Hong Kong to introduce cap on hourly arbitration rates
Hong Kong is planning to overhaul its arbitration procedures in a bid to improve its position as a leading dispute resolution centre in Asia.
October 29, 2012 at 01:16 PM
4 minute read
Hong Kong is planning to overhaul its arbitration procedures in a bid to improve its position as a leading dispute resolution centre in Asia.
The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) is planning to introduce new rules in the first quarter of next year which would usher in a cap on hourly rates on arbitration held in the centre, making the process less expensive for companies and individuals.
In addition the organisation plans to introduce new guidelines for arbitrator expenses.
The current rules, introduced in 2008, prescribe that fees can be calculated either according to a schedule of fees relating to the value of the dispute or on the basis of hourly rates. The proposed change would cap this rate at HK$6,500 (£518) per hour, preventing them reaching current levels, which can go as high as HK$10,000-15,000 (£801-£1,200) per hour at present.
Kathryn Sanger, a Clifford Chance consultant and a council member for the HKIAC, said: "Under the first system, there is a schedule of fees which will relate to the sum in dispute, so what the parties are claiming. Under the second system, fees will be charged as hourly rates, subject to a fee cap. The proposal is a cap of HK$6,500 (£518) per hour, which can be increased if both parties agree."
She added: "Also, each system contains the same standard terms of appointment on matters such as cancellation arrangements, which again can be changed with the parties' agreement. The HKIAC is also proposing to issue a practice note dealing with arbitrator expenses."
Other major changes to the rules include the introduction of emergency arbitrator provisions and the ability of the HKIAC to consolidate arbitrations. Respectively, this will make it easier for companies and individuals to obtain interim relief quickly from an emergency arbitrator before a tribunal is constituted, and will allow the arbitration centre to hear more than one case at the same time. According to Sanger, the new principles are part of a wider plan to bring HKIAC in line with other international institutions and attract more arbitration work to Hong Kong.
"One of the big complaints about arbitration is that it's expensive and that parties don't have any control over what arbitrators charge and what expenses they charge, so we're following the best practice of other institutions," she said. "The real trend now is to have control over fees."
News of the changes was discussed as part of Hong Kong International Arbitration Week, where Hong Kong justice secretary Rimsky Yuen stressed the importance of arbitration in the region, stating that "the promotion and development of arbitration and ADR will continue to be a major and top priority of the department of justice."
The capacity of the HKIAC is also set to be increased following the move to new and bigger offices, which it is hoped will facilitate a rise in arbitration cases in the future. Hong Kong is also in the process of reaching agreements with Taiwan and Macau which would enable Hong Kong arbitral awards to be enforceable across Greater China.
Chiann Bao, the Secretary-General of the HKIAC, said Hong Kong was a naturally attractive place for dispute resolution, but was continuing to review and update its processes in order to stay ahead of the competition.
She said: "The competition is not hostile; in Europe there are five major seats for arbitration, in Asia there are two, arguably three or four coming down the pipeline. Singapore is regarded as another one, as well as Kuala Lumpur and Seoul. We are just doing our best to ensure we are the most attractive seat."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSingapore Leaders Stress the Importance of the Rule of Law Amid Geopolitical Tensions
Can Law Firms Avoid Landing on the 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLetter From Asia: Will Big Law Ever Bother to Understand Asia Again?
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250