Getting to know… Joe Liu

Q&A_Joe_Liu

From London and The Hague, to Singapore and Hong Kong – Liu leverages on his international experience as he forges a new path as independent arbitrator

1.  Can you please share with us a little of your background prior to joining the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), and what your time spent there was like?

I started my career at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. I then did two internships at the High Court of Hong Kong and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. After completing the internships, I joined Allen & Overy (A&O)’s Hong Kong office as part of their Global Arbitration Group. During my time at A&O, I was appointed as a member of the HKIAC Rules Revision Committee which was tasked for with drafting the 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules. With that experience, I joined the HKIAC in 2014 and began my eight years of journey at the institution.    

I had a hand in many aspects of HKIAC’s operations including case management supervision, rules drafting, corporate governance and business development. There was no fixed description of my role at the HKIAC and my work every day was different and interesting. I spearheaded many of the HKIAC’s initiatives and drafted some of their practice notes and guidelines.  It was an invaluable opportunity to gain insights on the institution’s internal management and practice and to work with many talented people. 

2.  What prompted your recent move to being an independent arbitrator and how have you found the transition thus far? Can you tell us a little about your new practice?

Having worked in private practice and arbitral institutions, and acted as tribunal secretary in numerous cases, I wanted to start a new career as an independent arbitrator. I have a lot of experience working with very senior and experienced arbitrators and have seen how they manage proceedings and tackle complex issues. I think I now have sufficient experience to run cases and determine disputes as an arbitrator. 

I am fortunate to have received a lot of support and blessings from my family, friends and colleagues for my transition into an arbitrator. I have been travelling since I left the HKIAC and been enjoying the flexibility of my new role. 

I accept appointments as an arbitrator or domain name panelist. I have experience in disputes under a variety of agreements including sale of goods contracts, share purchase agreements, shareholders’ agreements, joint venture agreements, banking and financial documentation, manufacturing and distributorship agreements, energy contracts and investment contracts under multiple governing laws. I am able to run proceedings in English, Chinese and both languages. 

3.  You were with the HKIAC through the peak of the global COVID-19 pandemic. In your estimation, has it had any impact (temporary or lasting) on international arbitration practice?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on international arbitration practice. Although the recent relaxation of travel restrictions in most countries may have reduced the impact to some extent, some of the procedural adaptations may outlast the pandemic. 

I think the most obvious impact is the wider use of technology in arbitration. Various technology tools have been used in response to challenges presented by the pandemic. The most notable change I have seen is the increased use of virtual hearings for more cost-efficiency and greater procedural flexibility. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a degree of scepticism towards virtual hearings among some parties, counsel and arbitrators. As the pandemic-related restrictions have forced users to explore alternatives to in-person hearings, there is a clear shift in attitude towards using virtual hearings for both procedural and substantive hearings. 

Arbitral institutions, arbitrators and practitioners have also shown a desire to embrace other technologies including electronic filings, electronic bundles, online document storage and technology-assisted document review. Multiple practice notes and guidelines have been published to encourage the use of technology and to address due process and data protection issues in arbitration. 

Against this background, I expect international arbitration to be more streamlined and paperless with greater use of technology and reduced environmental impact in the years to come. 

4.  What are some common disputes that you have witnessed arising from the pandemic?

The pandemic has led to business interruptions in various sectors and given rise to a range of new disputes. I have seen COVID-19 being invoked as the basis for running certain legal arguments or relying on certain contractual provisions. 

Material Adverse Change (MAC) clauses have been particularly relevant to M&A transactions. Buyers may seek to invoke the MAC clause to renegotiate certain terms of the contract before completion. There have also been disputes concerning best or reasonable endeavour clauses. A common question arising under such clauses is whether a failure to perform in light of difficult COVID-19 induced conditions is excusable if the contract only requires best or reasonable endeavours. 

The issue of illegality in the necessary place of performance may also arise in the context of the pandemic. A party may argue that its performance can be excused since performance becomes unlawful under COVID-19 related emergency legislation in the necessary place of performance. COVID-19 has also commonly been invoked as part of force majeure arguments to seek suspension or extension of time for performance or even termination of the contract. In some cases, the doctrine of frustration has been invoked on the basis of a significant change to a mutually agreed state of affairs, without fault on either side, leading to the impossibility of agreed performance or mutual purpose. 

Q&A_Joe_Liu

COVID-19 may affect the calculation of damages as well. One question arising there may be that should damages be assessed at the date of the breach, hearing or award, or another date? The determination of the appropriate date for assessing damages may have enormous financial consequences where a party presents claims based on Net Present Value or Discounted Cash Flow calculations which are highly sensitive to market projections. 

Lastly, the pandemic has led to an increase in corporate insolvencies, making it relevant to consider the effect of insolvency on arbitrations involving insolvent parties. 

 

5. Were you presented with any challenges in your work as an arbitrator during the pandemic?

Fortunately, the pandemic has not affected my work as arbitrator too much, as I launched my arbitrator practice at a time when I could travel again to many places without restrictions and I became used to remote working. While COVID-19 related arguments might have presented “new” challenges to many tribunals at the start of the pandemic, some arbitrators including myself have had more experience dealing with procedural and substantive issues relating to COVID-19.

I suspect that a possible challenge for me is that some users tend to think of me only for appointments in HKIAC or Hong Kong arbitrations. While I have handled many such arbitrations, I also have experience in disputes under other procedural rules (e.g., the ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC and UNCITRAL Rules) and seated in other jurisdictions (e.g., London and Singapore). 

6. As we get back to normalcy, what trends do you think we could expect from the arbitration scene in Hong Kong in future?

I foresee three key trends in Hong Kong arbitration. 

More online arbitrations: Hong Kong introduced multiple initiatives to facilitate arbitral proceedings to be conducted online during the pandemic. These include the establishment of eBRAM to provide an online dispute resolution platform, the launch of the Hong Kong Legal Cloud for data storage services, and the HKIAC’s introduction of its virtual hearing services and Case Connect as a centralised online document management system. As Hong Kong continues build to its infrastructure to become a high-tech and innovation hub, we can expect more technology tools to be made available to support online arbitrations in Hong Kong. I think these tools are likely to receive acceptance by legal professionals in Hong Kong who have adapted well to working online during the pandemic.  

More disputes with Chinese elements: Hong Kong has long served as a premier arbitration centre for China-related disputes and has benefited from several recent measures to strengthen this status. In particular, the arrangement on court-ordered interim measures and the supplemental arrangement on mutual enforcement of arbitral awards between Hong Kong and Mainland China provide a strong incentive to select Hong Kong as the venue for disputes with Chinese connections. In addition, wholly-owned Hong Kong enterprises (WOKEs) in Qianhai, Shenzhen can now agree to use Hong Kong law in civil and commercial contracts even in the absence of foreign elements under a pilot scheme. It is anticipated that this scheme will be extended to cover the entire Greater Bay Area to enable WOKEs to adopt Hong Kong law and choose arbitration seated in Hong Kong for contracts and disputes without foreign elements. With these arrangements in place and Chinese parties’ general acceptance of Hong Kong as a seat of arbitration, I expect to see more disputes involving Chinese parties or overseas entities controlled by Chinese companies to be arbitrated in Hong Kong. 
More funding options: Hong Kong has recently passed a bill to permit certain agreements between clients and their lawyers using outcome-related fee structures for arbitration and related proceedings. Once the bill becomes law (possibly later this year), lawyers may charge for arbitration-related work on the basis of three types of arrangements, namely, conditional fee agreements, damages based agreements, and hybrid damages based agreements. These new arrangements, together with third party funding which is already permitted in Hong Kong arbitration, would provide more funding options and pricing flexibility to users of Hong Kong arbitration.

7. Finally, do you have any motto/words of wisdom that you have found to be motivational as you’ve forged your career path that you would like to share?

“It always seems impossible until it’s done”, Nelson Mandela. 

Similar Posts

  • 东盟重点国家外商投资——泰国

    作者:卓纬律师事务所:邹永忠、姜凤纹、李诘 泰王国(The Kingdom of Thailand,简称泰国)位于中南半岛中部,是东盟第二大经济体,在国际贸易与地区事务中表现活跃,以其明显的区位优势、稳定的社会环境、全面的投资政策与开放的营商环境成为值得关注的首选投资地点。2023年上半年,外商投资项目申请数量与2022同期(受到疫情影响)相比增长33%,外商直接投资(FDI)项目总投资额达到3040亿泰铢,同比增长141%。[1] 一、泰国外商投资环境 泰国外商投资环境友好,据世界银行发布的《2020全球营商环境报告》数据,泰国在共190个经济体中排名第21位,比上年度上升4位,在世界知识产权组织发布的《2022全球创新指数》中,泰国在132个国家和地区中排名第43。[2]泰国政府重视投资发展,泰国投资促进委员会(BOI)作为泰国主要的投资促进机构,不断推动各项政策法规完善,改善国内营商环境,激励外商投资。2022年10月,泰国投资促进委员会批准五年期(2023-2027)的《新投资促进战略框架》,提出多项投资激励举措,尤其针对上游产业和先进技术,为相关项目提供长达13年的企业所得税豁免(根据不同业务和资质),减半高达5年,机器进口关税免税,用于生产出口产品原物料免进口关税,对于从事研究开发使用的原物料或必要材料免进口关税。除行业优惠外,泰国政府同时积极推进针对地区的投资优惠,包括先后制定了东部经济走廊、南部边境省份、经济特区等投资计划,为投资者提供开办企业、获得电力、施工许可、财产登记、税收、跨境贸易等方面的便利。 从国际关系来看,泰国与世界各国广泛建立贸易联系。泰国作为世界贸易组织(WTO)和东盟成员国,遵守一系列相关组织的自由贸易协定,与18个国家和地区签署了14个自由贸易协定。并且与中国、韩国、日本、澳大利亚等国家和地区签署了《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》(RCEP)。截止2022年底,泰国已与超过60个国家和地区签订了双边免税协定,与多个国家签订了双边投资保护协定。同时,泰国出口商品可享受美国、瑞士、挪威、俄罗斯等国家的普惠制待遇。 中泰两国自1975年建交以来,政治互信不断深化,互为重要的贸易伙伴。随着中国——东盟自贸区正式建成与“一带一路”计划不断升级,中泰两国经济贸易合作稳健发展,已签订了《关于避免双重征税的协定》《中泰农产品贸易合作谅解备忘录》《东部经济走廊(EEC)合作备忘录》等经贸合作文件。据泰国商务部数据,2022年,中泰双边贸易达到了1050亿美元,并预计2023年泰国对中国大陆出口额将增长1%,达到32.7亿美元。[3]2023年上半年的数据显示,中国是泰国FDI最大来源国,承诺投资132个项目,总投资额达615 亿泰铢。[4]   泰国外商投资合规体系及优惠政策 主管部门及法规 泰国投资促进委员会负责根据《投资促进法》制定投资相关政策,主管泰国投资促进事项,投资促进委员会办公室负责执行委员会各项政策,包括对投资优惠项目的审批与投资咨询与服务等。泰国商业部和泰国投资部也负责外商投资不同方面的工作。 泰国制定了专门的《投资促进法》,规定关于外商投资的各项规则与举措针对外商投资,同时,泰国《外籍人经商法》(Alien Business Act)针对外商对特定行业或特定形式的经营要求作出规定。根据《外籍人经商法》规定,若企业股权中外商持股比例达到50%,除法定豁免情形外(符合投资鼓励、工业园区、条约或政府批准的豁免),需获得泰国商业部颁发的外商营业执照(Foreign Business License)或外商经营证书(Foreign Business Certificate)。此外,外商在泰投资,需遵守泰国《民商法典》《税法典》《土地法典》《外汇管理法》《劳动保护法》等法律规定。…