A Detailed Comparison of Third-Party Funding Regulations in Hong Kong and Singapore
Other conference paper

CUHK Authors
Author(s) no longer affiliated with CUHK


Full Text

Other information
AbstractThird-Party Funding (TPF) has been a major player in international arbitration. Funding has been available to disputing parties for many years in litigation; however, it has only been used in international arbitration very recently. Thus, TPF is still considered to be at its infancy stage. This is perhaps one of the reasons why there are not many countries with the hard law regulating the funding market in the world. Another reason may be that it is better not to regulate TPF because it gives more flexibility to the market. Despite the uncertainties and continuing discussions on whether TPF should be regulated or not, Singapore and Hong Kong successively passed their laws to legalize and regulate TPF and both countries have become pioneers to this end in the world. This can be seen as a result of their competition with each other to be Asia’s leading arbitration centre and by regulating the practice both countries have moved closer to this goal.
Hong Kong and Singapore have set great examples for other Asian countries and showed them what they need to do to attract funders and become more arbitration-friendly jurisdictions. Even though both countries have the same goal, which is to assure the legality of TPF in international arbitration, their regulations diverge from each other at some points. Hong Kong, for example, has shown its strategic vision by planning to pass more laws in the coming years such as the Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders, which will bring rules that third-party funders have to comply with, while Singapore did not announce such further regulations.
This article will examine the TPF rules in Singapore and Hong Kong. By analysing both countries’ regulations, when both countries’ regulations differ from each other this article will answer what the consequences are for those differences and determine to what extent the practice should be regulated. The purpose of this article is to raise the awareness of TPF market in Asia and better understand the rules of the two counties by analysing and referring to related case law. Apart from informing its readers about the regulations in Hong Kong and Singapore, this paper also aims to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the rules adopted differently by the two countries respectively and answer two important questions: What rules could create better conditions for funders? What can be done to improve those conditions?
All Author(s) ListCan Eken
Name of Conference16th ASLI Conference 2019: The Rule of Law and the Role of Law in Asia
Start Date of Conference11/06/2019
End Date of Conference12/06/2019
Place of ConferenceNational University of Singapore
Country/Region of ConferenceSingapore
Year2019
LanguagesEnglish-United States
KeywordsInternational arbitration, third party funding

Last updated on 2019-26-11 at 09:58