This chapter provides a general framework for understanding the use of multi-tier dispute resolution (MDR) in Hong Kong. The use of MDR is important towards maintaining Hong Kong’s status as an international dispute resolution centre, especially as there is increasing competition from strong regional dispute resolution centres such as Singapore and emerging dispute resolution hubs like Shanghai, Shenzhen and Dubai. This chapter demonstrates that Hong Kong’s policy-makers need to expend significant effort incentivising the use of MDR to maintain Hong Kong’s appeal, providing parties with cheaper and more flexible options. This chapter first provides a comprehensive and critical account of the use of med-arb to resolve financial disputes in Hong Kong. Second, it explores the use of med-arb to resolve financial disputes in Hong Kong – from the Lehman Brothers Scheme to the establishment of the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre (FDRC). Third, it covers recent developments in Hong Kong (including the potential impact of online dispute resolution and the Singapore Convention on hybrid dispute resolution).

Med-arb is a form of hybrid dispute resolution that combines an adjudicative approach (arbitration) with a non-adjudicative approach (mediation). Most recent reforms on med-arb by leading Chinese arbitration institutions, such as the CIETAC, BAC and SCIA, evidence a trend towards bifurcating the two processes when facing international clients. The recent establishment of the China International Commercial Court, and its creation of the ‘One-Stop’ Dispute Resolution Platform shows China’s heightened awareness of the procedural justice issue in med-arb, the need to attract foreign parties in addition to merely Chinese ones, and the pressure to compete in the hybrid dispute resolution market in the context of the China-led Belt and Road Initiative.

Incentivising the use of multi-tier dispute resolution in the EU raises challenges. An underlying statute (the EU Mediation Directive) has been promulgated to encourage greater acceptance of mediation, but field responses have varied. This chapter addresses key issues for the future of mediation and hybrid dispute resolution in the EU. Insofar as hybrid dispute resolution is underdeveloped or not much used in the EU, the chapter identifies reasons for such situation. Most issues with hybrid dispute resolution contracts in the EU stem from the lack of an enforcement regime for such agreements. The chapter thus addresses the question whether, assuming that a greater use of hybrid dispute resolution is a good thing, measures can be taken to increase resort to hybrid dispute resolution in the EU. The chapter also examines concerns expressed over procedural defects in the use of multi-tier modes of dispute resolution and what (if any) safeguards have been put in place by different member states to remedy those defects. Finally, this chapter considers the extent to which (if at all) the EU should become party to the Singapore Convention and whether the Convention would make any difference to the position today in respect of multi-tier dispute resolution. Is the EU likely to join the Singapore Convention? Most issues pertaining to enforcement of multi-tier dispute resolution contracts would be resolved if the EU were to become a Contracting State. That is because the Singapore Convention would provide a harmonised basis for enforcing settlement agreements among EU member states, which is an objective of the EU Mediation Directive. Joining the Singapore Convention will, however, depend upon its compatibility with EU law. Insofar as it is competent to join, there would be clear benefit to the EU in so doing.