Hong Kong by Steve Webel

I picked up this announcement in the Standard (HK) about the launch of a Mediation Information Office in Hong Kong. There will be no Court mediators and the parties will choose their own mediator. I feel that this is a real improvement on schemes where the court appoints mediators. It would be great to see schemes like this take root in England and Wales. What do you think?

Judiciary makes case for mediation

Monday, January 04, 2010

Mediation, a process that aims to resolve disputes and keep them out of the courts, takes another step forward today with the Judiciary opening an information office on the practice.
The Mediation Information Office has been established under the Judiciary’s Practice Direction 31 on Mediation, which came into operation last Friday.

The practice direction covers relevant civil cases in the Court of First Instance and District Court. It contains the procedure to be followed by disputing or litigating parties to engage in mediation after the commencement of a court action by writ.

The office provides litigants with information to help them consider whether they should attempt mediation to resolve their disputes, and to enable them to seek it from professional bodies.

“The target users are parties who have commenced or are about to commence civil proceedings in the High Court or District Court, including unrepresented litigants,” a spokesman for the Judiciary said yesterday.

The office, which is in the High Court Building in Queensway, will serve as a focal point of inquiries for all court-related mediation.

“As the Judiciary has to maintain its independent and impartial position, mediation will not be provided by its staff but by accredited mediators to be appointed by the parties themselves,” the spokesman said. [Emphasis added]

Secretary for Justice Wong Yan-lung is leading a cross-sector working group to promote mediation. A report is to be released for public consultation early this year.

The benefits of mediation have for a long time highlighted potential cost savings. The current review of costs will have implications and so the series of seminars designed to collect the views and opinions of the legal and business communities may be of interest to mediators.

From the web site of the Judiciary

The principal purpose of the meetings held during the period May to July 2009 is (a) to enable participants to express views about the issues raised in the Preliminary Report and (b) to provide a forum for discussion of those issues.

Topical seminars
To supplement the public seminars outlined above and to facilitate open and informed debate about the issues identified in the Preliminary Report, Sir Rupert Jackson is also attending eight topical seminars.  It is envisaged that these events will be attended by those with relevant expertise or interest, on all sides, in the issues to be debated, and are kindly being hosted by others, as follows:
SEMINAR 1 – Monday 20th July, 2pm – 5pm
After-the-event insurance, success fees and conditional fee agreements
Hosted by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain
Tower Bridge House, St Katharine’s Way, London, E1W 1AA
If you would like to attend this event, please contact Sarah Hazlewood before Thursday 16th July:
sarah.hazlewood@rpc.co.uk

SEMINAR 2 – Tuesday 21st July, 10am – 1pm
CLAFs, SLASs and contingency fees
Hosted by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
12 Bloomsbury Square, London WC1A 2LP
If you would like to attend this event, please Julio César Betancourt before Friday 17th July:
jbetancourt@ciarb.org

SEMINAR 3 – Wednesday 22nd – 2.30 to 4.30 pm
Fixed costs (a) in the fast track and (b) above the fast track (Wednesday 22nd July)
Hosted by Eversheds LLP
1 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7WS
If you would like to attend this event, please contact Angela Hanmore before Friday 17th July:
angelahanmore@eversheds.com

SEMINAR 4 – Friday 24th July, 12 noon – 2pm
Chancery litigation
Hosted by Clifford Chance LLP
10 Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ
If you would like to attend this event, please contact Jo Gibson before Wednesday 22nd July:
Joanna.Gibson@CliffordChance.com

SEMINAR 5 – Monday 27th July, 4 – 6pm
Judicial review and environmental claims
Hosted by Herbert Smith LLP
Exchange House, Primrose Street, London, EC2A 2HS
If you would like to attend this event, please contact Nicolette Hayter before Thursday 23rd July:
nicolette.hayter@herbertsmith.com

SEMINAR 6 – Tuesday 28th July, 2 – 5pm
Business disputes involving SMEs
Hosted by Holman Fenwick Willan LLP
Friary Court, 65 Crutched Friars, London EC3N 2AE

If you would like to attend this event, please contact Sharon Klein before Friday 24th July:
events@hfw.com

SEMINAR 7 – Wednesday 29th July, 4.30pm – 6.30pm
Case management and cost management
Hosted by Mayer Brown International LLP
201 Bishopsgate, London, EC2M 3AF
If you would like to attend this event, please register your interest here by Wednesday 22nd July.

SEMINAR 8 – Thursday 30th July, 10am – 1pm
The assessment of costs
Co-hosted by the Supreme Court Costs Office Costs Practitioners’ Group and Reed Smith LLP
Reed Smith LLP, Broadgate Tower, 20 Primrose Street, London, EC2A 2RS
If you would like to attend this event, please contact the Costs Practitioners Group Secretary:
Jon.Martin2@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk

Thank to Charles Middleton-Smith for pointing out a very interesting article from by his colleague, Antoine Adeline of Hammonds Hausmann in Paris.

Nothing to lose and everything to gain

The article is in French and Google Translate does a fair job of translating the text for those of you who don’t speak French…

Cour de Cassation

In brief the article is prompted by a recent judgment (8 April 2009) by the Court of Cassation which strengthens and clarifies a previous decision by the Joint Chamber of the Court of Cassation on 14 February 2003.

The meaning of which is that, in France, if the contract terms include a mediation clause no one can afford to fluff through the “invitation to mediate process”. The recent judgment makes clear that if you have a contract term to mediate, you must tick the box to confirm that mediation has been attempted and when you do,  you must make sure that you have indeed tried to mediate. Without evidence eg. that a mediator was actually appointed, ticking the box will not “tick the box”.

As Antione Adeline says, when at least 2/3 of mediated cases settle then you have “nothing to lose and everything to gain.”

An interesting post in The Lawyer today…

Jackson LJ’s review of litigation costs must be more far-reaching, insists profession | Features | The Lawyer.