor of the promise last mentioned fails to perform it, the promisor cannot claim the performance of the reciprocal promise, and must make compensation to the other party to the contract for any loss which the other party may sustain by the non-performance of the contract.”

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding “nothing from all these clauses that can be construed to say that the performance of one condition (such as repayment of loan) may be subject to a pre-condition that the JV Agreement.”  In particular, the Federal Court observed that “the Consent Judgment does not say that the repayment of loans would be made from the proceeds of the Joint Venture”.  As a result, there was no express or implied order of performance under sections 53 and 55 of the Act, which meant that Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman’s obligation to repay the loan was not conditional upon the conclusion of the JV Agreement.  Tellingly, the Federal Court opined that “the appellants had woven some legal intrigues, bereft of credible facts and legal findings by the Court below, in characterising the Consent Judgment as they did”.

As regards the release of the Respondent’s obligation to enter into the JV Agreement, the Federal Court considered the declaration of release as consistent with the principle “that, where one party refuses to perform an agreement, the counterparty may treat himself as discharged”.  This was on the basis that the Appellants insistence on nominating the Trust as party to the JV Agreement, which was found to be legally impossible given the Trust’s absence of any legal capacity.

The Federal Court also affirmed the principle that a settlement agreement recorded as a judgment:

… must be construed as a commercial instrument.  The aim is to ascertain the contextual meaning of the relevant contractual language.  It must be done objectively as to what a reasonable person, circumstanced as the actual parties in a commercial environment were, would have understood it to mean.  This must be gathered from the language used and its relevant contextual sense.”

Comment

Notably, Article 1(3)  of the recently inked Singapore Convention (which Malaysia signed as one of 46 day-one signatories) excludes the Singapore Convention’s application to settlement agreements: (i) that are approved by a court or concluded in the course of proceedings and are enforceable as a judgment in the state of that court; or (iii) that are recorded and enforceable as an arbitral award. The rationale for this carve out is the existence of other international instruments such as The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the New York Convention, which govern the enforceability of some court judgments and of arbitral awards respectively (the former of which Malaysia is not a signatory). However, this does not diminish the importance of ensuring that settlement agreements, whether concluded before or during the course of formal proceedings, are properly negotiated and drafted. These cases stand as a reminder of the risks of protracted and costly disputes arising from vague terms of a settlement agreement. These can be avoided through effective settlement advocacy in negotiating and concluding a clear and unambiguous settlement agreement. As the adage goes, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.

 

Peter Godwin
Peter Godwin
Regional Head of Practice - Dispute Resolution Asia and Managing Partner, Kuala Lumpur
+60 3 2777 5104
Nicholas Hoh
Nicholas Hoh
Senior Associate, Kuala Lumpur
+60 3 2777 5106
Daniel Chua
Daniel Chua
Associate, Kuala Lumpur
+60 3 2777 5101
Rebecca Pang
Rebecca Pang
Associate, Kuala Lumpur
+60 3 2777 5111

 

46 countries sign the Singapore Convention on mediated settlements today

After extensive discussions between member states, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention, was signed today. A total of 46 countries signed the Convention, including the world’s two largest economies, the US and China, and several of the largest economies in Asia. This is the highest number of first-day signatories of a UN trade convention to date. A full list of signatories can be found at the foot of this blog post. It is understood that further states are planning to sign the Convention in the near future.

With this Convention, the role of mediation in cross-border disputes is strengthened. The status of mediation is elevated and enforcement is simplified. The occasion is a momentous one in recent legal history. We discuss its impact below.

Mediation and enforcement

Mediation is an informal and confidential process, where a neutral mediator helps parties to bridge their differences and repair working relationships. It is usually quick and inexpensive and has a high success rate.  The goal is that the parties reach a settlement at (or soon after) the mediation, thereby avoiding costly litigation or arbitration. The parties should record any settlement in a binding settlement agreement. Should a party refuse to honour the terms of the settlement agreement, the counterparty(ies) may sue on the settlement agreement as a contract for breach of contract.

In practice, enforcement is not normally an issue as the parties reach a negotiated settlement voluntarily. However, if problems do arise, enforcement can become a procedural headache, particularly in cross-border situations, where a party may have to go to court in the counterparty’s jurisdiction and start proceedings to enforce the settlement. The mediated settlement agreement can become another step on an ultimately longer dispute resolution journey.

Where litigation or arbitration is already on foot, mediated settlements may be recorded as part of those proceedings and potentially be enforced as a judgment or arbitral award. Arb-med-arb clauses have even evolved (for example, Singapore’s SIMC/SIAC Protocol), to aid enforcement of mediated settlements. These require arbitration to be started before the parties go to mediation and, if the parties settle at mediation, the settlement is enforceable under the New York Convention 1958 as a consent award.

Looking at the overall dispute resolution framework, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the new Hague Judgments Convention are designed to assist enforcement of court judgments internationally (though with limited uptake to date). The New York Convention has hugely benefited international arbitration, with enforcement regarded as arbitration’s trump card. In many ways, the Singapore Convention is the missing piece in the enforcement jigsaw.

The impact of the Singapore convention

The Singapore Convention applies to settlement agreements resulting from mediations resolving cross-border commercial disputes. It provides a standardised framework for enforcement within signatory states, much like the New York Convention for arbitral awards.

The Singapore Convention seeks to give mediated settlement agreements bite by recognising the enforceability of the agreements, if they meet the following criteria:

  1. The settlement agreement is “international” – meaning either: (i) at least two or more parties to the agreement have their place in business in different countries or (ii) the country with close connection to the performance of the settlement agreement is different to the place of business of the parties;
  1. The agreement is signed by the parties and “resulted from mediation”. Mediation is defined broadly as “a process, irrespective of the expression used or the basis upon which the process was carried out, whereby the parties attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a third person or persons (the “mediator”) lacking the authority to impose a solution upon the parties to the dispute”;
  1. The agreement does not fall within the excluded category of settlement agreements. The excluded category includes settlement agreements relating to family, inheritance or employment law and consumer disputes.
  1. None of the listed grounds to refuse enforcement applies.

If a settlement agreement meets these criteria, each signatory state to the Convention (and its courts) should recognise and enforce the agreement in accordance with its own rules, without substantive review or fresh litigation. This should aid enforcement against assets located in the signatory state and the discharge of other remedies like specific performance or injunctions. Also, if a dispute arises in a signatory state and a party claims it was already resolved by the agreement, the party can invoke the settlement agreement to prove that the matter has already been resolved on those terms.

The Convention therefore provides greater certainty to parties in international transactions who have reached a settlement of their dispute through mediation.

Conclusion

The Singapore Convention is an answer to a number of themes we observed at the Global Pound Conference series. That series sought the views of thousands of dispute resolution stakeholders across the globe on various issues, including which developments would most improve commercial dispute resolution. Nearly two thirds of respondents in Asia nominated legislation to aid enforcement of settlement agreements, including those reached through mediation. In other regions, this was seen as less pressing than other factors but still received substantial support. (see below)

The Singapore Convention will formally come into effect following ratification by at least three signatory states. Its full impact, and in particular whether it will be as significant as the New York Convention, remains to be seen. Meaningful engagement by signatory states through their domestic institutions, practitioners and businesses is required. In addition, engagement with states that have not yet signed it will also be important. Nevertheless, today is an important step forward in building an international framework supportive of mediation.

For commentary on some of the Convention’s more interesting features, please see Jan O’Neill (Professional Support Lawyer, London)’s article published on the Practical Law Dispute Resolution Blog here.

You can find our guidance on multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses, dispute avoidance and improving conflict management here.

Signatories as at 7 August 2019: Afghanistan, Belarus, Belize, Brunei, Chile, China, Colombia, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kingdom of Eswatini, Fiji, Georgia, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Montenegro, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Palau, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, South Korea, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, the US, Uruguay and Venezuela. 

 

For more information, please contact the authors.

Tomas Furlong
Tomas Furlong
Partner, Singapore
+65 6868 8085
Anita Phillips
Anita Phillips
Foreign Legal Consultant (England & Wales), Hong Kong
+852 2101 4184
Reshma Nair
Reshma Nair
Associate, Singapore
+65 6868 8002
Priya Aswani
Priya Aswani
Professional Support Lawyer, Singapore
+65 6868 8077

 

Singapore International Mediation Centre signs MOU with China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and Korean Commercial Arbitration Board

The Mane Forum was held today in Singapore on the eve of a historic moment – the signing of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention.

This morning, the Singapore International Mediation Centre signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and Korean Commercial Arbitration Board to commit to jointly promoting mediation consulting, joint conferences and training amongst other initiatives.

There was gripping discussion in the afternoon on the differing standards applicable to mediators and mediations around the world. Singapore was urged to take the lead to form a working group with prominent mediators from different jurisdictions to explore drawing up a uniform mediation practice code and submit a draft to the United Nations for further discussion.

Also explored was the potential to use Online Dispute Resolution as an additional tool to resolve suitable disputes.

Notable speakers today included Mr Edwin Tong, SC (Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Health), Dr Noeleen Heyzer (Former Under Secretary General of the United Nations), Ms Anna Joubin-Bret (Secretary of UNCITRAL), Mr Rimsky Yuen (Former Secretary for Justice in Hong Kong SAR), and various chairpersons and heads of eminent Arbitration and Mediation centres around Asia.

 

 

 

 

 

IS MIXED-MODE DISPUTE RESOLUTION THE ANSWER TO BELT AND ROAD DISPUTES?

A trend to combine dispute resolution processes, typically mediation and arbitration, is gaining traction internationally. In Asia, the Belt and Road Initiative is driving this change.

With China at the heart of the Belt and Road, a more consensus-driven approach to dispute resolution, reflecting Asian values and promoting mediation, looks set to thrive. Traditionally, international commercial disputes play out to Western values and norms and have been adversarial in nature.

For some time, mediation has been discussed as a dispute resolution process suitable for Belt and Road disputes. As an adjunct to adjudicative processes like litigation and arbitration, academicsend-users and China’s own court reforms have highlighted the integral role mediation is likely to play as part of a multi-tier process. Continue reading

HONG KONG’S FUNDING LAW NOW IN FORCE

Hong Kong’s long-awaited legislation permitting third parties to fund arbitrations and related proceedings takes effect today. As heralded in our earlier posts, this is a widely welcomed development in one of the world’s leading arbitral seats, and is expected to generate considerable activity.

If you have questions on the new law, funders’ Code of Practice, or third party funding generally, please contact Justin D’Agostino, Simon Chapman, Dominic Geiser, Briana Young, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

 

Justin D'Agostino
Justin D'Agostino
Global Head - Dispute Resolution; Managing Partner - Asia
+852 2101 4010
Simon Chapman
Simon Chapman
Partner, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4217
Dominic Geiser
Dominic Geiser
Partner, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4629
Briana Young
Briana Young
Professional Support Consultant, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4214

 

Singapore: Herbert Smith Freehills advises on third-party funded arbitrations and contributes to leading publication on litigation funding

Singapore introduced legislation in 2017 to allow third-party funding in international arbitration and associated proceedings including enforcement and mediation. Our Singapore team is already representing clients in two significant Singapore-seated arbitrations in which the claimants are third-party funded. It is understood that these are amongst the first funded arbitrations in Singapore.

In the light of these exciting developments, Herbert Smith Freehills’ Alastair Henderson, Daniel Waldek and Emmanuel Chua discuss the legal landscape and trends in the Singapore chapter to the 2019 edition of Getting the Deal Through: Litigation Funding.

The Guide provides expert local insight into third-party funding and related laws, and answers key questions in 21 jurisdictions. Topics covered include: (i) whether third-party funding is permitted; (ii) funding options; (iii) fees and interests funders may charge; (iv) conditional or contingency fee agreements: (v) applicable legislative/regulatory provisions; (vi) termination of funding; (vii) after-the-event insurance; (viii) costs of litigation, adverse costs and security for costs; and (ix) disclosure and privilege. The Guide will be of interest to third party funders, lawyers and end-users of dispute resolution processes alike, to understand and navigate the latest developments in this area of the law.

Click here to view this publication.

Should you have any questions about third party funding in Singapore, please contact Alastair Henderson, Daniel Waldek or Emmanuel Chua.

 

Alastair Henderson
Alastair Henderson
Managing Partner, Southeast Asia
+65 68688058
Daniel Waldek
Daniel Waldek
Senior Associate
+65 68688068
Emmanuel Chua
Emmanuel Chua
Senior Associate
+65 68688027

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS CONTRIBUTES TO LEADING PUBLICATION ON LITIGATION FUNDING

Hong Kong has recently seen a flurry of legislative activity in relation to third-party funding. The long anticipated law allows third parties to fund arbitrations seated in Hong Kong including related court and mediation proceedings, as well as work done in Hong Kong for arbitrations seated elsewhere. These legislative changes will come into force on 1 February 2019. In the light of these significant changes to the legal landscape, Herbert Smith Freehills’ Simon Chapman, Dominic Geiser, Briana Young and Priya Aswani have contributed the Hong Kong chapter to the 2019 edition of Getting the Deal Through: Litigation Funding.

The Guide provides expert local insight into third-party funding and related laws, and answers key questions in 21 jurisdictions. Topics covered include: (i) whether third-party funding is permitted; (ii) funding options; (iii) fees and interests funders may charge; (iv) conditional or contingency fee agreements: (v) applicable legislative/regulatory provisions; (vi) termination of funding; (vii) after-the-event insurance; (viii) costs of litigation, adverse costs and security for costs; and (ix) disclosure and privilege.

It is hoped that the Guide will be of interest to third party funders, lawyers and end-users of dispute resolution processes alike, to understand and navigate the latest developments in this area of the law.

Click here to view this publication.

 

Simon Chapman
Simon Chapman
Partner, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4217
Dominic Geiser
Dominic Geiser
Partner, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4629
Briana Young
Briana Young
Professional Support Consultant, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4214
Priya Aswani
Priya Aswani
Professional Support Lawyer
+65 6868 8077

Japan and Hong Kong agree arbitration and mediation cooperation

On 9 January 2019, Hong Kong’s Department of Justice and the Ministry of Justice of Japan signed a Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) to “strengthen collaboration on international arbitration and mediation“. The MoC, a copy of which is available here, provides a general administrative framework for cooperation between Japan and Hong Kong in relation to international arbitration and mediation. Continue reading