You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Mediation’ tag.
The parties agreed to mediate the dispute, but were unable to agree on the choice of mediator. They therefore jointly applied to the Court for direction pursuant to paragraph 13(1) of Practice Directions 31.
The joint application was heard by Mr. Registrar Lung. In his judgment, Mr. Registrar Lung outlined the approach adopted by the Court in deciding the choice of mediator in case of a dispute between the parties.
Hong Kong Dispute Resolution Bulletin: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell HKDRB, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2010] 9 HKDRB.
On Tuesday January 26th Ivy Ong-Wood from Hong Kong’s The Standard, interviewed Dr Raymond Leung, General Editor of the Hong Kong Mediation Handbook.
The Standard - Raymond Leung Interview
The following link opens a copy of the article (A good compromise)
The Standard: Interview with Raymond Leung
For more information on the Hong Kong Mediation Handbook, please visit the Sweet & Maxwell website at www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk
This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Honour Judge Lok dated 21 August 2009. This case involved a bitter litigation between a firm of solicitors and its former client.
The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant in October 2001 for unpaid legal fees. The trial took place in March 2009. It lasted for five days, and was attended by two Senior Counsels. On 21 August 2009, the Honour Judge Lok handed down his judgment. He granted judgment for the plaintiff for the outstanding legal fee in the amount of HK$71,449.95, together with costs.
In his judgment, the Honour Judge Lok commented that “it is regrettable that the parties have not had the good sense of trying to resolve their dispute by a more cost-effective means. The costs of this case over 9 years far outweigh the amount at stake, and yet the parties have chosen the most expensive way to resolve their dispute“.
The case, however, was not put to rest by the judgment of the Honour Judge Lok. The defendant applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. Such an application was dismissed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Rogers VP. The Honourable Mr. Justice Rogers VP commented that “this is clearly the sort of litigation which the Civil Justice Reform was designed to prevent“.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 21 CJRA.
In this case, at the Case Management Conference, the Honourable Mr Justice Fung considered a late application by the parties (by consent) for leave to adduce evidence from a joint neurological expert. A Master had previously ordered that no further medical evidence be obtained without leave of the judge. In addition, the matter had not been set down for trial notwithstanding that there had already been three checklist reviews. The Honourable Mr Justice Fung reluctantly allowed the application for a joint neurological report, but said that for future cases, he would suggest that “the Master should consider making an unless order for setting down to be sanctioned by dismissal of the action once it is concluded that case preparation is complete and sealed with an order of no further evidence without leave“. In this case, the defendants had also rejected the plaintiff’s invitation to mediate, on the basis that “the proceedings had reached an advanced stage” and “the issue of liability is in dispute“. The Honourable Mr Justice Fung rejected both arguments and reiterated that unreasonable refusal to attempt mediation, especially when the other party has made the request, is relevant conduct in litigation in the exercise of the discretion on costs.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 14 CJRA.
In this case, Registrar Au-Yeung considered how the parties should approach case management under the Civil Justice Reform (CJR), when the parties have also agreed to attempt mediation. In doing so, Registrar Au-Yeung emphasized one of the underlying objectives set out in O.1A r.1(b) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A, Sub. Leg.), namely to ensure that a case is dealt with as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable. Registrar Au-Yeung remarked: “I wish to restate the court’s position. We do encourage parties to go ahead with mediation, but that does not necessarily mean all court proceedings, including milestone events, have to be stayed. What we do is that we take into account the time needed for mediation and may give leave to set down for trial if there are no outstanding directions. This will ensure that mediation and, if necessary, litigation, will proceed at reasonable speed. So once we fix a CMC and decline to move that date, parties are expected to comply with all directions and PD5.2.”
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 13 CJRA.
In Mediation (Part 1) in the last issue of the CJR Alerter, we provided an overview of the role of mediation in the administration of justice under the CJR legislation. In this issue, we will look at the application of Practice Direction 31 (“PD 31“) and the costs consequences that parties to litigation may face for unreasonably refusing to mediate.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of the application of PD31 subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 6 CJRA.
One of the underlying objectives under O.1A is to facilitate the settlement of disputes. The Court has a duty as part of its active case management to further that objective by encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure (“ADR”) if the Court considers that appropriate, as well as facilitating the use of such a procedure (the “Duty”). The parties to any proceedings and their legal representatives are also under a duty to assist the Court to further the underlying objectives.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of mediation under O.1A subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 5 CJRA.
In this short video Martin Rogers Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution in Asia for Clifford Chance, and General Editor of The Hong Kong White Book discusses the changes to evidence and trial procedure following the implementation of Civil Justice Reform in Hong Kong (2 April 2009).
在這影片中，Clifford Chance 的合夥人暨香港及亞洲區訴訟及調解糾紛主管、Sweet & Maxwell出版之《香港民事訴訟程序》總編輯Martin Rogers，將講述於2009年4月2日實行之香港民事司法改革之相關事項，包括討論證據及審訊程序。
在这影片中，Clifford Chance 的合夥人暨香港及亚洲区诉讼及调解纠纷主管丶Sweet & Maxwell出版之《香港民事诉讼程序》总编辑Martin Rogers，将讲述於2009年4月2日实行之香港民事司法改革之相关事项，包括讨论证据及审讯程序。
