Publication
Mission impossible? Teresa Ribera’s mission letter and the future of EU merger review
Executive Vice President Vestager’s momentous tenure as Commissioner responsible for EU competition policy is nearing its end.
Global | Publication | January 2023
In more modern times, the prohibition of third-party funding was based on the public policy ground of protecting the purity of justice. There was a fear that a third-party could manipulate the litigation process and, as Lord Denning put it, “be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame the damages, to suppress evidence, or even to suborn witnesses” (Re Trepca Mines (No 2) [1963] Ch 199).
However, with increasing demands from different parties for alternative ways to settle legal fees, jurisdictions in various parts of the world (e.g. Australia, England and Wales, Canada, the United States and Singapore) have gradually taken up more relaxed approaches in ORFSs to reflect the modern needs. Towards the end of 2022, Hong Kong has also implemented statutory amendments to allow for ORFS in arbitration proceedings.
ORFSs are usually categorised as follows:
Conditional fee agreements (CFAs) are agreements under which the legal fees of a lawyer are only payable in the event of a successful outcome for the client in the matter1. They typically take the form of a “no win, no fee” or “no win, less fee” arrangement.
Damages-based agreements (DBAs), also known as contingency fees, are agreements under which the legal fees of a lawyer are only payable in the event the client obtains a financial benefit in the matter, and the amounts payable under such arrangements are calculated by reference to the financial benefit obtained by the client2.
There are also hybrid damages-based agreements (Hybrid DBAs), under which fees under a DBA would be payable on top of the legal fees (whether discounted or not) rendered during the course of the matter3.
These additional legal fees payable under ORFSs are generally referred to as “uplift fees”.
In December 2020, the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong published a Consultation Paper on Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration4. Subsequently, the Arbitration and Legal Practitioners Legislation (Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration) (Amendment) Ordinance (the HK Ordinance) was gazetted on 30 June 2022 with parts of it coming into operation on the same day. The remaining parts took effect together with the newly gazetted Arbitration (Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration) Rules (the HK Rules) on 16 December 20225.
The Singapore process began much earlier in August 20196 , when the Ministry of Law began a public consultation on proposed legislative amendments which allowed for conditional fee arrangements. The relevant bill was passed by the Singapore Parliament in January 2022 and the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2022 (the Singapore Act) became effective on 4 May 20227.
The HK Ordinance added a new Part 10B of the Arbitration Ordinance which provides for a great variety of ORFSs which may be adopted in arbitration proceedings. The regime in Hong Kong is deliberately broad. It includes all of CFAs, DBAs as well as Hybrid DBAs. However, under the Singapore Act, only CFAs are permitted. DBAs or Hybrid DBAs remain illegal.
Whilst the use of ORFSs is permitted in a wider range of proceedings in other jurisdictions (e.g. in England & Wales, where the ORFS regime covers all court and arbitration proceedings other than criminal and family proceedings8), the ORFS regimes in Hong Kong and Singapore are more limited. In Hong Kong, ORFSs can be used in all arbitration proceedings (including proceedings before an emergency arbitrator, related court proceedings and mediation proceedings) except where it relates to a personal injuries claim9. Likewise, the regime in Singapore only covers international and domestic arbitration proceedings, certain proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court and related court and mediation proceedings10.
In terms of the regulatory bodies, an Advisory Body on Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration was set up in Hong Kong on 15 July 202211, and the Hong Kong Secretary for Justice may also appoint an authorized body to issue a code of practice12. In Singapore, there is not yet any similar organization so currently the Singaporean Minister for Law and the courts would regulate the regime13.
Other notable differences between the Hong Kong and the Singapore regimes are in relation to “uplift fees”. Firstly, there are caps imposed on “uplift fees” in the event of success under the HK Rules14, following the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations15. For CFAs, a cap is imposed at 100% of benchmark fees, i.e. the fees that the lawyer would have charged the client for the matter if no ORFS arrangement had been made for the matter16. This is to protect clients from overcharging. The lawyer under a CFA agreement in Hong Kong can charge no fees at all or a discounted fee, depending on the terms of the agreement. Success is also subject to agreement between the lawyer and the client for each CFA agreement, that is, it could be success for the whole arbitration or part of an arbitration. The cap is just a maximum such that the exact percentage uplift for each CFA is something to be negotiated between the client and the lawyer. For DBAs and Hybrid DBAs, where the client has succeeded in obtaining the damages won or a financial benefit in the matter, the cap would be at 50% of the value of the same. Financial benefit is defined deliberately broadly under the HK regime. It could be money or money’s worth, so that it could for example be damages awarded or damages saved or the reduction of a debt so that the arrangement can be applicable to claimants and respondents. For a successful claimant, if the DBA payment is higher than what the respondent would be liable for with costs being assessed in the conventional way, the claimant instead of the respondent would be have to pay the lawyer the difference. In other words, the DBA would not result in a higher costs exposure for the respondent.
Where there are multiple DBAs or Hybrid DBAs, the maximum aggregate sum of DBA payments should not exceed 50% of the financial benefit17. Contrastingly, there is no cap imposed on “uplift fees” for Singapore. Secondly, Singapore prohibits entirely the recovery of “uplift fees” from the losing party, but there is leeway for this in Hong Kong if the arbitral tribunal considers that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the ordering of such costs18.
For unsuccessful Hybrid DBAs, the legal fees payable under the Hong Kong rules would be capped at 50% of the irrecoverable costs incurred (which by definition means any portion of the benchmark fee that is not recoverable from any other party19) (the “Capped Amount”). Further, if the DBA payment of a successful Hybrid DBA is so low that it is lower than the Capped Amount, then the lawyer has the ability to elect to keep the Capped Amount, instead of the DBA payment20. This is to avoid a perverse situation where there is more incentive for the lawyer to be unsuccessful than to be successful.
There are statutory safeguards under the Hong Kong regime which must be observed for the ORFS agreement to be valid and effective. These include:
Ultimately, the actual impacts of ORFSs will need to be monitored, not just in Hong Kong but in jurisdictions around the world which allow such arrangements. Law reform agencies are expected to closely scrutinize the development of their respective regimes to determine if any changes ought to be implemented, such as to provide for more stringent rules to prevent abuse of the system and to protect parties intending to adopt ORFSs. In order to enjoy the payment flexibility brought by ORFSs, clients should carefully follow the applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions and are recommended to seek professional advice in applying ORFSs to their legal fee arrangements.
Publication
Executive Vice President Vestager’s momentous tenure as Commissioner responsible for EU competition policy is nearing its end.
Publication
On November 28, 2023, the European Commission (EC) adopted its first list of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs), i.e., projects within the EU territory, and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMIs), i.e., projects connecting the EU with other countries, including 166 projects implementing the European Green Deal.
Publication
On 10 October 2024, the UK government published its long awaited response (the Response) to its January 2024 consultation on “Designing a policy framework to enable investment in long duration electricity storage” (the Consultation).
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023