Taiwan Jurisdiction: A Dispute Resolution Overview

Commercial Dispute Resolution in Taiwan: Current Situation, International Challenges and Future Prospects

Introduction

With the intensification of industrial competition and the rapid changes in the market environment, business activities in Taiwan Jurisdiction (“Taiwan”) have become increasingly complex. As a result, the incidence of commercial disputes involving contract performance, investment co-operation and cross-border transactions has also risen. An effective dispute resolution mechanism not only protects the interests of enterprises but also impacts the stability and development of the overall business environment. This article intends to explore Taiwan’s current commercial dispute resolution methods and analyse the challenges faced under the trend of internationalisation.

Commercial dispute resolution methods in Taiwan

In Taiwan, court litigation is one of the common methods for resolving commercial disputes. Court proceedings are generally public, and the judicial system follows a three-instance system. (However, if the amount involved does not exceed TWD1.5 million (approximately USD50,000), the case is generally not eligible for a third instance.) The first and second instances are factual trials, while the third instance focuses on legal issues. Taiwan has a Commercial Court (the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, handling commercial matters and adjudicating disputes related to intellectual property rights). It adopts the two-instance system and mainly handles:

• internal corporate disputes (including conflicts between the responsible person or shareholders and the company, or disputes regarding the validity of resolutions made by the shareholders’ meeting or the board of directors); or
• civil disputes meeting a certain monetary threshold (the amount or value of the subject matter of the litigation being TWD100 million (approximately USD3.3 million) or more) involving specific regulations, eg, Securities and Exchange Act.

Commercial disputes arising between enterprises due to contract performance are generally not within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.

Arbitration is also a common method for resolving commercial disputes, but it requires an arbitration agreement between the parties as a prerequisite. Compared to court litigation, arbitration generally offers advantages such as faster procedures, highly professional arbitrators and better confidentiality. In Taiwan, the Chinese Arbitration Association is a commonly recognised arbitration institution, typically supporting arbitration disputes conducted in either Chinese or English.

Mediation is a relatively mild dispute resolution method. Court-mediated cases are typically conducted by a mediator appointed by the court. For certain types of cases, mediation may be mandatory before filing a lawsuit, due to the nature of the dispute. Furthermore, even if the case has not yet been filed in court, the parties may proactively apply to the court for mediation. Mediation proceedings are confidential and, compared to court litigation, they are generally more flexible.

In addition, it is also a common practice for enterprises to resolve disputes through private negotiations and signing settlement agreements. Before or during any of the aforementioned dispute resolution methods, enterprises can, based on their actual needs, reach a mutually agreed solution to resolve commercial disputes.

Internationalisation challenges of commercial disputes in Taiwan

As Taiwanese enterprises actively participate in the international market, cross-border commercial disputes have become increasingly common. When dealing with disputes with foreign elements, Taiwan courts may impose additional procedural requirements, eg, requesting the translation of foreign documents and certification of documents, or asking foreign plaintiffs to provide a deposit for litigation fees. In general, Taiwan courts are widely regarded as independent. Regardless of whether the parties involved are domestic or foreign, the courts will make a ruling based on legal provisions and the facts of the case with neutrality and fairness, so as to protect the rights and interests of the parties involved.

Compared to litigation, arbitration procedures are generally faster. Arbitration Law in Taiwan explicitly stipulates that the arbitral tribunal must issue an award within six months after its formation, with a possible extension of up to three months, if necessary. For parties involved in a dispute, arbitration in Taiwan provides a reliable option for accurately managing the timeline for dispute resolution. It is important to note that Taiwan is not a signatory to the New York Convention, meaning that arbitral awards made in Taiwan may not be directly enforceable in other countries under such convention. Whether such an award can be enforced depends on whether the local law of the country recognises Taiwanese arbitral awards. There have been precedents where foreign courts, eg, courts in Japan and Germany, have recognised Taiwanese arbitral awards. Additionally, Taiwan has signed bilateral agreements with other countries to recognise and enforce each other’s arbitral awards. For example, Taiwan and Mainland China have a specific agreement that allows business disputes between parties to be resolved through arbitration, with the possibility of applying for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award under related regulations. Furthermore, the courts in Mainland China have acknowledged the enforceability of arbitral awards made in Taiwan. Therefore, for parties with the need to enforce an arbitral award in Mainland China, selecting Taiwan as the arbitration venue may be a viable option worth considering.

Conclusion

There is no “best” but only the most “suitable” dispute resolution method for the parties involved. Taiwan has established a diversified framework for commercial dispute resolution at the institutional level. For international business disputes involving a Taiwan element, enterprises can evaluate their own needs and choose the most suitable method for resolution. Enterprises may also consult lawyers with extensive experience in cross-border litigation to obtain professional advice and guidance. By doing so, enterprises can develop effective dispute resolution strategies to protect their interests in the complex legal environment. In response to the trend of internationalisation, Taiwan continues to adjust its system to balance efficiency, professionalism and alignment with international standards, creating a more stable and competitive business environment.

台灣商業紛爭解決：現狀、國際化挑戰與展望

引言

隨著產業競爭加劇與市場環境快速變化，台灣的商業活動日益複雜，企業在契約履行、投資合作及跨境交易等方面產生商業紛爭的情形亦隨之增加。有效的紛爭解決機制不僅關乎企業權益保障，也影響整體商業環境的穩定與發展。本文將探討台灣現行的商業紛爭解決方式，並分析在國際化趨勢下所面臨的挑戰。

台灣商業紛爭的解決方式

在台灣，法院訴訟是解決商業紛爭常見的途徑之一，法院訴訟原則上為公開審理，且為三級三審制 ，第一審及第二審為事實審，第三審則為法律審。台灣雖設有商業法院 ，並採二級二審制，但多僅處理公司內部爭議事項 ，或涉及證券交易法等特定法規而標的金額達一定門檻之民事爭議。企業間因履約而生之商業糾紛，一般來說不在商業法院管轄之列。

仲裁亦為商業紛爭常見的解決途徑之一，但須以當事人間存在仲裁協議為前提。與法院訴訟相比，仲裁一般來說具有程序迅速、仲裁人專業性高、保密性佳等優勢。在台灣，常見的仲裁機構為中華民國仲裁協會，通常能夠支援以中文或英文為約定語言的仲裁爭議。

調解為相對溫和之紛爭解決途徑，在法院之調解，通常係交由法院所指派之調解委員來進行，某些案件因其性質，會被要求在起訴前強制進行調解。另外，即便案件尚未繫屬於法院，當事人仍得主動向法院聲請調解。調解程序不公開為之，與法院訴訟相比，通常更具備靈活性。

此外，企業間透過私下談判以簽署和解協議，亦係十分普遍的做法，在上述任一紛爭解決途徑開啟前或進行中，企業均能依實際需求，以合意方式解決商業糾紛。

台灣商業紛爭的國際化挑戰

隨著台灣企業積極參與國際市場，跨境商業紛爭日益常見，面對涉外爭議，台灣法院可能會有額外的訴訟上要求，例如：翻譯外文文件、進行文件公認證、或請非本國法域之原告就訴訟費用提供擔保等。不過，一般而言，台灣法院普遍來說具備獨立性，無論當事人是否為本法域主體，法院均會依照法律規定與案件事實，中立且公正地裁判，確保當事人權益。

相較於訴訟，仲裁程序較為快速，而台灣仲裁法明文規定仲裁庭應於組成後六個月內作成判斷書、必要時得延長三個月，對於爭議當事人而言，於台灣仲裁是一個能夠準確掌握爭議解決時程的選擇。提醒注意的是，台灣並非《紐約公約》之簽署國，於台灣做成之仲裁判斷可能無法直接依據該公約取得於他國之執行力，而視當地法是否認可臺灣仲裁判斷，目前已有日、德等國外法院承認之先例；且台灣亦與其他法域簽有雙邊協定，肯認彼此仲裁判斷之執行力，例如，台灣與中國大陸之協議，即約定當事人間之商務糾紛得依仲裁方式解決、並得依相關規定聲請仲裁判斷之認可與執行，並中國大陸之法院亦已肯認台灣做成之仲裁判斷於中國大陸之執行力，故當事人若有於中國大陸執行仲裁判斷之需求，以台灣為約定仲裁地，亦為值得考慮之選項之一。

小結

沒有最「好」的紛爭解決途徑，只有最「適合」當事人的紛爭解決途徑，台灣已在制度層面建立多元化之商業紛爭解決途徑，面對涉及台灣因素之國際商業紛爭，企業得評估自身需求加以選擇並運用，或諮詢擁有豐富跨國訴訟經驗之律師，取得專業判斷與建議，制定有效之爭議解決策略，以便在繁複之法律環境中保障自身權益。面對國際化趨勢，台灣持續在調整制度設計，以兼顧效率、專業性與國際接軌，營造更穩定且具競爭力的商業環境。