No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the interaction between the court and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the legal administration of civil justice. It addresses the following questions. What is the relationship between ADR and the concept of justice? How do we make sense of the anti-ADR views, in particular the serious threat to the rule of law? What role does, and should, the court play in alternative processes? It argues that integrating ADR into the court system broadens the notion of justice and its access, and that, under the rule of law, judges should play a more central role to ensure the use, quality and integrity of alternative processes. This paper extends our understanding of the relationship among justice, ADR and the court from an internal perspective. It also points out the need to expand the case management responsibilities of judges, and their delegates in the Online Court, on ADR.

Over the past three decades, governments and judiciaries in the common law world promoted mediation as an adjunct to litigation in the reformed civil justice system. Accompanying this trend, people of diverse background jumped on the bandwagon to practise as mediators. Contrary to popular belief, existing legislation specific to mediation does not require practitioners to be accredited. Nor does it articulate the minimum practice standards. It is left in the hands of the industry to regulate the knowledge, skills and behaviour of mediators. The article discusses the prospects for English law to impose a duty and standard of care on mediators based on the principles of tort law. It highlights the problems of negligence-based claims by reference to reported cases in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. It then considers the current tortious response in England and Wales, which is contrasted with the legal position and codes of conduct for mediators presently adopted in America and Australasia, the jurisdictions that have obvious historical links with English law and provide an excellent basis from which to explore its way forward. Finally, it examines the extent of appropriate limits on mediator liability in negligence in terms of causation of damage and quasi-judicial immunity.

Privacy is an important value which is internationally recognised as worthy of protection. However, it has been under constant challenge for a number of reasons including changes in technology which facilitate informational and other forms of surveillance and privacy-invasive media practices. Because of its multi-faceted nature, privacy is typically regulated by a variety of different means. Data protection laws seek to ensure the fair handling of personal information. Criminal sanctions are used to outlaw more serious invasions of privacy, including certain breaches of communications privacy and uses of surveillance devices. Assorted civil actions are relied on to protect broader interests in privacy. However, the piecemeal nature of privacy protection is often found to be inadequate and victims frequently lack appropriate remedies. Therefore, many common law countries either provide for or are actively considering the introduction of civil remedies to specifically address general privacy issues. There has also been active consideration of measures to regulate media organisations, especially in the light of the Murdoch scandal in the United Kingdom. The inadequacies in the law have prompted calls for law reform in Hong Kong, and recommendations have been made in the report on Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy (2004). It examined the need of individuals to be able to seek civil remedies for unwarranted invasion of privacy. In it the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (HKLRC) proposed the introduction of specific statutory torts of privacy to cover acts and conduct frustrating the reasonable expectation of an individual’s privacy. It proposed that a person, who invaded another’s privacy by intruding upon their solitude or seclusion, or by intruding into their private affairs or concerns, should be liable in tort. It also recommended another tort for invasion of privacy arising out of public disclosure of private facts. This article focuses on the issue of civil liability and analyses the inadequacies of existing laws and regulatory regimes and attempts to come up with a model that is most suitable for Hong Kong. It takes the HKLRC’s recommendations as its starting point but refines and modifies them, drawing on the insights that have since become available from the work of other law reform bodies and further developments in overseas case law.