in International Arbitration

126 Pages·2017·1.07 MB·Spanish

ARBITRATION
TheInternationalJournalofArbitration,MediationandDisputeManagement
Volume 83 Issue 2 May 2017
ISSN:0003–7877
EditorialBoard
DrMichaelO’Reilly
Editor
ProfessorDerekRoebuck
EditorEmeritus
SeniorResearchFellow,InstituteofAdvancedLegalStudies,UniversityofLondon
DrGordonBlanke,BookReviewEditor
Partner,DWF(MiddleEast)LLP(InternationalCommercialandInvestmentArbitration),
DIFC,Dubai,UAE
DominiqueBrown-Berset
Attorney-at-Law,Partner,BrownandPage,Geneva
HewR.Dundas
CharteredArbitrator
ArthurHarverd
CharteredAccountantandCharteredArbitrator,London
JulioCésarBetancourt
AcademicVisitor,UniversityofOxfordandUniversityofSalamanca
DrColinY.C.OngQC
Barrister;DrColinOngLegalServices,BruneiandAssociateMember,StoneChambers,
London
Thisvolumeshouldbecitedas(2017)83Arbitration.
TheInternationalJournalofArbitration,MediationandDisputeManagementispublished
byThomsonReuters(Professional)UKLimited,tradingasSweet&Maxwell.Registered
inEngland&Wales,CompanyNo.1679046.RegisteredOfficeandaddressforservice:5
CanadaSquare,CanaryWharf,London,E145AQ.
Forfurtherinformationonourproductsandservices,visit:
http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk.
ComputersetbySweet&Maxwell.PrintedandboundinGreatBritainbyHobbsthePrinters
Ltd,Totton,Hampshire.Nonaturalforestsweredestroyedtomakethisproduct;onlyfarmed
timberwasusedandreplanted.
CopiesofarticlesfromTheInternationalJournalofArbitration,MediationandDispute
Management,andotherarticles,casesandrelatedmaterials,canbeobtainedfromDocDel
atSweet&Maxwell’sYorkshireoffice.
Currentratesare:£7.50+copyrightcharge+VATperitemforordersbypost,DXand
email.
Faxdeliveryisguaranteedwithin15minutesofrequestandischargedatanadditional
£1.25perpage(£2.35perpageoutsidetheUK).
Forfulldetails,andhowtoorder,pleasecontactDocDelonTel:01422888019.Fax:01422
888001.Email:[email protected]:
http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/our-businesses/docdel.aspx.
PleasenotethatallotherenquiriesshouldbedirectedtoCustomerSupport(Email:
[email protected];Tel:[phone]).
Ordersbyemailto:[email protected].
ThomsonReutersandtheThomsonReutersLogoaretrademarksofThomsonReuters.
Sweet&Maxwell®isaregisteredtrademarkofThomsonReuters(Professional)UK
Limited.
EuropeanUnionmaterialinthispublicationisacknowledgedas©EuropeanUnion,
1998–2017.OnlyEUlegislationpublishedintheelectronicversionoftheOfficialJournal
oftheEuropeanUnionisdeemedauthentic.
CrowncopyrightmaterialisreproducedwiththepermissionoftheControllerofHMSO
andtheQueen’sPrinterforScotland.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,ortransmittedinany
form,orbyanymeans,orstoredinanyretrievalsystemofanynature,withoutpriorwritten
permission,exceptforpermittedfairdealingundertheCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct
1988,orinaccordancewiththetermsofalicenceissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency
inrespectofphotocopyingand/orreprographicreproduction.Applicationforpermission
forotheruseofcopyrightmaterial,includingpermissiontoreproduceextractsinother
publishedworks,shallbemadetothepublishers.Fullacknowledgementoftheauthor,
publisherandsourcemustbegiven.
PublishedinassociationwithSweet&Maxwell.
©2017CharteredInstituteofArbitrators
TableofContents
Editorial
Editorial
MichaelO’Reilly 131
Articles
Apologies,ApologyLegislationandCivilDisputes:ThePractical
ImplicationsofApologyLegislationforDisputeResolution
PractitionersandtheirClients
AndrewAgapiouandSaiOnCheung 133
CurrentFocusonFamilyMediationintheUK:HowRelevant?
SahanaPal 141
PublicPolicyandIndianArbitration:CantheJudiciaryandthe
LegislatureReininthe“UnrulyHorse”?
JahnaviSindhu 147
RecentDevelopmentsof(International)CommercialArbitrationin
theUAE(PartII)
GordonBlanke 164
Presentations
KeynoteAddressoftheCharteredInstituteofArbitrators(Malaysia
Branch)InauguralPresidentialLecture,KualaLumpur,25November
2016
SundareshMenon 185
TheAlexanderLecture,London,16November2016
BernardoM.Cremades 203
KeynoteSpeechattheCharteredInstituteofArbitratorsDAS
Convention2December2016
PeterGoldsmith 212
PresentationgivenattheUniversityofWestLondon,8March2016
JulioCésarBetancourt 219
Cases
TheEnforcementofAdjudicators’AwardsundertheHousingGrants,
ConstructionandRegenerationAct1996:Part62
KennethT.Salmon 228
ConflictsofInterestinExpertDetermination
HewR.Dundas 238
BookReviews
GordonBlanke 249
GordonBlanke 250
ElinaZlatanska 251
Contributors
ANDREWAGAPIOU:DepartmentofArchitecture,StrathclydeUniversity,Glasgow,Scotland
JULIOCÉSARBETANCOURT:AcademicVisitor,UniversityofOxfordandUniversityof
Salamanca
GORDONBLANKE:Partner,DWF(MiddleEast)LLP(InternationalCommercialand
InvestmentArbitration),DIFC,Dubai,UAE
SAIONCHEUNG:DepartmentofArchitectureandCivilEngineering,CityUniversityof
HongKong,HongKong
BERNARDOM.CREMADES:PhD,FCIArb,isfoundingpartnerofB.CremadesyAsociados,
Madrid
HEWR.DUNDAS:CharteredArbitrator;DipICArb;CEDR-AccreditedMediator;
InternationalArbitrator,MediatorandExpertDeterminer
LORDPETERGOLDSMITHQC,PC:LondonCo-ManagingPartnerandChairofEuropeanand
AsianLitigation,Debevoise&PlimptonLLP
SUNDARESHMENON:ChiefJustice,Singapore
SAHANAPAL:LLM,QueenMaryUniversityofLondon
KENNETHT.SALMON:MCIArb,Solicitor,CIArbAccreditedMediator
JAHNAVISINDHU:BA,LLB(Hons),NationalLawSchoolofIndiaUniversity,Bangalore,
LawClerk,SupremeCourtofIndia
ELINAZLATANSKA:FCIArb,CIArbVisitingResearchFellow
Editorial
ThisEditorialcomprisestwoparts:first,anintroductiontothecontentsoftheissueand,
secondly,anannouncement,concerningthefutureoftheJournal.
IntroductiontotheContents
InthearticlessectionofthisissueofArbitrationwebeginwithapaperbyAndrewAgapiou
andSaiOnCheungdealingwithanareaofdisputemanagementwhichislesswellknown
thanitshouldbe:apologies,relatedlegislationandtherelevanceforcivildisputes.Sahana
Pal considers aspects of family mediation in the UK, asking, somewhat controversially,
whetherthecurrentfocusonmediationisreallyhelpingcouplestoseparatepeacefullyor
isjustanextensionofthejudicialprocess.JahnaviSindhuaddressesthequestionofpublic
policy in the context of arbitration in India. And Dr Gordon Blanke continues his
investigationintodevelopmentsinrespectofinternationalcommercialarbitrationinthe
UAE.
Inourpresentationssection,weleadwiththekeynoteaddressbySundareshMenon,the
outgoingPatronoftheCharteredInstitute,totheMalaysiaBranch’sInauguralPresidential
Lecture in November 2016; this addresses the important topic of the role of the
party-appointedarbitrator.WepresenttheAlexanderLecturedeliveredinNovember2016
by Bernardo M. Cremades on the subject of “due process” in international arbitration,
followedbyLordPeterGoldsmith’skeynotespeechtotheCharteredInstituteofArbitrators’
DSASConventioninDecember2016. And finally, weincludeJulioCésarBetancourt’s
presentationtotheUniversityofWestLondoninMarch2016onthesubjectofADRand
accesstojustice.
InthecasessectionKennethSalmonpresentshiscontinuingreviewofenforcementof
constructionadjudicationundertheUKlegislation,which,asalways,raisesthemesofwider
internationalinterest.HewDundasdealswithararecaseonthetopicofconflictsofinterest
inexpertdetermination.Weincludealsoanumberabookreviews.
Asalways,wearegratefultoallauthorsandreviewersandgreatlyappreciatethetime
theyspendensuringthattheJournalcontinuestobeakeyreferenceinthisfield.
TheFutureoftheJournal
The Journal has for a century reflected the best in arbitration practice. For about three
decadestheeditorialdirectionhasbeenledbyjustthreeEditors—AlanShilston,Derek
Roebuckandmyself.Whilethisstabilityhasbeenbeneficialinmanyways,theChartered
Instituteisnowemergingastheleadinginclusiveprofessionalbodyfordisputeresolution
worldwideanditisappropriatethatanewapproachisadopted.
From 2018 there will be a reconstituted Editorial Board. We shall be asking for
nominationsshortly,buttheintentionisthatmemberswillbeleadingpractitioners,scholars
andthoughtleadersinthefield.Thiswillensurethatthestandingandcredibilityofthe
Journalwillbeunquestioned.
In line with my personal plans—I have been Editor for eight years in two different
periods—IwillstepdownfromwhatisademandingrolefollowingtheNovemberissue
2017andthenewBoardwillassumecontrol.AlthoughIwillserveontheEditorialBoard
to provide continuity, the editorial work will be carried out by the Board through the
Secretariat.Greaterclaritywillbeintroducedbetweeninvitedcontributionsandrefereed
articlesandforthelatteranewandmoretransparentsystemofrefereeingwillbeintroduced.
IntheAugustissueoftheJournalweshallalsosetoutproposalsforourlistofreferees,so
(2017)83Arbitration,Issue2©2017CharteredInstituteofArbitrators 131
132 Arbitration
thatthosewhoareoftheappropriatecalibreandagreetotakeonthisrolecanbeproperly
acknowledged.
IntheAugust2017issuewewillincludedetailsofsubmissionarrangementsandwill
alsobepromotingthistothewiderintellectualandacademiccommunityandeffectively
invitinghigh-qualityinnovativeorreviewcontributions.
I hope that you will agree that the time has come to move into the next phase of
development for the Journal, which will seal the Chartered Institute’s reputation and
standing.
MichaelO’Reilly
Editor
(2017)83Arbitration,Issue2©2017CharteredInstituteofArbitrators
Articles
Apologies, Apology Legislation and Civil Disputes:
The Practical Implications of Apology Legislation
for Dispute Resolution Practitioners and their
Clients
AndrewAgapiou
SaiOnCheung
1.Introduction
Anapologyisarguablythemosteffectivewayforadefendant,orotherallegedviolatorof
anacceptedlegalstandard,dutyorobligation,todemonstratetheirassumedresponsibility
forawrongcommitted.1Whetheranapologyisheartfelt,ormorecalculatedandproforma,
thereislittlequestionthatwhenanapologyisdelivered,itsmakerhasassumedatleast
moralresponsibilityfortheactoromissioninquestion.2Societiestendtorespectindividuals
who“ownup”totheirfaults,admitmistakes,takeresponsibilityfortheirconductandoffer
anappropriateapologytoanyaffectedinnocentpersons.3RadzikandMurphyexplainthat
apologisingisthemostlikelyexplicitmeansthroughwhichhumanerrorsofanykindare
acknowledged;“well-formed”apologiesimplicitlyacknowledgewrongdoing,responsibility
andanexpressionofregretorremorse.4
However,asthefollowingcriticaldiscussionstendtoconfirm,apologiescanalsocreate
alegalliabilityminefieldforDisputeResolution(DR)practitionersandtheirclientsalike.
Madetooearlyinalegaldispute,i.e.beforeallrelevantfactshavebeenascertained,an
apologymayencourageaclaimanttoexploitanapologytoitslegaladvantage.5Withheld
forfearthatanapologymightincreaseultimateliabilityexposure,apotentialdefendantor
arbitrationrespondentmayinadvertentlyreducetheprospectsofsecuringanearlyandmore
satisfactoryDRoutcome.6
Drawingonvarioushigh-levelinternationalsources,thereportedresearchandrelated
discussionpointsdevelopedbelowfocusonthedevelopmentofapologylegislationacross
different jurisdictions. The key proposition advanced is that to encourage individual
responsibilityfairly,whilstensuringthatthereceivingpartydoesnotimproperlyexploita
morallycorrectposition,clearlegislationgoverninghowanapologymaybetreatedforDR
andrelatedcivillitigationpurposesisanessentialDRsystemrequirement.7
1M.NardoandR.Francis,“Moralityandthepreventionofcorruption:actionorintent—anewlookatanold
problem”(2012)19(2)J.F.C.128,131.
2E.Cole,“Apology,Forgiveness,andMoralRepair”(2008)22(4)Ethics&InternationalAffairs1,4.
3L.RadzikandC.Murphy,“Reconciliation”inE.Zalta(ed.),TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Summer
2015Edition),https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/reconciliation/[Accessed19March2017].
4RadzikandMurphy,“Reconciliation”inE.Zalta(ed.),TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Summer2015
Edition),[3.1],https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/reconciliation/[Accessed19March2017].
5P.Vines,“ApologisingtoAvoidLiability:CynicalCivilityorPracticalMorality?”(2005)27(3)SydneyLaw
Review483,485.
6R.Carroll,“When‘Sorry’istheHardestWordtoSay,HowMightApologyLegislationAssist?”(2014)44(2)
HongKongLawJournal491,499.
7Apositioncollectivelyinspiredbyanumberofsources;seee.g.V.Corbett,“WhyIt’sBettertoBeSorrythan
Safe:TheCaseforApologyProtectionLegislation”(2013)36DublinUniversityLawJournal127,130–134.
(2017)83Arbitration,Issue2©2017CharteredInstituteofArbitrators 133
134 Arbitration
Threecommonlawciviljurisdictionsaregivenparticularattentioninthisdiscussion:
(i)theUK,withattentiondirectedtoapologyapproachesinbothScotlandandEnglandand
Wales;(ii)BritishColumbia(BC),Canada;and(iii)Massachusetts,US.Theseciviljustice
systems’ shared legal heritage assists in giving the comparative discussions appropriate
focus,particularlywithrespecttohowapologylegislationhasinfluencedtortlawevolution
withineachjurisdiction.8
2.Apologies:KeyBenefits
ThekeybenefitsmostoftenattributabletoanapologyformingpartofalargerDRstrategy
havevariousdimensions.Itisacknowledgedthat“strategy”,asusedherewithitscalculating
and dispassionate DR-driven connotations, and the warmer human associations often
associatedwith“apology”,mayseemantitheticaloninitialconsideration.9Fiskereinforces
thisimpressionwithherstarkadvicethatinanybusinessDRsetting,areputation“blow”
requires“aclear,strategicmessage,explainingtwothings:(1)whatwentwrong,and(2)
whatyouaredoingtorectifythesituation”.10
Fromacombinedmoral-legalDRperspective,anapologywilloftencontributetobetter
relationsbetweenpartiesestrangedbyawrongfulactoraprolongedcourseofconduct.An
apology is akin to an act of contrition, where the offending party acknowledges that a
precipitatingeventwasmorallywrong.11Goldbergetal.observethat“…thefirstlesson
ofDRmanyofuslearnaschildrenistheimportanceofapologising”.12
Inconflictortortclaimcircumstances,suchasinsulting,demeaningorotheranti-social
behaviourcausingemotionalupsettotheoffendedperson,anapologywilloftensignala
potential new beginning in the parties’ relationship.13 From an admission of wrongful
behaviour, the parties may be able to establish a foundation from which they can move
forward;alternatively,iftherelationshipcannotberestoredtoitsformerstrength,thenan
apologyisaneffectivecleanbreak.Eachpersoncanmoveforwardwithabettersensethat
theproblemgivingrisetotheapologyisnolongerproblematic.14Thesemoralattributes
createaneffectivebridgetomorefullyappreciatingthelegalissuesgeneratedbyapology
conceptsandrelatedapologylegislation.Vinesobservesthatapologiesplayadualsocial
andlegalrole,15notingthatthecollectivepsychological,sociological,philosophicaland
anthropological literature illustrates that apologies can often satisfy a “healing and
re-balancingfunctionforbothvictimandrelationship,andoftenforanoffenderaswell”.16
InterpersonalDRproceduresconfirmthecentralpositionapologiesoccupywithinall
modern mediation mechanisms.17 Criminal law apologies have long occupied a primary
place in the “re-integrativeshaming” processes widely accepted as essential to criminal
8P.Vines,“TheprotectedapologyasthemodernresponsetothemoralquestionattheheartofDonoghuev
Stevenson:whatifStevensonhadapologised?(CaseComment)”(2013)3Jur.Rev.438,497–498.
9R.Fiske,“SmartApologiesShouldBeStrategic”(2011)HarvardBusinessReview,https://hbr.org/2011/10
/admitting-a-mistake-isnt-enoug[Accessed30March2017].
10Fiske,“SmartApologiesShouldBeStrategic”(2011)HarvardBusinessReview,https://hbr.org/2011/10/admitting
-a-mistake-isnt-enoug[Accessed30March2017].
11C.Myers,“KnowingWhenIt’sLegallySafetoSay‘I’mSorry’:TheLegalEffectsofMortificationStrategy”
(2015)InstituteforPublicRelations,http://www.instituteforpr.org/knowing-legally-safe-say-im-sorry-legal-effects
-mortification-strategy/[Accessed19March2017].
12S.Goldbergetal.,DisputeResolution:Negotiation,MediationandOtherProcesses,6thedn(Alphenaanden
Rijn:Aspen,2012),p.12.
13P.Lavens,“NegotiationandApologies:TheRoleofanApology,theRoleoftheLawandtheRoleoftheLawyer”
(2013)BondUniversity,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2473234[Accessed19March2017],
9,10.
14Lavens,“NegotiationandApologies:TheRoleofanApology,theRoleoftheLawandtheRoleoftheLawyer”
(2013)BondUniversity,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2473234[Accessed19March2017],
4–5,reapologyoutcomes.
15P.Vines,“ApologiesandcivilliabilityintheUK:aviewfromelsewhere”(2008)12(2)Edin.L.R.200,203.
16Vines,“ApologiesandcivilliabilityintheUK:aviewfromelsewhere”(2008)12(2)Edin.L.R.200,208.
17J.Brown,“TheRoleofApologyinNegotiation”(2003–2004)87MarqL.R.665,668.
(2017)83Arbitration,Issue2©2017CharteredInstituteofArbitrators
Apologies,ApologyLegislationandCivilDisputes 135
rehabilitation.18Similarly,defamationlawhaslonggivenexpressrecognitiontoapologies
(and the failure to apologise) in determining an appropriate remedy.19 Distilled to their
essentialqualities,apologiesarewell-entrenchedjusticesystemelements,bothintraditional
litigationandinotherDRsettings.Theyreducebarrierstoresolution,whilstencouraging
emotionalhealingandrelationshipreconstructioninmanycases.20Themorerecentrole
assumedbyapologylegislationinDRproceduresisnowconsidered.
3.ApologyLegislation:Aims,ScopeandOperation
Thecommonlawjurisdictions’movementtoembracevariousformsofapologylegislation
hasitsrootsinthemuch-debatedandoftenhotlydisputedlatetwentieth-centurytortliability
“crisis”.21Acombinedforceofinsuranceindustryexperts,policy-makers,andsomeacademic
commentators advanced the proposition that often-exorbitant tort liability claims were
encouraginga“compensationculture”,22wherelawyers,tameexpertwitnessesandoverly
sympathetic judges were contributing to excessive civil liability awards.23 In turn, these
were regarded as contributing to “out of control” insurance premiums, amongst other
negativesocialandeconomicconsequences.24Formanycommentatorsapologyconcepts
were crucial contributors to the growth of a “compensation culture”.25 This schematic
succinctlysummarisesthelinearrelationshipblamedbycompensationculturetheorists:(i)
tortfeasorsthatapologiseinatimelywayfortheir“atfault”actionsreducetheemotional
tensionscreatedbywrongfulacts;but(ii)lawyers(andinsurers)frequentlyadvisethese
partiesnottoapologise,inordertoprotectagainstfutureliabilityclaims;(iii)thoseclaims
likelytohavebeenmorereadilysettledifatimelyapologyhadbeenmadenowhavebarriers,
makingefficientDRmoredifficult;andfinally,(iv)thetotal,andpartiallypreventabletotal
DRcosts(damages,legal,relatedexpertwitnesses,andsystemicexpense)correspondingly
increase.26
Spencerdescribeshowtheclaimedinternationalcompensationcultureexpansionwas
symbolisedby“ambulance-chasing”UStortlawyers.Thispersuasive,ifhighlydistorted,
imageofunethical,cynicalciviljusticesystemmanipulationsummarisesaproblemthat
appeared to demand legislative response.27 In contrast, the 2006 House of Commons
Committeestudyingtortlawtrendsconcludedthat“theevidencedoesnotsupporttheview
thatincreasedlitigationhascreateda[UK]‘compensationculture’”.28Consequently,apology
legislationmustbeconsideredwiththeseconflictingviewsinmind.
Itisnotedthat,whilstthepositiveeffectsapologiesoftenhaveinpromotingsettlement
arewidelyaccepted,asignificantconcernhasbeenhighlightedthat“crafted”apologiesdo
notgeneratethesamebenefitsasonesprovidedwithoutlegalprompting.Taftdescribes
apologiesmadeinconnectionwithlegalproceedingsashavingtheir“fundamentalmoral
character…dramatically,ifnotirrevocably,altered”.29Thisisapowerfulcomment,asit
18Vines,“ApologiesandcivilliabilityintheUK:aviewfromelsewhere”(2008)12(2)Edin.L.R.,205.
19CookeandMidlandHeartLtdvMGNLtdandTrinityMirrorMidlandsLtd[2014]EWHC2831(QB);[2015]
1W.L.R.895,[21],[22].
20Lavens,“NegotiationandApologies:TheRoleofanApology,theRoleoftheLawandtheRoleoftheLawyer”
(2013)BondUniversity,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2473234[Accessed19March2017].
21SeeF.Furedi,CourtingMistrust:TheHiddenGrowthofaCultureofLitigationinBritain(Oxord:Oxford
UniversityPress,1999);andJ.Spigelman,“Negligence:thelastoutpostofthewelfarestate”(2002)ALJ432.
22J.Goudkamp,“TheYoungReport:AnAustralianperspectiveonthelatestresponsetoBritain’s‘compensation
culture’”(2012)28(1)P.N.4,7.
23J.Spencer,“Anunethicalpersonalinjurysector”(2014)4J.P.I.226.
24J.Robbennolt,“Apologiesandsettlementlevers”(2006)3(2)J.E.L.S.333,335–338.
25Z.Awaiz-Bilal,“Thedutyofcandourandapologiesasalegalremedy”(2015)1J.P.I.Law7,10.
26Vines,“TheprotectedapologyasthemodernresponsetothemoralquestionattheheartofDonoghuevStevenson:
whatifStevensonhadapologised?(CaseComment)”(2013)3Jur.Rev.438,488.
27J.Spencer,“Anunethicalpersonalinjurysector”(2014)4J.P.I.226,228.
28HouseofCommonsConstitutionalAffairsCommittee,CompensationCulture:ThirdReportofSession2005–2006,
Vol.1,HC754-I(London:TSO,2006),[13.1].
29L.Taft,“Apologysubverted:thecommodificationofapology”(2000)109YaleL.J.1135,1136.
(2017)83Arbitration,Issue2©2017CharteredInstituteofArbitrators
136 Arbitration
callsintoquestionwhetheranapologydeliveredinthecourseoflegalproceedingsactually
meetsthedefinitionsetoutabove.
If, as Taft describes this particular apology process, an apology is simply
“commodified”,30andisgiventoreducethecompensationpayabletotheinnocentparty,
then there is merit in the proposition that such apologies are a triumph of form over
substance. It becomes difficult to determine from some apologies drafted or heavily
influenced by lawyers whether the party is actually apologising at all.31 The selected
comparativelegislativeexamplesarenowexaminedwiththeseapologyfeatures,effects
andlimitationsunderstood.
4.ComparativeJurisdictionExamples
Scotland
TheApologies(Scotland)Act2016representsaconcertedScottishefforttoencouragea
“cultureofapologising”.32TheScottishgovernmentendorsedthisPrivateMembers’Bill
aslegislationthatwillcontributetothepursuitoffairredressforwrongs,andgreatervictim
closure.33The2016Actsuccinctlydefinesthelegaleffectanapologymustbegiveninany
legalproceedings.34Asageneralrule:(i)anapologymadeoutsideoftheproceedingsin
anycontextisnotadmissibleevidencewithrespecttodeterminingliability;and(ii),the
apologycannotbeused“inanyotherwaytotheprejudiceofthepersonbyoronbehalfof
whom the apology was made”.35 The main civil proceedings excepted from the Act are
public inquiries, children’s hearings, and defamation proceedings, thus giving the Act
wide-ranging,butnotretrospectiveeffect.36
TheActalsodefines“apologies”inpreciseterms;theseareanystatementsmadebyor
onbehalfofapersonindicatingthat“thepersonissorryabout,orregrets,anact,omission
oroutcome”.37Apologiesalsoincludeanypartofsuchstatementscontaininganundertaking
“tolookatthecircumstances”givingrisetotheapology-triggeringevent,withaviewto
preventingitsrecurrence.38Fromaliteralmeaningperspective,theScottishapproachappears
tosatisfytwoimportantDRapologycriteria,astheActencouragesapologiestobemade
withoutadditionalliabilityrisk.Asimportantly,thes.3definitionensuresthataprospective
defendant (“defender”)39 can remedy a dangerous circumstance without their remedial
effortsbeingrelieduponasanadmissionofliability.40
Itsrelativenewness(theActwasgivenRoyalAssenton23February2016)meansthat
the apology provisions have not yet been extensively considered in contested legal
proceedings.However,Scotsandinternationalcommentatorshavegenerallypraisedhow
theActprovidesstraightforward,unequivocaldirectionregardingapologies,andhowtheir
30Taft,“Apologysubverted:thecommodificationofapology”(2000)109YaleL.J.1135,1136.
31SeanRyanJ,“ChildCommission”(13February2012)IrishTimes,http://www.irishtimes.com/news/clerical
-child-abuse-an-irish-timeline-1.880042[Accessed19March2017].
32CoreSolutions,“SuccessfortheApologies(Scotland)Act2016”(2016),http://www.core-solutions.com/blog
/success-for-the-apologies-scotland-act-2016/[Accessed19March2017].
33CoreSolutions,“SuccessfortheApologies(Scotland)Act2016”(2016),http://www.core-solutions.com/blog
/success-for-the-apologies-scotland-act-2016/[Accessed19March2017].
34Apologies(Scotland)Act2016s.1(a).
35Apologies(Scotland)Act2016,s.1(b).
36Apologies(Scotland)Act2016,s.2(1),s.4.
37Apologies(Scotland)Act2016,s.3.
38Apologies(Scotland)Act2016,s.3;L.Harrington,“Isittoolatenowtosaysorry?—theApologies(Scotland)
Act2016”,http://www.tltsolicitors.com/news-and-insights/insight/is-it-too-late-now-to-say-sorry---the-apologies
-scotland-act-2016/[Accessed19March2017].
39ThetermemployedinScottishcivilprocedure.
40SocietyofSolicitorAdvocates,“Apologies(Scotland)Billpassed”(2016),http://www.solicitoradvocates.org
/news_article/385.aspx[Accessed19March2017].
(2017)83Arbitration,Issue2©2017CharteredInstituteofArbitrators