Class Actions in Context
Show Less

Class Actions in Context

How Culture, Economics and Politics Shape Collective Litigation

Edited by Deborah R. Hensler, Christopher Hodges and Ianika Tzankova

In recent years collective litigation procedures have spread across the globe, accompanied by hot controversy and normative debate. Yet virtually nothing is known about how these procedures operate in practice. Based on extensive documentary and interview research, this volume presents the results of the first comparative investigation of class actions and group litigation ‘in action’, in the Americas, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 4: Using associations as a vehicle for class action: The case of Taiwan

Kuo-Chang Huang


Taiwan, as a civil law country, owes the origin of its civil procedure to the German system. Most of the articles of the first modern Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure (TCCP) are virtually literal translations of the German Code of Civil Procedure of 1877. As a result, traditionally the concept of a class action was foreign to the Taiwan civil justice system. While under the influence of Japanese civil procedure, TCCP has long provided a ‘representative suit’ device through which a litigant can receive an explicit delegation from another party who shares common interests in the subject matter in dispute to sue or be sued on the latter’s behalf. The application of such device is limited in practice and has never been considered as performing the modern function of a class action. The concept of a class action was formally introduced by the Consumer Protection Act of 1994, which provides that a certified consumer protection association can bring a lawsuit to seek damages from a business provided that 20 or more consumers delegate their rights against such business to the consumer protection association. This provision establishes the basic model of the modern class action in Taiwan. The newly established procedure has four features. First, it overcomes the traditional dogma inherited from the German way of thinking that a party cannot delegate its right to sue to a third party who does not share a common cause of action.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.