Overview North America Europe Australia

Africa Asia Oceania South America

China

China is a centralized unitary state. The National People’s Congress, the highest legislative body, and its Standing Committee have the power to enact, interpret, and amend the constitution and the statutory laws.

China’s 1991 Civil Procedure Law allows three types of collective litigation:

1. Non-representative group litigation
2. Representative litigation in which the number of litigants is fixed at time of filing
3. Representative actions in which the number of claimants is not fixed when the case is filed

Reference:

• Michael Palmer and Chao Xi, “Collective and Representative Actions in China,” a national report for the conference “The Globalization of Class Actions,” held in Oxford, England, on December 12–14, 2007 (co-sponsored by Stanford Law School and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies of Oxford University). Available at http://www.law.stanford.edu/classactionconf.

(This information was updated May 2008.)

[ back to the top ]

India

India permits private class actions by aggrieved persons in the traditional adversarial format.
India has also broadened its standing requirements to permit “public interest litigation” (PIL). PILs seek to protect the public at large or classes of persons, and may be brought against the state or against private entities. PIL actions include human rights, consumer claims, and environmental concerns.

Reference:

• Devraj Sinh, “Public Interest Litigation in India: An Overview,” International Litigation News, September 2007, 19. (This newsletter is published by the International Bar Association, Legal Practice Division, http://www.ibanet.org.)

(This information was updated May 2008.)

[ back to the top ]

Israel

In 2006 Israel adopted a comprehensive Class Actions Law. The Law’s stated goals include creating uniform rules for class actions and increasing access to the courts, in particular for the less-advantaged segments of society.

Before requesting court approval for certification of a class, the requesting party must search the Ledger of Representative Actions and notify the court of any pending actions.

A public fund to finance representative actions was established under the 2006 Class Actions Law.

Reference:

Amichai Magen and Peretz Segal, “The Globalization of Class Actions — National Report: Israel,” a national report for the conference “The Globalization of Class Actions,” held in Oxford, England, on December 12–14, 2007 (co-sponsored by Stanford Law School and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies of Oxford University). Available at http://www.law.stanford.edu/classactionconf.

(This information was updated May 2008.)

[ back to the top ]

Japan

Japan does not have a formal class action method at this time, but Japan does permit group litigation in three circumstances:

1. Joinder of claims. This is essentially a consolidation tool for joint management of existing claims.
2. Representative actions. If common interests exist among litigants, a few representatives may be chosen to represent the group.
3. Group action concerning consumers. Effective June 2007, consumer group action is permitted under the Consumer Contract Act. Consumer groups must be certified by the prime minister and may only seek injunctive relief as to future conduct.

Reference:

• Ikuo Sugawara, “The Current Situation of Class Action in Japan,” a national report for the conference “The Globalization of Class Actions,” held in Oxford, England, on December 12–14, 2007 (co-sponsored by Stanford Law School and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies of Oxford University). Available at http://www.law.stanford.edu/classactionconf.

(This information was updated May 2008.)

[ back to the top ]

Malaysia

In Malaysia class actions are known as “representative actions.” Actions are permitted against private parties. Representative actions against the government or public agencies are governed by stricter requirements.

Non-representative group actions, a form of consolidation, are also available.

Reference:

• Yeow Choy Choong and Sujata Balan, “Class Actions in Malaysia: Principles and Procedural Obstacles,” a national report for the conference “The Globalization of Class Actions,” held in Oxford, England, on December 12–14, 2007 (co-sponsored by Stanford Law School and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies of Oxford University). Available at http://www.law.stanford.edu/classactionconf.

(This information was updated May 2008.)

[ back to the top ]

Singapore

Singapore permits representative group litigation under the Singapore Rules of Court. Order 15, rule 12, allows persons who have “the same interest” to bring a proceeding “by or against any or more of them as representing all or as representing all except one or more of them.”

Particular areas of the law have additional specific legislation for representative action.

Reference:

• Jeffrey Pinsler, “Responses to Questions on Class Actions and Group Litigation,” a national report for the conference “The Globalization of Class Actions,” held in Oxford, England, on December 12–14, 2007 (co-sponsored by Stanford Law School and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies of Oxford University). Available at http://www.law.stanford.edu/classactionconf.

(This information was updated May 2008.)

[ back to the top ]

Taiwan

Taiwan’s Code of Civil Procedure was substantially amended in 2003 to expand group litigation methods. Before 2003, the Consumer Protection Law and the Investor Protection Act provided area-specific procedures for group litigation. Currently group litigation in Taiwan has the following forms:

1. Representative action by assignment of party. Parties with common interests may appoint one or more among them to act as a representative party.

2. Injunctive action by association. An incorporated charitable association or a foundation may sue on behalf of its members.
Reference:

Reference:

• Kuan-Ling Shen and Alex, Yueh-Ping Yang, “Multi-Party Proceedings in Taiwan: Representative and Group Actions,” a national report for the conference “The Globalization of Class Actions,” held in Oxford, England, on December 12–14, 2007 (co-sponsored by Stanford Law School and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies of Oxford University). Available at http://www.law.stanford.edu/classactionconf.

(This information was updated May 2008.)

[ back to the top ]