CIETAC HK interview: Arbitration tips, tricks and trends

Taking nominating arbitrators as an example, Hong Kong's Arbitration Ordinance has greatly adopted the UNCITRAL model law, which differs from the PRC approach. Nearly all of our cases involve mainland parties on one side of arbitration, who are accustomed to the idea of selecting arbitrators from a panel. There are more than 200 institutions in the PRC, and they all have arbitrator panels that parties are required to choose from. But Hong Kong law doesn't require parties to do so—they can bring in external arbitrators if they wish. So we inform parties of these flexible options as a means of bridging these differences.

What are some of the most frequently asked questions?

One of our most frequently asked questions comes from Hong Kong parties who purchase products, from an agent overseas, that do not comply with the sample and want to know whether they can pursue dispute resolution. But the fact is, CIETAC, or any other institution for that matter, can't do much as the parties did not have an arbitration agreement in place. Various chambers of commerce and government organizations usually refer these queries to us, but parties simply need to have an arbitration clause in their contract.

Another inquiry we frequently receive relates to the time and costs of arbitral proceedings. The Queen Mary University's 2015 International Arbitration Survey found that “costs” and “lack of speed” were among the biggest challenges of arbitration. CIETAC boasts quick proceedings at reasonable costs, but with our growing caseload, maintaining such standards can be a challenge.

Does the difference between CIETAC's inquisitorial system and the HKIAC's adversarial approach matter to parties?

That was a distinctive feature in the past, as the conduct of arbitration was derived from that of court litigation. The PRC courts have traditionally taken a very inquisitorial approach—judges are more willing to ask questions directly to tackle substantive issues—whereas Hong Kong's common law system is adversarial, where parties take up a greater role of presenting the case.

But in arbitration, this institutional divergence no longer applies as cases depend on style of the arbitrators. We have 60 arbitrators from Hong Kong, and their practicing style may be more adversarial, so a CIETAC Hong Kong case can proceed in such a manner.

What are some of the biggest arbitration trends you're seeing with respect to CIETAC Hong Kong's caseload?

In terms of the nature of cases, CIETAC Hong Kong's caseload largely follows the pattern of its mainland headquarters. We began accepting cases ever since our 2015 Arbitration Rules took effect.

We handle traditional straightforward disputes such as those involving cross-border sale of goods, but also specific cases such as land, construction and project disputes. Cases and parties are generally becoming more sophisticated.

How's the caseload in Hong Kong compared with in the mainland?

The Hong Kong branch is relatively new. We're taking an organic approach to growth. We're seeing more and more parties adopt CIETAC Hong Kong in their clauses, but of course there are certain cases that are better suited to being administered in the mainland branches, and we sometimes recommend parties as such (for example, cases involving both parties from the mainland). In 2015 we had five new cases under the 2015 CIETAC Arbitration Rules.

There is no substantial difference in the nature of disputes between Hong Kong and the mainland, but the distinctive feature of CIETAC Hong Kong is that all cases involve overseas parties.

How is CMAC doing? Are there many maritime disputes?

CMAC is headquartered in Beijing, and its caseload is smaller compared with CIETAC. We're taking a more radical approach to CMAC Hong Kong. We'll release a draft term for ad hoc maritime arbitration in Shanghai with the assistance of CMAC Hong Kong by the end of the year. We're learning from leading venues to help build Hong Kong into a maritime dispute resolution center.

Do parties who were unable to enforce a CIETAC Hong Kong award in the mainland come back to you?

We have many queries regarding mainland enforcement. Overall, Hong Kong has a proven record of overseas enforcement of its awards.

Parties will ask us for award certificates, and sometimes they require a public notary or attesting officer to certify the document. We do help in providing these, but substantively speaking, CIETAC Hong Kong has no record of non-enforcement. And it's not always the case that the Chinese party is the losing party that needs enforcing against—half the time it's a Chinese company seeking enforcement against a foreign party in a foreign jurisdiction.

How are the new concepts like joinder and EAP introduced in the 2015 Arbitration Rules working out?

Parties are generally happy with the new multiple contract dispute proceeding as it saves time and reduces costs. Claimants are able to arbitrate multiple disputes of a similar and compatible nature in one case.

The benefits of consolidation depend on the party's intention to use this setting as one can use this as an instrument to prolong the proceeding. We need to analyze the circumstances and determine whether it is suitable for a case to adopt the feature, bearing in mind Section 46 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance which sets out parties' fundamental rights.

As for emergency arbitrator procedures (EAP), we receive many queries on this but parties haven't applied it yet.

CIETAC Hong Kong is always looking at ways to innovate in international arbitration. Recently, with the help of the Working Group Members, we drafted guidelines for third party funding to help parties understand how this works.

What are your thoughts on the HKIAC and SIAC gaining a PRC foothold through their new Shanghai representative offices?

This correlates to the trend of international arbitration rising in Asia. Institutions in top cities like Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing and Singapore are all facing increasingly intensive caseloads. Some may call this growing competition, but it's really more cooperation in nature. We're enlarging the pie rather than competing over it. All the institutions are benefiting from Asia's emergence as a dispute resolution hub.

Any advice for foreign and Chinese arbitrating parties?

It's most important to understand what the arbitration clause placed in the contract really means. At the end of the day, the contract is a result of the parties' negotiation.

Parties may choose an institution whose practice and tradition they are familiar with, especially if they have a stronger negotiating power to do so.

As for Chinese parties specifically, they may consider pre-agreeing to arbitrate in Chinese or the language they are comfortable with.

Also important is to choose a seat or legal system that is more supportive of arbitration. For instance, Hong Kong has a court system that is very pro-arbitration, which is an advantage.

您在贸仲委香港担任什么工作？

我负责案件管理团队和中心的日常运营，回答当事人在仲裁程序前后提出的问题，并协助联络香港争议解决界的仲裁员。我在贸仲委香港仲裁中心于2013年开始运营时入职，向贸仲委香港秘书长报告。

在贸仲委香港工作非常有意思，我们与中国海事仲裁委员会（CMAC）香港仲裁中心是唯一两家拥有香港或海外分部的中国仲裁机构。我们根据不同的程序法和实体法来管理案件，拥有更国际化的仲裁员和更全球化的视角。这是很独特的工作经历。

管辖法律对案件管理方式有很大的影响吗？

以委任仲裁员为例，香港仲裁条例主要采用UNCITRAL模式法，这有别于中国采用的方式。在我们几乎所有的仲裁案件中，一方当事人来自中国内地，他们习惯从仲裁员名册选择仲裁员。中国有200多家仲裁机构，他们都有仲裁员名册，当事人必需从中选择。但香港法律并不要求当事人这样做，如果他们想引入外部仲裁员，也可以这样做。所以我们会向当事人告知各种灵活选项，弥补两者间的差异。

什么是你们最经常被提到的问题？

一个很常见的问题是香港当事人从海外代理人购买了产品，但收到的实际产品与样品不一致，所以想知道是否可以提起争议解决。但事实上，如果双方没有仲裁协议，无论贸仲委还是其他任何机构都对此无能为力。各种商会和政府机构经常把这类问题转给我们，但当事人需要在他们的合同中包括仲裁条款。

另一个常见问题与仲裁程序的时间和费用有关。伦敦玛丽王后大学在2015 年国际仲裁调查中发现，“费用”和“速度慢”是仲裁最大的挑战之一。贸仲委能以合理费用提供快速程序，但随着案件数量不断增长，保持这样的水准可是一种挑战。

贸仲委的审问制与香港国际仲裁中心对抗制的区别对当事人有影响吗？

这在过去是一个显着特征，因为仲裁方式源于法院诉讼。中国法院在传统上采用审问方式——法官更愿通过直接提问来解决实质性问题，而香港的普通法体系是对抗性的，当事人更多地扮演着陈述案件的角色。

但在仲裁中，这种机构性差异不再适用，因为案件取决于仲裁员的风格。我们有60名来自香港的仲裁员，他们的执业方式可能更具有对抗性，所以贸仲委香港案件可用这种方式审理。

您认为贸仲委香港的案件有哪些主要仲裁趋势？

就案件性质而言，贸仲委香港的案件大多遵循内地总部的模式。我们从2015 年仲裁规则生效以来开始接受案件。

我们处理传统简单、直接的争议，例如涉及跨境货物销售的争议，但也有土地、施工和项目争议等专门案件。案件和当事人都日趋复杂化。

香港的案件与内地有何区别？

相对而言，贸仲委香港分部还是一家新机构。我们采取了有机增长的策略。有越来越多的当事人在条款中以贸仲委香港作为仲裁机构；当然，一些案件还是更适合在内地仲裁（例如双方当事人都来自内地的案件），我们有时也会提出这样的建议。2015年，我们有五个新案件根据 2015年贸仲委仲裁规则进行仲裁。

香港与内地的争议在本质上没有实质性差异，但贸仲委香港的特别性在于所有案件都涉及外国当事人。

CMAC的运行情况如何？

CMAC的总部位于北京，与贸仲委相比案件量更小一些。我们对CMAC 香港采取了更大胆的方式。在 CMAC 香港的协助下，我们将在今年年底前在上海发布特别海事仲裁的条款草案。我们向顶尖的仲裁地点学习，努力将香港建设为海事争议解决的中心。

有没有当事人无法在内地执行贸仲委香港的裁决，回来向您求助的情况？

我们收到许多有关在内地执行仲裁裁决的问询。总的来说，香港有很好的在海外执行仲裁裁决的过往纪录。

当事人会要求我们提供裁决证明，有时要求公证员或验证官证明文件。我们确实会协助提供这些文件，但其实贸仲委香港并没有不执行的纪录。更何况，中国当事人也不总是败诉的一方，胜诉方需要对中国当事人强制执行。在半数案件中，是中国公司寻求在外国司法管辖区对外国当事人执行裁决。

2015年仲裁规则引入合并仲裁和紧急仲裁员程序等新概念，它们的实际运作情况如何？

当事人普遍对新的多合同争议解决程序感到满意，因为这样可以节省时间和成本。请求人能在一个案件中对性质类似和兼容的多个争议进行仲裁。

合并仲裁的优点取决于当事人使用这种方式的意图，因为也有人将它用作延长程序的工具。香港仲裁条例第46条载明了当事人的基本权利，我们需要牢记这一条，并通过分析情况来确定某个案件是否适合采用这种特别方式。

对于紧急仲裁员程序（EAP），我们收到许多这方面的咨询，但是尚未被当事人运用。

贸仲委香港一直在寻求国际仲裁的创新方式。最近，在工作组成员的帮助下，我们起草了第三方资助的指引，帮助仲裁当事人理解这一运作方式。

香港国际仲裁中心和新加坡国际仲裁中心在上海设立了代表处，从而在中国建立了据点，您对此有何观点？

这可以联系到亚洲正在增长的国际仲裁趋势。香港、上海、北京和新加坡等主要城市的仲裁机构都面临大幅增长的案件量。有些人可能认为这是竞争加剧的现象，但实质上是合作加强。我们在扩大这个市场，而不是在现有市场上竞争。如果亚洲发展为争议解决中心，各家机构都能从中受益。

您对外国和中国仲裁方有什么建议吗？

最重要的是理解合同仲裁条款的确切含义。归根到底，合同是当事人协商的结果。

如果当事人很熟悉某家仲裁机构的实践和传统，他们可能选择这家仲裁机构，尤其是当他们具备更强谈判实力的时候。

特别对中国当事人来说，他们可以考虑事先约定以中国作为仲裁地点，或者用他们感到舒服的语言来仲裁。

同样重要的是，要选择一个更为支持仲裁的地点或法律体系。例如，香港的法院体系是非常支持仲裁的，这是一个优势。

What's your role at CIETAC Hong Kong?

I supervise the case management team and take care of the everyday running of the center. I answer parties' pre- to post-arbitration queries and help liaise with arbitrators in the Hong Kong dispute resolution community. I joined CIETAC Hong Kong when it began operating in 2013 and I report to the Secretary General of CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center.

Working at CIETAC Hong Kong has been very interesting, as we, together with the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC) Hong Kong Arbitration Center, are the only two institutions that have Hong Kong—or any overseas—branches. We're administering cases under different procedural and substantive laws, with a more international pool of arbitrators and from a more global perspective. It's a unique experience.

Does the governing law play a big role in how cases are administered?