Reyes and Lui on The Use of Conciliation and Litigation by the Hong Kong Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (new book chapter)

“The Use of Conciliation and Litigation by the Hong Kong Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)”

Anselmo Reyes and Wilson Lui (BA&LLB 2019)

in Anselmo Reyes and Weixia Gu (eds), Multi-Tier Approaches to the Resolution of International Disputes: A Global and Comparative Study (Cambridge University Press 2021), pp 232–268

Abstract: The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), established in 1996, investigates and seeks to resolve disputes arising in connection with Hong Kong’s anti-discrimination ordinances. Its complaint-handling process involves recourse to conciliation, investigation and litigation. The EOC thus provides a hybrid multi-tier dispute resolution service. If conciliation fails, the EOC may investigate and eventually assist a person to pursue in court a complaint which is thought to merit further action. This chapter asks how the EOC can maintain neutrality and confidentiality when discharging its respective functions of conciliator, investigator and litigator in the same matter, without becoming entangled in actual or potential conflicts of interest. It examines how similar institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere have sought (or not) to resolve the tension in their roles when handling discrimination complaints. It then discusses recommendations and their underlying rationale for reconciling the EOC’s seemingly conflicting roles, in order to effectively resolve discrimination complaints and bridge the long-standing gap in public perception.

New Book by Anselmo Reyes and Wilson Lui: Direct Jurisdiction: Asian Perspectives (Hart Publishing)

Direct Jurisdiction: Asian Perspectives

edited by Anselmo Reyes and Wilson Lui (BA&LLB 2019)
Hart Publishing

Publication Date: August 2021
440 pp

Description: The second thematic volume in the series Studies in Private International Law – Asia looks into direct jurisdiction, that is, the situations in which the courts of 15 key Asian jurisdictions (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India) are prepared to hear a case involving cross-border elements. For instance, where parties are habitually resident abroad and a dispute has only some, little or no connection with an Asian state, will the courts of that state accept jurisdiction and hear the case and (if so) on what conditions? More specifically, the book's chapters explore the circumstances in which different Asian states assume or decline jurisdiction not just in commercial matters, but also in other types of action (such as family, consumer and employment disputes).

     The Introduction defines terminology and identifies similarities in the approaches to direct jurisdiction taken by the 15 Asian jurisdictions in civil and commercial litigation. Taking its cue from this, the Conclusion assesses whether there should be a multilateral convention or soft law instrument articulating principles of direct jurisdiction for Asia. The Conclusion also discusses possible trajectories that Asian jurisdictions may be taking in respect of direct jurisdiction in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the political tensions currently besetting the world. The book suggests that enacting suitable rules of direct jurisdiction requires an Asian jurisidction to strike a delicate balance between affording certainty and protecting its nationals. At heart, direct jurisdiction involves sometimes difficult policy considerations and is not just about drawing up lists of jurisdictional grounds and exceptions to them.