As noted in our earlier post, Hong Kong published its long-awaited Code of Practice for Third Party Funding of Arbitration on 7 December 2018.
Publication of the Code has removed the final hurdle to third
party funding of Hong Kong arbitrations. The law that allows such
funding will come into effect on 1 February 2019, via sections 98K
– 98O of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609). These sections
abolish the criminal and tortious offences of champerty and
maintenance in relation to third party funding of arbitration, as
well as arbitration-related court and mediation proceedings. For
more detail on the law, click
The Code applies to "third party funders", as defined
in s.98J Arbitration Ordinance. Broadly, a funder is any person who
is party to an agreement in writing to fund a party to arbitration
proceedings1 in Hong Kong (or in any other
seat, if the work is done in Hong Kong), and who does not have a
legitimate interest in the dispute other than via the funding
agreement. The definition of funder is wide, and covers both
corporate entities and individuals. Under the Code, a funder is responsible for compliance by its
subsidiaries and associated entities, as well as any investment
advisors acting as the funder's agent. The Code applies to any funding agreement made on or after 7
December 2018. The Code's primary object is to protect funded parties. As
such, it imposes a number of obligations on funders. In particular,
a funder must: There are also requirements as to the contents of the funding
agreement. The agreement must state that the funder: The agreement must also state whether, and to what extent, the
funder will be liable for the funded party's costs. This
includes adverse costs, costs insurance premiums, security for
costs and "any other financial liability". Finally, the Code requires that the funding agreement state
whether, and if so how, the funder may terminate the agreement, in
the event that the funder reasonably (i) ceases to be satisfied
about the merits of the claim; (ii) believes the funded party's
prospects of success, or chances of recovery on success, have
materially changed for the worse; or (iii) believes the funded
party is in material breach of the agreement. The agreement must
not give the funder a discretionary right to terminate in any other
circumstances. The funder is liable for all funding obligations accrued to the
date of termination, unless termination is based on material breach
by the funded party. The funded party is less restricted. It may terminate the
funding agreement if it reasonably believes that the funder has
committed a material breach of the funding agreement which may lead
to "irreparable damage". Failure to comply with the Code will not result in judicial or
other proceedings. However, the Code is admissible in evidence
before a Hong Kong court or arbitral tribunal, which can take into
account any failure to comply, if it is relevant to a question the
court or tribunal is deciding (s.98S Arbitration Ordinance). The Code is materially similar to the English
Association of Litigation Funders' Code of Conduct,
although the ALF is a self-regulating code, with no equivalent to
the Hong Kong advisory body overseeing compliance. Singapore has no single body charged with overseeing arbitration
funding. However, a number of guidelines apply. Among these,
Singapore's
Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017 define
"third party funder" as limited to professional funders
only, and impose capital adequacy requirements of S$ 5m. The
Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb)
Guidelines for Third Party Funders contain substantially
similar requirements to the Hong Kong and ALF Codes, although they
are less prescriptive with respect to funders' termination
rights. The Code's contents, and the delay in permitting funding
until the Code was published, both reveal a strong desire for
effective regulation of Hong Kong's funding industry. Given
that Hong Kong does not restrict funding to professional funders,
this seems a prudent approach. Hong Kong's already thriving arbitration community stands to
benefit significantly from funding. That community, including
arbitral institutions, funders, funded parties and their advisers,
can now embrace the new laws and regulations, and work together to
make them a success. Footnotes 1 For the
time being, the Code does not apply to mediation
proceedings. The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.Who must comply with the Code?
What are a funder's obligations?
What happens if a funder fails to comply?
How does the Code compare?
Conclusions