Mediation has been very much in the spotlight over the past year or so with the advent of Hong Kong’s Civil Justice Reform on 2 April 2009. Indeed, mediation as a concept is incorporated in the underlying objectives of Order 1A.4(2)(e) of the new Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A). The courts play an important and active role in case management by encouraging parties to a dispute to have recourse to alternative dispute resolution procedures, where appropriate, and facilitating the use of such procedures.

Many learned articles in this journal et al have been penned about mediation but fewer textbooks on the subject have been attempted. Sarah Hilmer’s tome is timely in its publication given the heightened interest in mediation as an ADR mechanism. In this, the second installment of a series entitled ‘International Commerce and Arbitration’, the author embarks on a comparative tour of the mediation process in the PRC and Hong Kong.

The book provides extensive material on the history of mediation with source references for the avid historian who wishes to delve more deeply into its origins. As a general overview, the text consolidates in one volume a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter. As such, it fills a much needed lacuna in the legal practitioner’s library.

In the early chapters, the author provides a comprehensive review of the development of PRC mediation as a process which has its origins in early dynasties and asserts that mediation was alive as far back as 2070 to 1600 BC. The study is primarily based on research by literary review, with a focus both on theory and practice.

After considering in some detail the legislative and judicial approaches adopted in the PRC and Hong Kong in a trite and detailed exposé of the subject, the author concludes that neither legal system has a ‘mediation law’ as such and that mediation is modeled as a process. The Hong Kong mediation system has developed from a set of procedural rules whereas in the PRC a more generalist approach is adopted based on Confucian principles.

The thrust of Sarah Hilmer’s message is set out in her ‘comparative analysis’ between mediation in the two jurisdictions. This analysis concludes by drawing an analogy between mediation sectors in common to both systems: family and community mediations coupled with commercial and construction mediations. In addition, there is overlap between the Civil Justice Reform in Hong Kong and the PRC's Civil Procedure Rules. The PRC’s Rules already incorporate mediation provisions and the new Civil Justice Reforms make extensive reference to mediation.

Probably due to timing, one omission from the text is Practice Direction 31, which was issued at about the time of publication of the book. This is a landmark practice direction which will place mediation in Hong Kong firmly on the map as a dispute resolution tool. The practice direction comes into effect on 1 January 2010 and contains extensive provisions relating to mediation in most civil proceedings (construction and personal injuries being the principal exceptions). For example, the court may stay proceedings to enable the parties to attempt mediation and, more pointedly, it may exercise its discretion as to costs and make an adverse costs order in circumstances where a party unreasonably fails to engage in mediation. Watch this space!

The text also identifies key differences between the process in the PRC and in Hong Kong. One such difference is that in court mediation as practised in the PRC, the judge adopts the role of judge and mediator with the ability to switch between roles during the mediation process. Moreover, the PRC mediators are accorded far greater powers compared to their Hong Kong counterparts. For example, the mediators determine the factual matrix, they decide whether or not to mediate in the first place and when to litigate. Such concepts are alien to the Hong Kong mediation process which is premised on the parties to a dispute making all the decisions, with the traditional role of the mediator limited to that of facilitating a consensual outcome.

In the PRC, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission places significant emphasis on the combination of mediation and arbitration in the settlement of disputes. The Arbitration Law of 1994 combines the process whereby the arbitrator may act as such or switch to a mediation role at any time in the proceedings. In Hong Kong, the jury is still out as to the use and effectiveness of the hybrid process of mediation within an arbitration. The potential inability of an arbitrator to retain his integrity, independence and impartiality is cited by the author as one downside of embarking on the hybrid approach. That said, it remains to be seen whether the hybrid formula might find favour in Hong Kong arbitrations; this will depend on its application in actual cases.

The book concludes with a general overview of its major findings and the author’s perceived strengths and limitations of the research.

Sarah Hilmer’s text is a constructive guide to mediation in the PRC and in Hong Kong and one that provides the practitioner or academic with the tools to understand how mediation has developed in 'one country, two systems'. It would be of interest if a future edition were to incorporate the mediation process in Macau.

As mediation continues to take off in both Hong Kong and the PRC, perhaps the author will consider a future edition which captures the lessons learned from some live mediations. This will not be easy set against the confidentiality of the very large majority of mediations. However, as the effects of Civil Justice Reform begin to filter through, the real benefits of mediation to the parties to a dispute will no doubt be felt by the business community as providing a costeffective alternative to traditional litigation and arbitration. Perhaps the beneficiaries of a successful mediation would be willing to help others by extolling the virtues of mediation as a successful resolver of their particular dispute.

Mark RC Sutherland
Barrister-at-Law

 
《中華人民共和國和香港（特別行政區）的法庭調解制度》
作者 : Sarah E Hilmer        出版機構 : Eleven International Publishing

隨著香港民事司法制度改革於2009年4月2日的開始實施，調解在這一年間成為了各人非常關注的議題。調解的概念，已具體地載於新訂立的《高等法院規則》(第4A章) 第1A號命令第4(2)(e)條規則的基本目標中，而法院在案件管理方面則扮演一個重要和積極的角色，鼓勵爭議雙方於適當情況下訴諸另類排解程序以解決其爭議，並推動對該等程序
的運用。

本刊曾經登載許多由不同作者撰寫的，論及調解的有見地文章，但只有少數課本觸及這一論題。 調解作為一個另類排解程序機制，人們對其興趣日濃，因此Sarah Hilmer這一本著作的出版可謂正合時宜。作者在其題為「國際商業和仲裁」的著作系列的第二部分中，以中國大陸和香港的調解程序之比較來著墨。

書中對於調解的發展歷史提供了詳盡的資料，為希望深入探究其根源的歷史學者提供了有用的參考資料。總括而言，該書是以一冊的形式，對相關主題作出了詳盡的綜合論述和分析，並為法律執業者的資料庫填補了一個急待填補的空白。

作者在該書的前數章節中，對中國大陸的調解發展作出了詳盡的論述，指出其源流可追溯至更早期的朝代，並推斷在公元前2070年至1600年期間已有調解實行。作者主要是通過對相關文獻的查考來進行有關研究，對於理論和實務均給予同樣重視。

在對中國大陸和香港的立法和司法程序進行了若干仔細探究後，作者推斷稱兩地的法律制度同樣地欠缺一套「調解法」，調解是以一個程序方式來設訂。香港實行的調解制度是自一套程序規則中發展出來，而中國大陸的調解制度，則建基於一個以儒家學理為準繩的較寬泛模式。

Sarah Hilmer這一著作的重要之處，在於其對兩個司法管轄區的調解程序所進行的「比較分析」。這一分析是通過對兩個制度在調解方面的共同領域(即家庭及社區調解，並加上商業和建造業調解)進行比較來獲得結論，而香港的民事司法制度改革與中國的民事訴訟規則也有相互交疊之處。中國的民事訴訟規則已將調解方面的規定納入，而香港新近實施的民事司法制度改革，亦對調解制度作出了廣泛的提述。

可能是由於寫作時間的差距，該書並沒有論及《實務指引31》，而這一指引的發出，與該書面世的時間相約。這一項實務指引的實施會是一個里程碑，使調解被確立為一個解決爭議的方法。它將於2010年1月1日起生效，當中載有與大多數民事法律程序所實行的調解有關的詳細規定(建造與人身傷害乃其主要例外)。例如，法庭可以將法律程序擱置， 好讓雙方嘗試進行調解。而更特別的，是它可以就訟費行使酌情決定權，當一方不合理地拒絕進行調解時，向其頒發不利的訟費令。這一點務須注意﹗

該書亦陳述了中國大陸與香港的調解程序的主要分別。其中一個主要分別是，在中國大陸的法院調解程序中，法官可以同時身兼法官和調解員的角色，而在調解過程中這兩個角色亦可以交替互換。假如我們將中國大陸的調解員和香港的作比較，可以發現前者所獲賦予的權力，遠較後者的為大。例如，中國大陸的調解員會先衡量情勢，決定是否需要首先進行調解，以及應於何時進行訴訟。此等概念與香港的有別，香港是以所有決定均由爭議雙方自行作出為前提，而傳統上調解員的角色僅限於促成雙方達至相互同意的結果。

中國的中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會相當強調，在解決爭議的過程中須將調解和仲裁結合。在1994年的《仲裁法》中並就該兩項程序的結合作出了規定，因而在相關法律程序的任何時間內，仲裁員可以擔任其仲裁員職務，又或是轉換其角色而擔任調解員。在香港，對於在仲裁程序中加入調解程序，這一混合模式的運用和所產生的效果，現在仍然是
處於研究階段。作者曾提到，仲裁員未必能夠維持正直、獨立和公正的做法，此乃該混合模式的一個不足之處。即使如此，究竟混合模式是否會在香港的仲裁程序中被採納，仍須拭目以待；這將會視乎其在實際案件的運用情形而定。

該書最後以綜述作者的主要研究結果，以及其在能力和研究上所感受到的局限作結。

Sarah Hilmer 的這一部著作，可以為中國大陸和香港的調解工作提供具建設性的指引，亦可以就調解如何在「一國兩制」下發展，為法律執業者和學術界提供有用的理解途徑。該書假如在日後再出新版，希望也能夠將澳門的調解程序納入其研究範圍內，這將會更具意義。

調解程序現時在香港和中國大陸仍然是處於初步實施的階段，因此假如該書刊印新版，或可考慮加入一些調解實例。

鑒於絕大部分的調解個案均須保密，要進行上述這一項工作因此殊非容易。然而，由於民事司法制度改革所帶來的益處正開始浮現，商界無疑會覺察到調解確能為爭議雙方帶來真正的好處，為其提供更具成本效益的另類排解爭議方式，以替代傳統的訴訟和仲裁。曾經透過調解讓其爭議獲得解決的受惠者，也許會十分樂意將其如何成功地解決某些具體爭議的經驗與他人分享。

Mark RC Sutherland
Barrister-at-Law