6 June 2019, King & Wood Mallesons is delighted to announce the continued growth of the partnership and Dispute Resolution practice with the addition of Jessica Fei. Highly regarded by clients and market peers, Jessica is a senior legal professional in the international arbitration and dispute resolution practice areas. Qualified in both New York and the PRC, Jessica has over 20 years of experience working at international arbitration institutions and international law firms, advising PRC State-Owned Enterprises, multinationals and major regional corporates in the PRC, Asia, Europe and the U.S. on large-scale international arbitration, litigation and dispute avoidance matters.
Continue Reading

By Monique Carroll King & Wood Mallesons’ Melbourne office

Our recent experience shows that a surprising number of Australian companies (big and small) are failing to insert arbitration clauses into their contracts when the counter-party does not have a presence in Australia. In most cases, this means that the contract will not be enforceable against the counter-party should they act in breach of it. If your business has not developed a strategy or understanding for using arbitration clauses in contracts with a cross-border element – please continue reading.
Continue Reading

By Edmund Wan and Alex Ma  King & Wood Mallesons’ Hong Kong office.

The 21st century can arguably be described as an era of collaboration and cooperation.  A tear-down of a smartphone or personal computer for example would reveal that its components are sourced and manufactured in multiple countries. These parts are then assembled into the final product and sold worldwide. This is international business at its absolute finest. 
Continue Reading

By Dai Yue and Li Tianren King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution group

On 30th June 2017, the Intermediate People’s Court of Wuhan, Hubei Province (‘’Wuhan Intermediate Court’’) handed down its judgment in Application to Recognize and Enforce a Foreign Civil Judgment by Liu Li v. Tao Li and Tong Wu” (2015 E Wuhan Zhong Min Shang Wai Chu Zi No. 00026) (“Judgment”) in which the Court considered the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment in China. For the first time, the Court, on the basis of acknowledging juridical reciprocity between China and the US, ruled that a US civil court ruling was to be recognized as legally binding on Chinese soil.
Continue Reading

By Guan Feng and Tang Lu King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution group

Recently, represented by Ken Wu, Chinese Ambassador to the Netherlands, China officially signed the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (“the Convention”). The Convention is an international treaty that legally binds Contracting Parties to a uniform set of rules relating to civil and commercial matters. It currently has 33 Contracting Parties, mostly EU member states (excluding Denmark). Ukraine, the U.S. and China have not yet ratified the Convention under domestic law. We are still waiting for China to announce whether it has reservations about any of the provisions.
Continue Reading

​By Paul Starr, Dorothy Murray, James McKenzie and Kendal McCarthy King & Wood Mallesons

On 14 June 2017, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed the Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016 (“Third Party Funding Bill“), amending the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (Ordinance) (“AO”) to permit third party funding of arbitration proceedings seated in Hong Kong.As Hong Kong prepares to implement the reform (which is expected to take effect in late 2017), we take stock of some of the key features of the Third Party Funding Bill and what its passage will mean for users of Hong Kong arbitration.  We also make comparisons with third party funding of arbitration in England and Wales to determine what practical lessons can be learned from the reform process in that jurisdiction.
Continue Reading

By Dorothy Murray and Edmund Northcott  King & Wood Mallesons’ London office.

murray_dAs more jurisdictions permit third party funding of international arbitration, the question of whether details of the funding must be disclosed arises ever more frequently.

Concerns to date focus on conflicts (ensuring that the identity of the funder poses no challenge to the independence and impartiality of the tribunal) and the ability of a respondent to apply for security for costs. The Tribunal in the case of Muhammet Cap v. Turkmenistan[1], was motivated by these concerns when requiring the Claimant to disclose whether it was being funded by a third party funder, and if so, the funder’s identity and nature of the funding arrangements, including to what extent the funder would share in a favourable award to the Claimant.
Continue Reading