Ada Chung - Hong Kong Lawyer

h k

- l a

w y

e r

. org

January 2015 二零一五年一月

HK$280

Face to Face with

Ada Chung

Cover Story

Registrar of Companies

封面專題

鍾麗玲公司註冊處處長

專訪

How to Effectively Manage Corruption Risk When Doing Business in China 在中國營商如何能有效管理貪腐風險

ON CHINA 中國實務

Crisis Management: The Legal Team Response危機管理：法律團隊的應對之道

EMPLOYMENT LAW 僱傭法

Hong Kong Concludes Payments Regulation Consultation政府發表香港支付系統監管制度的諮詢總結

FINANCIAL REGULATION 金融監管

OPTIMAL LEGAL AND FIDUCIARY SOLUTIONS

INTERNATIONAL REACH

EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION

BERMUDA BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CAYMAN ISLANDS DUBAI HONG KONG LONDON MAURITIUS SINGAPORE / conyersdill.com

THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG 香港律師會會刊

HONG KONG LAWYERwww.hk-lawyer.org

Inside your January issue 一月期刊內容

4 EDITOR’S NOTE

6 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

9 CONTRIBUTORS

11 FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE

12 DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS

14 FROM THE SECRETARIAT

16 COVER STORY Face to Face with

Ada Chung Registrar of Companies

26 LAW SOCIETY NEWS

40 AFTER WORK For the Love of Recreation and Sports: A Look Inside the Law Society’s Ever-Popular Recreation and Sports Committee

50 EMPLOYMENT LAW Crisis Management: The Legal Team Response

Hong Kong Lawyer 香港律師The official journal of The Law Society of Hong Kong (incorporated with limited liability)香港律師會 (以有限法律責任形式成立) 會刊

www.hk-lawyer.org

Editorial Board 編輯委員會

Chairman 主席

Huen Wong 王桂壎

Jenkin SF Chan 陳少勳

Peter CH Chan 陳志軒

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

Steven B Gallagher Warren P GaneshMinkang Gu 顧敏康

Julienne Jen 任文慧

Dave Lau 劉子勁 George YC Mok 莫玄熾

Anne Scully-Hill Michele Tsang 曾憲薇

Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟

Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華

Tony Yen 嚴元浩

THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG 香港律師會理事會

President 會長

Stephen WS Hung 熊運信

Vice-Presidents 副會長 Thomas ST So 蘇紹聰

Melissa K Pang 彭韻僖

Council Members 理事會成員

Ambrose SK Lam 林新強

Dieter LT Yih 葉禮德

Junius KY Ho 何君堯

Huen Wong 王桂壎

Peter CL Lo 羅志力

Michael J Lintern-Smith 史密夫

Billy WY Ma 馬華潤

Sylvia WY Siu 蕭詠儀

Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華

Kenneth SY Ng 伍成業

Joseph CW Li 李超華

Amirali B Nasir 黎雅明

Angela WY Lee 李慧賢

Brian W Gilchrist 喬柏仁

Gavin P Nesbitt 倪廣恒

Denis G Brock 白樂德

Nick Chan 陳曉峰

Secretary-General 秘書長

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

Law Society’s Contact: www.hklawsoc.org.hk與律師會聯繫 Tel: +852 2846 0500

© Copyright is reserved throughout. No part of this publication can be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission of the editor. Contributions are invited, but copies of work should be kept, as Hong Kong Lawyer can accept no responsibility for loss.

Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Limited10/F, Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong KongTel: +852 2847 2088www.thomsonreuters.com

ISSN 1025-9554

Annual Subscription 全年訂閱: HK$3,360

編者的話

會長的話

投稿者

理事會議題

紀律裁決

律師會秘書處資訊

封面專題專訪


律師會新聞

工餘閒情熱愛康樂體育：一探香港律師會康樂及體育委員會

僱傭法危機管理：法律團隊的應對之道

16 COVER STORY

40 AFTER WORK

50 EMPLOYMENT LAW

January2015二零一五年一月

HK$280

Editor 編輯 Cynthia G [email protected]: +852 2847 8053

Managing Editor 執行主編 Ranajit Dam 鄧文杰

[email protected]: +65 6870 3393

Design and Production 設計及制作 Samson Pang 彭振生

Translation team 翻譯組:Heidi ChunInfoPowerMatty KwongNatalie LeeTang Mei Kwan

Special thanks to Hong Kong Law Reports & Digest and Reuters News 特別感謝香港法律彙報與摘錄及

路透社新聞

For marketing/promotion opportunities please contact: Henry Cheng 鄭裕康

[email protected]: +852 2847 2016

For subscriptions contact:Traffic Administrator 統籌

Gloria Ng 吳傲宜

[email protected] Tel: +852 2843 6415

Publisher 出版人 Amantha Chia 謝京庭 [email protected]: +65 6870 3917

Managing Director 執行總監 Klaus Pfeifer 范梓樺 [email protected]

All information and views expressed by contributors and advertisements in Hong Kong Lawyer do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Law Society of Hong Kong. Whilst every effort is made to ensure editorial and commercial integrity, no responsibility is accepted by the Publisher or The Law Society of Hong Kong for the accuracy of material appearing in this journal.

Members are encouraged to contribute but the Editorial Board of The Law Society of Hong Kong reserves the right to publish only material it deems appropriate.

保險與人身傷亡我受到纏擾，可循甚麼法律途徑獲得補償？

金融監管政府發表香港支付系統監管制度的諮詢總結

中國實務在中國營商如何能有效管理貪腐風險

解決糾紛禁制「佔領運動」

業界透視

案例撮要

會員動向

新書速遞

法學院新聞

法律史測驗

56 INSURANCE & PERSONAL INJURY I Am Being Stalked: How Can the Law Help Me Obtain Compensation?

58 FINANCIAL REGULATION Hong Kong Concludes Payments Regulation Consultation

64 ON CHINA How to Effectively Manage Corruption Risk When Doing Business in China

71 DISPUTE RESOLUTION Injuncting the Occupy Movement

76 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS

88 CASES IN BRIEF

100 PROFESSIONAL MOVES

103 A BOOK REVIEW

104 CAMPUS VOICES

106 LEGAL HISTORY QUIZ

64 ON CHINA

56 INSURANCE & PERSONAL INJURY

71 DISPUTE RESOLUTION

58 FINANCIAL REGULATION

EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

Cynthia G. Claytor《香港律師》編輯LegalMediaGroup湯森路透[email protected]

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

• January 2015

Over the years, the Magna Carta has become a beacon for fighting against oppression and lack of rights. Whether facing current issues involving the right to equality, the right to marry and have a family or the right to vote and stand for election, the Magna Carta’s core principles are just as relevant today as they were when they took shape in 1215.

Given that 2015 marks the Magna Carta’s 800th anniversary, we will feature articles throughout the year that touch on some of the Great Charter’s timeless core principles – such as, an independent judiciary that administers justice without fear or favour, equality and respect for fundamental human rights.

This month, we kick off our series with an article analysing the requirements and the Court’s treatment of two private claims of injunction filed against defendants occupying and preventing or obstructing a public light bus company and two taxi associations from passing through Occupied Areas during the Occupy Movement (p. 71). We have also included a book review of Daniel Ivery and Will Giles’ recently published book Haircuts & League Cups: The Rise and Fall of Carson Yeung, which not only chronicles Carson Yeung’s rise and demise, but also examines the treatment of defendants in Hong Kong’s criminal justice system (p. 103).

Articles in this issue also discuss skills that legal teams are developing to become better equipped to help organisations address and cope with challenges that arise from crises (p. 50), explain how businesses can effectively manage corruption risk when doing business in China (p. 64) and provide an overview of the Hong Kong Government’s published conclusions to the consultation process for a proposed new regulatory regime for stored value facilities and retail payment systems (p. 58).

Finally, we have also included an article that takes a look inside the Law Society’s ever-popular Recreation and Sports Committee (p. 40).

We hope that you, our readers, have had a good start to 2015 and wish you all a healthy, happy and prosperous Year of the Goat.

Cynthia G. ClaytorEditor, Hong Kong LawyerLegal Media GroupThomson Reuters [email protected]

跨世紀以來，英國《大憲章》一直是反抗壓迫和缺權的指

路明燈。我們眼下的問題不論涉及平等權利、締結婚姻及

組織家庭的權利，抑或選舉和參選的權利，早於1215年

在《大憲章》訂立的核心原則仍然歷久彌新，適用至今，

對香港將來的福祉，更是尤關重要。

適逢2015年為《大憲章》訂立800周年，本刊將於年內

刊載多篇與《大憲章》一些核心原則相關的專題文章，例

如保持司法獨立並以無懼無偏之精神主持正義、平等主義

及尊重基本人權等等。

今期，我們以一篇探討私人禁制令申請的文章為此系列揭

開序幕。該文就兩宗分別由一間公共小巴公司及兩個的士

團體提出的禁制令申請，分析了相關要求及法院的處理方

法(詳見第74頁)，而案中的被告人正是佔領運動期間佔用

了佔領區及防止或阻礙上述原告人經過佔領區的人士。

此外，今期亦載有一篇對Daniel Ivery及Will Giles最近出版

的著作《Haircuts&LeagueCups: TheRise and Fall of

Carson Yeung》的書評，此書不但記錄了楊家誠的成與

敗，亦剖析了香港刑事司法制度中被告人的待遇(詳見第

103頁)。

今期的其他精彩內容，包括探討法律團隊正發展哪些技能

去協助企業解決和應付危機(詳見第53頁)、闡釋企業在中

國營商時如何有效管理貪腐的風險(詳見第68頁)，另外亦

會概述港府公布的《香港儲值支付產品及零售支付系統建

議監管制度諮詢總結》(詳見第61頁)。

最後，我們亦會帶大家了解深受歡迎的律師會康樂及體育

委員會(詳見第45頁)的過去和展望。

本刊亦借此祝廣大讀者新年進步、身體健康。

BENNY K B KWOK FORENSIC EXPERT郭啟彬法證專家www.Forensic.HK

Kung Hei Fat Choy!We wish you all very good health, happiness and success in the Year of the Goat!

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

2015 Wish List 2015 is a special year as it commemorates the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta, the very charter that liberated ideas of freedom, justice and the Rule of Law. The implications and legacy of these values withstand the test of time, space, language and culture manifesting their deep-rooted impact on the constitutional development of nations around the world.

These timeless principles – accountability, respect for fundamental human rights, access to justice and independence of the judiciary – have helped lay a strong foundation for the Rule of Law in Hong Kong. Hong Kong would not have achieved its development today, locally and internationally, had it not been for the sustainable growth nourished by the strong trust and confidence in its unwavering adherence to the Rule of Law.

Solicitors, educated and professionally trained in the practice of law, not only serve as trusted advisers of their private clients, but also, by virtue of their choice to become members of this honourable profession, take on a public role as indispensable participants in the fair administration of justice and forefront defenders of the Rule of Law which embodies values consistent with a fair and just society.

Hong Kong’s recent “Umbrella Movement” hit the international headlines. The Movement started by the students to lobby for universal suffrage in the selection of the Chief Executive in 2017 sparked off heated debates on a range of issues among members of the public from all walks of life. Election

reform is not a purely legal matter. It has a strong political undertone.

At times, I have heard members saying that the Law Society Council was too quiet in expressing a view on election reforms. Others were of the view that we had not commented enough on the subject; and that our support for the Rule of Law was questionable. The Law Society is a professional body. We are not a political organisation and we shall never be. On subjects where legal and political issues are involved, the Council will focus our comments on the legal rather than the political aspect. Politics are for politicians, not for the Law Society.

I can never understand why anyone would question our commitment to the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is the backbone of our existing legal system. Our members can only function effectively within a strong legal system. Clients entrust us with the task of resolving their legal problems because they know that we can defend their rights under the Rule of Law in our legal system. It is therefore only logical that if the Rule of Law is under attack, deliberately or unwittingly, our members will defend it in full force to safeguard the best interests of the public who is the ultimate beneficiary of the Rule of Law.

Individual members of the solicitors’ profession are no doubt entitled to their own views on political matters. I encourage them to express their views in a constructive way. Nevertheless, one thing is clear – under no circumstances should a solicitor allow personal political ideologies to influence his or her duty to defend the Rule of Law.

The Law Society will continue to safeguard the Rule of Law. However, as a professional organisation which is apolitical in nature, the Law Society is cautious not to cross into areas outside its remit in its role as the representative voice of the profession.

Access to JusticeThe Rule of Law requires the criminal justice system to be equitable. However, the lack of adequate criminal legal aid resources in Hong Kong is seriously limiting defendants’ ability to defend themselves against a much more resourceful prosecution, creating a serious “inequality of arms” which in turn prejudices the basic rights of those facing criminal charges.

This problem of inequality is exacerbated by the fact that criminal investigations have generally become increasingly complicated. The advance in communications technology, the increase in the number of prosecutions involving law enforcement agencies from around the world, the greater use of expert and surveillance evidence, and the complex laws that require specialist knowledge significantly extend the scope and depth of the preparation work that has to be done if defendants are to be properly represented.

Notwithstanding the most recent amendments to the fees in criminal legal aid cases in November 2013, the criminal legal aid hourly rates are still significantly lower than the civil legal aid rates. A Legal Aid Panel solicitor practising in criminal litigation is working at a charging rate of less than a paralegal in civil legal aid work. As a result, the senior and experienced solicitors refuse

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

• January 2015

January 2015 • PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

Stephen hung, preSident

to accept legally aided criminal work. This raises a problematic perception that criminal legal aid is only a second class service, when compared to civil legal aid work which is remunerated more generously. This perception becomes entrenched in the younger generation of solicitors making it difficult to attract new blood to criminal legal aid defence work. This will result in an irrecoverable loss of expertise in criminal defence.

The Law Society will continue lobbying for a level playing field for the protection of the rights of those facing criminal prosecutions as well as for the retention of legal talent in the criminal defence work on legal aid.

Recovery of Litigation CostsHong Kong adopts the “loser pays” principle in litigation. The party and party taxation is the process through which the court assists in determining how much the losing party should pay for the costs of the winning party. In doing so, the court refers to a set of scale rates which include some recommended allowable hourly rates for solicitors as guidelines.

The Law Society has been lobbying for an immediate update of the recommended allowable hourly rates for solicitors in party and party taxation which was last updated 18 years ago in 1997. The growing divergence from the normal average chargeable hourly rates of solicitors means that a successful litigant is being disadvantaged in that although he succeeds in his court proceedings, what he recovers from the losing party under a costs order in accordance with the “loser pays” principle is substantially insufficient to cover what he actually pays his solicitors. Justice to the winning party is not completely served. This consequence has significant implications as it effectively diminishes the attractiveness of Hong Kong as an international dispute resolution centre.

Related to this subject is the level of taxation of party and party costs at the District Court and the High Court. The Law Society has received comments

from its members that there have been instances where the level of taxation is out of touch with reality.

The Law Society will continue to engage relevant stakeholders, including the Judiciary, in constructive discussions on ways to address these concerns.

Solicitor appointed as Senior CounselI told my mom that I wanted to be a Senior Counsel. Of course in reality I do not have the expertise nor the standing yet to become a Senior Counsel. But a lot of our senior members have already had more than the experience to become one. It will be a positive development if these senior members of the solicitors’ branch of the profession could be given the proper recognition that they deserve. I hope that I could congratulate the first batch of solicitors for being appointed as Senior Counsel at the Admissions of Senior Counsel in 2015.

We look forward to an exciting and fulfilling 2015. On behalf of the Law Society, may I wish you all good health and a prosperous year of the Goat!

2015年願望清單

2015年是特別的一年，因為今年是大

憲章在英國簽署的八百周年紀念。大憲

章的簽署，意義重大，它確立了自由、

公義及法治概念的重要地位，而其影響

亦跨越不同時空、地域、語言和文化，

對世上不同國家的憲制改革有深遠影

響。

行政機關問責、尊重基本人權、司法公

正、司法獨立，都是歷久不衰的原則，

並且是香港法治的重要基石。香港得以

經濟持續增長，發展至今，並在本地以

至國際社會獲得今日的地位，實有賴其

一直以來毫不動搖地恪守法治，贏得各

界信心。

律師在接受法律教育和專業訓練後，可

以成為私人客戶信任的法律顧問，但與

此同時，律師既然選擇成為此崇高專業

的成員，亦應在社會肩負不可或缺的角

色，秉行司法公正，並身先士卒，捍衛

法治，而這亦與一個公平公正的社會所

持守的價值相符。

香港最近受舉世矚目的「雨傘運動」

，源於學生爭取在2017年普選行政長

官，這運動其後引發社會上不同背景的

人士就不同相關議題展開激烈討論。選

舉改革不單純是一個法律議題，其背後

更帶有強烈的政治含意。

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

熊運信會長

我不時聽到有會員指出，律師會理事會

對選舉改革的議題，過於沉默，亦有人

認為我們就此議題作出的評論太少，因

而質疑我們對法治的支持。律師會是一

個專業團體。我們並不是亦永不會是一

個政治組織。就一些涉及法律和政治的

議題，理事會的回應只會把焦點集中於

議題的法律而非政治層面。政治應留待

政治家而非律師會去處理。

對於有人質疑我們對法治的承擔，我感

到大惑不解。法治是香港現有法律制度

的重要基石。律師會的會員只可以在一

個堅實的法律制度下才可有效地履行其

職責。客戶委託我們處理他們的法律問

題，乃因他們相信我們可以基於香港的

法律制度下的法治精神，維護他們的權

益。所以，按此邏輯，若法治受到有

意無意的攻擊，我們的會員必然會走出

來，全力捍衛法治，以保障市民大眾的

最大利益，因為他們才是堅實的法治制

度的最終得益者。

律師專業的個別成員，當然可以就政治

議題持有個人意見，我亦鼓勵他們有建

設性地表達他們的意見。不過，我必須

清晰指出一點──律師無論在任何情況

下，都不可以容許個人政治思想影響其

捍衛法治的責任。

律師會將繼續保衛法治，不過，律師會

作為一個專業團體，本身政治中立，應

小心謹慎，在履行代表業界聲音的職能

以外，不宜越俎代庖。

尋求司法公義

法治要得以彰顯，公平合理的刑事司法

制度屬必不可少。不過，現時刑事法律

援助資源的不足，令被告在面對擁有豐

富資源的控方時，相形見絀，亦限制了

被告為自己辯護的能力。控方與被告在

資源上的不對等，嚴重影響那些面對刑

事檢控的人的基本權利。

刑事案件的調查工作，普遍來說愈趨複

雜，令上述控方與被告資源不對等的情

況更加嚴重。律師為能妥善代表被告，

有不同因素令其準備工夫的範圍變得更

廣，複雜性亦變得更高，這些因素包括

通訊科技日新月異、涉及來自世界各地

執法部門的檢控數字的上升、專家證據

及由監察而來的證據愈趨普遍，以及

須具備專門法律知識才可掌握的複雜法

例。

即使刑事法律援助案件的費用最近在

2013年11月得到調整，刑事法律援助

的按時收費率依然遠低於民事法律援助

案件的收費率。一名法律援助律師從事

刑事訴訟工作的收費，較一名從事民事

法律援助工作的法律輔助人員的收費更

低，這令不少有經驗的資深律師對刑事

法律援助工作卻步。由於相比之下，從

事民事法律援助工作的收入更加豐厚，

這造成一個刑事法律援助工作屬於次等

的假象，這情況值得關注。這錯覺在年

輕律師中猶見明顯，令我們更難吸引年

輕律師加入刑事法律援助辯護工作，最

終對建立具法律援助刑事辯護工作經驗

的律師團隊，將造成不可挽回的負面影

響。

律師會將繼續爭取一個公平合理的環

境，令面對刑事檢控的人的權利可以得

到保障，以及為刑事法律援助工作，挽

留人才。

追收訴訟費用

香港的訴訟制度採「敗者付款」的原

則。所謂按「訴訟各方對評基準」評定

訟費，即法庭協助決定敗訴一方應向勝

訴一方支付多少訟費金額的過程。法庭

在協助評定訟費時，會根據不同的基準

作出參考，包括一系列律師的每小時建

議收費率。

按「訴訟各方對評基準」評定訟費時建

議的律師每小時收費率，最近一次的

修訂已是在十八年前，即1997年。律

師會一直爭取立即提高建議收費率。

現時在評定訟費時律師的每小時建

議收費率，與律師實際收取客戶的費

用，差距愈來愈大，致使勝方雖已贏

得官司，而按「敗者付款」的原則，

敗訴的一方應按訟費令繳交訟費，但

敗方實際上須繳交勝方的金額遠低於

勝方實際上應支付其代表律師的律師

費，這令勝方處於不利位置，而未能

完全獲得應有的公義。以上情況令香

港作為一個國際爭議解決中心的吸引

力大打折扣，影響深遠。

與此相關的另一個議題是在區域法院

和高等法院的「訴訟各方對評基準」

水平。有會員曾向律師會表示，評定

訟費的水平有時與現實不符。

律師會將繼續與不同界別的持份者(包

括司法機構)就此展開有建設性的討

論，探討處理這些關注的方法。

委任律師為資深大律師

我曾向家母表示，希望有朝一日可以

成為資深大律師。當然，實際上我還

未有作為一名資深大律師的專長和聲

望，但事實上很多經驗豐富的律師會

會員，要成為資深大律師，可謂綽綽

有餘。若這些業界的資深成員能夠獲

得此實至名歸的榮銜，將為業界帶來

正面的發展。我希望可以在2015年委

任資深大律師的儀式上親自恭賀首批

獲授此榮銜的律師。

對2015年各樣令人感到滿意和興奮的

計劃和活動，我們引頸以待。我謹代

表律師會祝各位在羊年身體健康，事

事亨通！

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

• January 2015

January 2015 • CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

Julia GorhamDLA Piper Hong Kong, Head of Employment, Asia Julia Gorham is the Head of Employment for Asia, based in DLA Piper’s Hong Kong office. Julia practices across all areas of employment law, with a particular focus on contentious employment disputes, as well as conducting internal and regulatory investigations for both regional and international clients. Her clients include companies in a range of sectors including investment banking, financial services and technology. Prior to joining DLA Piper, Julia gained experience working for another international law firm in London and Hong Kong for almost 10 years, before taking on the role of Executive Director for a global investment bank in Hong Kong.Julia was recognised by the Asian Lawyer as “in-house counsel of distinction” for 2014.

Julia Gorham歐華律師事務所(香港)，HeadofEmployment,Asia

Ju l i a Gorham律師為歐華律師事務所駐

香港代表處的Head of Employment for

Asia。Julia從事僱傭法各個範疇，主要處理

具爭訟性的僱傭糾紛，以及為地區和國際

客戶進行內部和監管調查。

她的客戶有不同行業的企業，包括投資銀

行、金融服務業和科技業。加盟歐華律師事

務所前，Ju l i a曾在倫敦和香港為另一家國

際律師事務所工作近十年，後來在香港一家

環球投資銀行擔任執行董事一職。

Julia獲《TheAsian Lawyer》頒發2014年

「In-housecounselofdistinction」殊榮。

Ray LeeONC Lawyers, Head of Insurance and Personal Injury DepartmentRay is the head of the Insurance and Personal Injury Department. He specialises in personal injuries and insurance-related litigation. He has extensive experience in acting for claimants as well as insurance companies in employees’ compensation and personal injuries claims. He also advises on insurance policy disputes including motor vehicles third party risks policies, employees’ compensation policies, contractors’ all risks policies and public liability policies.

Tze-yan LamONC Lawyers, Senior ConsultantLeveraging on her previous profession as a social worker, LAM Tze-yan has been a litigator mostly in family and personal injuries cases since joining ONC Lawyers in 1995 (then under its former name). Apart from lawyering, she has taught law for social workers in university for over ten years and continues to find the law and society to be most engaging and stimulating.

李展鵬柯伍陳律師事務所律師，保險及人身傷亡部門主管

李展鵬律師是保險及人身傷亡部門主管。

他專門處理人身傷亡及與保險有關的訴

訟。他在代表申索人及保險公司處理僱員

補償及人身傷亡索償方面經驗豐富，亦會

就各類保單爭議提供法律意見，包括汽車

第三者風險保單、僱員補償保單、建築工

程綜合風險保單及公眾責任保單等。

林子絪柯伍陳律師事務所律師，資深顧問律師

自1995年加入柯伍陳律師事務所以來，林子

絪律師一直運用過往擔任社會工作者的知識和

經驗，主要處理家事及人身傷亡案件的訴訟工

作。除了律師工作，林律師還在大學向社會工

作者講授法律超過十年到現在，並一直熱心投

入和積極參與法律與社會事務。

CONTRIBUTORS投稿者

www.hk-lawyer.org 9

Mark ParsonsHogan Lovells, Partner Mark is a Commercial IP/IT Partner in Hogan Lovells’ Hong Kong office. His practice has focused on strategic corporate-commercial and regulatory work in the technology, media and telecommunications sectors, including TMT-focused mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, restructurings and IPOs and outsourcing and technology development and licensing arrangements. Mark also advises on brand and media licensing, e-commerce, franchising and distribution arrangements and on the intellectual property and information technology aspects of mergers and acquisitions, restructurings and other corporate transactions. Mark is also a leading expert on Asia region telecommunications and data privacy regulation.

Montse FerrerClifford Chance, Associate Montse Ferrer is a Registered Foreign Lawyer in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution department of Clifford Chance’s Hong Kong office. She specialises in the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and US sanctions, regulatory and internal investigations, anti-corruption and anti-money laundering compliance and investment arbitration. She previously worked in the Singapore, Moscow and New York offices of Clifford Chance.

She holds a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia University and a Juris Doctor from Cornell Law School.

柏雅盛霍金路偉律師行合夥人

柏雅盛律師為霍金路偉律師行香港辦事處

的商業知識產權/資訊科技部合夥人。他

專為技術、媒體及電訊行業(TMT)提供策

略性的公司商業和監管工作，包括TMT為

主的併購、合資、重組和首次公開招股，

以及外判、技術開發及發牌安排。他亦會

就品牌及媒體發牌、電子商務、特許經營

及分銷安排，以及就併購、重組及其他公

司交易上的知識產權及資訊科技事宜等，

提供法律意見。此外，柏律師亦是亞洲地

區電訊及資料私隱法例的頂尖專家。

Montse Ferrer高偉紳律師行律師

Montse Ferrer為高偉紳律師行香港辦事處

訴訟及爭議解決部的註冊外地律師。她專

門從事美國《反海外腐敗法》及美國制裁

事宜、監管和內部調查、反貪腐和反清洗

黑錢的合規事宜，以及投資仲裁。她曾在

高偉紳律師行的新加坡、莫斯科和紐約的

辦事處工作。

她持有哥倫比亞大學文學學士學位及康奈

爾大學法學院法律博士學位。

Wendy WysongClifford Chance, PartnerWendy Wysong leads the Asia Pacific Anti-Corruption Practice for Clifford Chance in Hong Kong and Washington, DC. She offers advice and representation on compliance and enforcement under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), as well as other international trade laws. Wendy combines her experience as a former federal prosecutor in DC for 16 years with her regulatory background as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, at the Department of Commerce. She has been appointed as a Monitor by both the US Department of Justice and the US Department of State. She is the Hong Kong Representative for TRACE International, a non-profit anti-corruption body. Chambers Asia writes, “Anti-corruption practitioner Wendy Wysong lends the team a keen edge on the anti-corruption scene and is hailed by peers as a FCPA specialist par excellence. She is seen as “a leading expert with a huge depth of experience.”

Sherman YanONC Lawyers, Managing Partner Prior to joining ONC Lawyers, Sherman practised with an international law firm from its Hong Kong office, handling a wide range of shipping and logistics matters. As the Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution at ONC Lawyers, Sherman frequently handles all types of complex commercial disputes, especially those involving listed company shareholders, as well as investigations, disciplinary hearings and prosecutions relating to the Securities and Futures Ordinance, in addition to his shipping practice.

Wendy Wysong高偉紳律師行合夥人

Wendy Wysong律師為高偉紳律師行亞太區

反貪腐業務負責人，常駐香港和美國華盛頓

特區。她就美國《反海外腐敗法》(FCPA)及

其他國際貿易法的合規及執行事宜提供法律

意見和擔任法律代表。Wendy將自己出任華

盛頓特區聯邦檢察官16年的經驗，與在美國

商務部出任出口執行(Export Enforcement)副

助理部長的監管背景結合一起，融匯貫通。

她曾獲美國司法部和美國國務院委任為監

察員，現為非牟利反貪腐機構TRACE Intern

ational的香港代表。《ChambersAsia》曾寫

道，「從事反貪腐業務的Wendy Wysong律

師，乃團隊在反貪腐方面的尖鋒，更獲同業

譽為優秀的FCPA專家。她被視為『經驗豐富

的頂尖專家。』」

甄灼寧柯伍陳律師事務所律師主管合夥人

加入柯伍陳律師事務所前，甄灼寧律師曾於一

家國際律師事務所的香港辦事處執業，處理各

類有關船務及物流的訟案。作為柯伍陳律師事

務所訴訟及調解爭議部門主管，除了處理有關

海事訴訟，甄律師也經常處理大量不同類型的

複雜商業訴訟，尤其是涉及上市公司股東爭執

的訴訟與及有關《證券及期貨條例》的調查、

紀律聆訊及檢控等。

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

• January 2015

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE理事會議題

有關《競爭條例》草擬指引的諮詢

競爭事務委員會(下稱「競委會」)根據《競爭條例》

(第619章)(下稱「《條例》」)成立，目的之一是制定

及發表一系列指引，就以下幾方面提供引導：

(a)競委會將如何詮釋及執行第一行為守則、第二行

為守則及合併守則；

(b)向競委會作出投訴的方式及形式；

(c)競委會如何決定是否展開調查的程序，以及進行

調查的程序；及

(d)向競委會申請作出決定或集體豁免命令的方式及

形式。

競委會和通訊事務管理局已草擬好六份相關指引，並

於2014年10月聯合發表，徵詢各界意見。這六份指引

包括三份程序性指引(即有關投訴、調查及集體豁免命

令的指引）及三份實質性指引(即有關第一行為守則、

第二行為守則及合併守則的指引)。這些指引並不是

法例的一部分，對競爭事務審裁處和香港法院並無約

束力，其目的是讓商界及公眾了解競委會將如何執行

《條例》及其審議申請的程序。因此，這些指引對商

界及公眾相當重要。

律師會的競爭法委員會已審議這六份草擬指引並

向競委會提出意見。競爭法委員會對草擬指引提

出多項觀察所得，包括指引建議的程序，及由此

引申的法律問題。意見書全文已上載至以下網

址：http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/

submissions/20141210.pdf。

January 2015 • FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

Consultation on Draft Guidelines under the Competition Ordinance

The Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619) (the “Ordinance”) establishes the Competition Commission (the “Commission”) to, among other things, develop and issue a set of guidelines offering guidance on:

(a) the manner in which the Commission is expected to interpret and give effect to the First Conduct Rule, Second Conduct Rule and Merger Rule;

(b) the manner and form in which complaints are to be made;

(c) the procedures it will follow in deciding whether or not to conduct an investigation and the procedures it will follow in conducting an investigation; and

(d) the manner and form in which the Commission will receive applications for a decision or block exemption order.

The Commission and the Communications Authority has now drafted the above guidelines, and in October 2014 jointly issued six drafts for comment. The six guidelines include three Process Guidelines (on complaints, investigations, application for block exemption orders) and three Substantive Guidelines (on the two Conducts Rules and the Merger Rule). These guidelines are not part of the legislation and they will not bind the Competition Tribunal and courts of Hong Kong in interpreting the Ordinance, but they are intended to inform businesses and the general public as to how the Commission expects to enforce the Ordinance and its processes for considering applications. They are therefore important to the business community and the general public.

The Competition Law Committee of the Law Society has reviewed the six draft guidelines and has provided the Commission with their comments. The Committee has made a number of observations on the drafts, including the procedures envisaged in the guidelines, and the legal issues arising therefrom. The full submissions are available at http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20141210.pdf.

www.hk-lawyer.org 11

DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS紀律裁決


• January 2015

Rule 2(a) and (d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules

Hearing Date: 13 September 2014

Findings and Order: 17 November 2014

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaint against the Respondent proved:

Breaches of Rule 2(a) and (d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules, in that the Respondent, formerly a solicitor of Messrs. Peter Lau & Co. (a closed firm), was convicted in District Court Criminal Case No. 1047 of 2009 of one count of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Common Law and punishable under s. 159C(6) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) and was sentenced to a total of 4 years’ imprisonment.

The Tribunal ordered that:

(1) The Respondent be struck off from the roll of solicitors.

(2) The costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the Clerk and the costs of the Society in the investigation of this matter, be paid by the Respondent, such costs to be taxed if not agreed on the party and party basis.

Miss Cynthia Yen, In-House Prosecutor, for the Applicant

The Respondent, through his solicitors Messrs. Tsangs, made written submissions in mitigation and costs but was absent at the hearing

Mr. Patrick Hui Man Kit, Clerk to the Tribunal

Tribunal Members:Mr. Charles William AllenMr. Henry Fung Chi ManMs. Margaret Ip Tin

Lau Kam Ying (the “Respondent”) 劉錦瑩 (下稱「答辯人」)

《律師執業規則》第2(a)及(d)條規則

聆訊日期：

2014年9月13日

裁斷及命令：

2014年11月17日

律師紀律審裁組裁斷以下對答辯人作出的申訴證明屬實：

答辯人為劉錦瑩律師行（已結業）前律師，在區域法院刑事案

件2009年第1047號，被裁定一項串謀欺詐罪罪成，違反普通

法並可根據《刑事罪行條例》（第200章）第159C(6)條予以

懲處，被判監禁共四年，因而違反《律師執業規則》第2(a)及

(d)條規則。

審裁組命令：

(1)將答辯人從律師登記冊上剔除。

(2)答辯人須支付此等法律程序的訴訟費，包括審裁組書記的

事務費及律師會調查此事的事務費，若未能就金額達成協

議，則須按訴訟各方對評基準評定。

內部檢控人員嚴坤穎律師代表申請人

答辯人透過其代表律師曾約瑟律師行就求情理由及事務費作出

書面陳詞，但缺席聆訊

審裁組書記許文傑律師

審裁組成員：

CharlesWilliamAllen先生

馮志文先生

田葉碧瑤女士

January 2015 • DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決


Rule 2(a), (c) and (d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules

Hearing Date: 4 October 2014

Findings and Order: 20 November 2014

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaint against the Respondent proved:

Breaches of Rule 2(a), (c) and (d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules in that the Respondent, formerly a partner of Messrs. K&L Gates, was convicted of two counts of fraud, contrary to s. 16A of the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210) and one count of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to ss. 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) in High Court Criminal Case No. 57 of 2013 and was sentenced to a total of twelve (12) years’ imprisonment, as the conduct in committing these offences was unbefitting of a solicitor.

The Tribunal ordered that:

(1) The name of the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

(2) The costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the Clerk to the Tribunal and the costs of the Law Society of Hong Kong in the investigation, be borne and paid by the Respondent on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not agreed.

Miss Cynthia Yen, In-House Prosecutor, for the Applicant

The Respondent in person, being absent

Mr. Iu Ting Kwok, Clerk to the Tribunal

Tribunal Members:Mr. Lam Wing Wo, ChairmanMr. Albert BuxProfessor Albert Lee

Navin Kumar Aggarwal (the “Respondent”) Navin Kumar Aggarwal (下稱「答辯人」)

《律師執業規則》第2(a)、(c)及(d)條規則

聆訊日期：

2014年10月4日

裁斷及命令：

2014年11月20日

律師紀律審裁組裁斷以下對答辯人作出的申訴證明屬實：

答辯人為前高蓋茨律師事務所合夥人，在高等法院刑事案件

2013年第57號，被裁定兩項欺詐罪罪成，違反《盜竊罪條

例》（第210章）第16A條，以及一項處理已知道或相信為代

表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產罪罪成，違反《有組織及嚴重罪

行條例》（第455章）第25(1)及(3)條，被判監禁共12年，因

而違反《律師執業規則》第2(a)、(c)及(d)條規則，而觸犯該

等罪行的行為與律師身份不符。

審裁組命令：

(1)將答辯人的姓名從律師登記冊上剔除。

(2)答辯人須按訴訟各方對評基準承擔及支付此等法律程序的

事務費，包括審裁組書記的事務費及律師會調查此事的訴

訟費，若未能就金額達成協議，則有待評定。

內部檢控人員嚴坤穎律師代表申請人

答辯人無律師代表，缺席聆訊

審裁組書記姚定國律師

審裁組成員：

林永和先生(主席)

石偉明先生

李大拔教授

FROM THE SECRETARIAT律師會秘書處資訊 Ms. Heidi Chu, Secretary General

秘書長朱潔冰律師

2014年是悲喜交集的一年，時而充滿希望，時

而氣餒躊躇；時而進展長足，時而裏足不前；時而團結

齊心，時而意見迥異。

本文將從秘書處的角度分享過去一年的難忘點滴。

(a)滋擾事件

在律師會工作從來沒有沉悶枯燥這回事。本會辦事處對

外開放，各界人士皆能前來。有時，他們可能會以不尋

常的方式來表達自己的感受。最能說明情況可以有多戲

劇性的，莫過於以下事例：有一名市民攜著一堆紙錢衝

進接待處，繼而把紙幣撤到地上，喃喃唸著誹謗字句，

然後摔門而去。為了保護我們的員工，我們隨即在接待

處安裝了閉路電視。

(b)行政挑戰

秘書處在舉辦大型活動方面經驗豐富。吸引2,000多人

參加的律師會年度重點活動「青Teen講場」便是很好

的例子。但對秘書處來說，於2014年8月籌辦律師會特

別會員大會才是真正的挑戰。大會於灣仔一所體育館召

開，雖然地點和容納人數(約2,000)符合我們的要求，

但場館的設施和布局適合舉行體育活動多於會議。因

此，場館欠缺許多一般會議場地具備的功能，例如可供

登記和排隊的寬敞大堂、便利討論進行的良好音效、供

點算選票的額外房間等等。儘管有這些不足，我們的團

隊仍孜孜不倦地克服各項挑戰，確保採取適當的措施，

令會議能順利進行。

(c)豐碩成果

我們在2002年對海外律師資格考試(下稱「資格考試」)

進行了全面檢討。跟參與立法過程的各界人士進行多年

討論和磋商後，修訂資格考試的《2014年海外律師(認

許資格)(修訂)規則》已於2014年通過，並於2015年1

月開始生效。有關修訂將適用於由2015年起舉行的資

格考試。對於資格考試的檢討終於取得成果，我們深感

欣慰。另外，我們還有一些法例修訂建議陸續推出，冀

立法過程整體上可以加快。

The year 2014 has been one of contradictory joy; there were times of hope and despair, progress and deadlock, unity and dissent.

Let us share some of the memorable events in the past year from the perspective of the Secretariat.

(a) Nuisance

Life at the Law Society is never dull. Our offices are open to the public from all walks of life. Sometimes, they may act in an unusual way in an attempt to express their emotions. One incident that best illustrates how theatrical it can be was when a member of the public stormed into the reception area with a pile of hell money. He threw the paper money on the floor, muttered some defamatory slogans and then stormed out. To protect our staff, we have since installed CCTV at the reception area.

(b) Administrative Challenge

The Secretariat has a lot of experience in organising large-scale functions. One good example is our annual signature event, Teen Talk, which attracts over 2,000 participants. However, organising the Law Society EGM in August 2014 was also a real challenge for the Secretariat. The meeting was held at a stadium in Wan Chai. While the location and the capacity (around 2,000) fit our requirement, the facilities and layout of the venue were more suited for sport activities than for meetings. As a result, the stadium lacked many features that our usual meeting venues would have, such as a more spacious lobby to allow registration and queuing, good acoustics to facilitate engaging discussions, extra rooms for vote counting and so on. Despite these shortcomings, our team worked tirelessly to overcome these challenges, and ensured that the appropriate measures were in place to facilitate a smooth meeting.

(c) Fruition

A comprehensive review on the Overseas Lawyers Qualification Examination (“OLQE”) was conducted in 2002. After years of discussions and negotiations with various quarters that were involved in the legislative process, the amendments to the OLQE via the Overseas Lawyers (Qualification for Admission) (Amendment) Rules 2014 were passed in 2014 and came into operation on 2 January 2015. The amendments will apply to the OLQEs to be held from 2015 onwards. We are very pleased that the OLQE review has finally come to fruition and hope that in general, the legislative process can be expedited as we still have a number of legislative amendment proposals in the pipeline.


• January 2015

January 2015 • FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

Members (with or without practising certificate)

Members with practising certificate

Trainee Solicitors

Registered foreign lawyers

Hong Kong law firms

Registered foreign law firms

Civil Celebrants

Reverse Mortgage Counsellors

Solicitor Advocates

9,398

8,257

900

1,376

835

79

1,942

387

24

9,398

8,257

900

1,376

835

79

1,942

387

24

會員(持有或不持有執業證書)

持有執業證書的會員

實習律師

註冊外地律師

香港律師行

註冊外地律師行

婚姻監禮人

安老按揭輔導法律顧問

訟辯律師

Profile of the Profession — Updated StatisticsThe Secretariat keeps a record of relevant statistics with regard to the profile of the profession, and from time to time, we receive requests from members for updates on these statistics. For those interested in obtaining such information, do keep an eye out for this section (as of the end of November 2014):

業界最新統計資料

律師會會員不時要求秘書處提供與業界有關的統計資

料。下列是一些最新的業界統計數字(截至2014年11

月底)：

Executive Committee of IILACE 2014/15

2014/15年度國際法律協會首長學會執行委員會。

Participants of the 2014 IILACE Annual Conference.

2014年國際法律協會首長學會周年大會的與會者。

(d) MemoriesWhen the Risk Management Education (“RME”) Programme was first launched in 2004, the Secretariat, and in particular, our in house RME tutor, was under tremendous pressure from members’ resistance against the introduction of this mandatory Programme. Time flies and it has been a decade since then. In 2014, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the launch of the Programme. It brought back memories of the difficult times that we faced at the beginning and the challenges that we have overcome throughout the years. We are proud that the effort of our RME team is reflected in the positive feedback we have received on the Programme.

(e) FrustrationWe have been working hard in pushing for the implementation of limited liability partnerships (“LLPs”). Every quarter involved in the legislative process is acutely aware of the expectation and is keen to have it completed as soon as possible. Notwithstanding the time pressure, the need to consult thoroughly and address all comments raised cannot be ignored. It is frustrating that our aim to implement LLPs in 2014 could not be fulfilled, but this task will continue to be our top priority.

Finally, not so much as a memorable event, but by way of reporting, the Secretariat is keeping abreast of the issues affecting law societies and bar associations around the world via its membership of the International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives (“IILACE”).

(d)歷歷回憶

風險管理教育計劃(下稱「計劃」)在2004年首次推出

時，會員大力反對引入這項強制性計劃，令秘書處及

尤其律師會內部的風險管理導師受到莫大壓力。時光

荏苒，計劃推出距今已有十載。2014年，我們慶祝

計劃推出十周年。這令我們回想起當初面對的艱難時

刻，以及我們在過去多年來克服了的種種挑戰。值得

自豪的是，大家對計劃的正面回響，充分反映本會風

險管理教育團隊所付出的努力。

(e)目標落空

我們一直致力推動落實有限法律責任合夥。各個有份

參與相關立法過程的界別，都非常明白外界的期望，

希望立法盡快完成。縱然時間緊迫，我們亦不能不進

行徹底諮詢及處理各方的意見。令人沮喪的是，我們

希望在2014年落實有限法律責任合夥的目標無法達

成，但這項工作將仍然是我們的首要任務。

最後，與其說是難忘事情，不如說是工作匯報。秘書

處正透過作為國際法律協會首長學會的成員身份，密

切留意影響世界各地律師團體的議題。



• January 2015

“The new Companies Ordinance provides a modern legal framework for the incorporation and operation of companies in Hong Kong, thus enhancing the competitiveness of Hong Kong as a place to do business.”


January 2015 • COVER STORY 封面專題

By Cynthia G. Claytor


Ada ChungFace to Face with

Ada Chung, Registrar of Companies, talks about the Companies Registry’s vision and goals for 2015, and shares the ways in which the new Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) and the Rewrite Exercise have strengthened Hong Kong’s status as an international commercial and financial centre.

Registrar of Companies

As the head of the Companies Registry (“CR“), Ada Chung is responsible for the overall management and operation of

the department in delivering its services and administering and enforcing the provisions of the ordinances under the CR’s purview.

Since Ms. Chung took up the post of the Registrar of Companies in 2007, she has been heavily involved in the Rewrite project of the Companies Ordinance. In addition to discussing the impact of the new Companies Ordinance, she also shares how the CR plans to continue providing company registration services to the satisfaction of members of the public in 2015.

How does the CR plan to further its vision of achieving world-wide recognition and providing quality service in 2015?To further its vision, the CR has been introducing electronic services since February 2005. In 2005, we launched our electronic search services – at present over 99 percent of company searches are conducted online. We also introduced electronic incorporation service at e-Registry (www.eregistry.gov.hk) in 2011 and electronic filing services for the submission of the more commonly filed statutory

returns in 2012. Since June 2012, we started providing company search services on a mobile platform (the CR’s Company Search Mobile Service (the “CSMS”)).

To improve the efficiency of filing, our aim is to implement a full scale of electronic filing services in the first quarter of 2015, whereby all local companies and registered non-Hong Kong companies may submit all forms specified under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) (the “new CO”) and the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) for registration anytime and anywhere by logging on to our e-Registry portal.

On transparency and accessibility of data, we are working on implementing a full range of e-search services on the mobile platform by the end of 2015. At the moment, about 6,000 searches are done on average through the mobile platform daily.

On 19 December 2014, we launched two new CSMS search functions so that users can obtain the latest information relating to company directors and disqualified persons. The Directors Index Search is a payable search service that allows users to conduct a company-based, director-based or director particulars search. The


• January 2015

Disqualification Orders Index Search is a free search service that provides users with a list of names of all individuals and corporate bodies who/which are currently disqualified by the court from acting as directors or taking up other specified offices.

The new e-services not only facilitate the reporting and disclosure of company information but also deliver efficiencies and help reduce compliance costs for companies and document presentors. This helps enhance the transparency of company information for timely business decisions and strengthens Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a business centre.

Internationally, the CR is a member and the Treasurer of the Corporate Registers Forum. Our city has also been ranked eighth out of 189 economies by the World Bank in the category of Starting a Business in World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Report 2015.

companies imposed under the predecessor Companies Ordinance, the new CO now additionally requires every private company to have at least one natural person to act as director. The aim of this restriction on the appointment of corporate directors was to enhance corporate transparency and accountability. To provide guidance to directors on their duties under the law, the new CO contains a statutory statement to clarify the standard of director’s duty of care, skill and diligence.

With the aim of providing greater transparency and improving disclosure of company information, we introduced new requirements for public companies, large private companies and large guarantee companies to prepare a more analytical and forward looking business review as part of the directors’ report.

To foster shareholder protection, we introduced more effective rules to deal with directors’ conflicts of interest. We also now require disinterested shareholders’ approval in cases where shareholders’ approval is required for transactions of public companies and their subsidiaries. We introduced a provision to empower an auditor to require a wider range of persons to provide information or explanations that are reasonably required for auditors to perform their duties. We have also extended the scope of the unfair prejudice remedy to cover proposed acts and omissions.

We are pleased to note that the World Bank has commended our efforts to strengthen minority investor protections – under the new CO we now require directors to provide more detailed disclosure of conflicts of interest. Our global ranking in protecting minority investors has jumped from third place last year to second this year.

Apart from enhancing corporate governance, another main objective of the Rewrite is to facilitate business operation and cater for the needs

What are the CR’s key initiatives or primary goals for 2015?The Registry will continue to promote and explain the provisions of the new CO, both locally and internationally, through our contacts with professional bodies, overseas registries, the Government’s Economic and Trade Offices outside Hong Kong and the World Bank. We will also continue to provide useful information to all stakeholders by updating our website and issuing external circulars whenever necessary.

In addition to implementing full scale electronic filing services at the e-Registry and further enhancing our CSMS, we have initiated a Departmental Information Technology Planning (“DITP”) project and an overall review of the existing IT infrastructure and business operations, which will be conducted this year. Through the review, we hope to identify appropriate information system strategies and IT projects which are necessary for the Registry to meet its business and operational needs moving forward. The DITP project is expected to be completed in 2016.

Can you talk about the ways the new CO has strengthened Hong Kong’s status as an international commercial and financial centre?The Rewrite seeks to produce a modernised piece of company law and introduce a new corporate regulatory regime. The major objectives of the Rewrite are to enhance corporate governance, ensure better regulation, facilitate business and modernise the law. The new CO provides a modern legal framework for the incorporation and operation of companies in Hong Kong, thus enhancing the competitiveness of Hong Kong as a place to do business.

To enhance corporate governance we introduced a host of new initiatives. On top of the restriction on corporate directorship in respect of all public



of SMEs. The new CO simplifies the procedures for starting a business in Hong Kong by removing the memorandum of association and the mandatory requirement of having a common seal. Companies that meet specified size criteria are allowed to prepare simplified financial statements and directors’ reports. Companies may dispense with the holding of annual general meetings (“AGMs”) by obtaining unanimous members’ consent. We have also introduced an alternative court-free procedure for reducing capital based on a solvency test and have expanded the scope of companies that may purchase their own shares out of capital to all companies (rather than just private companies as was the case under the predecessor ordinance), subject to a solvency test. There are also provisions for a new court-free statutory amalgamation procedure for wholly owned intra-group companies.

How did the implementation of the new CO change the scope of your duties or the operational structure of the CR? Was any particular division of the CR affected more than others?The new CO has prescribed new roles and functions for the Registry as a whole. Thus we have introduced new services to achieve the new CO’s objectives.

To facilitate business, we administer a new statutory procedure for the amalgamation of wholly-owned companies within a group, as an alternative to court proceedings. We also administer a new administrative procedure to restore companies that have been struck off the register.

To enhance transparency of company information, we administer new statutory filing requirements, including statements of capital, notices of redenomination of share capital and notices of conversion of stock into shares, among other things. We also administer an entirely new

system for registration of charges, with the entire charge documents available for public inspection.

To ensure better regulation, we exercise statutory powers to safeguard the integrity of the Companies Register, including powers to rectify typographical or clerical errors, make annotations and require a company to resolve any inconsistency or provide updated information. We also exercise new powers to compound specified offences and powers to obtain documents, records and information for the enforcement of specified provisions under the new CO. Additionally, we enforce new filing requirements and have devised a new system to enforce the requirement that companies must have natural persons acting as directors.

Given the new powers of the Registrar under the new CO, we have set up a new Inspection Unit in our Enforcement Section to reinforce our capacity on this front.

The Registry has spared no efforts to ensure smooth transition to the new regime. We will continue with our efforts to administer and enforce the provisions of the new CO and deliver quality public services to facilitate business.

What aspects of the new CO coming into effect did you believe would be the most challenging (eg, for the CR, companies, directors)? What changes actually proved to be the most challenging? Any surprises? For companies, the requirement for a business review as part of the directors’ report for those that do not qualify for reporting exemption is something new. This new provision may require companies and their directors to pay more attention to the preparation of the business review, as it must contain, inter alia, information relating to environmental and employee matters

that have a significant effect on the company.

For company directors, the threshold for prosecuting a breach or contravention of statutory provisions has been lowered to cover reckless acts through the new definition of “responsible person”. In the past, the prosecution had the burden of proving wilful conduct on the part of a company’s director.

Directors of guarantee companies should pay particular attention to the requirements under the new CO as guarantee companies now form a separate category of companies. They are generally treated in the same way as public companies (eg, they are required to file financial statements together with the annual return).

The other more controversial issues include the abolition of the headcount test for schemes of arrangements and the introduction of a new criminal offence in relation to inaccurate auditor’s reports. Specifically, on the headcount test, through active engagement with stakeholders and balancing their views, the Administration was able to formulate a proposal that not only served our policy objective but also was agreeable to the Legislative Council.

What practical issues have come about as the result of the new CO (eg, for the CR, companies, directors)?A lot of questions have been raised, either with us directly or at the seminars or presentations given by us, about the abolition of the par value, the first financial year under the new CO, the concept of the primary accounting reference date, the eligibility for reporting exemption and the dispensation with the holding of AGMs. We handled over 60,000 enquiries on the new legislation from January to August 2014. With more explanation on these technical concepts, it seems they are not posing any great difficulties to companies.


• January 2015

In light of enquiries on the display of the name of a company with bilingual names throughout the early months of the implementation of the new CO, we issued an External Circular (Ref.: CR External Circular No. 13/2014) in July 2014 to clarify the matter.

Has the new compound offer regime enabled the CR to focus its resources on more serious defaults as hoped?With the introduction of the compound offer regime in relation to some simple and straightforward filing offences, the CR has been able to devote more resources to step up our enforcement efforts for other non-filing offences (eg, prosecution for failure to display the company’s registered name, provision of false information, failure to hold AGMs and failure to lay accounts before AGMs). Recently, we have issued 83 summonses in a case against 11 related companies and their directors for failures to hold and to lay accounts before AGMs.

The Companies Ordinance Rewrite was a massive undertaking, both for you personally and for the CR – what did you learn from the process?The Rewrite has been a tremendous challenge for all involved. Good planning and teamwork are vital to a project of such magnitude. A useful piece of advice to anyone undertaking legislative reform is to involve stakeholders at an early stage so as to understand their needs and the potential difficulties that may arise. Continuous consultation throughout the process is also important.

Another key take-away was the benefits of publicity campaigns. Publicity on the new provisions helped to minimise misunderstandings of the concepts and the underlying policy intentions. For the Rewrite, we have carried out a large-scale publicity campaign to promote the new CO. We set up a dedicated thematic

section on the Registry’s website (www.cr.gov.hk) to provide comprehensive information on the new legislation. We also set up a dedicated hotline for public enquiries and conducted over 70 seminars or briefings on the new legislation.

Any recent developments or anticipated changes on the horizon with respect to any other ordinances the CR is responsible for administering? The Administration has recently completed a reform of the trust law and brought the Trust Law (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 into operation on 1 December 2013. The Amendment Ordinance bolsters the competitiveness of Hong Kong’s trust services industry and attracts settlors to set up trusts in Hong Kong, in turn enhancing Hong Kong’s status as an international asset management centre. In particular, the Amendment Ordinance gives Hong Kong a competitive edge over the other major common law jurisdictions by enabling settlors to establish perpetual trusts in Hong Kong.

As for the other ordinances administered by the CR, the operation of the provisions of the ordinances has been very smooth. We will keep in view the operation of the ordinances to ensure that they meet with the changing needs of the society.

Companies legislation doesn’t stand still – how do you see the law developing in the future in Hong Kong and how would you like to see it develop?Given the ever changing business environment, we are keeping a close eye on the implementation of the new CO. More importantly, we will also continue to listen to stakeholders and the business community on how our regime could be further improved to enhance corporate governance and facilitate business.

Meanwhile, the Administration has

introduced a bill to implement an uncertificated securities regime in Hong Kong, and conducted a public consultation on a regime for open-ended fund companies in Hong Kong.

In the Rewrite, we leveraged the experience of other jurisdictions. I believe the development of companies legislation in comparable jurisdictions will continue to feature in any review in this area. In parallel, I also believe that it is important to have a piece of law which takes into account local conditions. In this respect, we are pleased to note that we are ahead of major jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and Australia in abolishing the headcount test.

To cite another example, on director’s duties, the new CO contains a statutory statement to clarify the duty of care, skill and diligence of directors. In other comparable jurisdictions (eg, United Kingdom and Australia), directors’ duties have been fully codified. From our consultations, the Hong Kong market is not ready for that, but it might be worthwhile to revisit the issue in the longer run.

Since your appointment in 2007, what have been the most challenging and the most rewarding aspects about performing as the Registrar?I would say the most challenging and the most rewarding aspect is the rewrite of the Companies Ordinance. It has been a mammoth project. The entire project took 6 years to complete for the principal legislation and another year for the 12 pieces of subsidiary legislation. I am very proud, and honoured, to have been involved as a key player throughout the process. I believe that we are making history, and I am really pleased that our efforts are commended by the World Bank and other international organisations.



Do you have any particular message for solicitors in Hong Kong?I must express my heartfelt thanks to those members of the profession who contributed during the Rewrite process, whether as members of the Standing Committee on Company Law Reform, or our dedicated Advisory Groups, those who gave advice to us on specific issues or who simply wrote to us or made representations at the LegCo Bills Committee. We are truly indebted to them for all of their valuable contributions and expert advice. I sincerely believe that with the benefit of the expert advice from practitioners, we have managed to produce a piece of legislation which not only works, but also achieves the underlying legislative intent. n

公司註冊處處長鍾麗玲女士講述公司註冊處的理念

和2015年的目標，並分享新《公司條例》(第622章)

及重寫工作如何鞏固香港作為國際商業和金融中心

的地位。

「新《公司條例》為在香港成立及

營運的公司提供了現代化的法律框

架，從而加強香港作為營商地的競

爭力。」

專訪


作者 Cynthia G. Claytor


• January 2015

作為公司註冊處的部門首長，鍾麗

玲女士掌管整個部門，負責帶領

部門運作，以提供公司註冊處的各項服

務，並執行與實施屬該處權限範圍內有關

法律條例的條文。

自2007年就任公司註冊處處長以來，鍾

女士一直積極參與重寫《公司條例》的工

作。除談論新《公司條例》帶來的影響

外，她亦會在訪問中分享公司註冊處如何

計劃在2015年繼續提供令公眾滿意的公

司登記服務。

公司註冊處計劃在2015年如何進一步實現「受世界認同，提供優質服務」的理念？

為了進一步實現理念，公司註冊處自

2005年2月起已開始引入電子化服務。

我們於2005年推出電子查冊服務 - 目前

有超過99%的公司查冊是在網上進行。

我們亦於2011年推出「註冊易」(www.

eregistry.gov.hk)電子成立公司服務，並

於2012年引入電子提交文件服務，方

便用戶以電子方式提交較常用的法定申

報表。自2012年6月開始，我們在流動

平台提供公司查冊服務(即公司註冊處的

公司查冊流動版服務)(下稱「流動版服

務」)。

為了提高提交文件的效率，我們力求在

2015年第一季全面實施以電子方式提

交文件的服務，所有本地公司及註冊非

香港公司，屆時可隨時隨地登入「註冊

易」入門網站，就《公司條例》(第622

章)(下稱「新《公司條例》」)及《公司

(清盤及雜項條文)條例》(第32章)的規定

所指明的所有需要註冊的表格，以電子

方式進行登記。

我們亦預期在2015年底前全面實施在流

動平台上的電子查冊服務，令公司資料更

具透明度和更方便查閱。現時透過流動平

台進行的查冊，平均每日約6,000宗。

2014年12月19日，公司查冊流動版服務

推出兩項新查冊功能，令查冊人士能夠取

得有關公司董事和被取消資格人士的最新

資料。「查閱董事索引」屬收費查冊服

務，查冊人士可以公司資料查閱、以董事

資料查閱，或者查閱有關董事資料。「查

閱取消資格令索引」屬免費查冊服務，查

冊人士可取得現時被法院取消擔任董事或

其他指明職位資格的人士的姓名和法團名

稱的名單。

新電子服務不僅利便公司資料的申報和披

露，而且提高效率，有助降低公司和文件

提交人的合規成本。這項服務增加公司資

料的透明度，以便利公眾作出適時的商業

決定，並加強香港作為商業中心的競爭

力。

在國際方面，公司註冊處是「公司註冊論

壇」的成員和司庫。在世界銀行的2015

年全球營商環境報告中，香港於「開辦企

業」組別在189個經濟體系中排名第八。

公司註冊處2015年的主要新猷

或首要目標是什麼？

公司註冊處將透過與專業團體、海外註冊

處、政府駐外經濟貿易辦事處及世界銀行

的聯繫，繼續在香港和國際間推廣和解釋

新《公司條例》的條文。我們亦會繼續更

新我們的網站及在有需要時發出對外通

告，向所有持份者提供適切的資訊。

除了全面實施「註冊易」電子提交文件服

務及進一步提升公司查冊流動版服務外，

我們亦開展了「部門資訊科技規劃」的項

目，並將於今年全面檢討現行的資訊科技

基礎設施及業務運作。我們希望透過是項

檢討，確定合適的資訊系統策略及資訊科

技項目，以應付本處日後在業務及運作上

的需要。預計「部門資訊科技規劃」將於

2016年完成。

你可否講述新《公司條例》如

何鞏固香港作為國際商業及金

融中心的地位？

重寫《公司條例》旨在制訂現代化的公司

法例，引入一套新的企業監管制度。重寫

的主要目的，是要加強企業管治、確保規

管更為妥善、方便營商及使公司法例現代

化。新《公司條例》為在香港成立及營運

的公司提供了現代化的法律框架，從而加

強香港作為營商地的競爭力。

為了加強企業管治，我們推出了許多新

猷，除了保留前身《公司條例》禁止所有

公眾公司由法人團體擔任董事的限制外，

新《公司條例》現更規定每家私人公司最

少須有一名董事為自然人。限制委任法

人團體為董事，旨在增加企業透明度及提

高問責性。我們也釐清了董事有責任以謹

慎、技巧及努力行事的標準，為董事在法

例下的責任提供指引。

為了提供更大的透明度和改善公司資料的

披露，我們定下新規定，要求公眾公司、

大型的私人公司及大型的擔保公司須在董

事報告內，擬備更具分析性和前瞻性的「

業務審視」。

為了加強對股東的保障，我們引入了更有

效的規則來處理董事的利益衝突。我們亦

規定，若公眾公司及其附屬公司的交易須

獲得股東批准，則須取得無利益關係的股

東批准。我們還引入新條文，賦權核數師

可要求更多不同人士，提供核數師為履行

職責而合理地需要的資料或解釋。我們

更擴大了不公平損害補救的範圍，以涵蓋

「擬作出或不作出的作為」。

我們欣悉，世界銀行讚揚我們加強保障小

股東投資者方面所付出的努力 - 根據新

《公司條例》，董事現須更詳細披露有

關利益衝突的資料。香港在保障小股東投

資者方面的排名，由2014年全球排名第

三，到2015年擢升至第二位。

除了加強企業管治外，重寫《公司條例》

的另一主要目的，是方便營商以及照顧中

小企的需要。新《公司條例》廢除組織章

程大綱及使用法團印章的強制規定，從而

簡化了在香港開辦企業的程序。新條例容

許符合指定規模準則的公司擬備簡明財務

報表和簡明董事報告。公司可在取得股東

一致同意的情況下無須舉行周年成員大

會。我們也就減少股本引入了以償付能

力測試作為依據的不經法院程序，作為另

一選擇，並准許所有類型的公司(而非如

前身《公司條例》所規定，只准許私人公



司)如通過償付能力測試從資本中撥款購

買本身股份。新《公司條例》還引入新

訂立的不經法院的法定合併程序，以便

同一集團內的全資附屬公司合併。

新《公司條例》的實施如何改變你的職責範圍，又如何改變公司註冊處的運作架構？在公司註冊處轄下各個部門中，是否有個別部門受到較大影響？

新《公司條例》訂明了公司註冊處整體

的新角色和職能。為此，我們推出新服

務，以實現新《公司條例》的目標。

為了方便營商，作為不經法院程序的另

一選擇，我們執行新的法定程序，以便

同一集團內的全資附屬公司合併。我們

亦執行新的行政程序，把被除名的公司

恢復列入公司登記冊內。

為了提高公司資料的透明度，我們執行

提交法定文件的新規定，這些文件包括

股本說明、股本幣值重訂通知書以及將

股額再轉換為股份通知書等。我們亦執

行全新的押記登記制度，供公眾查閱整

份押記文書。

為了確保規管更為妥善，我們行使法定

權力，確保公司登記冊的完整性，該等

權力包括更正排印或文書方面的錯誤、

加上註釋，以及要求公司須解決公司登

記冊上任何互相抵觸之處或提供最新的

資料等。根據新《公司條例》的規定，

我們亦獲賦予新權力，就某些指明罪行

以罰款代替起訴，以及為實施指定條文

而獲賦權取得相關文件、紀錄和資料。

此外，我們亦已實施提交文件的新規

定，並制訂一套新機制，以執行公司必

須有自然人出任董事的規定。

鑒於公司註冊處處長在新《公司條例》

下的新權力，我們在法規執行組轄下新

成立一支巡查小組，以加強執法。

公司註冊處竭力確保持份者順利過渡至

新制度。我們將努力不懈，繼續執行及

實施新《公司條例》中的條文，並向公

眾提供優質服務，方便營商。

你認為新《公司條例》生效後，對公司、董事、公司註冊處等而言，哪一方面最具挑戰？哪些改變事實證明最具挑戰性？

對公司而言，董事報告須包括「業務審

視」在內的規定，對不合資格在提交報告

方面獲豁免的公司來說是新的要求。由於

「業務審視」除其他內容外，還須包含對

公司有重大影響的環境事務和僱員事務資

料，這項新規定或令公司及其董事須更加

倍留意「業務審視」的擬備工作。

對公司董事而言，透過訂定「責任人」的

新定義，現時檢控違反或觸犯法定條文的

門檻已經降低，而其涵蓋範圍亦擴大至包

括魯莽的作為。過往，控方的舉證責任需

證明有關公司董事的作為是故意的行為。

另外，由於擔保有限公司現成為另一類別

公司，因此他們的董事應當特別留意新

《公司條例》下的規定。一般而言，擔保

公司須遵從的規定大致上與公眾公司相同

(例如，他們須一併提交周年申報表與及

財務報表)。

其他較具爭議性的問題包括：廢除安排計

劃的「人數驗證」，以及引入有關失實核

數師報告的新刑事罪行。特別是「人數驗

證」方面，我們透過積極與持份商討及平

衡他們的意見，政府終於制定了能達致政

策目標同時又獲立法會同意的方案。

新《公司條例》帶來什麼實質問題(例如，對公司註冊處、公司、董事而言)？

公眾提出許多問題，有些直接向我們提

出，亦有些是在我們舉辦的研討會或簡報

會上提出，內容大致上都關乎廢除股份面

值、新《公司條例》下公司的首個財政年

度、初始會計參照日的概念、「在提交報

告方面獲豁免」的資格、免除舉行周年成

員大會的準則等。在2014年1月至8月期

間，我們處理了超過60,000宗關於新條

例的查詢。經我們對這些技術性概念加以

解釋後，這些問題看來並沒有為公司帶來

任何鉅大的難題。

新條例實施最初的幾個月，我們接獲不少

查詢，問及雙語名稱的公司展示其中英文

名稱的問題。有鑑於此，我們已於2014

年7月發出對外通告(公司註冊處對外通告

第13/2014號)，藉此釐清有關事宜。

可不予起訴的新機制是否已使公司註冊處一如所願，將其資源集中處理更嚴重的失責行為嗎？

自我們就一些簡單而輕微的提交文件罪行

訂立了可不予起訴的機制後，本處可全

情投放更多資源，對其他非關乎提交文件

的罪行加強執法工作(例如，就公司沒有

展示其註冊名稱、提供虛假資料、沒有舉


• January 2015

行周年成員大會、沒有將帳目在周年成員

大會上提交公司省覽等事宜，提出檢控)

我們最近在一宗個案中，向11間有關連

的公司及其董事發出了83張傳票，因為

該公司沒有舉行周年成員大會，以及沒有

將帳目在周年成員大會上提交公司省覽。

無論對你個人或公司註冊處來

說，重寫《公司條例》實是一

項艱鉅任務。你在過程中有何

心得體會？

重寫《公司條例》的工作對所有參與其事

的人來說，是一項極大的挑戰。計劃得

宜，團隊齊心，是完成這樣一個重大項目

的關鍵所在。我想向肩負起立法改革工作

的人士提供些少意見，就是要在起始階段

讓持份者參與其中，以便盡早了解他們的

需要和有可能出現的困難。在整個過程中

不斷進行諮詢亦相當重要。

另一項體會是宣傳活動的重要性。宣傳工

作有助消除對新條文的概念和相關政策

目的所存在的誤解。就重寫《公司條例》

而言，我們進行了大型宣傳活動以推廣新

《公司條例》。我們在本處網站(www.

cr.gov.hk)設立了新《公司條例》的專題

欄目，提供有關新條例的全面資訊。我

們亦設立了一條查詢專線以解答公眾的查

詢,並舉辦及參與超過70場研討會和簡介

會介紹新法例。

在公司註冊處負責執行的其他條例方面，最近有否新發展或預期會作出修訂？

政府近年完成了信託法改革，而《2013

年信託法律(修訂)條例》(下稱《修訂條

例》)亦於2013年12月1日生效。《修訂

條例》提高香港信託服務業的競爭力，並

吸引財產授予人在香港設立信託，從而提

升香港作為國際資產管理中心的地位。特

別要一提的是，《修訂條例》容許財產授

予人在香港成立永續信託，使香港相對比

其他主要的普通法司法管轄區有較大的競

爭優勢。

至於其他由本處負責執行的條例，實施有

關條文的過程一直都非常順利。我們將繼

續留意該等條例的實施情況，確保該等條

例能切合社會不斷轉變的需要。

公司法例不會總是一成不變 - 你對香港的法律的未來發展有何看法？你期望香港的法律會怎樣發展？

鑑於營商環境不斷轉變，我們正密切注視

新《公司條例》的實施情況。更重要的

是，我們會繼續聆聽持份者及商界的意

見，讓我們知道如何進一步優化我們的制

度，藉以加強企業管治和方便營商。

與此同時，政府已提交了一項法律草案，

以期在香港推行無紙化證券制度，並為在

港引入開放式基金公司一事進行了公眾諮

詢。

重寫《公司條例》期間，我們借鑒了其他

司法管轄區的經驗。我相信，可資比較

的司法管轄區中的公司法發展，會繼續在

這範疇的檢討工作中佔重要部分。同時，

我認為考慮本地情況以制訂法律亦相當

重要。為此，我們欣悉，在廢除「人數驗

證」方面，香港比英國和澳洲等主要司法

管轄區走先一步。

另一例子是，在董事責任方面，新《公司

條例》載有法定陳述，以釐清董事以謹

慎、技巧及努力行事的責任。而其他可資

比較的司法管轄區(例如英國和澳洲)已將

所有董事責任編纂為成文法則。但從我們

的諮詢結果顯示，香港市場對此尚未準備

就緒。然而，長遠來說，有關課題可能值

得再研究。

自2007年上任以來，你在履行處長職責方面最大的挑戰和最大的得著是什麼？

我認為最大的挑戰和最大的得著是重寫

《公司條例》。這項工作非常艱巨，主體

條例的立法工作需時整整六年才得以全部

完成，12條附屬法例的制訂工作又另外

花了一年時間。我能夠參與其中，在整個

過程中擔當主要角色，實在深感自豪及榮

幸。我相信，我們在締造歷史，而我們所

付出的努力得到世界銀行及其他國際組織

讚賞；對此，我實在感到欣慰。

你有甚麼話特別想向香港的律師說？

我謹此衷心感謝在重寫《公司條例》過程

中作出貢獻的業內人士，不論是公司法改

革常務委員會的成員或是專責諮詢小組的

成員、不論是在具體問題上給予我們意見

的人士、直接寫信向我們反映意見、抑或

是在立法會法案委員會會上表達意見的人

士。我們由衷感激他們作出的寶貴貢獻和

專業意見。我誠心相信，憑藉業界給予的

專業意見，我們才得以成功地制訂了一條

不但行之有效，而且能實現背後立法原意的法例。n

LAW SOCIETY NEWS律師會新聞Hong Kong Academy of Law Ms. Elizabeth Mo, Consultant (Legal) of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and former Deputy Principal Solicitor of the Hong Kong Companies Registry (Companies Bill Team), presented a seminar entitled “New Hong Kong Companies Ordinance, Cap. 622” organised by the Academy on 11 October 2014. The seminar attracted over 320 practitioners and supporting staff of law firms.

香港法律專業學會

香港金融管理局顧問(法律)兼前香港公司註冊處公司條例草案專責小

組副首席律師毛慧賢女士，為香港法律專業學會於2014年10月11日

舉辦的「新香港《公司條例》（第622章）」研討會擔任演講嘉賓。

是次研討會吸引逾320名律師及律師行輔助人員參加。


• January 2015

Law Society Annual Cocktail 2014 The Law Society was delighted to play host to over 430 guests at its Annual Cocktail gathering on 17 November 2014. These included the Chief Executive Mr. Leung Chun-Ying, the Hon. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, and the Hon. Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen SC, among other notable luminaries.

2014年律師會周年招待酒會

律師會於2014年11月17日舉行周年招待酒

會，逾430人賞光出席，當中包括行政長官

梁振英先生、終審法院首席法官馬道立先

生、律政司司長袁國強資深大律師，及一眾

知名人士。

Participation in the International Legal Conferences in OctoberInternational Bar Association (“IBA”) Annual Conference The IBA Annual Conference was held in Tokyo this year from 19 to 24 October 2014. Law Society delegates included Vice President Melissa Pang, Immediate Past President Ambrose Lam, as well as Council Members Mr. Denis Brock and Ms. Sylvia Siu, Secretary General Heidi Chu and Standing Committee on External Affairs Member Ms. Nadine Lai. Taking advantage of the occasion of this conference which is one of the largest gatherings in the world of the international legal community, the Law Society hosted a breakfast session jointly with the Korean Bar Association (“KBA”) on 21 October 2014 in Tokyo Kaikan.

The breakfast session had been popularly over-subscribed. Over 250 legal practitioners from around the world attended our breakfast session “Opportunities and Challenges for International Lawyers in the Asian Century: Breaking Barriers, Building Bridges” that morning. Experienced practitioners from China, Hong Kong, Korea and Singapore shared their insights on why the 21st century is the Asian century and what the role of law societies and bar associations will be in facilitating their members to grasp the opportunities and meet the challenges.

“Think Asia, Think Hong Kong”Organised by the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, “Think Asia, Think Hong Kong” was held in Paris and Milan from 28 to 30 October 2014. The Law Society was a supporting organisation of this mega event promoting Hong Kong

(From left) Mr. Ambrose Lam, Immediate Past President of the Law Society; Mr. Jingzhou Tao, Managing Partner of Dechert; Mr. Sitao Xu, Chief Economist and Partner of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu in China; Mr. Chang Rok Woo, Chair of Special Committee on International Relations of KBA; Mr. Vi Ming Lok, President of the Law Society of Singapore; Mr. Chul-Whan We, President of KBA; Ms. Melissa Pang, Vice President of the Law Society; Mr. Frank Poon, Solicitor General of Department of Justice of HKSAR; Ms. Sylvia Siu, Council member of the Law Society; Mr. Young-Il Choi, Vice President of the International Committee of KBA; and Mr. Denis Brock, Council member of the Law Society.

(左起)律師會前會長林新強律師、德杰律師事務所執行合夥人陶景洲律師、德勤中國首席經濟學家兼合夥人許思濤先生、大

韓辯護士協會國際關係特別委員會主席禹昌錄先生、新加坡律師公會會長駱維明先生、大韓辯護士協會會長魏哲煥先生、律

師會副會長彭韻僖律師、香港特別行政區律政司法律政策專員潘英光先生、律師會理事蕭詠儀律師、大韓辯護士協會國際關

係委員會副主席Young-IlChoi先生及律師會理事白樂德律師。

services to potential European clients intending to develop their business in Asia, particularly Mainland China. Law Society delegates included President Stephen Hung, Vice President Melissa Pang, Immediate Past President Ambrose Lam, Past President Huen Wong, as well as Council Member Mr. Joseph Li.

The Law Society set up an on-site consultation booth to field enquiries. Visitors enquired mainly about:1. how to set up a company in Hong Kong;2. arbitration for European companies

doing business in Mainland China;3. patent, copyright and intellectual

property;4. how a foreign lawyer can become

qualified in Hong Kong; and5. the function of the Law Society.

Mr. Wong also acted as a speaker on “Hong Kong: The Gateway for Chinese Outbound Investment”.

出席十月份舉行的國際法律會議國際律師協會周年大會

本年國際律師協會周年大會於2014年10

月19至24日在東京舉行。律師會的代表團

The Law Society’s delegation provided onsite consultation services to visitors at “Think Asia Think Hong Kong” in Paris and Milan.

律師會的代表團在巴黎和米蘭的「邁向亞洲首選香港」活動上為訪者提供現場諮詢服務。

成員包括副會長彭韻僖律師、前會長林新

強律師、理事白樂德律師、理事蕭詠儀律

師、秘書長朱潔冰律師及對外事務常務委

員會委員黎蒑律師。這項會議是國際法律

界最大型的聚會之一，律師會亦藉此機會

與大韓辯護士協會在2014年10月21日假

東京會館合辦早餐會。

早餐研討會廣受歡迎，向隅者眾。當日早

上，逾250名來自世界各地的法律業者出

席名為「國際律師在亞洲世代的機遇與挑

戰：衝破障礙、築建橋樑」早餐研討會。

來自中國內地、香港、韓國和新加坡的資

深律師，就21世紀為何是亞洲的世代，以

及律師協會在協助會員掌握機遇及迎接挑

戰方面擔當甚麼角色，分享灼見。

「邁向亞洲首選香港」

由香港貿易發展局主辦的「邁向亞洲首選

香港」活動於2014年10月28至30日在巴

黎和米蘭舉行。這項大型活動旨在向有意

開拓亞洲市場(特別是中國內地)的歐洲商界

推廣香港的服務，而律師會為這項計劃的

支持機構之一。律師會的代表團成員包括

會長熊運信律師、副會長彭韻僖律師、前

會長林新強律師、前會長王桂壎律師及理

事李超華律師。

律師會於現場設有諮詢攤位回答查詢。主

要查詢為以下各項：

1. 如何在港成立公司；

2. 在內地營商的歐洲企業如何進行仲裁；

3. 專利、版權及知識產權；

4. 外地律師如何在港取得執業資格；及

5. 律師會的職能。

王律師亦為「香港：內地企業投資海外的

門戶」研討會擔任演講嘉賓。


January 2015 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

Law Week 2014With an audience of over 1,000 students and solicitors, the Law Society held the Opening Ceremony of “Law Week 2014” at the AsiaWorld-Expo on 29 November 2014. The Hon. Geoffrey Ma, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal; The Hon. Rimsky Yuen, Secretary for Justice of HKSAR; Mr. Dennis Kwok, Legislative Council Member (Legal Functional Constituency); Mr. Thomas Edward Kwong, Director of Legal Aid; and Mr. Selwyn Yu, Vice President of Hong Kong Bar Association were invited as officiating guests kicking-off the event with Mr. Stephen Hung, President of the Law Society and Ms. Ann Yeung, Chairlady of Law Week 2014 Organising Committee.

Continuing with the aim of educating the general public on common areas of law, the Law Society launched a series of media programmes that delivered useful legal tips covering family, personal injuries, criminal, wills and probate, mediation and legal aid services. The media campaign commenced on 1 December 2014 and continued through the end of the month. This included roller features during the end credits of TVB Jade’s sitcom “Come Home Love” and a sponsored programme on Commercial Radio Channel 1. Furthermore, various practical and interesting legal talks were delivered to different non-governmental

(From left) Ms. Ann Yeung, Chairlady of Law Week 2014 Organising Committee; Mr. Dennis Kwok, Legislative Council Member (Legal Functional Constituency); The Hon. Geoffrey Ma, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal; Mr. Stephen Hung, President of the Law Society; The Hon. Rimsky Yuen, Secretary for Justice of HKSAR; Mr. Thomas Edward Kwong, Director of Legal Aid; and Mr. Selwyn Yu, Vice President of Hong Kong Bar Association.

(左起)「法律周2014」籌委會主席楊慕嫦律師、立法會法律界功能界別議員郭榮鏗大律師、終審法院首席法官馬道立先生、

律師會會長熊運信律師、律政司司長袁國強資深大律師、法律援助署署長鄺寶昌先生及大律師公會副主席余承章資深大

律師。

Officiating guests, Council members, Standing Committee on External Affairs members, distinguished guests, Law Week Organising Committee members and Teen Talk Organising Committee members and over 1,000 students participated in the event.

各主禮嘉賓、理事會成員、對外事務常務委員會成員、嘉賓、「法律周」籌委會成員、「青Teen講埸」籌委會成員及過千名學生參與是次活動。

organisations and secondary schools by the experienced panel speakers of the Law Society.

The success of the Law Week 2014 stemmed from the concerted efforts of a dedicated team led by Ms. Ann Yeung and Ms. Nancy Leung, Chairlady and Vice-Chairlady of the event’s Organising Committee and the continuous support of the Council of the Law Society.

法律周 2014

律師會在2014年11月29日假亞洲國際博

覽館舉行「法律周2014」開幕禮，吸引

過千名學生及律師參加。大會邀請了終審

法院馬道立首席法官、律政司司長袁國強

資深大律師、立法會法律界功能界別議員

郭榮鏗大律師、法律援助署署長鄺寶昌先

生及香港大律師公會副主席余承章資深大

律師擔任主禮嘉賓，與律師會會長熊運信

律師及「法律周2014」籌委會主席楊慕

嫦律師一同為活動揭幕。

為進一步增進普羅市民對常見法律範疇的

認識，律師會推出了一系列媒體節目，傳

遞有關家事訴訟、人身傷亡、刑事、遺

囑及遺產、調解及法律援助服務的法律訊

息。該活動已於2014年12月1日展開，

並持續至月底，其中包括在無線電視翡翠


• January 2015

Mr. Stephen Hung, President of the Law Society, gave welcoming remarks at the Opening Ceremony of Law Week 2014.

律師會會長熊運信律師在「法律周2014」開幕禮上致歡迎辭。

Mr. Thomas So, Vice-President of the Law Society, participated in the TVB roller features.

律師會副會長蘇紹聰律師參與無線電視宣傳短片的拍攝。

Arbitration Committee Members’ GatheringThe Arbitration Committee organised a Members’ Gathering at the Clubhouse of the Law Society on 2 December 2014. The Committee was honoured to have the presence of Mr. Peter Wong, the Deputy Solicitor-General (General), and other representatives from the Department of Justice. Under a relaxed environment, members chatted and exchanged views on various developments and practices of arbitration in Hong Kong and the Mainland, such as enforcement of arbitration agreements and inclusion of arbitration clauses in commercial documents.

仲裁委員會舉辦會員聚會

仲裁委員會於2014年12月2日假律師會會所舉辦會員聚會。仲裁委

員會十分榮幸邀得律政司副法律政策專員(一般法律事務)黃慶康律

師及其他代表出席是次活動。各會員在輕鬆的環境下，就中港兩地

仲裁的各種發展和實務，例如仲裁協議的強制執行和在商業文件中

加入仲裁條款等議題，暢談交流。

(From left) Mr. Eric Woo, Mr. Sam Tsui, Mr. Steven Yip, Ms. Lily Lai, Vice President Thomas So, Mr. Peter Wong, Deputy Solicitor-General (General), Huen Wong, Past President and Council Member, Mr. Robert Rhoda, Ms. Amy Lo, Mr. John Lee, Mr. Kenneth Wong.

(左起)胡慶業律師、徐國森律師、葉永耀律師、黎潤儀律師、副會長蘇紹聰律師、副法律

政策專員(一般法律事務)黃慶康律師，前會長暨理事王桂壎律師、RobertRhoda律師、

盧佩詩律師、李遠傳律師、黃永恩律師。

YSG: “Lawyers x Lawyers-to-be Drinks Evening” with CityU Law StudentsOn 26 September 2014, the Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) organised a drinks reception for City University of Hong Kong law students at the Law Society Clubhouse. The gathering was well attended by 80 students from

台處境喜劇《愛·回家》完結時播放法

律知識短片，以及在商業一台播出《法

律響身邊》特約節目。此外，我們亦為

不同的非政府機構和中學籌辦了多場實

用與趣味兼備的法律講座，並由律師會

的資深律師主講。

「法律周2014」的成功有賴由主席楊慕

嫦律師及副主席梁寶儀律師領導的籌委

會齊心協力，以及律師會理事會對此項

活動的鼎力支持。

the University and many practitioners including President Stephen Hung.

Daniel ShumCommitte MemberYoung Solicitors’ Group

年青律師組：與城大法律學生茶聚

2014年9月26日，年青律師組為香港城

市大學法律學生舉辦茶聚，並假律師會會

所舉行。活動反應熱烈，多達80名城大學

生及包括會長熊運信律師在內的多名律師

出席，一起歡度了一個愉快的晚上。

沈嘉明律師年青律師組委員會成員



2014 Hong Kong ASTC Triathlon Asian Cup Members of the Law Society participated in the 2014 Hong Kong ASTC Triathlon Asian Cup held at Hong Kong Disneyland Resort on Lantau Island on 25 and 26 October 2014.

This was a signature international triathlon event organised by Hong Kong Triathlon Association and sub-vented by the Arts and Sports Development Fund of the Home Affairs Bureau which attracted elite triathletes from around the world.

It was a perfect October day for triathlon race. The weather was fine with light easterly winds while the air was still a bit humid. Our members formed two relay teams this year to compete in the discovery distance relay category and were divided up among the three stages of the course with each team member competing in one leg of the race – the swim, bike and run. There were some changes in the race course from last year. Our swimmers started the race near Disney’s Hollywood Hotel and our runners completed the race at the finish point located near Disneyland car park.

Team A, with Ms. Eliza Chang, Chairlady of the Recreation and Sports Committee and Honourary Captain of the Swimming Team, Mr. Tony Leung, Cycling Team member and Ms. Wai-yin Chung, Hiking Team Convenor, came in third place with a trophy in the relay race. At the same time, Team B, with Ms. Vicky Man, Swimming Team Convenor, cyclist Mr. Andrew Hart, and Mr. John Lee, Distance Running Team Captain, finished a close eighth amongst all elite relay teams. The results were even more encouraging with our members ranking individually in the first and second positions in the swim course (Team A) and run course (Team B) of the relay race, respectively.

Finally, I would like to express my

gratitude to Ms. Eliza Chang for her support and participation in the event. I also congratulate all the participants on their excellent performances.

Hayson YuenCaptain, Law Society Cycling Team

2014香港ASTC三項鐵人亞洲盃

律師會會員參加了於2014年10月25及

26日在大嶼山香港迪士尼樂園度假村舉

行的「2014年香港ASTC三項鐵人亞洲

盃」。

這項國際三項鐵人賽由香港三項鐵人總

會主辦，並獲民政事務局藝術及體育發

展基金資助，雲集世界各地頂尖三項鐵

人健兒一較高下。

當日天色晴朗，吹偏東風，空氣中仍帶

點潮濕，三項鐵人賽於10月份舉行最適

合不過。今年本會會員合組了兩隊接力

隊出戰體驗距離接力賽類別，賽程分為

游泳、單車及跑步三個階段，由隊員各

迎戰一個階段。本年的賽程跟去年有些

不同。先由泳手於迪士尼好萊塢酒店附

近的起點出發，最後由跑手到達設於迪

(From left) Ms. Vicky Man, Swimming Team Convenor, Mr. Tony Leung, Mr. Edmond Lam, Ms. Eliza Chang, Chairlady, Recreation and Sports Committee and Swimming Team Honourary Captain, Mr. Hayson Yuen, Cycling Team Captain, Ms. Wai-yin Chung, Hiking Team Convenor, Mr. John Lee, Distance Running Team Captain and Mr. Andrew Hart joining together for photos after the race.

(左起)游泳隊召集人文穎翹律師、梁健邦律師、林勁豐律師、康樂及體育委員會主席暨游泳隊榮譽隊長鄭麗珊律師、單車隊

隊長阮熙舜律師、遠足隊召集人鍾慧賢律師、長跑隊隊長李遠傳律師及AndrewHart律師在賽後合照。

士尼樂園停車場附近的終點，方為完成

比賽。

由康樂及體育委員會主席暨游泳隊榮譽

隊長鄭麗珊律師、單車隊隊員梁健邦律

師及遠足隊召集人鍾慧賢律師合組的A

隊，在接力賽中勇奪第三名，並獲頒獎

盃。另外，由游泳隊召集人文穎翹律

師、單車手Andrew Hart律師及長跑隊

隊長李遠傳律師合組的B隊，則僅次於其

他頂尖接力隊伍排名第八。而在個人方

面，本會隊員分別在接力賽的游泳賽程

(A隊)及跑步賽程(B隊)中排名第一和第二

位，成績令人鼓舞。

最後，本人謹此感謝鄭麗珊律師對是次

活動的支持和參與，亦祝賀所有參賽者

在比賽中均有出色表現。

阮熙舜律師律師會單車隊隊長


• January 2015

YSG: Lawyers x Lawyers-to-be Drinks Evening with Hong Kong University Law StudentsThe grand finale of the “Lawyers x Lawyers-to-be Drinks Evening” series organised by the Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) was held at the Law Society’s Clubhouse on 7 November 2014. The event was the last of the three-part drinks series inviting law students from each of the three law schools in Hong Kong which aimed to facilitate mutual exchange and understanding with legal practitioners.

The drinks evening was well attended by law students from the Hong Kong University (“HKU”) Law School, legal practitioners and YSG committee members and commenced with a friendly dialogue with President Stephen Hung who shared his insights on fundamental networking and communication skills and the development of legal practice in Hong Kong.

The pleasant exchanges continued into the evening under the relaxed ambiance, with tete-a-tetes between students and the President, as well as with experienced legal practitioners and members of the YSG committee who shared their thought-provoking views and inspirational experiences. The three-part drinks series concluded

Engaging discussions between YSG committee members with law students of HKU at the Law Society’s Clubhouse.

年青律師組委員會成員與港大法律學生在律師會會所作出熱切討論。

Students were actively engaging in dialogue with the President Mr. Stephen Hung (far left), and YSG committee members.

同學們踴躍參與與會長熊運信律師(左一)和年青律師組的對談環節。

Students converse with Past President Huen Wong and YSG committee members at the cocktail reception.

同學們與前會長王桂壎律師及年青律師組委員會成員在酒會

上暢談。

with new refreshing insights for HKU law students, and fortified aspirations of becoming our lawyers of tomorrow.

Louise K. F. WongCommitte MemberYoung Solicitors’ Group

年青律師組：與港大法律學生茶聚

由年青律師組籌辦的「與法律學生茶聚」

系列於2014年11月7日晚上假律師會會

所舉行壓軸活動。一連三次的茶聚系列分

別邀請本港三所大學的法律學生出席，與

律師互相交流共聚，而這次活動正是三次

中的最後一次。

出席是晚聚會的包括香港大學(下稱「港

大」)法律學院學生、業界人士及年青律

師組委員會成員。活動由會長熊運信律

師的對談開始，分享對基本交宜及溝通技

巧，以及本港法律業界的發展灼見。

整個晚上氣氛輕鬆愉快，除了會長跟學生

進行面對面交流，一些經驗豐富的律師和

年青律師組的委員會成員亦分享了他們的

看法和經驗，內容甚具啟發性。這次茶聚

為港大法律學生帶來嶄新的見解，令他們

更矢志投身律師的行列。

黃金霏律師年青律師組委員會成員



RSCP Bridge Tournament 2014 On 9 November 2014, with high spirit, representatives from the Law Society Bridge Team comprising Mr. WK Ng, Bridge Team Convenor, Ms. Catherine Mun, Mr. Cliff Ip, Mr. Eric Woo, and Mr. Robin Li, battled in the annual RSCP Bridge Tournament 2014. The other professional bodies taking part in the event were the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Hong Kong Dental Association, the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Hong Kong Medical Association. The Tournament adopted a format of multiple team movement with four rounds of eight boards each.

Contract bridge is a game of partnering with players on each side, with the aim of striking the best deal and taking the most tricks in every board of game. The deal is conducted by reference to various established and pre-agreed conventions. No matter how skilful a player is, effective communication and partnering during the bidding process in the game are keys to triumph. This invariably makes pre-competition practice a must.

To prepare for the Tournament, the Law Society Bridge Team burnt the midnight oil, devoting several weekends and days to intensive practice sessions.

Luckily, our efforts did not go unrewarded. After almost five hours of intense concentration under stressful conditions, our team won the first runner-up, with the championship going to the Hong Kong Medical Association and the second runner-up to the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

The Law Society Bridge Team was recently set-up in April 2014. If you are

interested in playing bridge or learning to play bridge, please register your interest with the Member Services Department and watch out for the weekly circulars on news and training course posted by the Team.

Catherine MunMember, Law Society Bridge Team

香港專業團體康體會橋牌錦標賽2014

2014年11月9日，律師會橋牌隊派出橋

牌隊召集人伍偉傑律師、文理明律師、

葉瑋璣律師、胡慶業律師及李偉斌律師

出戰香港專業團體康體會橋牌錦標賽

2014。眾人鬥志高昂迎戰其他參賽的

專業團體，包括香港大律師公會、香港

牙醫學會、香港會計師公會及香港醫學

會。這場錦標賽採用單循環隊際賽，共

賽四輪，每輪打八副牌。

合約橋牌由四人組成两對搭檔競賽，搭

檔之間互相合作，務求儘量叫到最好的

合約，從而在每個牌局中爭取最多分

From third from left: Mr. WK Ng, Bridge Team Convenor, Mr. Eric Woo, Ms. Catherine Mun, Mr. Cliff Ip and Mr. Robin Li received the awards from the host.

左三起：橋牌隊召集人伍偉傑律師、胡慶業律師、文理明律師、葉瑋璣律師及李偉斌律師獲大會頒發獎座。

數。合約是遵照各項預先確立及商定的規

則進行。不管玩家的技術有多精湛，勝利

的關鍵在於隊員在遊戲的叫價過程中能夠

有效地溝通和合作，因此賽前練習是必須

的。

為了備戰這場錦標賽，律師會橋牌隊用上

多個周末和平日勤加苦練。

可幸我們的努力沒有白費。在緊張的環境

下埋首近五句鐘後，本隊終贏得亞軍，而

冠軍屬於香港醫學會，季軍則為香港會計

師公會。

律師會橋牌隊於2014年4月才成立。如

果你有興趣打橋牌或學習打橋牌，請與會

員服務部登記，橋牌隊亦會於會員通告刊

載相關消息和培訓課程，敬請密切留意。

文理明律師

律師會橋牌隊隊員


• January 2015

RSCP Badminton Tournament 2014On 9 November 2014, seven local professional bodies competed in the annual Recreation and Sports Club for Hong Kong Professional Bodies (“RSCP”) Badminton Tournament, which was held at the Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park Sports Centre. The Tournament adopted the round robin system. The team winning the best of five games, including two men’s doubles, one mixed double, one men’s single and one women’s double, wins the match. In other words, each participating team needed to play a total of 30 matches in one single afternoon, posing great physical and mental challenges to the players. For this reason, our team members had been gearing up for the game for months, hoping to surpass previous success. Last year, our team successfully netted a bronze medal in the tournament.

At the first match, we confronted the Hong Kong Medical Association who aimed to retain the title. We demonstrated determination as soon as the game commenced and beat the opponent 2-1 in the first three battles. Unfortunately, in the third game (men’s single), while losing at first, our opponent eventually reversed the situation and won the tie break. The fifth match (women’s double) was the key where both sides played a close game right up to the nail-biting finish, but again we narrowly lost by two points in the tie-breaker. In the end, we lost closely at 2-3 to the Hong Kong Medical Association, failing to make a good start.

Notwithstanding, our teammates were invigorated and beat other professional bodies one after another by a comfortable margin. Even when facing the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants who won the first runner-up last year and joined by a former Malaysian national team player, the Law Society Badminton Team all came through safe and won by 4-1. Following an entire day of fierce competition, the Hong Kong Medical Association finally retained its title while

Members of the Law Society Badminton Team were pumped up for the tournament. Their efforts finally earned them the 1st runner-up trophy.

律師會羽毛球隊出戰錦標賽，隊員的努力沒有白費，終贏得亞軍。

the Law Society surpassed last year’s result and received the silver trophy from President Stephen Hung.

On behalf of all our competing teammates, I would like to thank all team members for their help with training and preparation, as well as those who gave vocal support. Special thanks go to our coach Ms. Wong Har Ping for her patient guidance all along. Last but not least, we would like to thank the President for his support by attending and presenting prizes. We will certainly try our best to scale new heights by obtaining championship next year!

Cheng Sing YuMember, Law Society Badminton Team

香港專業團體康體會羽毛球錦標賽2014

一年一度的香港專業團體康體會羽毛球錦

標賽在去年2014年11月9日於中山紀念

公園體育館上演。賽事由本地七個專業團

體角逐，採循環對賽制，每場賽事以五局

三勝決出勝負，當中包括兩局男子雙打、

一局混合雙打、一局男子單打及一局女子

雙打。換言之，每支參賽隊伍須在一個下

午內進行共30局比賽，對各隊員的體能及

精神皆是極大挑戰。為此，我們的隊員在

比賽數月前已開始積極備戰，希望突破去

年取得季軍的成績。

本會第一場賽事碰上衛冕的香港醫學會，

甫開賽我們立即顯示出爭勝決心，首三戰

後以2:1領先。可惜，第四局男子單打在

領先下遭對手力追至加分反勝。關鍵的第

五局女子雙打異常激烈，雙方發揮出色，

互有領先。結果，我們再次在戰至加分

的情況下以兩分之微不敵對手，總局數以

2:3僅負醫學會，未能取得開門紅。

不過，眾隊員愈戰愈勇，接連以大比數擊

敗其他專業團體。即使面對有前馬來西亞

國手坐鎮的上屆亞軍香港會計師公會，律

師會羽毛球隊亦有驚無險地以局數4:1勝

出。經過一日激烈的比賽，香港醫學會成

功衛冕，律師會亦突破往年成績，從會長

熊運信律師手上接過亞軍獎杯。

我謹代表所有出賽隊員感謝所有曾協助我

們訓練、籌備比賽以及到場打氣的隊友，

特別感謝王夏萍教練一直的耐心指導，最

後要感謝會長抽空到場支持並擔任頒獎嘉

賓。我們來年誓必以冠軍為目標，再創高

峰！

鄭星宇律師律師會羽毛球隊隊員



YSG: Welcome Drinks for Trainee SolicitorsTrainee solicitors are the future of our profession, it is thus crucial that they set off on a good start into the legal community. On 14 November 2014, the Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) organised welcome drinks for all trainee solicitors. Reception was good, with over 100 trainees attending.

At the event, we were honoured by President Stephen Hung and Past President Michael Lintern-Smith, who both welcomed the trainee solicitors to the profession, explaining the work of the Law Society, as well as giving some advice and insight on how to prepare oneself to make full use of the traineeship period before becoming a fully fledged solicitor.

The trainees were further introduced to the various initiatives and activities of the YSG, the Member Benefit Committee and the Recreation and Sports Committee.

We once again earnestly welcome all trainee solicitors to the profession, and encourage them to participate in future events of the Law Society and the YSG, to create a vibrant legal community!

Anson J. DouglasCommitte MemberYoung Solicitors’ Group

Trainee solicitors socialise at the event.

實習律師在活動上聯誼。

The Law Society and the YSG welcomes trainee solicitors.

律師會及年青律師組歡迎各實習律師。

President Stephen Hung addresses trainee solicitors.

會長熊運信律師向實習律師致辭。

年青律師組：實習律師歡迎酒會

實習律師是業界的未來棟樑，因此在法律

界有個好的起步，對他們非常重要。年青

律師組在2014年11月14日為全體實習律

師舉辦歡迎酒會，吸引過百名實習律師參

加，反應踴躍。

我們十分榮幸得到會長熊運信律師及前會

長史密夫律師出席活動，兩人歡迎實習

律師加入律師的行列，並闡述律師會的工

作，及就實習律師在成為律師獨當一面之

前，如何裝備自己善用實習期，提供寶貴

的建議和見解。

大會亦向實習律師簡介年青律師組、會員

權益委員會及康樂及體育委員會的各項舉

措和活動。

我們再次熱烈歡迎所有實習律師投身業

界，並鼓勵他們參加律師會和年青律師組

的活動，締造一個充滿活力的法律界！

鄭安生實習律師年青律師組委員會成員


• January 2015

YSG: Connected Closing Event The final event of Young Solicitors’ Group’s annual mentorship programme CONNECTED was held on 15 November 2014 at a scenic park in Tai Po, New Territories.

The event started with a BBQ lunch where around 60 mentors, buddies and mentees mingled while enjoying and grilling their own food. After a filling meal, buddies and mentees competed in a special cooking contest Kitchen in Nature, where they had to transform rice, meat and vegetables into a meal using only a grill, a firewood log and two small pots. Mentors acted as judges for the competition. Buddies and mentees had fun chopping logs into chips, cooking and naming their dishes. At the end, three groups were selected as the winners for Best Presentation, Best Team Spirit and Favourite Dish.

This event marks the closing of CONNECTED 2014. If you wish to build your network with fellow solicitors and trainees through fun and exciting activities, do stay tuned for next year’s

Winners of Best Team Spirit Award.

「最佳團隊精神」獎的優勝者。

President Stephen Hung enjoying BBQ lunch with CONNECTED buddies and mentees.

會長熊運信律師與「法友聯盟」的學員及益友享用燒烤午餐。

Law Society’s Table Tennis Team Takes on KKC in Friendly MatchThe Law Society Table Tennis Team played a friendly match against the Kowloon Cricket Club (“KCC”) in early November. Playing friendly matches against clubs and institutions has been in our regular agenda and meeting new opponents like the KCC team always adds fun and excitement to the sport. Our team put what we learned in practices to good use and did very well in the friendly match. We look forward to playing more games in the future.

Sylvester Sung Captain, Law Society Table Tennis Team

律師會乒乓球隊與九龍木球會進行友誼賽

律師會乒乓球隊在11月初與九龍木球會進行了一場友誼賽。與不

同會所和機構進行友誼賽是我們的經常性活動，而與九龍木球會隊

伍等新對手切磋，能夠為這項運動增添樂趣和刺激。在是次友誼賽

中，本隊充分發揮在訓練中學到的技術，表現出色。我們期待將來

有機會參與更多賽事。

宋承輝律師律師會乒乓球隊隊長

CONNECTED! Forms and circulars will be distributed in late January 2015.

Karen Lam Committe MemberYoung Solicitors’ Group

年青律師組：「法友聯盟」閉幕活動

年青律師組於2014年11月15日為年度師

友計劃「法友聯盟」舉行最後一場活動，

地點為新界大埔一個風景優美的公園。

大顆兒首先進行午餐燒烤活動，約60名

良師、益友及學員一邊燒烤，一邊聯誼。

飽餐一頓後，一眾益友及學員在野外烹飪

Picking up awards at the closing of the friendly match.完場時進行頒獎。

Taking team photos at the opening of the friendly match.兩隊在賽前合照。

大賽中一較高下，他們需要用大米、肉

類和蔬菜炮製菜餚，但工具只有燒烤架、

木柴和兩個小鍋。各良師則為比賽擔任評

判。劈柴、烹調和為菜式命名的過程充滿

樂趣，益友及學員歡笑不絕。最後，其中

三組獲選為「最佳賣相」、「最佳團隊精

神」和「最喜愛菜式」的得主。

這項活動標誌著「法友聯盟」2014年圓

滿結束。如果你想藉參與精彩有趣的活

動，認識其他律師和實習律師，請密切留

意明年的「法友聯盟」！表格和通告將於

2015年1月底派發。

林詩琪律師年青律師組委員會成員



Teen Talk 2014 – “Abiding by the Law, Even in Cyber Space?”The Law Society’s 5th annual flagship event Teen Talk 2014 was a resounding success! On 29 November 2014 at AsiaWorld Expo, 140 solicitor volunteers served as facilitators and guided over 1,000 Forms 4 to 6 students and teachers, who came from 18 districts. Teen Talk is an event where students are encouraged to speak their mind and improve their multi-dimensional critical thinking skills. The event’s aim is to better equip the next generation with legal knowledge and moral grounding so that they can become better role models to lead and serve society. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students, and their schools, families and friends, have benefited from attending this meaningful Law Society event.

This year, students were shown two thought-provoking and controversial short films, titled “Underage” and “Bully”, after which they actively participated in small group discussions guided by more than 140 solicitors and law students, who generously volunteered their time. Our star-studded solicitor-volunteers included Ms. Elsie Leung, Vice Chairlady of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law and former Secretary for Justice. We also had the pleasure of having the Hon. Geoffrey Ma, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal; the Hon. Rimsky Yuen, Secretary for Justice of HKSAR; the Hon. Mr. Dennis Kwok, Legislative Council Member (Legal Functional Constituency); Mr. Thomas Edward Kwong, Director of Legal Aid; and Mr. Selwyn Yu, Vice President of

Hong Kong Bar Association grace the event and give encouragement and guidance to students.

Around 60 pro-active and expressive students were selected to go on stage to participate in a debate led by Vice Presidents Thomas So and Melissa Pang. It was an exciting competition. President Stephen Hung and Teen Talk Founding Organising Committee (“OC“) Chairman Fred Kan were invited as judges for the two Best Debaters. Another award (the Best Debate Team) was judged by all attendants in the venue by volume of their applause.

In order to broaden students’ horizons, Mr. Joe Lam, Chief Executive Officer of Hong Kong’s most popular social website was on stage joining a panel with President Stephen Hung and Teen Talk OC Chairman Nick Chan to discuss the topic of “Rights, Responsibilities and Opportunities in the Cyber Space”. In parallel with the student discussions, the Law Society conducted seminars for attending teachers to enrich their legal knowledge in the areas of “Triad-related Crimes, Assault & Violence-Related Crimes and Sexual Offences”, “Theft and Drug-related Crimes” and “Internet-related Crimes”.

To better engage students before and after the all-day event, the Law Society launched a Teen Talk Facebook Fans Page to promote legal knowledge amongst teenagers. The organiser held an online writing competition called

“I have a say in Law!” encouraging students to express their views on legal issues introduced by the short videos. Mr. Jeff Sze, Political Assistant to Secretary for Education; and Ms. Melissa Pang, Member of the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education presented awards to the winning students.

The success of the event was attributed to the dedicated effort of members of the OC chaired by Mr. Nick Chan and vice-chaired by Ms. Annie Wong, who credited the success of Teen Talk 2014 to Law Society members, students, schools and other volunteers, as well as the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education, who sponsored the event.

Please visit and “Like” the Law Society Teen Talk Facebook fan page (https://www.facebook.com/teentalkhk) or log-on to your Law Society App (https://itunes.apple.com/hk/app/law-society/id570108435?mt=8; https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=hk.com.itehk.hklawsoc) to download your photos or register your interest in assisting with future Teen Talk events or other Law Society volunteer work!


• January 2015


青Teen 講場2014–「法網無邊？」

律師會的第五屆年度旗艦活動「青Teen講

場2014」成功舉行！活動於2014年11月

29日假亞洲國際博覽館舉行，吸引過千名

來自全港18區的中四至中六學生及老師參

加，一眾師生由140名律師義工帶領進行

討論。在「青Teen講場」活動上，學生既

可抒發己見，亦能提高多角度分析和明辨

性思考的能力。這項活動旨在向年青一代

灌輸法律知識及道德基礎，令他們成為好

榜樣去領導及服務社會。這項富有意義的

活動自推出以來，已有超過7,000名學生及

其學校及親友參加，從中受惠。

今年，大會向同學播放兩段富啟發及爭議

性的短片，名為「未成年」及「欺凌」，

然後在超過140名義務律師及法律學生的

引導下進行分組討論。律師義工之中不乏

重量級人士，包括低調出席的基本法委員

會副主任暨前律政司司長梁愛詩律師。此

外，我們亦有幸邀得終審法院馬道立首席

法官、律政司司長袁國強資深大律師、立

法會法律界功能界別議員郭榮鏗大律師、

法律援助署署長鄺寶昌先生及大律師公會

副主席余承章資深大律師蒞臨，給予同學

們鼓勵和指導。

約60名積極主動和勇於表達的同學獲選到

台上參與由律師會兩位副會長蘇紹聰律師

及彭韻僖律師帶領的辯論比賽，過程緊張

刺激。大會邀請了會長熊運信律師及「青

Teen講場」籌委會創始主席簡家驄律師擔

任評判，選出兩名「最佳辯論員」。另一

獎項「最佳辯論隊」則由現場所有參加者

以掌聲評分。

為了拓寬學生的視野，大會邀請了本港社

交網站行政總裁林祖舜先生，與會長熊運

信律師及「青Teen講場」籌委會主席陳曉

峰律師一同探討「網絡世界的權利、責任與

機遇」這個課題。在同學進行討論的同時，

律師會為出席的老師舉辦多個研討會，增加

他們對「與三合會、暴力有關的罪行及性罪

行」、「盜竊與危險藥物有關的罪行」及「

電腦及網上罪行」方面的法律知識。

為推動同學積極參與及留意這個活動，律師

會推出了「青Teen講場」Facebook專頁，

向青少年灌輸法律知識。大會亦舉辦了名為

『法律我有SAY』的網上寫作比賽，鼓勵同

學就有關短片帶出的法律議題，發表己見。

教育局局長政治助理施俊輝先生及公民教育

委員會委員彭韻僖律師在活動上頒獎予比賽

的得獎者。

是次活動順利完成實有賴籌委會成員的竭誠

努力，而籌委會主席陳曉峰律師及副主席黃

栢欣律師則表示，「青Teen講場2014」的

成功全賴律師會會員、同學、學校、其他義

工的支持，以及公民教育委員會的贊助。

請瀏覽及「讚好」律師會「青Teen講場」

Facebook專頁(https://www.facebook.

com/ teen t a l k h k )或登入律師會應用程

式(https:// i tunes.apple .com/hk/app/

l aw - soc i e t y / i d570108435?mt=8或

https://play.google .com/store/apps/

details?id=hk.com.itehk.hklawsoc)下載相

片或登記參加今後「青Teen講場」活動或

其他律師會的義務工作！




IHLC x YSG Forum – “In-House Basics for Private Practitioners”In-House Lawyers Committee (“IHLC”) and Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) co-organised the forum titled “In-House Basics for Private Practitioners” (the “Forum”) on 2 December 2014 at the Hong Kong Arbitration Centre. Around 60 members, comprising mostly young private practitioners, attended the Forum.

We were honoured to have three distinguished in-house counsels Mr. Ricky Chan, Director (Legal) & Company Secretary of The Link Management Limited, Mr. Vincent Leung, President of Skechers Hong Kong Limited (Skechers Hong Kong Limited) and Mr. Jack O’Keefe, Regional General Counsel (Asia Pacific) of Zurich Insurance (Hong Kong) join the Forum as guest speakers.

The forum was warmly received by members, with around 60 members attending.會員對論壇反應踴躍，約60人出席。

(From left) Mr. Ricky Chan, Director (Legal) & Company Secretary of The Link Management Ltd; Mr. Jack O’Keefe, Regional General Counsel (Asia Pacific) of Zurich Insurance (Hong Kong); Mr. Vincent Leung, President of Skechers Hong Kong Ltd; and Mr. Sebastian Ko, Vice-chair of YSG (Moderator of the Forum).

(左起)領匯管理有限公司法律總監及公司秘書陳明德律師、蘇黎世保險(香港)區域總法律

顧問(亞太區)JackO’Keefe律師、SkechersHongKongLtd總裁梁成永律師，及年青律

師組副主席高一鋒律師(論壇主持)。

YSG: Meet the Professionals Night – Welcoming the Festive SeasonChristmas came early in 2014!

On 4 December 2014, the Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) organised a joint professional night with the young groups of the Hong Kong Medical Association and the Hong Kong Dental Association in a hip club to welcome the festive season. Members of the Hong Kong Bar Association also joined us in this festive event.

Over 140 members and friends of the groups attended this fun-filled event. While participants were excited to meet

YSG members enjoying a great night with members of different professional groups including Mr. Shih Tai Cho, Louis, President of the Hong Kong Medical Association (back row, third from right).

年青律師組的組員與包括香港醫學會會長史泰祖醫生(後排右三)在內的不同專

業團體會員是夜開懷盡興。

new friends at the event, they were even more excited to play the business cards exchange game. A grand prize was awarded to the winner who had met more than 30 new friends at the event. To spice up the event, some participants dressed festively to celebrate the season. Two awards were given out to our best dressed participants. Participants had an enjoyable evening with great food and drinks.

YSG regularly organises networking events with other professional bodies

The Forum kicked off with a roundtable self-introduction by the guest speakers. The panel of speakers then shared their experience of moving in-house and their personal considerations before the move. They also outlined the required skills and experience needed to embark and succeed as in-house lawyers. The event was concluded with a drinks reception, where members were given the opportunity to have an informal chat with our speakers amid a relaxing environment.

Hilda LamCommitte MemberYoung Solicitors’ Group

企業律師委員會 x 年青律師組︰「私人執業律師認識企業律師的工作」

企業律師委員會與年青

律師組在2014年12月2

日假香港仲裁中心合辦

題為「私人執業律師認

識企業律師的工作」的

論壇(下稱「論壇」)。

with a view to serve members with different interests.

Stephanie LauCommitte MemberYoung Solicitors’ Group

約60名會員出席了論壇，主要為年青私人

執業律師。

我們很榮幸邀請到三位傑出的企業律師

為論壇擔任演講嘉賓，包括領匯管理有

限公司法律總監及公司秘書陳明德律

師、SkechersHongKongLimited總裁梁成

永律師及蘇黎世保險(香港)區域總法律顧

問(亞太區)JackO’Keefe律師。

演講嘉賓首先逐一作自我介紹，然後分享

他們轉任企業律師的經驗，以及轉任前的

個人考慮。他們亦概述了投身並成為成功

的企業律師需要具備的技能和經驗。活動

最後以酒會作結，讓會員在輕鬆的氛圍中

與演講嘉賓暢談。

林曉雅律師年青律師組委員會成員


• January 2015

Participants mingling while enjoying their drinks

來賓一邊聯誼歡聚，一邊品嚐美酒。

CRC Christmas Gathering 2014On 10 December 2014, the Law Society Community Relations Committee (“CRC”) hosted a Christmas Gathering for its members and supporters of its wide-ranging community activities at the Law Society Clubhouse.

CRC members, it’s Working Group (“WG”) members, speakers who hosted community talks and school talks on legal issues, writers who contributed articles for publishing in the “Sing Tao Legal Mailbox”, mentors who supported the “Legal Pioneer” Mentorship Programme, volunteers who joined voluntary works hosted by Community Services & Talks WG, as well as guests and NGO representatives who supported its activities all came together to

CRC Chairman Philip Wong encouraged members and supporters to continue contributing to the committee’s wide-ranging activities.

社區關係委員會主席黃永昌律師鼓勵各會員和支持

者繼續參與該會的各種活動。

CRC members, WG members and supporters came together to celebrate Christmas.

社區關係委員會的成員、工作小組的成員和支持者共賀聖誕。

celebrate this festive event. The event kicked off with Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons of the four WG giving reviews on their 2014 works and overview on their 2015 plans.

CRC Chairman Philip Wong expressed his appreciation to the CRC team as well as supporters from the Law Society and external partners. Mr. Wong also took the opportunity to present certificates of appreciation to speakers and writers in recognition of their efforts in 2014.

社區關係委員會聖誕聯歡會2014

2014年12月10日，律師會社區關係委員

會於律師會會所舉辦聖誕聯歡會，以答謝

曾為該會各項社區活動出力的律師會會員

及支持者。

年青律師組：「認識專業人士之夜」 - 喜迎佳節

2014年的聖誕節提早來臨！

2014年12月4日，年青律師組與香港醫

學會及香港牙醫學會轄下的青年組，假一

所時尚俱樂部合辦專業團體之夜，共迎佳

節。香港大律師公會的會員亦有參與是次

節慶活動。

各專業團體的會員和友人合共140多人參

加了是次活動，場面歡樂熱鬧。參加者在

活動上熱情地交朋結友，進行交換名片遊

戲時更是興奮投入。大會向在活動上認識

了30名以上新朋友的參加者頒發大獎。

為增加節日氣氛，一些參加者身穿應節服

飾，其中兩名參加者更獲大會頒發最佳衣

著獎。在美酒佳餚的點綴下，大家度過一

個愉快的晚上。

年青律師組定期與其他專業團體合辦聯誼

活動，致力滿足會員的不同興趣。

劉穎言律師年青律師組委員會成員

社區關係委員會成員、該會轄下工作小

組成員、曾參與社區與學校法律講座的講

者、為《星島日報》「法人法語」專欄撰

寫法律文章的會員、「法律先鋒」師友計

劃的導師、參與由社區講座及服務工作小

組籌辦的義務工作的義工，以及支持該委

員會活動的嘉賓和非政府機構代表，於聯

歡會聚首一堂，共賀佳節。是次活動先由

四個工作小組的主席和副主席回顧2014

年的工作及概述2015年的各項計劃。

社區關係委員會主席黃永昌律師向社區關

係委員會的團隊，以及曾出力的律師會會

員和其他合作夥伴表達謝意。黃律師亦在

活動上向各講者及撰稿者頒贈感謝證書，

以答謝他們在2014年的貢獻。



For the Love of Recreation and Sports: A Look Inside the Law Society’s Ever-Popular Recreation and Sports Committee

By Tara Shah

Many lawyers aim for the proverbial, yet elusive, work-life balance.

However, recognising this goal is often difficult for many to achieve. To aid in this endeavour, the Law Society’s Recreation and Sports Committee (“RSC”), which offers a host of intramural sports, family fun days, food appreciation events (here and abroad), as well as a variety of other activities, aims to assist and encourage solicitors in finding a balance between health and work.

“The RSC was established in 2005, and it’s here to serve our members by providing a whole range of recreational activities and sports,” says Nick Chan, Vice-Chairman of the RSC; Partner, Squire Patton Boggs.

“Helping to improve the work-life balance of our members and fostering friendships are paramount and among RSC’s key goals. We are accustomed to seeing each

other in the law court, but now we see each other on the sports court, which is a much more amicable setting,” he says.

The RSC currently has around 520 members with 14 sports teams, eight recreational groups and over 800 activities per year, which includes practice sessions, matches, games, tournaments, meetings and other events.

While the RSC now boasts some impressive numbers, this hasn’t always been the case. In fact, lack of member participation was a significant hurdle its founders had to overcome. According to Ambrose Lam, founder and former Chairman of the RSC; Immediate Past President of the Law Society and

Managing Partner, Lam, Lee & Lai, the primary objection raised by the Law Society Council for initially rejecting the idea of forming the RSC was lack of member participation.

“When I first became a Council Member of the Law Society, the members were not close. There was also perhaps some animosity towards the Law Society from its members. This was due in part to the fact it was (and continues to be) the governing body for all solicitors in Hong Kong, and at that time, they strictly enforced the conduct rules with no leniency or flexibility on minor or technical breaches of the rules. To mend the relationships among its members, I


• January 2015

January 2015 • AFTER WORK 工餘閒情

felt sports would be a good start. Thus, I asked the Council to allow me to create a sports committee. There was some hesitation because of its past failed attempts at forming recreational groups. For example, at one point they tried to form an orchestra, but only one person, a pianist, applied. Also, the turnout was low at other member events,” recalls Mr. Lam.

However, Mr. Lam’s persistence to form the RSC paid off, and in his second year on the Council, the then new President Mr. Peter Lo agreed to allow the committee to be formed. To kick off the RSC, Mr. Lam says he started with a football match with the Hong Kong Medical Association, which served as the basis for forming the RSC’s first football team. Mr. Lam says, “the tennis team was formed next, if my memory serves me right, and gradually we developed three or four more sports teams, including badminton and table tennis.”

However, even with the approval to start the RSC, Mr. Lam continued to face challenges with building the foundation for the newly formed committee. Garnering member participation, managing the teams, coordinating the practice schedules and hiring coaches, and most difficult of all, fighting for budget from the Council, were some of the key obstacles the committee faced. Mr. Lam gives credit to Mr. Chan Chak Ming and Ms. Dora Yeung, two of the founding former RSC members, and Ms. Florence Tsang who was then with

the Law Society Secretariat for their efforts in helping the group to overcome these obstacles.

“There were some ups and downs during the formation of the committee because we built it from scratch, which was not easy at all. I was quite exhausted after the first few months because I had to go to the practice sessions and matches every evening after work. The main reason I had to attend almost every session was to encourage and maintain attendance. Without enough committed members, you can’t build a team,” notes Mr. Lam.

Looking at the current membership, some would conclude Mr. Lam’s story with “and the rest is history”, but in actuality the growth of the committee has been a noteworthy evolution and a true commitment by its leaders and members.

The RSC saw its initial growth with the addition of new sports teams. It then organically began to encompass other types of recreation such as Chinese calligraphy and painting, singing and yoga, to name just a few. It also saw progression with more matches and tournaments against teams borne by other professional bodies and foreign bar associations.

SportsWhile the RSC began with only a handful of sports, it now offers 14, which include: basketball, badminton, cycling, distance running, dragon boat, football, golf,

hiking, snooker, swimming, table tennis, tennis, tenpin bowling and volleyball.

Members who are novices need not worry about joining any sports or recreation team, as the RSC hires coaches at most of the practice and class sessions. In fact, according to Mr. Lam, during the committee’s infancy, “in order to help attract more members, we decided to provide experienced coaches who could cater to players of all skill levels, from beginner to advanced.” Speaking to the calibre of the coaches, Mr. Chan notes, “the volleyball coach is a former Hong Kong Team member. Our snooker coach is a former Hong Kong number one and the coach for calligraphy and painting has international standing.” Although a lot of them are first-rate coaches, they charge only at or even under market rate.

Additionally, if a member does not see a preferred sport on the list, it should be no deterence from joining. “We allow members to come and put forth ideas for new teams or activities,” says Mr. Lam. However, as there are factors to be taken into account, such as the budget, finding a coach and management of the team, an application must be made to the RSC Members for approval.

As mentioned above, in addition to intra-committee matches, the RSC participates in matches and tournaments against external organisations including those member associations of the Recreation and Sports Club for Hong Kong Professional Bodies (“RSCP”) which was established shortly after the


Faster, Higher, Stronger. Together we make dreams a reality.更快、更高、更強。我們一同令夢想成真。

Dragon Boat The Badminton Team is competing against very strong opponents from time to

time with good results.

羽毛球隊與強隊對壘，屢有佳績。

Badminton

RSC was successfully set up. Founding members of the RSCP, formerly known as the Joint Professional Sports Committee, include Mr. Lam, Dr. Henry Chiu of the Hong Kong Medical Association, Dr. Liu Wing Hong of the Hong Kong Dental Association, and Mr. Gabriel Tam of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Sports matches were organised between these associations and invitations were extended to more professional bodies. Mr. Lam notes that it was even more challenging to set up the RSCP than the RSC as the interests of stakeholders might conflict and the professional bodies might have different policy constraints. Ms. Eliza Chang Lai Shan, Chairlady for the RSC and Managing Partner, Cheng, Yeung & Co., adds “the RSCP was established by seven professional bodies in Hong Kong with the purpose of coordinating sporting and recreational competitions among them, and the Law Society was one of its founding organisations. Each organisation nominates two to three representatives who regularly meet and plan inter-competition games, and Nick, myself and the Immediate Past President Ambrose Lam have been serving as the Law Society’s nominated representatives. Other professional bodies include the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Hong Kong Dental

Association, the Hong Kong Medical Association, and the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors.”

In noting the benefits of such an association, Ms. Chang further comments, “it forms a networking platform enabling our members to bond with members of other major professional bodies in Hong Kong.”

The RSC also participates in inter-bar association tournaments, such as the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Lawyers Sports Meet (“GHM Sports Meet”), a biennial event with 11 to 12 sports, 700 plus attendees and four bar associations (the Taipei Bar Association participates as a guest). In fact, Hong Kong will host the 6th GHM Sports Meet in 2015 and expects one of the largest turnouts to date.

According to Mr. Lam, the 1st GHM Sports Meet, which was held in 2002, was initiated and organised by former Council Member Mr. Fred Kan. Mr. Lam only continued with his good work and made it a regular event.

In addition to the GHM Sports Meet, in 2014, the RSC participated in the 38th New Year Winter Swimming Lifesaving Championship, Vita Green Cycling for Health Marathon Challenge, Hong Kong International Dragon Boat Race, Olympic Day Run, 9th Law and Order Cup, Hong Kong ITU Triathlon Asian Cup and Oxfam Trailwalker, among many others.

RecreationAs noted above, as the RSC began to develop so did the type of activities it included. Today, the committee hosts eight recreational groups which include bridge, Chinese calligraphy and painting, cookery, food and wine appreciation, dancing, live band, singing, tai chi and yoga.

One of the largest groups is the Cookery, Food and Wine Appreciation Interest Group. This should come as no surprise after learning that RSC members not only enjoy local events, but also take trips to Italy and France. As cookery is also very popular, the RSC also organises an annual Master Chef Cooking and Tasting Competition.

Family Fun Day is one of the biggest recreational events, seeing over 700 attendees and taking on a carnival-like atmosphere. It includes a variety of activities, such as family relay races and a crawling game for babies, an event that Mr. Lam proudly noted his youngest daughter won first place in. It also offers running, jumping and throwing games, a drawing competition and a talent show, among others.

Since the establishment of the RSC, the Recreation and Sports Night has become an annual must-go-to event and has taken on fun themes starting from 2010, such as Halloween, The Lawscars


• January 2015

The Law Society Basketball Team led by team coach Mr. Choi Hoi Lok, Honourary

Captain Eric Woo, Captain Paul Lee, Convenors Keith Chan, Calvin Lau & Kane Mak.

香港律師會籃球隊由蔡凱樂教練、榮譽隊長胡慶業律師、隊長李銘生、召集人陳展

泓律師、劉力行律師及麥健豐律師共同帶領。

Basketball


and Back To School nights. Each year, the event has attracted almost 400 participants and more are expected to attend the 10th anniversary event in 2015.

Joining the RSCJoining the RSC is simple, and membership definitely comes with rewards. Simply enrol in the annual Recreation and Sports Programme to receive access to a variety of well-organised sports teams and recreational groups, seasoned coaches and dedicated captains. There is also personal accident insurance, should you be injured during an event.

“The membership fee (which is only $200 per year) is an excellent bargain considering the fact that members only have to show up to participate. Behind the scenes, RSC members diligently work to enable all teams to run smoothly. They formulate and implement policies and guidelines to ensure member safety, as well as regulate, coordinate and manage the teams and events,” notes Ms. Chang. “They also engage the coaches, locate venues to hold practice sessions and meetings, market the teams’ achievements, manage the budget, and maintain the insurance policy, among a host of other duties.”

With so many events to keep up with, members should also find it convenient to locate the details for the dates, times

and locations for all events with the use of the Law Society App. As an added benefit, users of the app will receive pop-up messages notifying them of new events and reminding them of those that they have already RSVP’ed for.

The Intangible BenefitsIf you are still not convinced that joining the RSC is time and money well spent, consider membership as an investment in yourself, both professionally and personally. In addition to the benefit of getting in shape and staying healthy, there are many other intangible benefits, such as achieving a work-life balance, camaraderie, networking and on some occasions, even true love.

“We continually remind the teams that this is all about bonding and building friendships. Winning is second. Fun and camaraderie are first,” says Mr. Chan.

In attesting to the stories of how sports have improved relationships amongst legal professionals, Mr. Lam says he has been “told by members that they have made friends playing on teams with people that they later litigate against in court. As a result, they can better trust each other, from the bottom of their hearts.”

Moreover, the RSC “serves the well-being of its professionals as it promotes a fine balance between health and work. Also, as lawyers, we tend to be busy, and unless someone drags us out to play sports

or participate in an activity, we tend to just sit at our desks all day and night, working,” comments Ms. Chang.

There are also a number of benefits that have naturally come about from being teammates or members of the same group, such as mentorships, jobs and referral business. “There’s a lot of mentorship on the teams. We have senior members helping to coach junior members and more experienced attorneys mentoring young lawyers, professionally. I have personally helped a younger member with getting a job, and I am aware of referral work among team members,” says Mr. Chan.

As to love, it has been reported that some of the members found their significant other through the RSC, and have since married. In fact Mr. Chan served as the civil celebrant in one such case, which he found very fulfilling.

The LeadershipAs detailed above, the RSC got its start due to the efforts and leadership by Mr. Lam. To carry on his legacy and vision, Ms. Chang and Mr. Chan currently serve as the RSC Chairlady and Vice-Chairman, respectively. Both volunteer their time despite their busy work schedules and familial obligations. In fact, they are both partners of law firms with Ms. Chang being the managing partner of her firm. Fortunately, they complement each other and work well as


Solidarity in the face of challenge: Winning the 9th Law and Order Cup.挑戰當前，團結無懼：勝出第九屆法紀盃高爾夫球賽。

Golf

Students benefited a lot under the careful guidance from Mr. Lin Cai Chang and Ms. Luk Ying, teachers of the Chinese Calligraphy and Painting Class.劉才昌老師和陸瑛老師悉心指導，同學獲益良多。

Chinese Calligraphy & Painting

a team, as Ms. Chang is admittedly the “more conservative and motherly person” who focuses on player safety and ensures the teams are properly supported and managed, while Mr. Chan is the more “energetic and creative person who presents a lot of good ideas,” said Ms. Chang. They oversee, just as Mr. Lam previously did, the entire RSC operation, which is no easy task given the number of members, sports, recreational groups and events that must be managed and supported.

Ms. Chang and Mr. Chan are not just avid sports fans; they are also athletes. Ms. Chang is an especially gifted and keen swimmer, who actively and regularly participates in many local and overseas age grouped swim meets and has won many medals. She has also generously served as the Honourary Swimming Captain, and Mr. Chan, a volleyball enthusiast, has served as the Honourary Volleyball Captain. Despite their passion for their respective sports, as Committee

Members of the RSC they have had to relinquish their roles as team captains to avoid a conflict of interest, (eg, showing favouritism for one sport over another). They now happily wear the title of “honourary team captain” and support all of the teams and activities, including attending as many of the practices and events as they can for all of the groups.

The FutureLooking ahead, Mr. Chan says, “we will continue to do what we are doing. We continually receive requests for new groups which is encouraging. However, we do not want to grow too fast, as we want to make sure things are done properly – with oversight and proper safety procedures in place.”

“I am happy to see that all of my efforts have paid off,” Mr. Lam comments. While

Mr. Lam remains pleased with the continual increase in membership, he feels that once the RSC can get 25 percent of the Law Society membership to join, the RSC can then be viewed as a successful membership drive. Mr. Lam is optimistic that this can be achieved.

The RSC is approaching its 10th anniversary, and as it embarks on its journey into its second decade, there is no doubt that it will continue to grow in numbers, evolve to best serve its members and continue to aid lawyers in building amiable relationships, supporting a healthy body and mind and in reaching that highly sought after work-life balance. n

The Swimming Team celebrating its victory of being the Overall Champion in the 5th Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Lawyers Sports Meet.游泳隊慶祝勇奪第五屆粵港澳律師運動會全場總冠軍。

Swimming


• January 2015

If you want to jam, join us at the TLF!

你想搵人Jam一Jam，快手加入TLF！

Live Band

Despite sweat, fatigue and injury, we are passionate about trekking in the beauty of nature.對遠足的熱情，除了換得醉人生態美景，還有汗水、疲累和損傷。

Hiking


熱愛康樂體育：一探香港律師會康樂及體育委員會

作者 Tara Shah

「作息平衡」的重要人人皆知，卻總是

難以捉摸。許多律師以它為目標，卻又覺

得它遙不可及。為了幫助會員達成目標，

香港律師會屬下的康樂及體育委員會(康

體會)提供一連串的業內體育比賽、家庭

同樂日、本地及海外美食品嚐等活動，協

助和鼓勵同仁平衡健康和工作生活。

康體會副主席暨翰宇國際律師事務所合夥

人陳曉峰律師說：「康體會於2005年成

立，旨在為會員舉辦不同類型的康樂及體

育活動。

「幫助會員平衡作息和增進彼此友誼十

分重要，亦是康體會其中一個主要目

標。我們都習慣在法庭上見面，但現在

也會在運動場上碰面了，環境氣氛友善

和諧得多。」

康體會現時有約520個會員、共14支體育

隊和八個康樂小組，每年舉辦超過800項

活動，包括練習、比賽、錦標賽、聚會

等。

雖然康體會現時的成績相當亮眼，其工作

其實並非一帆風順，低參與率曾是創會委

員面對的一大關卡。康體會創辦人兼前主

席、律師會前會長暨林李黎律師事務所主

管合夥人林新強律師表示，律師會理事會

初期反對成立康體會的主因就是低參與

率。

林律師憶述：「我最初成為律師會理事

時，律師會會員關係並不緊密，會員對律

師會還可能懷有一些敵意。部份原因是律

師會負責監管本地所有律師，而當時操

守規則執行得十分嚴謹，即使對輕微或技

術性的違規也不會寬容或彈性處理。我認

為，要修補同仁的關係，運動是個不錯的

出發點，所以要求理事會讓我成立體育委

員會。可是，過去數次嘗試籌組康樂組的

失敗經歷，令理事會有些猶豫。例如某次

籌組管弦樂團時，只得一位鋼琴師申請，

而其他活動的參與人數也不多。」

幸而，林律師對成立康體會的堅持獲得了

回報。他擔任理事第二年，時任會長羅志

力律師同意了成立康體會。林律師說，為

康體會的起步和籌組首支足球隊，他邀請

香港醫學會進行足球比賽。他說：「如果

我沒有記錯，第二個組成的是網球隊，之

後逐漸增加了三至四個體育隊，包括羽毛

球隊和乒乓球隊。」

即使獲得通過成立康體會，林律師建立康

體會根基的工作仍是困難重重。提升活動

參與率、管理隊伍、統籌練習時間表、聘

請教練等是康體會面對的部份主要困難，

而當中最艱難的是向理事會爭取撥款。林

律師歸功兩位康體會創會兼前會員陳澤銘

律師和楊美麗律師，還有當時律師會秘書

處的曾冠穎小姐，他們都努力幫助康體會

越過這些難關。


林律師解釋：「委員會的成立從零開始，

過程中有起有跌，毫不容易。最初數月，

我每天下班後都得參加練習和比賽，相當

疲累。幾乎出席所有活動的主因是為了鼓

勵其他會員參與和維持出席率。沒有足夠

熱心的隊員，你就無法組隊。」

看到現時的會員人數，有些人可能會以

「後來的事人人皆知」來為林律師的故

事作結，事實上，委員會的發展也是十

分值得一聽的故事，當中包含了各領隊

和會員的承諾和投入。

康體會成長初期，新的體育隊陸續加入，

其後中國書畫、歌唱、瑜伽等康樂小組也

開始自然而然地形成，與其他專業團體和

海外律師協會聯合舉辦的比賽和錦標賽也

相繼舉行。

體育

康體會起初提供的體育項目寥寥可數，

但至今已增至14項，包括：籃球、羽毛

球、單車、長跑、龍舟、足球、高爾夫

球、遠足、桌球、游泳、乒乓球、網球、

保齡球和排球。

入門會員毋須為加入任何體育隊或康樂組

而憂心，因為康體會大部分的練習和課堂

都有導師助陣。據林律師說，委員會育成

初期，「為了吸引更多會員加入活動，我

們決定聘請經驗豐富的導師，照顧活動中

由入門至高階不同程度的參與者。」陳律

師介紹導師團的水平時說：「排球隊教練

是前香港隊隊員，桌球隊教練是前香港

冠軍，而書法國畫班的老師更是國際知名

的。」很多導師雖然都擁有頂級資格，卻

都以市場水平、甚至低於市場水平的收費

為康體會指導課堂。

此外，即使會員在名單上找不到合意的活

動，也不應放棄加入。林律師說：「我們

容許會員向我們建議新的體育隊伍或康樂

活動。」不過，由於須考慮預算、招聘導

師、隊伍管理等多項因素，會員須向康體

會會員提出申請，待其通過。

上文已述，除會內比賽外，康體會亦參

與對外組織的比賽和錦標賽，當中包括

香港專業團體康體會(RSCP)的成員組

織。RSCP，前稱聯合專業康體委員會，

是繼律師會康體會成功設立之後成立的，

創會成員包括律師會的林律師、香港醫

學會的楊超發醫生、香港牙醫學會的廖穎

康醫生和香港會計師公會的譚尚勤會計

師。這些協會舉行會際比賽，其後邀請範

圍更擴大至更多專業團體。林律師指，由

於各會的利益可能有所衝突，加上專業團

體可能受不同的政策限制，成立RSCP比

成立律師會康體會更具挑戰。律師會康體

會主席暨鄭楊律師行管理合顆人鄭麗珊律

師補充道：「RSCP由七個本地專業團體

組成，目的是協調團體之間的體育及康

樂賽事，而律師會是其中一個創會成員。

每個組織提名兩至三位代表出席定期會議

和計劃會際賽事，而律師會提名的代表則

是Nick(陳曉峰律師)、我和前任主席林新

強律師。其他專業團體包括香港會計師公

會、香港建築師學會、香港大律師公會、

香港牙醫學會、香港醫學會和香港測量師

學會。」

鄭律師進一步解釋這個聯會的優點：「它

提供了一個建立人際網絡的平台，讓我

們的會員得已聯繫其他本港專業團體的成

員。」

此外，康體會亦參加如粵港澳律師運動會

的律師會會際錦標賽。兩年一度的粵港澳

律師運動會有11至12個體育項目，來自

四個律師會(包括作客的台北律師公會)的

參與者合共超過700人。2015年的第六

屆運動會將由香港主辦，預期參與人數將

創新高。

林律師說，2002年第一屆粵港澳律師運

動會乃由前律師會理事會成員簡家驄律師

發起和籌辦，林律師不過承其薪火，把它

發展成定期活動。

除參加粵港澳律師運動會外，康體會在

2014年還參加了第38屆元旦冬泳拯溺錦

標大賽、維特健靈慈善單車馬拉松、香港

國際龍舟邀請賽、奧運歡樂跑、第九屆法

紀盃高爾夫球賽、香港ASTC三項鐵人亞

洲盃、樂施毅行者等眾多賽事。

康樂

上文曾提及，隨著康體會發展，會中活動

也變得更多元化。康體會迄今已有八個康


• January 2015

Football is more than life and law.

生活和法律以外還有足球。

Football


樂小組，包括橋牌、中國書畫、烹飪、美

酒及佳餚鑑賞、舞蹈、樂隊演奏、歌唱、

太極和瑜伽。

烹飪、美酒及佳餚鑑賞小組乃當中人數最

多的小組。然而，這毫不出人意料，因為

康體會會員不但喜愛參與本地活動，亦享

受往意大利和法國品嘗美食。由於烹飪相

當受歡迎，康體會每年均舉行「法律廚神

食神大比拼」。

家庭同樂日是康體會每年最盛大的康樂

活動之一，在一片嘉年華的氣氛中，參與

者逾700人。同樂日活動眾多，包括家庭

接力賽和嬰兒爬行大賽。林律師不無神氣

地說，家中幼女曾於爬行大賽中奪冠。另

外，當日還有跑步、跳繩、擲物、畫畫比

賽、天才表演等節目。

康體會成立後，康樂及體育晚會成了會

員每年必去的盛事，並從2010年起以萬

聖節、律師卡頒獎禮、那些年等不同的

有趣主題進行，每年均吸引近400人出

席，2015年十周年晚會的人數預計將會

更多。

加入康體會

加入康體會十分簡單，會籍保證物有所

值。只要加入每年的康樂活動計劃，你就

可以參加有良好管理的體育隊和康樂組、

獲得資深的導師指導和熱心的隊長協助。

計劃還包括個人意外保險，如在活動中受

傷亦可獲得保障。

鄭律師解釋：「每年200元的會費其實物

超所值。會員只要出席活動，一切後勤工

作自有辛勤的委員打點，確保所有隊伍運

作順暢。委員會擬訂和推行政策和指引，

以保障會員的安全。他們亦調整、統籌和

管理各隊伍和活動。」委員會的職務還包

括物色導師、適合練習和活動的場地、表

揚各隊成績、管理財政和保險政策。

活動如此豐富，律師會設有智能手機程

式，方便會員查閱所有活動的日期、時間

和地點。會員還會收到短訊通知他們新活

動和提醒他們已回覆出席的活動。

無形的好處

如果你還未被完全說服加入康體會是善用

時間和金錢，你可以把會籍當作一種對自

己的專業和個人投資。你除了會變得健美

和健康外，還會獲得很多無形的好處，例

如得到作息平衡、友誼、人際網絡，甚至

真愛。

陳律師說：「我們不斷提醒各隊伍，參

與這些活動是為了與同儕建立聯繫和友

誼，勝利是其次的，樂趣和情誼才是首

要的。」

為了證明運動如何改善了業界裡的關係，

林律師說他曾獲會員告知：「因為在法庭

上代表訴訟雙方的律師是在隊伍中結交的

朋友，他們更能打從心底相信對方。」

除此以外，鄭律師補充，康體會「推廣維

持健康和工作之間的良好平衡，為會員的

身心健康效勞。身為律師，我們經常十分

忙錄，除非有人把我們拉出去運動或參

加活動，不然我們多會夜以繼日地坐在案

前、不斷工作。」

與同業參與同隊或同組活動還有另外幾個

好處，譬如可建立師友關係和透過轉介獲

得工作或生意。陳律師說：「隊伍催生了

很多師友關係。較資深的會員會幫忙訓練

剛入隊的會員，經驗豐富的律師會指導年

輕的律師。我還留意到隊友之間會轉介工

作。」

此外，據報有部分會員通過康體會找到重

要的另一半，並已結為夫妻。其實，陳律

師就曾為其中一對新人擔任婚姻監禮人，

感到非常有成就感。

領導

如前所述，康體會的誕生有賴林律師的努

力和領導。為了延續他的貢獻和理想，鄭

律師和陳律師自願付出時間，在履行繁重

的工作和家庭責任之餘，分別擔任現任主

席和副主席。其實，兩人都是各自所屬律

師行的合顆人，而鄭律師更是管理合顆

人。可幸的是，他們互補長短，十分合

拍。鄭律師承認，她個性「比較保守、像

母親」，著重會員活動時的安全、團隊支

援和管理。她說陳律師則「比較活躍和具

創意，帶來許多好主意」。他們接替林律

師以往的工作，看管整個康體會的運作。

觀乎會中需管理和支援的會員、體育隊、

康樂組和活動數目，這任務殊不容易。


By Bridge, We Connect.

橋繫人心。

Bridge

鄭律師和陳律師兩人不僅是體育愛好

者，更是運動員。鄭律師是非常有天賦

和勤奮的泳手，經常積極參與多項本地

及海外的年齡分組賽，贏得多面獎牌。

鄭律師熱心為泳隊擔任榮譽隊長，而

熱衷排球的陳律師亦是排球隊的榮譽隊

長。即使兩人熱愛這兩種運動，為免與

康體會委員身份有利益衝突(例如對所屬

隊伍偏私)，他們均辭去了隊長職位。現

在，他們開心地掛著榮譽隊長的職銜，

同時支援所有隊伍和活動，包括盡可能

多參與各隊伍的練習。

展望

展望將來，陳律師說：「我們會繼續一

直以來的工作。我們不斷收到開設新組

的要求，覺得很鼓舞。可是，我們不

想發展過急，反而希望妥善地把事情辦

好，確保一切都得到照顧和適當的安全

措施保障。

林律師表示：「很高興我所有的付出都

有成果。」雖然他對會籍的持續增長相

當滿意，可是他認為有律師會四分之一

的會員加入，康體會的推廣方可稱上成

功。不過，林律師對達成此目標相當樂

觀。

十周年將至，即將踏上第二個十年的旅

程，康體會毋疑會越來越有規模。康體

會將朝著為會員提供最佳服務的方向

發展，繼續幫助本地律師培養良好的關

係、健康的身心和達到理想中的作息平

衡。n

Over the years , the Tennis Team has had extraordinary success in becoming the

champion at the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Lawyers Sports Meet every time

and winning the Joint Professional Tennis Tournament on a number of occasions.

網球隊多年來多次於粵港澳律師運動會及聯合專業網球錦標賽奪冠。

Tennis

Join our local/international culinary classes, visits and competitions. Meet the chefs, learn

secrets and passion for good food, wine and great company!

參加我們的本地或海外美食班、探訪和比賽，就可跟廚師見面、學得烹飪秘訣，還能享受佳

餚美酒良朋相伴！

Cookery, Food & Wine Appreciation

Whether to boost performance or get a fun workout, please join us for a great time, whatever the time!無論你想提升表現或是開開心心地運動，加入長跑隊隨時都有歡樂時光！

Distance Running


• January 2015


The Singing Group has many performance opportunities – come join us now!加入歌唱小組，無限機會讓你大展歌喉！

Singing

Please join our Snooker Team. There is a lot of fun!桌球樂趣多，加入我們吧！

Snooker

Do you want to learn the classy ballroom, flirtatious latin or passionate tango? Come join us.想學習優雅的標準舞、性感的拉丁舞或熱情的深戈？加入我們吧！

Dancing

The Law Society Volleyball Team = fun, joy, sweat, excitement, friendship and a big family! Come join us!香港律師會排球隊＝樂趣＋歡欣＋優雅＋運動＋刺激＋友誼＋大家庭！來加入我們吧！

Volleyball

Viva Table Tennis! A crowning achievement following years of dedication and growth.乒乓球萬歲！多年用功和成長換來驕人成就。

Table Tennis

Who wants an all-weather sweat-less sport? Come and join us, the Law Society Tenpin

Bowling Team.

想一年四季都能無汗運動？來加入香港律師會保齡球隊吧！

Tenpin Bowling

Established in 2012, the Law Society Cycling Team has grown and currently

has nearly 80 members.

2012年成立的香港律師會單車隊茁壯成長，迄今隊員已增至近80人。

Cycling


Every organisation is vulnerable to crisis. No sector or industry is immune. Nowadays, General Counsel or legal teams will usually be at the heart of any crisis management team and tasked with navigating a business through the storm. But in this changing environment with ever escalating scales of crises and related liability, penalty or sanction, what skills are legal teams developing to become better equipped to address these challenges?

By Julia Gorham, Head of Employment, Asia DLA Piper Hong Kong


• January 2015

Crisis Management: The Legal Team Response

CrisesThe types of crises businesses can experience are numerous and varied. In general terms, however, the key types of crises that a legal team will ordinarily face tend to bifurcate into two areas, broadly according to industry sector. The first area encompasses engineering or manufacturing defects or crises arising from resources – in these cases there is often a clearly identifiable and visible crisis in which people die or get hurt (eg, from a building collapsing, from a poisoning or even from a boycott or strike). The second involves finance or fraud-related crises – for example, crises that arise from a bankruptcy, from a Chief Executive being accused of fraud or from the imposition of regulatory sanctions or fines.

In the first category, crises will often involve damage to individuals’ safety or to real property. This includes the loss of life of customers, consumers or staff, or damage to premises which may cause both physical damage to individuals, as well as critical financial impact. The business’ focus here will regularly be ensuring safety above all else. The Legal Team will work quickly to assist with that aim, but also with the aim of identifying possible liability issues and defence strategies. For example, this year’s South Korea ferry disaster, killing many on board and devastating a community, created both public liability for the ferry company and individual liability for the captain and crew. It also required an immediate assessment of all operational shipping practices in the region to confirm there were no further compliance breaches and ensure the safety of other vessels and passengers.

For those in sectors at risk of financial or regulatory crises, such as fraud or bribery probes, General Counsel and legal teams must turn their immediate focus on limiting reputational damage, containing information, assessing legal and regulatory risk and developing an investigation strategy when a crisis strikes.

For example, the high profile arrest of the Kwok brothers by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in 2012 required legal teams to assess not only potential individual liability in respect of the brothers, but also potential liability at a corporate level with respect to what was known by the organisation and how far any damage could be ring fenced. This, in turn, means agreeing a legally sound strategy for communicating to shareholders or other stakeholders (be they customers, employees or the community).

Of course, some crises transcend sectors. A devastating event, such as the Japan Tsunami of 2011, impacted all businesses operating in the region. Issues such as staff security, staff movement, business continuity planning were at the forefront of every legal team’s planning but required different responses according to the extent of the impact on their businesses. At an individual level, the death of a staff member or someone committing a serious criminal offence, can throw a business into crisis as relatives and/or authorities seek to establish any causal link between the business’ operations and the action, requiring the legal team to assess and review all relevant facts and manage sensitive and highly emotionally charged encounters.

Many of the tasks required of a legal team in these scenarios are not immediately obvious, such as the need to obtain temporary regulatory licenses for staff who were operating from Hong Kong during the immediate aftermath of the Japan Tsunami, or a decision to review an employee’s history where they have committed suicide at home. The ability to think broadly around the potential issues arising out of a crisis is therefore paramount.

Managing Legal RiskFor a legal team, managing a crisis is traditionally about successfully managing legal risk and controlling information flow to minimise liability. Usually, the goal is

January 2015 • EMPLOYMENT LAW 僱傭法


to put the company in the best position ahead of any possible dispute, as the technical skills of the General Counsel or legal team are a given.

However, for most businesses, the pure legal risk is often outweighed by the importance of managing the reputational and social damage that now flows from any such crisis. Previously the remit of CEOs and Communications Directors, General Counsel and legal teams must now have these issues at the very forefront of their thinking when developing their legal strategy. They must also be sufficiently skilled at anticipating and managing these issues.

The Impact of Social MediaFor the legal team, social media is now a game changer. It is no longer sufficient to merely outline the legal risks posed by social media to business, but there must now be a practical, specific risk management framework which will successfully guide a business through any crisis. Social media no longer sits outside of business, confined to the realm of the “social”, but within it. Social media can and often does make or break a company.

The rise of 24/7 news and real time technological interconnectivity enables news and information to travel fast. Controlling that information, which may be damaging, is a difficult task. Therefore, the speed of response is vital – legal teams are no longer afforded the luxury of significant time to review the facts before formulating a response to a crisis. They must have a preliminary plan and a clear strategy at the outset, whilst further due diligence continues in parallel.

In litigation matters, particularly where parties or disputes are high profile, it is essential that lawyers work quickly in conjunction with the communications or public relations strategists, as failure to do so can result in very significant

risks. Social media is embraced by businesses seeking to use it to their advantage. However, legal teams will need to be involved in fashioning the approach to ensure that confidentiality restrictions are complied with and that representations or statements do not mislead the public or can be justified if required.

Stakeholder ManagementKey stakeholder management is now a major requirement for managing a crisis. General Counsel and legal teams thus need to be allowed to work alongside the CEO, CFO and other business decision-makers to ensure any crisis management framework and strategy has support from the board. Legal teams (and General Counsel in particular) must be trusted by their business and have credibility with top management before a crisis arises – there is little point in trying to develop trust at crunch point.

A specific challenge of stakeholder management is managing differing priorities. For example, sometimes it is difficult to balance a legal perspective, which may choose a slower and fuller understanding of all the facts, with the need to report swiftly and often without all known facts to comply with the demands of a regulator. Similarly, challenges can arise with managing the Board of Directors or another oversight body. Counsel will be expected to oversee the strategy for communications and briefings, as well as ensure that the right information is communicated to the right people at the right time and in the right way. Failure to manage this can lead to decisions being made by disparate groups with outdated facts, causing an endless spiral of updating and re-setting of understanding. It can also lead to significant embarrassment (or, even worse, reputational damage) if senior stakeholders provide market commentary without being sufficiently briefed.

The Legal TeamGeneral Counsel and legal teams need to think fast and act faster, which poses challenges to lawyers in terms of the individual and team skills on which they rely. During a crisis, depending on the nature of the crisis, a different executive group may form but the General Counsel is usually at the centre and involved in all material work streams. However, a General Counsel cannot do everything, so the best pre-planning for a crisis is to build a legal crisis team with the requisite skills and experience. This means identifying lawyers who are calm, able to influence effectively, engender trust and who are adaptable and decisive. This last skill can be difficult to assess and develop. Thus part of the role of a General Counsel or a senior lawyer will be to find ways to empower their legal teams to own work streams during a crisis and make determinations. Without this, there can be a risk of a blockage as all decisions, no matter how minor, fall to the General Counsel. An empowered legal team will then be given clear responsibilities and be expected to provide regular updates to the General Counsel and crisis team, ensuring effective communication and full disclosure of developments.

Crisis Management Plans and Communications StrategiesCrises by their nature require legal teams to react to the situation that eventuates. We are always told to be proactive as lawyers but it’s not always possible to proactively deal with a crisis. Nonetheless, we can anticipate possible issues to a degree. Legal teams can, together with their other key stakeholders, map out and create a plan to deal with various scenarios that may arise. These plans will detail ownership of work streams; protocols for escalation for different types of crises; general principles for managing PR, media and insurance; as well as management of third parties


• January 2015

(such as suppliers, governments, landlords, any of whose interests may diverge from your business’s) to ensure that breakdowns in communication do not impact a company’s legal position; and other key business risk factors.

In regulated sectors, having clear processes for dawn raids, for example, and ensuring staff are properly trained in dealing with regulators or authorities who may arrive at your premises is an essential aspect of the legal and compliance teams’ functions.

In terms of the strategy for crisis communications, the business will identify a crisis communications team that will include PR and media specialists but will also usually include a protocol for key communications to be reviewed by the legal team. It’s essential to balance the legal protection sought from careful communications with the need of the business to communicate with its own voice a meaningful message that is not overly hampered by legalese. The message must match the medium and, in some cases, a clear message of ownership may improve its reputational and PR position. Businesses should have developed and ready a series of holding responses appropriate for different forms of crises and key staff should be briefed on those. Once a crisis has developed, monitoring the press, communications and public sentiment is essential to gauge and address any subsequent legal issues that may arise.

Being a lawyer for a business at a time of crisis is, therefore, not just about the legal issues arising. It is about helping the business manage the immediate issue taking into account all relevant factors, such as reputational, safety and financial, as well as providing leadership at a time when it is most needed. n

作者 Julia Gorham，Head of Employment, Asia 歐華律師事務所(香港)

危機當前，任何機構都不能掉以輕心，任何界別或

行業亦都無法僥免。如今，首席法律顧問或法律團

隊通常會是危機管理小組的核心，需要為企業導

航，帶領其所屬企業跨越風暴難關。然而，在一個

持續變化環境中，危機的規模與相關法律責任、處

罰或制裁不斷提升，法律團隊需要發展什麼技能，

才足以應對該等挑戰呢？



危機管理：法律團隊的應對之道

危機

企業所面對的危機可說是各式各樣的，

但法律團隊所面對的主要危機，通常根

據行業領域可分為兩大範疇。第一個範

疇涉及工程或生產上的缺陷，或是因資

源而引發的危機–在該等情況中，往往

存在可以明確識別和可覺察到的危機，

而該等危機會導致人命傷亡，例如因建

築物倒塌、中毒，甚或是抵制行動或罷

工而引發的危機。第二個範疇則是與金

融或欺詐相關的危機，例如因破產、高

層領導涉嫌欺詐，或是因施加監管制裁

或罰款等情況而引發的危機。

就上述第一類情況，所形成的危機，通

常會涉及對個人安全或土地財產所造成

的損害。這包括導致客戶、消費者或員

工死亡，或者物業受損而可能對個人造

成身體損害以及重大財政影響。就此而

言，企業通常會將人員安全放在首位。

法律團隊需要採取迅速行動，促使這一

目標的達成，並協助識別可能產生的法

律責任與防衛策略。例如，韓國2014年

發生「世越號」沉船災難，導致許多船

上搭客喪生，社會瀰漫著一片哀訊，輪

船公司須為此事故承擔公眾法律責任，

而船長及船員則須承擔個人法律責任。

此外，這宗事故亦導致即時對該區所有

航運操作實務進行重新評估，以確認再

無任何違規情況，並確保其他船隻與乘

客的安全。

面對金融或監管危機風險(如欺詐、賄賂

調查)的領域，危機一旦發生，首席法

律顧問及法律團隊須立即將注意力集中

於將聲譽受損的情況減低、遏阻相關信

息、評估法律及監管風險，以及制訂調

查策略等。例如，郭氏兄弟於2012年被

廉政公署逮捕，轟動一時，這時法律團

隊不僅要評估郭氏兄弟的潛在個人法律

責任，並且要就公司得悉多少內容，以

及可以將損害控制的程度，評估公司的

潛在法律責任。這亦意味著，公司需要

商定一項有效法律策略，與股東或其他

持份者(無論是客戶、員工或社會)進行溝

通。

當然，有些危機是橫跨不同領域的。例

如，2011年的日本海嘯是一場毀滅性

災難，對該地各行各業的企業都造成影

響。關於工作人員的安全、人員流動、

業務持續性的規劃等各項問題，都是各

個法律團隊進行規劃時首要關注的事

項，但同時亦須根據其對業務的影響程

度而作出不同回應。就個人層面而言，

如有員工去世，或是某人干犯了嚴重刑

事罪行，都可以令一家企業陷入危機，

因為親屬及/或政府部門會試圖將該企

業的經營與有關行動連繫起來，因此法

律團隊必須評估和審視所有相關事實，

並處理一些敏感及極度情緒化的衝突情

況。

在此等境況中，法律團隊所要肩負的許

多工作都不會明顯地即時為人所覺，例

如緊接日本海嘯災後的時間，需要為在

港經營業務的人員取得臨時監管執照﹔

又或是，如有員工在家中自殺，便需要

決定是否審查該員工的過往紀錄等。因

此，最重要是能夠全盤考慮因危機出現

而產生的潛在問題。

處理法律風險

對於一支法律團隊來說，危機管理向來

是指成功地管控法律風險和控制信息流

向，從而將法律責任減至最低。一般而

言，由於首席法律顧問或法律團隊具有

相關專業技能，因此目標是在可能發生

任何爭議之前，將公司置於最有利的位

置。

然而，對於大多數企業來說，現時處理

因該等危機所造成的聲譽與社會損害，

其重要性往往超越單純的法律風險。以

往，這些都是行政總裁及傳訊總監的職

權範圍，但現在首席法律顧問及法律團

隊在制定自身的法律策略時，也須將這

些問題列入其首要考慮範圍內，而在預

計和處理該等問題上也須具備充足的技

巧。

社交媒體的影響

對於法律團隊來說，社交媒體現在成為

遊戲規則的改變者。只是概說社交媒體

給企業所帶來的法律風險並不足夠。我

們現時必須訂立一個實用、具體的風險

管理架構，而該架構將可有效地引導企

業渡過任何危機。社交媒體不再只處身

於企業以外，局限於「社交」範疇內，

而是也處身於企業之中。社交媒體不但

有能力，而且也的確能夠經常打造或破

壞一家公司。

全天候式的新聞及實時互聯技術的興

起，使新聞和資訊的傳遞速度加快。要

控制該等有時甚至具破壞性的資訊並不

容易。因此，最重要的是回應的速度—

法律團隊現時再沒有充裕時間，讓其經

過仔細思考，才決定如何就所面對的危

機作出回應。他們需要從一開始便制定

初步計劃及明確的策略，並繼續同步進

行進一步的盡職調查。

如涉及訴訟事宜(尤其是當事人或有關爭

議備受社會矚目)，律師須從速與傳訊

或公關策略專家共同展開工作，不然的

話，便有可能會導致重大風險。社交媒

體得到試圖利用它為自身帶來好處的企

業接納。然而，法律團隊必須參與制訂

這一方法，以確保保密規定得到遵守，

而所作的陳述或聲明也不會給公眾造成

誤導，或者在有需要時可以提出合理依

據支持。

對持份者的管理

對關鍵持份者的管理，現時是危機管理

的一項重要要求。因此，首席法律顧問

及法律團隊應獲許與行政總裁、財務總

監及其他業務決策者一起共事，以確保

所訂立的任何危機管理架構和策略得到

董事會的支持。法律團隊(尤其是首席法

律顧問)必須在危機發生之前已取得所屬

企業的信任，並且獲得最高管理層的信

賴—到要緊關頭才去爭取高層的信任，

為時已晚。

對持份者的管理所面對的一項具體挑

戰，是如何處理不同的優先次序。例

如，從法律的角度看，我們需要放慢腳

步對所有相關事實作較全面的了解，但


• January 2015

同時又為了符合監管機構的要求，需要

經常在不具備所有已知事實的情況下從

速匯報，因此有時很難在這兩者之間取

得平衡。而在應對董事會或其他監督機

構方面亦同樣面對挑戰。法律顧問需要

監督傳訊策略及簡報會的工作，確保正

確的信息能夠在適當時間以正確方式傳

達給合適的人。不然的話，這便有可能

會導致不同群體依據過時的資料作出

決策，從而需要不斷更新和重新理解實

情。此外，涉及高層人員的持份者如在

沒有獲得提供充分資料的情況下作出市

場評論，這也可能會導致出現非常尷尬

的情況(而更糟糕的是可能會導致聲譽受

損)。

法律團隊

首席法律顧問及法律團隊都需要思考敏

捷，行動迅速，因此對於律師須具備的

個人及團隊技能帶來挑戰。當有危機發

生(視乎該危機的性質而定)，企業可能需

要另外成立一支執行小組，而首席法律

顧問通常會在當中扮演核心角色，並參

與各項重要工作。然而，首席法律顧問

總不能事事兼顧，所以為應付危機而制

訂的最佳事先規劃，就是建立一支具有

所需技能和經驗的危機處理法律團隊。

這意味著，企業需要物色的律師，須具

備冷靜頭腦、對別人具影響力、令人信

任、適應能力強和處事果斷，但要評

估和提高適應力和決斷力並不容易。因

此，首席法律顧問或資深律師所擔當的

部分角色，是在危機發生期間授權其法

律團隊主導自身工作和作出相關決定。

不然的話，所有相關決策(不管該決定如

何微不足道)責任全數落在首席法律顧

問身上，會帶來阻礙決策進程的風險。

因此，一支獲妥為授權的法律團隊會被

賦予明確的責任，並須向首席法律顧問

及危機處理小組定期匯報，以確保能進

行有效溝通，並對事態發展作出充分披

露。

危機管理計劃及傳訊策略

基於危機所屬的性質，法律團隊需要就

其所導致的情況作出反應。人們經常

說，作為律師需要積極主動﹔然而，當

面對危機發生，律師並非每每能夠積極

主動，但某程度上也能夠預計可能出現

的問題。法律團隊可以與其他主要持份

者共同繪製和制訂計劃，以應付各種

可能出現的情況。該等計劃會詳述一系

列工作的主導權﹔不同類型危機升級的

方案﹔處理公關、媒體及保險的一般原

則﹔以及對第三方的管理(例如供應商、

政府、業主、以及其利益可能與你所經

營的業務有所不同的人士)，從而確保即

便是溝通中斷，也不會對一家公司的法

律地位構成影響﹔以及其他主要業務風

險因素。

在監管領域方面，企業須就黎明突擊制

訂明確程序，確保工作人員曾接受適當

培訓，懂得如何應付監管機構或政府部

門人員上門調查，而這也是法律與合規

團隊的重要職能之一。

就危機傳訊策略而言，企業需要確定一

支危機傳訊團隊的成員會包括公共關係

及媒體專家在內，而且當中通常也會包

含一項方案，讓法律團隊得以對重要通

訊進行審視。企業既需要從謹慎進行的

通訊中尋求法律保障，亦需要以自己的

聲音來傳遞具有意義的信息而不受法律

術語過份束縛，因此在這兩者之間作出

平衡至關重要。所發放的信息必須與溝

通媒介配合，而在某些情況下，有關主

導權的明確信息或可改善其聲譽及公關

方面的狀況。企業應當制定和備妥一系

列面對不同危機時所作的適當回應，而

且應就此向主要員工扼要說明。危機一

旦擴大，對新聞、通訊及公眾情緒進行

監測至關重要，以評估及應對任何可能

出現的後續法律問題。

因此，在一家正在面對危機的企業工作

的律師，所處理的事務並非僅僅是與

法律問題有關。事實上，該律師應當在

考慮聲譽、安全及財政等所有相關因素

後，協助企業處理當前的問題，以及在

有急切需要時發揮領導作用。n




• January 2015

I Am Being Stalked: How Can the Law Help Me Obtain Compensation?

By Ray Lee, Partner, Head of Insurance & Personal Injury ONC Lawyers Tze-yan Lam, Senior Consultant ONC Lawyers

In 2000, the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong recommended legal reforms

to assist victims of stalking. However, the recommendation was not heeded. Nonetheless, the torts of private nuisance and trespass to the person may assist victims of stalking to obtain compensation.

Usual Types of StalkingRecent news shows stalking to be on the rise. A primary school teacher who was imprisoned for stalking his students continued to stalk his victims after he was released from jail. A student sued the ex-teacher for harm she had suffered. This raises questions of whether victims of stalking can resort to civil action to seek compensation and prevent continued harassment by stalkers and if so, under what cause of action?

Many scholars and law commissions (eg, in the United Kingdom and Canada) have tried to define stalking. In its ordinary meaning, many people understand stalking as continuous acts of harassment over a period of time against a person. Common types of stalking include being followed by a sex predator on the street or receiving continuous unwelcomed telephone calls, letters or gifts from a stalker.

Protection under Existing Civil LawAs there is no cause of action in stalking per se, and stalking may take many forms, victims need to consider different causes of action against stalkers. These may include the tort in private nuisance, trespass to the person, sexual harassment or invasion of privacy, among others. Some types of stalking may culminate in criminal offences such as loitering, assault and battery, intimidation and false imprisonment. This article shall concentrate on the civil torts of private nuisance and trespass to the person.

1. Private NuisanceWhen a person sues a stalker in private nuisance, the person must prove, on a balance of probabilities that the nuisance maker has interfered with the ordinary and reasonable use or enjoyment of the victim’s property.

However, if the stalking activity does not interfere with the occupation of the victim’s property or if the victim has no interest in the property in question, the action will fail. In Ng Hoi Sze v Yuen Sha Sha [1999] 3 HKLRD 890, the Court of Appeal held that the Plaintiff could not sue her university roommate in nuisance when the latter allegedly had sex in the Plaintiff’s presence in a hostel room because the Plaintiff had no right of exclusive possession to the hostel room. Thus, the link between the alleged wrong and properties can create peculiar problems. For example, a wife may sue her separated husband in private nuisance if he harasses her at her rented residential property. However, if such harassment takes place at the wife’s work place, she may not sue him in private nuisance as she has no property interest in the work place. She merely has permission from her employer to use the property for the purpose of work.

2. Trespass to the PersonTrespass to the person can take the form of attempted or actual battery or assault against a victim. When a stalker attempts or threatens to commit a battery which puts the victim in reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate infliction of an unlawful physical contact, the tort will be applicable.

The tort of trespass to the person was the cause of action in the Court of Appeal case of Chang Ming Fang v Zhang Zi Qiang [2011] HKEC 237. A sister (Plaintiff) sued her brother (Defendant) in tort. He sought to recover a debt allegedly owed to him by the Plaintiff. He had used various

means including threats over the phone, appearing at the Plaintiff’s workplace in intimidating demeanour, leaving menacing voice messages, distributing copies of an IOU to people leaving the Plaintiff’s workplace, sticking up posters showing the enlarged IOU, the Plaintiff’s photograph, her name card together with intimidating words. The appellate Court found that the Defendant had caused the plaintiff to fear for her own safety, which was evinced by her need of psychiatric treatment. She was diagnosed to suffer from depressive disorder as a result of the Defendant’s action. Injunction was granted together with damages of HK$200,000.

However, mere repeated telephone calls or tailing a person without actual physical contact or putting the person in reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate violence may only be considered as annoyance and therefore, is not actionable under the tort of trespass to the person.

RemediesPrivate NuisanceRemedies available to victims of nuisance usually include compensation for whatever loss the victims suffer that are a foreseeable consequence of the perpetrators’ wrongful acts. Compensation for private nuisance are awarded mainly for the loss of amenity value of the land

January 2015 • INSURANCE & PERSONAL INJURY 保險與人身傷亡

我受到纏擾，可循甚麼法律途徑獲得補償？李展鵬合夥人，保險及人身傷亡部門主管柯伍陳律師事務所林子絪資深顧問律師柯伍陳律師事務所


affected as a result of the nuisance. If the nuisance has caused loss of profits or other expenses, these are also recoverable. However, compensation for personal injury as a result of private nuisance is not recoverable. Another common remedy is injunction which are commonly granted if the harm is substantial, or where compensation alone is not sufficient to help the victim.

Trespass to the PersonVictims of stalking may sue in the tort of trespass to the person and obtain compensation from the stalker for mental stress or otherwise suffered under the head of pain, suffering and loss of amenities. They can also obtain compensation in medical expenses, and losses in income if their suffering has prevented them from work.

In the case of the student above mentioned (who was being stalked by her ex-teacher), she may sue in private nuisance if she was stalked at her residence. If her ex-teacher’s stalking caused her fear of immediate infliction of unlawful physical contact, she may sue her ex-teacher in the tort of trespass to the person.n

香港法律改革委員會於2000年建議就纏擾

行為進行法律改革，以協助受害人，但

有關建議最終不獲接納。不過，纏擾行為的受

害人可基於私人滋擾及侵犯人身等侵權行為獲

得補償。

常見的纏擾行為類別近期報道顯示纏擾案件有上升趨勢。一名因纏

擾學生而被判監的小學教師，出獄後繼續纏擾

學生，其中一名受害人就其受到的傷害索償。

纏擾行為的受害人可否循民事訴訟索償和停止

纏擾者繼續騷擾？如果可以，這會基於什麼訴

訟因由？

許多法律學者和各地的法律改革委員會(例如英

國和加拿大)都嘗試界定何謂「纏擾」。一般而

言，很多人會把「纏擾」理解為在一段時間內

對某人持續作出騷擾行為。常見的纏擾行為包

括在街上被色狼跟蹤，或不斷收到纏擾者發出

不欲收到的來電、信件或禮物等。

目前民事法下的保障由於纏擾本身並非訴訟因由，而纏擾可以有多

種形式，因此受害人應考慮以不同的訴訟因由

來控告纏擾者，當中包括私人滋擾、侵犯人

身、性騷擾或侵犯私隱等侵權行為。某些纏擾

可構成刑事罪行，例如遊蕩、襲擊、毆打、恐

嚇和非法禁錮。本文將集中討論私人滋擾和侵

犯人身這兩種民事侵權行為。

1.私人滋擾

若要控告纏擾者私人滋擾，受害人必須以「衡

量相對可能性」的標準來證明滋擾者已干擾受

害人正常及合理地使用或享用其物業。

但如果纏擾行為沒有干擾受害人佔用其物業，

或受害人在相關物業中並無權益，則無權提起

訴訟。在NgHoiSzevYuenShaSha[1999]3

HKLRD 890一案中，原告人因大學宿舍室友在

其在場的情況下在宿舍房間做愛，故控告其室

友作出滋擾行為。上訴法庭裁定原告人敗訴，

因為原告人並無宿舍房間的獨享管有權。因

此，被指的不當行為與物業之間的關連能產生

古怪的問題，例如，如果已分居的丈夫到妻子

租住的居所騷擾她，妻子可控告他私人滋擾；

但如果丈夫到妻子的工作場所騷擾她，她卻不

能控告他私人滋擾，因為她在工作場所並無物

業權益，只擁有其僱主准許她因工作而獲得的

物業使用權。

2.侵犯人身

侵犯人身的形式可以是試圖或實際毆打或襲擊受

害人。纏擾者若試圖或威脅干犯毆打行為，而令

受害人合理地恐懼或恐怕即將受到不合法的身體

接觸，將可構成侵權行為。

在上訴法庭審理的ChangMingFangvZhangZi

Qiang [2011] HKEC 237一案中，姊姊(原告人)

控告其弟弟(被告人)侵權，訴訟因由是「侵犯人

身」。案情指被告人曾以多種方式追討聲稱是原

告人欠下他的債務，包括致電威脅，兇神惡煞

地出現在原告人的工作場所，留下恫嚇的電話留

言，向離開原告人工作場所的人派發借據副本，

張貼經放大的借據、原告人的照片和卡片連同寫

有恐嚇字句的海報。原告人因被告人的行為而

需要接受精神治療，並被診斷出患上抑鬱症。因

此，上訴法庭裁定，被告人令原告人害怕人身安

全受威脅，故頒發禁制令，並判給20萬港元的

損害賠償。

但如果只是重複致電或尾隨他人，而沒有實際的

身體接觸，亦沒有令他人合理地恐懼或恐怕即將

受到暴力，則只會被視為煩擾，因而不能以侵犯

人身為由進行訴訟。

補償私人滋擾

滋擾行為的受害人可獲得的補償，通常包括因肇

事者的不當行為而令受害人蒙受的任何可預見損

失的賠償，主要是就滋擾行為導致受影響土地休

憩價值的損失獲得賠償。如果滋擾行為造成利潤

損失或其他支出，受害人亦可向滋擾者追討。然

而，因私人滋擾導致的人身傷害卻不可追討賠

償。另一種常見的補償是禁制令，如果受害人受

到相當程度的傷害，或者只靠金錢賠償不足以幫

助受害人，法院便會頒發禁制令。

侵犯人身

纏擾行為的受害人可控告纏擾者侵犯人身，並

就其承受的心理壓力或其他痛苦向纏擾者追討

「疼痛、痛苦與喪失生活樂趣」的賠償及醫療

費用；如果受害人因痛苦而無法工作，亦可追

討收入損失。

至於文首提到被前教師纏擾的學生，如果她在自

己的住所被纏擾，便可以私人滋擾為由提出起

訴。如果前教師的纏擾行為令她恐懼即將受到不

合法的身體接觸，則可控告前教師侵犯人身。n


• January 2015

On 31 October 2014, the Hong Kong government published its conclusions to the consultation process launched in May 2013 by the Financial Services and Treasury Bureau (“FSTB”) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”) for a proposed new regulatory regime for stored value facilities (“SVF”) and retail payment systems (“RPS”). This article provides an overview of the government’s concluding remarks.

Hong Kong Concludes Payments Regulation ConsultationBy Mark Parsons, Partner Hogan Lovells

January 2015 • FINANCIAL REGULATION 金融監管


Headline PointsThe government has made few changes from the outlines for the new regime set out in its May 2013 consultation paper, but there are some notable exceptions:

• The government has to some degree taken on board concerns that the new regime would give banks unfair competitive advantage in the emerging payments field. As per the original proposal, banks will continue to enjoy the benefit of being deemed to be licensed to operate SVFs, but will be obliged to keep their SVF float separate from deposits and other funds and meet the same float safeguarding principles applicable to non-bank SVFs.

• The potential scope of SVF regulation has been reduced to exclude “non-money” facilities, such as loyalty schemes, air miles and coupons intended for use on e-commerce platforms selling third party digital content and software.

• Non-device SVFs will not be subject to a HK$3,000 blanket maximum stored value, as originally proposed, but will instead be subject to maximum value requirements specifically set out in the applicable licence.

The efforts made by the government to level the playing field between bank and non-bank SVFs go some way towards addressing critics’ concerns. However, the smallest non-bank SVFs may continue to find there to be market entry challenges, such as the requirement that they hold a licence through a Hong Kong company having no less than HK$25 million in capital. Requirements such as this compare unfavourably to Singapore, for example, where SVFs having less than SG$30 million in float continue to be unregulated.

The government’s concluding remarks offer little in the way of specific criteria for the designation of RPSs under the new regime. Some respondents had

proposed that the government specify objective minimum criteria, such as a total daily transaction value of HK$5 million or an average of 10,000 system users per day. The government noted these requests but did not comment on their appropriateness. The government did go into specifics in identifying certain types of system infrastructure that it proposes would not be caught by the RPS regime, such as point of sales systems, telecommunications systems and network infrastructures. The detailed designation criteria therefore remain to be seen.

The government has announced that it intends to press on with the current timetable, which proposes that a draft bill be introduced to the Legislative Council in the 2014–15 legislative session.

A number of respondents pressed for a transitional period of 12 to 18 months following the introduction of the new regime. The government noted that a phased introduction of the regime would be pursued, but did not give any specific indication as to timing.

The Proposal for SVFsAt present, only device based multi-purpose SVFs are regulated in Hong Kong. The sole active licensee, Octopus Cards Limited, is licensed under the Banking Ordinance (the “BO”) as a deposit-taking company. Non-device based SVFs are currently unregulated as such, and a key policy objective for the reform is to bring these facilities into the regulatory fold.

Under the new regime, all multi-purpose SVFs (whether device-based or not) would be regulated under the Clearing and Settlement Systems Ordinance (the “CSSO”). Key features of the new licensing regime are that licensees:

• be a Hong Kong incorporated company with principal business restricted to the SVF;

• have a minimum of HK$25 million in paid up capital;

• meet certain “fit and proper” requirements; and

• provide a trust account or bank guarantee to cover float requirements.

A Level Playing Field for SVFs?A point of contention for some with the new SVF regime is the government’s initial proposal that banks licensed under the BO be automatically deemed licensed as SVF providers and enjoy a waiver of the float security requirements. The government’s rationale for the distinction was that licensed banks are already subject to substantial prudential requirements (including liquidity and capital adequacy requirements) and float volumes are likely to be small in comparison to their overall deposit-base.

Non-bank respondents to the consultation process, however, believe this aspect of the new regime would give the banks competitive advantage.

In its conclusions, the government has maintained its proposal that licensed banks be deemed to be licensed to operate SVFs, but has responded to non-bank criticisms by proposing to bring both bank and non-bank SVFs under a common set of float safeguarding principles, which include:

• a requirement to have in place float protection measures that adequately protect the float; and

• a requirement to keep the float separate from the licensee’s other funds.

The government paper goes on to say that the HKMA would have the discretion to assess float safeguarding measures against these principles on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the licensee’s governance structure, financial strength, scale of


• January 2015

business, risk management procedures and internal control environment.

Money, not “Money’s Worth”A number of respondents expressed concerns about the potentially wide scope of the definition of SVF put forward in the consultation paper. The particular point of focus was the extended definition of redeemable value covering “money’s worth” in addition to money.

Respondents expressed concern that reference to “money’s worth” may sweep in a wide range of customer loyalty schemes, such as air miles and cash rewards schemes.

The government has reacted to these criticisms by proposing to not regulate certain categories of coupons and reward schemes, including prepaid cards or coupons issued by “single online store platforms” offering third party digital media content, games and apps. Coupons issued by these online platforms, the government notes, are typically issued for downloads of content to one device or a small number of devices and behave more like single-purpose SVFs than the multi-purpose SVFs that are the subject of the proposed regulations.

Maximum Stored ValueA number of respondents expressed concerns about the government’s proposal to limit SVFs to HK$3,000 in maximum stored value per user. This amount tracks the current threshold for record-keeping and customer due diligence requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance.

On the basis that non-device SVFs are likely to be linked to credit cards and bank accounts (which are separately regulated for anti-money laundering and terrorist financing purposes), the

government has now proposed that non-device SVFs will not be subject to any blanket maximum stored value, but will instead receive individual treatment under licensing terms.

Minimum CapitalThe government’s proposal that licensees be subject to a HK$25 million capital requirement also drew criticism, with a number of commentators apparently believing that this would serve as a barrier to market entry for some.

The government, however, declined to change its position, noting that the minimum capital requirement is intended to avoid possible contagion by offshore business and serve as a financial buffer on top of the float protection measures.

The Proposal for RPSsRPSs are currently subject to self-regulation in Hong Kong. Eight payment card scheme operators with credit or debit card businesses in Hong Kong have committed to an HKMA-endorsed voluntary “Code of Practice for Payment Card Scheme Operators,” but there is no formal regulation, except to the extent the system is separately regulated under the Money Service Operator licensing regime applicable to remittance services.

Under the proposals, designated RPSs would be regulated under rules and procedures adapted from existing CSSO requirements, (ie, the principles that currently cover interbank clearing house transfer systems and some other key market settlements systems in Hong Kong). The HKMA would be entitled to designate an RPS if disruptions to the RPS are likely to result in one or more of the following:

• monetary or financial stability or the functioning of Hong Kong as an international financial centre being adversely affected;

• public confidence in payment systems or the financial system being adversely affected; or

• day-to-day commercial activities being adversely and materially affected.

What Will It Take to be “Designated”?The government did not set out specific criteria for designating an RPS under the new regime, although the government did note that a number of respondents had proposed that specific, objective materiality thresholds for designation, such as a minimum daily transaction value of HK$5 million or a minimum of 10,000 system users per day. The comments suggest that these recommendations will be taken into account, but without any commitment as to specifics.

The government was clearer in addressing questions as to whether or not certain types of systems would or would not be designated.

Point of sales systems, telecommunications systems and network infrastructures are unlikely to be caught by the new regime, as are ATM systems and other systems and infrastructure that form part of licensed bank operations (and so are already effectively regulated).

While the government noted that the credit card industry respondents were divided on the point of bringing existing card schemes under a mandatory regulatory regime, it took the view that the application of the proposed regime to card schemes would be proportionate to the growing importance and complexity of RPS and in line with international regulatory trends. It therefore seems likely that larger card schemes will be caught by the new RPS regime. n



政府發表香港支付系統監管制度的諮詢總結

作者柏雅盛合夥人霍金路偉律師行

就財經事務及庫務局與香港金融管理局(下稱「金管局」)於2013年5月展開

《儲值支付產品及零售支付系統建議監管制度》的諮詢工作，香港政府於

2014年10月31日發表其諮詢總結。本文概述了政府的總結意見。


• January 2015

重點

政府就2013年5月諮詢文件中建議設

立一個新監管制度的大綱作出了少許改

動，但當中也有一些明顯的例外情況：

•政府已在一定程度上充分考慮新監管

制度在新興支付方式方面讓銀行有不

公平的競爭優勢。按照原來建議，銀

行將繼續享有被視作已獲發牌經營「

儲值支付產品」所帶來的好處，但銀

行必須將「儲值支付產品」的儲值金

額，與其存款和其他資金分開保存，

並遵守適用於非銀行「儲值支付產

品」的儲值金額保障規定。

•「儲值支付產品」的潛在監管範圍已

大為縮窄，無需涵蓋「非金錢」產

品，例如會員卡計劃、飛行里數，以

及擬在出售第三方數碼產品和軟件的

電子商務平台上使用的禮券。

•非以硬件裝置為基礎的「儲值支付產

品」不受原建議提出的3,000港元儲

值上限限制，但須遵循適用牌照所具

體載明的儲值上限要求。

政府致力營造銀行與非銀行「儲值支付

產品」之間的公平競爭環境，在某程度

上回應了批評者的關注。然而，規模較

小的非銀行「儲值支付產品」在進入市

場時仍可能會面對挑戰，例如它們須是

一家於香港成立的公司並擁有資本不少

於2,500萬港元，才符合發牌要求持有

牌照。香港在這方面的要求遠遜於新加

坡，後者規定資本少於3,000萬新加坡元

的「儲值支付產品」可繼續不受監管。

在政府的總結意見中，就新監管制度下

指定「零售支付系統」的具體準則並沒

有作太多論述。部分回應者建議政府訂

明客觀的最低標準，例如：500萬港元的

每日交易總額，或是每日平均10,000名

系統用戶。雖然政府已知悉該等建議，

但並未就其是否適合作出評論。然而，

政府已具體識別了某些系統基建類別，

指出其並不受「零售支付系統」制度所

規限，例如﹕銷售點系統、電訊系統及

網絡基建等。因此，詳細的指定準則仍

有待公布。

政府已宣布擬按現行的時間表行事，並

會在2014-15年度立法會會期內，向立

法會提交一份條例草案擬稿進行審議。

部分回應者要求在新監管制度實施後，

能夠給予一個12至18個月的過渡期。政

府指出該制度將會分階段實施，但在時

間安排上並沒有作出任何具體表示。

有關「儲值支付產品」的建議

香港目前只規管以硬件裝置為基礎的多

用途「儲值支付產品」，而這方面的唯

一活躍持牌機構就是八達通卡有限公

司，該公司根據《銀行業條例》獲發給

接受存款公司牌照。另一方面，非以硬

件裝置為基礎的「儲值支付產品」目前

並不在監管範圍內，而改革的下一個重

要政策目標，就是要將該等產品納入監

管範圍之內。

在新監管制度下，所有多用途「儲值支

付產品」（不論其是否以硬件裝置為基

礎）均會受《結算及交收系統條例》

監管。新發牌制度的主要特點為持牌人

須：

•為一家在香港註冊成立的公司，其主

要業務僅限於「儲值支付產品」﹔

•其繳足股本不得低於2,500萬港元﹔

•符合一定的「適當人選」要求﹔及

•提供信託帳戶或銀行擔保以符合儲值

金額要求。

「儲值支付產品」存在公平競爭？

關於新「儲值支付產品」制度的其中一

個爭議點是，政府初步建議，根據《銀

行業條例》獲發牌照的銀行，會被自動

視為已獲發牌作為「儲值支付產品」的

供應者，並可免除遵守儲值金額保障規

定。政府作出如此區分的理據是﹕持牌

銀行目前已須遵守相當程度的審慎要

求（包括有關流動資金及資本充足的要

求），而且相對於持牌銀行的存款總額

而言，儲值金額可能會相對較少。

然而，諮詢過程中非銀行回應者則相

信，新監管制度在這方面會讓銀行擁有

競爭優勢。

政府在其諮詢總結中仍然維持原有建

議，即持牌銀行會被視作已獲發牌以經

營「儲值支付產品」。然而，政府也對

非銀行的批評作出了回應，就是建議銀

行及非銀行的「儲值支付產品」均須遵

守相同的儲值金額保障原則，包括：

•要求設立足以保障儲值金額的保障措

施﹔及

•將儲值金額與持牌人的其他資金分開

保存。

政府文件續稱，金管局可針對該等原

則，在評估儲值金額保障措施時，按

照每項計劃的實際情況，包括持牌人

的公司管理、財務實力、業務規模、

風險管理程序和內部監管環境等因素

行使酌情權。

金錢，而非「金錢等值」

部分回應者就諮詢文件中有關「儲值支

付產品」的潛在定義範圍太廣表示關

注，而焦點特別放在可贖回價值的定

義，除金錢外，還包括「金錢等值」在

內。

回應者關注到「金錢等值」可能會廣泛

地涉及一系列吸引顧客的計劃，例如飛

行里數及現金回贈計劃等。

政府就此等意見作出了回應，建議不規

管某些類別的禮券及回贈計劃，包括由

第三方提供數碼媒體產品、遊戲及應用

程式的「單一網上商店平台」所發出的

預付卡或禮券。政府指出，該等網上平

台所發出的禮券，通常用來將內容下載

至一個或是少量的裝置中，其作用有如

單一用途的「儲值支付產品」，而非目

前建議對其作出監管的多用途「儲值支

付產品」。



儲值上限

部分回應者就有關政府建議將每個用戶

的「儲值支付產品」的儲值上限定於

3,000港元表示關注。這一金額跟隨《打

擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集(金融機構)條

例》中關於備存紀錄及客戶盡職審查規

定的現行門檻。

由於非以硬件裝置為基礎的「儲值支付

產品」很可能會與信用卡及銀行帳戶相

連（就打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集活

動的而言，它們受到不同的監管），因

此政府現在建議，非以硬件裝置為基礎

的「儲值支付產品」不會受任何儲值上

限限制，而是會根據發牌條款作個別處

理。

最低資本額

政府建議持牌人須至少擁有 2,500萬港

元的資本要求也惹來批評。部分評論者

認為此舉會對某些公司進入市場造成障

礙。

然而，政府拒絕改變其立場，並指出最

低資本要求，旨在避免受離岸業務牽

連，並以此作為儲值金額保障措施以外

的財政緩衝。

有關「零售支付系統」的建議

「零售支付系統」目前在香港需要進行

自我監管。八家在香港經營信用卡或扣

帳卡業務的支付卡計劃營運機構，已承

諾採納及遵守獲金管局認可的自願性《

支付卡計劃營運機構實務守則》，但該

系統除了根據適用於匯款服務的「金錢

服務經營者」發牌制度而受到獨立監管

外，目前並不受任何正式監管。

根據政府的建議，指定的「零售支付系

統」將受到根據現行《結算及交收系統

條例》而訂立的規則和程序所監管（即

該等目前涵蓋香港的銀行同業結算所轉

帳系統及其他一些主要市場交收系統的

原則）。若某「零售支付系統」出現故

障可能會導致以下一項或多項情況發

生，則金管局將有權指定「零售支付系

統」：

•貨幣或金融不穩定，或香港作為國際

金融中心的運作受到負面影響﹔

•公眾對香港支付系統或金融體系的信

心受到負面影響﹔或

•香港的日常商業活動受到嚴重負面影

響。

如何「指定」？

政府雖然沒有述明在新監管制度下指定

「零售支付系統」的具體準則，但政府

指出部分回應者曾提議應當就「指定」

訂立具體和客觀的重大門檻，例如500

萬港元的最低每日交易額，或是每日至

少10,000名系統用戶。諮詢總結指出，

該等建議將被納入考慮範圍內，但並沒

有作出任何具體承諾。

但對於哪類系統會／不會納入指定範圍

內，政府的答案則較為清晰。

銷售點系統、電訊系統及網絡基建都不

大可能受新監管制度所規管，而構成持

牌銀行營運一部分的自動櫃員機系統及

其他系統和基建的情況也如是（因它們

已經受到有效監管）。

雖然政府關注到，信用卡行業回應者對

於將現行各種支付卡計劃置於一個強制

性監管制度之下意見分歧，但政府認為

在支付卡計劃方面實行建議制度，會與

「零售支付系統」日益重要和越趨複雜

相稱，並與國際監管趨勢相符。因此，

各項較具規模卡計劃似乎有可能會受新

「零售支付系統」制度所規管。n

By Wendy Wysong, Partner, and Montse Ferrer, Associate Clifford Chance


• January 2015

How to Effectively Manage Corruption Risk When Doing Business in China

January 2015 • ON CHINA 中國實務


China presents high reward opportunities for multi-national companies (“MNCs”) who can manage

corruption risk effectively. The risk arises from certain practices that are an important part of successfully doing business in China, but can be subject to abuse if not understood and carefully managed. Such practices include the frequent use of intermediaries and the tradition of building networks of close personal relationships as a foundation for choosing business partners. Moreover, gift giving and hospitality are traditional in China and may be subject to misinterpretation. The fact that many, if not most, businesses are owned or partially owned by the government changes the nature of what would otherwise be considered a commercial transaction. Finally, the encouragement recently given by law enforcement authorities to whistleblowers adds to the risk that traditional practices may be scrutinised carefully for corruption. In addition to the aggressive extraterritorial enforcement of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the increased corruption crackdown by Chinese enforcement agencies1 has these MNCs second-guessing whether their risk-reward matrix is relevant in the current business environment.

IntermediariesVirtually every article written on successfully doing business in China mentions the importance of using an intermediary (“zhongjian ren”) to make introductions, provide language and cultural interpretations, facilitate relationship-building (“guanxi”) and navigate local regulations and regulatory authorities. It is accepted wisdom that without an intermediary well-versed in Chinese language, customs and laws, a non-Chinese company cannot possibly be successful.

Yet companies must be aware that sales agents, consultants, distributors and any other third-party intermediaries are a significant risk for compliance because paying, receiving or soliciting bribes through these intermediaries seldom exempts the party behind the illicit payment. In fact, the most

prominent corruption case in China involving an investigation by Chinese authorities of an MNC, the British pharmaceutical manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), focused squarely on its use of third party intermediaries. According to China’s Ministry of Public Security, between 2007 and 2013, GSK used travel agencies, which specialised in altering corporate travel expenses (eg, fictitious conferences or overly expensive training sessions) to channel bribes to doctors, hospital staff and government officials.

In addition to PRC anti-corruption regulations, the FCPA and the UK Bribery Act 2010 (“UKBA”) also penalise use of third parties to pay bribes.2 The FCPA specifically provides that a company can be held responsible for (i) the “authorisation of the giving of” a prohibited payment by a third-party and (ii) for the acts of a third-party, if the company knew that the money or thing of value given to the third-party would be used, directly or indirectly, to make an illicit payment.

Authorisation is defined broadly as it can include explicit directions or implicit assent to a third-party to make an illicit payment. Even passive acquiescence may be sufficient for liability depending on the parties’ relationship and the nature of the business in which they are engaged. In addition, a company can also be held liable if it had knowledge that the money it paid the intermediary would be used for bribes on its behalf in connection with the sale of the company’s goods or services. In the words of the FCPA, if a company is aware that a person is engaging in bribery, of a “high probability of the existence of such circumstances,” or that bribery is “substantially certain to occur,” then the company is deemed to have sufficient knowledge under the FCPA for liability.

Liability for third-party conduct is even stricter under the UKBA as it does not require knowledge – actual or otherwise – of improper payments in order to trigger

REUTERS/Aly Song

1 In addition to increased enforcement, China has enacted additional anti-corruption laws and guidance and made changes to existing laws. Most recently, the draft Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law of the PRC was released proposing harsher penalties for bribe givers, among other changes.

2 Although Hong Kong’s Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Cap. 201 (“POBO”) penalises bribery through an intermediary, POBO does not expressly apply to foreign government officials (unless employed in Hong Kong), including government officials of the PRC.


• January 2015

corporate liability for the acts of “associated persons,” (ie, persons who are acting on behalf of or providing services to the company). For companies who are subject to the UKBA, even more care must be taken with regard to dealing with third parties.

Companies should therefore take careful measure of the compliance risks when using third-party agents in China. First, before engaging an agent, robust due diligence should be undertaken to ascertain and confirm the agent’s qualifications and ability to perform the contracted services, as well as the agent’s reputation for integrity and its relationship to any government officials.

Second, engagement of third-parties should always be in writing, with provisions making clear that the company and its agents are prohibited from giving or accepting bribes. The scope of the agent’s expected services and her compensation for actual services performed should be detailed. Undertakings for annual compliance certifications, rights to audit the agent’s expenses and invoices and termination clauses when a bribe is discovered should also be considered.

Finally, the agent’s expenses and invoices should be carefully reviewed before payment, including the back-up invoices and documentation where appropriate. Lack of transparency as to expenses or accounting records and long lists of government “fees” included on invoices can be red flags.

GuanxiMany Chinese business relationships are backed by close personal relationships, sometimes referred to as “Guanxi” in Chinese. Building these networks of connections is critical for successfully doing business in China, but this may require providing meals, entertainment, traditional gift-giving and, for some occasions, cash gifts before business even begins. While the Chinese government has recently cracked down on “wasteful

spending” and issued a growing list of rules requiring government officials to downshift their lifestyles by reducing public money spent on perks such as cars and travel, gift-giving is still an essential part of doing business in China. Failure to understand the distinction between authorised local business practices and the limitations imposed by applicable anti-corruption laws may land a company in the legion of companies operating in China now charged with bribery under applicable laws.

The FCPA allows certain business courtesies that do not necessarily imply a corrupt intent. For example, “grease payments” fall under the FCPA exception for “facilitating payments” if intended to prompt an official to do what the official is otherwise bound to do, as opposed to a discretionary action such as a decision to award business or to continue business with a company. The FCPA also recognises an affirmative defence for “reasonable and bona fide expenditures, such as travel and lodging expenses, incurred by or on behalf of a foreign official directly related to” either “the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services” or “the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency thereof.”

For example, modest travel conditions (economy class flights and standard business hotels); payments made directly to the service providers, not to the officials; and no expenses for family members qualify for the affirmative defence. Similarly, gifts of a nominal value branded with the company’s logo are also likely to qualify as a promotional gift covered by the affirmative defence. The UKBA, however, does not make an exception for facilitation payments nor does it provide an affirmative defence for promotional expenses.

China’s anti-corruption laws are somewhere in between. China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law defines commercial bribery as business operators giving money or property or inter alia, granting secret or off-the-books kickbacks

to sell or purchase goods and services. Under China’s criminal law, it is an offense for any individual or entity to offer to any State official or institution (including State-owned enterprises) “articles of property” to obtain “improper benefits”, or for any State official to solicit or accept “articles of property” to provide benefits, whether improper or not (which would be tantamount to public sector bribery). “Articles of property” involve any form of advantages/benefits having a monetary value – for example, cash, stock, securities or in-kind gifts.

In practice, the frontier between a bona fide and reasonable business expenditure and a bribe is uncertain. Whether a particular expenditure is problematic depends not only on the type and value of the gift/entertainment offered, but also the circumstances under which it is provided (ie, the nature of the parties’ relationship and purpose of the gift). For example, a working lunch of a reasonable value following a business meeting is unlikely to be regarded as a bribe, while inviting clients to a night club and ordering expensive wines for them is obviously more problematic.

State-Owned EntitiesChina reportedly has over 140,000 state-owned entities (“SOEs”) whose assets account for over 50 percent of the country’s GDP. Many of these SOEs enjoy a quasi-monopolistic status in certain business sectors, such as energy, banking, telecommunications and defence. But, while state-ownership and control is common in China, it may not be immediately apparent, making it difficult for MNCs involved in transactions with Chinese companies to discern whether the company’s employees are government officials. This question is relevant because jurisdictions differ in how and when they penalise bribery of government officials.

In China, bribery of both government officials and private-sector employees is penalised, but the monetary thresholds and the penalties vary. Similarly, the



UKBA penalises bribery in the public and commercial sectors. In both of these instances, whether a company is an SOE theoretically has little effect on liability. The FCPA, however, only criminalises bribery of “foreign officials”, which means that determining whether a company is an “instrumentality” of the government is essential to the question of liability.

US enforcement agencies and courts have considered a number of factors under which SOEs may be considered “instrumentalities” and their employees “foreign officials” as defined by the FCPA. First, the following factors need to be considered in determining whether a government “controls” an entity:

• the government’s formal designation of that entity;

• whether the government has a majority interest in the entity;

• the government’s ability to hire and fire the entity’s principals;

• the extent to which the government profits from or subsidises the entity; and

• the length of time that these indicia have existed.

Second, in order to establish whether the entity performs a function the government treats as its own, the following factors need to be considered:

• whether the entity has a monopoly over the function it exists to carry out;

• whether the government subsidises the costs associated with the entity providing services;

• whether the entity provides services to the public at large; and

• whether the public and government generally perceive the entity to be performing a governmental function.

It is government-invested and commissioned companies that a court would likely find to be “instrumentalities of foreign governments” and their employees “foreign officials” because the law often governs their existence, public funding supports their operations

and government entities appoint their officers and directors. However, it is in the grey areas, where the lines between government and industry are blurred, that questions remain and where companies liable under the FCPA need to ensure that their due diligence includes an assessment based upon the factors enumerated above.

reports via official channels and to do so in a “lawful manner” without falsifying the truth. And most recently, the draft Ninth Amendment to PRC’s Criminal Law (“Ninth Amendment”) proposes to waive punishment to bribe givers who self-report only in special circumstances, such as when the offence is relatively minor.

In the United States, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) rewards whistleblowers who voluntarily provide “original information” that leads to an enforcement action resulting in sanctions greater than US$1 million with an award of 10–30 percent of any amount recovered by the Security and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Since these provisions came into effect, the SEC has awarded over US$50 million. SEC monetary incentives are having an impact inside and outside of the United States. China was the fourth-largest source of tips to the SEC outside the United States in 2014, behind the UK, India and Canada.

The information that enforcement agencies will reward and protect is information that can allow the agency to more quickly unearth and investigate violations or, as proposed by the Ninth Amendment, if the information leads to the “successful investigation of a major case”. Sources with this degree of information will tend to be insiders who are very close to the wrongdoing, including audit and compliance officers. Companies should remember to address every legitimate concern, especially those raised by the closest insiders.

ConclusionDoing business in China in the current anti-corruption enforcement environment has increased the stakes for MNCs: it is no longer high reward, low risk. Yet, MNCs should consider China’s increased enforcement as an opportunity to do business in what promises to be a cleaner environment where effective compliance programs should protect rather than hinder business operations. n

WhistleblowersIn addition to business practices in China, an increasing risk that companies need to manage is whistleblowers. Enforcement agencies rely heavily on their reports of wrongdoing and have accordingly been providing increasing rewards and protections to whistleblowers.

On 27 October 2014, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate announced the second amendment to the Rules Dealing with Whistle-blowing by the People’s Prosecutor (“Rules”) which set out for the first time the various rights and protections afforded to whistleblowers. In particular, Art. 8 of the Rules provides that whistleblowers can remain anonymous, make status inquiries of the investigation after reporting the wrongdoing, appeal any refusal to investigate by the local People’s Procuratorate, request protection from harm to person or property and, under certain conditions, receive a reward. But the Rules urge whistleblowers to file their

REUTERS/Guang Niu GN


• January 2015

在中國營商如何能有效管理貪腐風險

作者 Wendy Wysong 合夥人高偉紳律師行 Montse Ferrer律師高偉紳律師行

跨國企業在中國經營，如能有效地

管理貪腐風險，便能夠有機會

享有高回報。此等風險源於某些在中國

經商所須遵循的慣例，但要是經營者對

此等慣例沒有充分理解，又未能對其作

出謹慎處理，便可能會導致濫用情況出

現。該等慣例包括﹕經常透過中間人行

事和構建緊密人際關係網絡，從中選擇

合適的生意合作夥伴。此外，送禮和款

待皆為中國的傳統習慣，但也有可能會

被錯誤解讀。由於中國有許多(若非大多

數)企業是由政府擁有或部分擁有，因此

有可能會將原看作為商業性質的交易改

變過來。最後一點是，執法機關近年給

舉報人提供獎勵，而此舉亦增加了一些

傳統做法會被執法機關仔細審查，以確

定當中是否存在貪腐的風險。除了美國

的《海外反貪污行為法》以積極進取方

式實行域外強制執法外，中國的執法機

構現也正在加強打擊貪腐行為1，以致這

些跨國企業重新估量在目前的營商環境

中，其風險回報結構是否依然適合。

中間人

任何一篇談論在華營商成功之道的文

章，幾乎都會提到中間人在引薦、提供

語言及文化方面的解讀、促進雙方關係

的建立、小心繞過地方法規及監管部門

等，發揮了不容小覷的作用。傳統的智

慧告訴我們，如沒有精通中國語言、風

俗及法規的中間人協助，一家非中資企

業在華經營或許難以取得成功。

但企業必須注意到，銷售代理、顧問、

分銷商及任何其他第三方中間人，都會

在合規方面產生重大的風險，因為即使

有人通過這些中間人來支付、收受或索

取賄款，該人依然難以就該非法支付置

身事外。事實上，中國最矚目的一宗貪

腐案件，涉及中國政府對一家跨國企業(

英國製藥商葛蘭素史克，下稱「GSK」)

所進行的調查，而焦點落在該企業利用

第三方中間人身上。根據中國公安部的

資料，在 2007年至2013年間，GSK藉

專門篡改公司差旅費用(例如透過虛構的

會議或極為昂貴的培訓課程)的旅行社，

賄賂醫生、醫院工作人員及公職人員。

除中國的反貪腐法規外，《海外反貪污

行為法》及英國的《2010年反賄賂法》



1 除了加大執法力度外，中國另外制定了反貪腐法例和指引，並對現行法例進行了修訂。最近，《中華人民共和國刑法修正案(九)(草案)》公布，除了提出其他修訂外，還建議對行賄者施加更嚴厲的懲處。

2 雖然香港的《防止賄賂條例》(第201章)對透過中間人作出的賄賂行為予以懲處，但該法例並沒有明文規定適用於包括中華人民共和國公職人員在內的外國公職人員(除非該人員在香港受僱)。

(下稱《英國反賄賂法》)也對透過利用第

三方行賄的作為施以懲處1。《海外反貪

污行為法》明確規定，企業也許須對以

下行為負責﹕(i)授權第三方作出被禁止的

支付﹔及(ii)如該企業知悉所給予第三方

的金錢或有價物品，將會直接或間接地

用於非法支付方面，便須對第三方的作

為負責。

授權的含義廣泛，因為它可以包括明確

地向第三方作出非法支付的指示，又或

是以隱含方式給予同意。即使只是被動

默許，也可能足以招致法律責任，而這

取決於各方之間的關係，以及其所從事

業務的性質。此外，企業如知悉付給中

間人的款項，將會由中間人作為其代

表，把有關款項用於與該企業的商品或

服務銷售的賄賂方面，那麼該企業也有

可能被追究法律責任。《海外反貪污行

為法》規定，如果一家企業留意到某人

正在進行賄賂，而「該等情況存在的可

能性極高」，又或是該賄賂「實質上必

然發生」，那麼根據《海外反貪污行為

法》，就法律責任而言，該企業將會被

視作對有關情況充分知悉。

在《英國反賄賂法》下，基於第三方的

行為而須承擔的法律責任更為嚴格，因

為在企業需要就「關聯人士」(即作為企

業的代表或向企業提供服務的人士)的作

為承擔公司法律責任方面，企業不須對

該不當支付的發生有任何實際或其他方

面的知悉。對於該等須受《英國反賄賂

法》規管的企業，它們與第三方之間的

交易必須加倍小心。

因此，企業在中國透過第三方代理人行

事，便應就合規方面的風險採取嚴謹措

施。首先，在聘用代理人之前，企業應當

先進行認真的盡職調查，以確定和確認代

理人是否具備充分資格及能力履行所承包

的服務，以及代理人在誠信方面的聲譽及

其與任何公職人員之間的關係等。

其次，聘用第三方應經常透過書面形式

進行，並明確規定，企業及其代理人均

不得作出或接受賄賂。此外，代理人的

預期服務範圍，以及就其實際提供的服

務而給予的報酬，也應當詳細列明。另

外，關於年度合規認證、代理人的支出

和發票的審核權，以及發現有賄賂情況

時的終止條款等，也應當考慮提供保

證。

最後，企業在作出支付之前，應當仔細

審核代理人的費用支出和發票﹔如情況

適用，也應審核後備發票及所製備的相

關文件。費用支出或會計紀錄缺乏透明

度，及發票上載列冗長的政府「費用」

清單等，皆為一些危險信號。

關係

中國的許多生意往來，是以緊密的人際

關係作支持。建立此等關係網，是在中

國營商的致勝之道，但當中有可能涉及

飲宴、娛樂的提供，傳統送禮，以及在

某些情況下，即使仍未開始營業，便須

先行送贈現金作禮物。雖然中國政府近

期致力打擊「奢侈浪費」，並發布一系

列規定，要求公職人員減少將公款花在

用車、出差等津貼方面，讓生活方式變

得更為簡樸，但送禮在中國的商業圈子

仍佔很重要的部分。企業如未能理解認

可的當地營商慣例，與適用的反貪腐法

律所施予的限制之間的區別，便可能會

墮入根據適用法律正被控以賄賂的眾多

在華營商企業之中。

《海外反貪污行為法》對若干並非必然

隱含有貪腐意圖的商務禮儀作出寬免。

例如，「潤滑金」屬《海外反貪污行為

法》的例外範圍作為「便利費」(又譯

「疏通費」)，其用意旨在促使公職人員

加緊處理其份內應當處理的工作。這並

不涉及任何具自由裁量性質的行動，例

如考慮決定是否給對方生意，或是否與

對方繼續合作。此外，對於直接與「推

廣、示範或解釋產品或服務」有關，或

「與外國政府或其代理機構簽立和履行

合約」有關的「合理和真實支出，例如

外國公職人員或其代表所招致的出差及

住宿費用」等，《海外反貪污行為法》

接受積極抗辯。

舉例而言，適度的出差待遇(搭乘經濟艙

航班及住宿標準商務酒店)﹔款項直接支

付給服務提供者而非支付給公職人員﹔

家庭成員不獲提供任何費用支出等情

況，皆符合積極抗辯的標準。同樣地，

附有公司標誌而徒具名義價值的禮物，

亦可視作為推廣禮品，受積極抗辯所涵

蓋。然而，《英國反賄賂法》並沒有就

「便利費」作出任何例外規定，也沒有

為推廣用途的開支提供積極抗辯。

中國的反貪腐法規介乎這兩者之間。

《中華人民共和國反不正當競爭法》界

定商業賄賂行為的意思，是指企業經營

者藉提供金錢、財物或其他手段，或給

予暗中或賬外的回扣，進行賄賂以銷售

或購買商品和服務。根據中國的刑法，

任何個人或實體向任何國家公職人員或

機關(包括國營企業)提供「財物」，以

期獲得「不正當利益」，或任何國家公

職人員索取或收受他人「財物」，從而

為對方提供好處，不論其不正當與否(相

當於公共部門中的賄賂)，均屬違法。

「財物」涉及任何具有金錢價值的好處/

利益，例如是以現金、股票、證券或實

物禮品等形式。

實際上，真實和合理的業務支出與賄賂

之間的分界線並不明確。一項特定支出

是否成問題，這不僅取決於所提供的禮

品/娛樂之種類和價值，還需要視乎在什

麼情況下提供該等禮品/娛樂(即當事人

之間的關係屬何性質，以及送贈有關禮

品之目的)。舉例而言，在商務會議結束

後，給對方提供一頓價錢合理的工作午

餐，不大可能視此為向對方作出賄賂﹔


• January 2015

然而，邀請客戶往夜總會消遣，並以價

值不菲的紅酒款待，便顯然成問題。

國營企業

據報導，中國目前共有超過14萬家國營

企業，其所擁有的資產，佔全國國內生

產總值百分之五十以上。在例如能源、

銀行、電訊及國防等特定商業領域中，

許多這類國營企業都享有準壟斷地位。

然而在中國，儘管某些領域由國家擁有

及控制的現象很普遍，但也可能不會即

時察覺，使到與中國企業打交道的跨國

企業，難以識別該等中國企業的員工是

否屬於公職人員。這個問題相當重要，

因為對賄賂公職人員的行為如何及何時

作出懲處，每個司法管轄區在這方面的

法律各有不同。

根據中國的規定，賄賂公職人員及私營

部門僱員受到懲處，但所涉的金額門檻

及有關罰則卻各不相同。同樣地，《英

國反賄賂法》也對公營及商業部門的賄

賂行為施加處罰。在上述兩種情況中，

一家企業究竟是否國營企業，對所須承

擔的法律責任而言，理論上不會構成很

大影響。然而，《海外反貪污行為法》

只將賄賂「外國公職人員」的行為歸入

刑事罪行，這意味著，要確定一家企業

是否屬於某一政府的「工具」，這在確

立法律責任方面非常重要。

美國的執法機構和法院考慮了多項因

素，並根據該等因素來確定一家國營企

業是否可被視為「工具」，而其僱員是

否可被視為如《海外反貪污行為法》所

界定的「外國公職人員」。首先，在

確定某個政府是否「控制」著一個實體

時，需要考慮以下各項因素：

•該政府曾對該實體作出正式指定﹔

•該政府是否對該實體享有多數權益﹔

•該政府有權聘請及解僱該實體的負責

人﹔

•該政府從該實體所獲得的利潤或給予

該企業的資助，達至什麼程度﹔及

•該等迹象維持了多久。

其次，要確定該實體所執行的職能，是

否為該政府視作乃其自身執行的職能，

需要考慮以下各項因素：

•該實體對其自身所執行的職能是否有

權掌控﹔

•該政府有否就該實體所提供服務的相

關成本給予補貼﹔

•該實體是否向廣大民眾提供服務﹔及

•公眾與政府是否皆普遍認為該實體是

在執行政府職能。

法院可能會裁定，政府所投資及委託的

企業屬於「外國政府的工具」，而其僱

員則為「外國公職人員」，原因是它們

的設立，通常是由法律所規管，它們的

運作是由公款所支持，而其高級管理人

員和董事則是由政府實體所任命。然

而，由於政府及產業之間的界線模糊，

因此灰色地帶依然存在，故在《海外

反貪污行為法》下須承擔法律責任的企

業，需確保其盡職調查包含一項按上述

列舉的各項因素而作出的評估。

舉報人

除了需要考慮中國的商業慣例外，企業

面對的另一項正在不斷上升的風險，是

關於舉報人的問題。在很大程度上，執

法機構須依賴舉報人就他人的違規行為

而作出的舉報，因此舉報人獲給予更多

的獎勵和保護。

中國最高人民檢察院於2014年10月27

日公佈的《人民檢察院舉報工作規定》(

下稱《規定》)第二次修訂中，首度列明

為舉報人提供的各項權利及保護，特別

是《規定》第8條訂明，舉報人可以匿名

舉報﹔舉報人舉報違規行為後有權向受

理舉報的人民檢察院詢問，要求給予答

覆﹔舉報人對人民檢察院對其舉報事實

作出不予立案決定，有權就該不立案決

定向上一級人民檢察院提出申訴﹔舉報

人舉報後，如果人身、財產安全受到威

大脅，有權請求人民檢察院給予保護﹔

以及，在符合獎勵條件的情況下，舉報

人獲得獎勵。但《規定》要求舉報人循

官方渠道舉報，並「依照法律規定」，

不得故意捏造事實。最近，《中華人民

共和國刑法修正案(九)(草案)》(下稱《第

九修正案》)提議行賄人主動交待行賄行

為的，只有在特殊情況下(如犯罪較輕)，

可以免除處罰。

美國的《多德－弗蘭克華爾街改革與消

費者保護法》規定，舉報人如自願提供

「原來的消息」，讓執法機關得以採取

執法行動，以致最後制裁的金額超過一

百萬美元，則舉報人將獲得美國證券交

易委員會給予所討回金額的百分之十至

三十作為獎勵。自該項規定生效後，美

國證券交易委員會已發給了超過五千萬

美元的獎金。美國證券交易委員會的這

項金錢獎勵措施，在美國國內外都掀起

積極回響。中國是美國證券交易委員會

於2014年在美國以外的第四大舉報消息

來源，僅次於英國、印度和加拿大。

消息如能讓執法機關更迅速地揭發和調

查相關違例行為，或是如上述《第九修

正案》所提出的，檢舉揭發行為「對偵

破重大案件」起關鍵作用，則會為提供

該等消息的人士提供獎勵和保護。任何

人所提供的消息如能到如此程度，必然

是與違規行為非常靠近的知情人士，包

括審計人員和合規人員。因此，企業

必須記緊處理每一項合理疑慮，尤其是

由接近消息來源的知情人士所提述的事

宜。

結語

跨國企業在中國當前的反貪腐執法環境

下營商要面臨的風險增加：在中國營商

不再是高回報、低風險的了﹗然而，跨

國企業應當把中國加大執法力度看作為

營商機遇，因為它們將可在中國承諾的

一個更廉潔的環境中經營，而在這環境

下施行的有效合規方案，應當可保護跨

國企業的業務營運，而不會對其造成任

何妨礙。n

January 2015 • DISPUTE RESOLUTION 解決糾紛


Injuncting the Occupy Movement

REUTERS/Bobby Yip

By Sherman Yan, Managing Partner ONC Lawyers

BackgroundOn 20 October 2014, a public light bus company and two taxi associations (being the respective plaintiffs in the following two actions) obtained an ex parte injunction from the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) against the defendants occupying and preventing or obstructing the passing or repassing of the Occupied Areas (“Ex Parte Injunctions”). The plaintiffs then commenced the following two actions for inter partes injunctions against the defendants. The CFI concluded a judgment on both actions on 10 November 2014.

Action No. Plaintiffs Occupied Areas

HCA 2086/2014

Chiu Luen Public Light Bus Company Limited Westbound carriageway of Argyle Street between the junction of Tung Choi Street and Portland Street (“Occupied Area 1”)

HCA 2104/2014

1st Plaintiff: Lai Hoi Ping (“Lai”) suing on his own be-half and on behalf of all other members of Hong Kong Taxi Association (“HKTA”)

2nd Plaintiff: Tam Chun Hung (“Tam”) suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Taxi Drivers and Operators Association (“TDOA”)

Portions of Nathan Road near and between Argyle Street and Dundas Street (“Occupied Area 2”).


• January 2015

IssuesThere were two main issues in both actions:

1. Should inter partes injunctions be granted to the plaintiffs against the defendants?

2. Could the plaintiffs bring private claims against the defendants for public nuisance?

The Principles on Interlocutory InjunctionTurbo Top Ltd v Lee Cheuk Yan [2013] 3 HKLRD 41 summarises three principles on the grant of an interlocutory injunction:

1. whether there are serious issues to be tried;

2. whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either side;

3. if damages would not be adequate for both parties, where the balance of convenience lies in terms of whether or not to grant an interim injunction pending a trial. When conducting the balancing exercise, the court must consider the interests of the general public even though they are not represented before the court.

For a plaintiff to obtain an injunction at the interlocutory stage, while it is unnecessary to show that he has a case which is more likely than not to succeed, he must be able to show the existence of every element of an independent legal action and that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious (American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396), in order to satisfy the requirement that there should be serious issues to be tried.

The Laws on a Public Nuisance ClaimA state of affairs obstructing the public in exercising or enjoying any right common to members of the public constitutes a public nuisance (R v

Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 459).

Occupying a public area and preventing members of the public from access falls within the scope. As public nuisance infringes the general public’s right, it is for the Secretary for Justice (“SJ”) to bring a claim for and on behalf of the general public suffering inconvenience due to the public nuisance. A private individual is entitled to a claim in public nuisance only if he can demonstrate that he has suffered a “particular, direct and substantial” injury above and beyond what is suffered by the rest of the public at large (Benjamin v Storr (1874) LR 9 CP 400).

For damage to be “particular”, it need not be pecuniary in nature. General damage including inconvenience can be “particular” if it is substantial, non-consequential and of a greater degree than any suffered by the public (Walsh v Ervin [1952] VLR 361). Damage which is more than trivial can be regarded as “substantial” (Jan de Nul v Royale Belge [2000] 2 LLR 700). Damage caused by the public nuisance through an unbroken chain of event constitutes “direct” damage (Gravesham v British Railways Board [1978] 1 Ch 379).

Serious Issues to be Tried

The Plaintiffs’ Case

In HCA 2086/2014, the public light bus company as the plaintiff managed a circular commute route from Kwun Tong to Olympic Station (“Olympic Route”) generating the strongest source of revenue. Minibuses of the Olympic Route had to skip the three most popular stops from Argyle Street to Olympic Station with the defendants blocking Occupied Area 1. This reduced the daily trips of that route, the earnings of drivers and the amount of daily rent paid by drivers to minibus owners. The owners then threatened not to pay the plaintiff management fees. The plaintiff

therefore suffered loss in management fees and damage to its reputation as a minibus manager.

In HCA 2104/2014, the two taxi associations as co-plaintiffs claimed that many passengers no longer used taxis as a preferred means of transportation as the blocking of Occupied Area 2 led to general road congestions in Kowloon. This resulted in loss of income for taxi drivers and loss of rental income for taxi owners and managers.

The Defendants’ Case and the Outcome

The defendants mainly argued that the plaintiffs in both actions could not bring a private claim in public nuisance because the damages claimed to be suffered could not be regarded as “particular, substantial and direct”.

The CFI ruled that the plaintiffs in both actions had shown a triable case that their loss and damage was “particular, substantial and direct”, thus entitling them to bring a private claim for public nuisance against the defendants as the loss and damage suffered in each case was arguably:

1. “particular” as it was pecuniary in nature and above the inconvenience suffered by the general public by reason of the nuisance;

2. “substantial” for being more than trivial; and

3. “direct” as it was triable that it was the outcome of an unbroken chain of the following probable events flowing from the nuisance:

a. there would be serious traffic congestions in other roads in Kowloon generally;

b. regular road users of the Occupied Areas would divert their route;

c. at least some passengers would avoid taking public transportation



on the roads due to the heavy traffic congestions; and

d. the businesses of commercial vehicular users of the Occupier Areas would be seriously interfered and adversely affected with loss of their incomes.

The CFI also held that the two taxi associations in HCA 2104/2014 had shown that it was triable as to whether each and every member of HKTA and TDOA had a separate cause of action in public nuisance against the defendants, which was the requirement for Lai and Tam to bring a representative action on their behalf. The CFI rejected the defendants’ claim that all the represented persons must share the same interest for a representative action to be brought.

In short, the CFI held that the plaintiffs in both actions had established that there were serious issues to be tried for their private claims of injunction premised on public nuisance.

Adequacy of Damages as Remedy and Balance of ConvenienceThe plaintiff must show that an award of damages at trial (if the plaintiff was successful at trial) would not compensate him adequately for the loss he would suffer if the interlocutory injunction was not granted, and that his undertaking in damages to compensate the defendant’s loss (if the defendant was successful at trial and thus had been unjustifiably restrained by the injunction) would be an adequate remedy for the defendant (Improver Corp. v Raymond Industrial Ltd [1989] 1 HKLR 356).

Where there is doubt regarding the adequacy of damages, the question of balance of convenience which concerns the relative hardship between the parties arises. Factors affecting the

balance of convenience include the relative strengths of the parties’ cases (Swatch AG v Captoon Industries Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 444), the promptness of the plaintiff’s application (Int’l Connex Holdings Pte Ltd v Wealth Resources Enterprises Ltd [2006] 3 HKC 601), and the status quo immediately before the application (Lam Kin Ming v Wong Chun Loong, Tony [1990] 1 HKC 194).

The CFI adopted the following analysis in the CFI judgment granting the Ex Parte Injunctions:

1. as damages were not a sufficient remedy, an injunction was a proper and effective remedy available to the plaintiffs;

2. the balancing exercise should balance the general public’s right to use the Occupied Areas and those who were exercising their right to demonstration or assembly in those areas; and

3. taking into account the overall circumstances of both actions, the balance tilted in favour of granting and continuing the injunctions to the plaintiffs.

Directions on EnforcementSince the granting of the Ex Parte Injunctions, the defendants in both actions had been breaching the court orders by continuing to maintain obstructions at the Occupied Areas and continuing to prevent the plaintiffs from removing such obstructions. The CFI therefore, apart from granting and continuing the injunctions, also gave directions to facilitate their enforcement.

The Bailiff Directions

The following was the bailiff directions given by the CFI:

1. the bailiff do take all reasonable and necessary steps to assist the

plaintiffs and their agents to effect the clearance and removal of the obstructions; and

2. the bailiff be authorised and directed to request the assistance of the Police where necessary.

The Police Authorisation Directions

The following was the police authorisation directions given by the CFI:

1. any police officer be authorised to arrest and remove any person who the police officer reasonably believes or suspects to be obstructing or interfering any bailiff in carrying out his duties in enforcing the terms of the injunction orders, provided that the person to be arrested has been informed of the gist of the terms of the injunctions and that his action is likely to constitute a breach of the injunctions and obstruction of the administration of justice, and that he may be arrested if he does not desist; and

2. any person so arrested by the police shall be brought before the court as soon as practicable for further directions.

ConclusionThe Occupy Movement was unprecedented in Hong Kong and there had been speculations that, to bring it to an end, bloodshed could be unavoidable. Because of the very nature of public nuisance, it was thought that it would not be practicable to bring a private claim of injunction to end a public nuisance. The judgment on the above two actions neatly demonstrates the requirements to bring a private claim of injunction in such circumstances and the court is ready to grant such injunction where the requirements are met. n


• January 2015

禁制「佔領運動」作者甄灼寧律師，主管合夥人柯伍陳律師事務所

背景

於2014年10月20日，一家公共小巴公司及兩個的士團體(分別為以下兩宗案件的原告人)取得原訟法庭對佔領及阻止或阻礙通過或

往來佔領範圍的被告人發出的單方面禁制令(下稱「單方面禁制令」)。其後，原告人提出以下兩宗訴訟，要求法院對被告人發出各

方禁制令。原訟法庭於2014年11月10日就這兩宗案件作出裁決。

案件編號原告人佔領範圍

HCA

2086/2014

潮聯公共小型巴士有限公司介乎通菜街至砵蘭街一段亞皆老街西行線

(下稱「佔領範圍一」)

HCA

2104/2014

第一原告人：黎海平代表其本人及香港計程車會

(下稱「計程車會」)所有會員

第二原告人：譚駿雄代表其本人及的士司機從業員

總會(下稱「的士總會」)所有會員

彌敦道與亞皆老街交界至登打士街交界附近

(下稱「佔領範圍二」)

爭論點

這兩宗案件涉及兩個主要爭論點：

1. 法院應否對被告人發出各方禁制令？

2. 原告人能否以公眾滋擾為由向被告人

提出私人申索？

發出臨時禁制令的原則

TurboTopLtdvLeeCheukYan[2013]

3 HKLRD 41一案歸納了關於發出臨時禁

制令(即非正審禁制令)的三項原則：

1. 是否有須予認真處理的問題須作審

訊；

2. 損害賠償會否足以補償任何一方的補

救方法；

3. 如果損害賠償並非足以補償雙方的補

救方法，如何就候審期間發出臨時禁

制令與否平衡雙方的便利，而法院在

衡量時，即使普羅大眾並非訴訟一

方，法院也須考慮他們的利益。

原告人如欲在非正審階段取得禁制令，雖

然不必證明其勝訴機會高於敗訴機會，

但須證明已齊備一宗獨立法律訴訟的各項

元素，而且申索並非瑣屑無聊或無理取

鬧(AmericanCyanamidCovEthiconLtd

[1975] AC 396)，以符合「有須予認真

處理的問題須作審訊」的要求。

公眾滋擾申索的法律原則

任何阻礙公眾行使或享用公眾共有權利的

狀況，均構成公眾滋擾：RvRimmington

[2006]1AC459。佔領公眾地方及阻止

公眾進出的行為，即屬此範圍內。由於公

眾滋擾行為侵犯公眾的權利，因此應由律

政司司長為及代表因公眾滋擾而蒙受不便

的公眾提出申索。個別人士如欲以公眾滋

擾為由提出私人申索，必須證明自己大體

上比其他公眾受到更為「具體、直接及重

大」的傷害(見Benjamin v Storr (1874)

LR9CP400)。

「具體」的損害不必屬金錢性質。普通

的損害(包括不便)，只要是重大、非相

應而生及比公眾所承受程度更大，便可

以是「具體」損害(Walsh v Ervin [1952]

VLR 361)。超乎輕微的損害可被視為「



重大」損害(Jan de Nul v Royale Belge

[2000] 2 LLR 700)。透過沒有中斷的

連串事件由公眾滋擾造成的損害構成「直

接」損害(Gravesham v British Railways

Board[1978]1Ch379)。

有須予認真處理的問題須作審訊

原告人的案情

在HCA 2086/2014一案中，身為原告人

的公共小巴公司表示其管理的一條觀塘至

奧運站循環線(下稱「奧運線」)賺取收入

最多。但因被告人堵塞佔領範圍一，奧運

線小巴取消行經亞皆老街至奧運站一段上

客最多的三個站，令此路線每日的行駛班

次、司機收入，及司機向車主支付的車租

減少。其後，車主威脅罷交管理費予原告

人，原告人因此損失管理費，並且其作為

小巴管理公司的聲譽亦受損。

在HCA 2104/2014一案中，身為原告人

的兩個的士團體聲稱，由於佔領範圍二受

阻塞，九龍普遍交通擠塞，很多乘客不再

乘搭的士，結果的士司機收入減少，車主

及管理公司損失車租收入。

被告人的主要論點是，兩案的原告人均不

能以公眾滋擾為由提出私人申索，因為原

告人聲稱受到的損害不能被視為「具體、

重大及直接」的損害。

原訟法庭裁定，兩案的原告人已證明他們

是否受到「具體、重大及直接」的損失及

損害應由法庭審理，他們有權以公眾滋擾

為由對被告人提出私人申索，因為案中的

損失及損害很可能屬：

1. 「具體」：因屬金錢性質，而且比一

般公眾因滋擾而遭受的不便更大；

2. 「重大」：被認為超乎輕微；及

3. 「直接」：因滋擾行為引起的以下無

中斷可能存在的事件所導致的結果，

應由法庭審理：

a. 九龍其他道路普遍會有嚴重交通擠

塞；

b. 佔領範圍的正常道路使用者會改

道；

c. 至少部分乘客會因為嚴重交通擠塞

而避免乘搭路面公共交通工具；及

d. 佔領範圍的商業車輛生意會受到嚴

重干擾及不利影響，收入減少。

原訟法庭亦裁定，HCA 2104/2014案的

原告人已證明，是否每名計程車會及的士

總會的會員均對被告人有公眾滋擾具獨立

的訴訟因由(須符合此項要求，黎海平及

譚駿雄方可代表會員提出代理訴訟)，應

由法庭審理。原訟法庭駁回被告人指所有

被代表人士必須擁有相同利益，才可提出

代理訴訟。

簡言之，原訟法庭裁定兩案的原告人已證

明以公眾滋擾為由申請禁制令的私人申

索，屬有須予認真處理的問題須作審訊。

損害賠償是否足夠的補救方法及平衡便利

關於申請臨時禁制令時，作為補救方法

的損害賠償足夠程度規定，原告人必須證

明，假如不發出臨時禁制令，原告人即使

在審訊中勝訴，法院所判給的損害賠償亦

不足以補償其損失。假如被告人最終在審

訊中勝訴，因此而不合理地受到禁制令限

制，原告人承諾就被告人的損失作出的損

害賠償足以補償被告人(Improver Corp v

Raymond Industrial Ltd [1989]1HKLR

356)。

如果對損害賠償是否足夠的補救方法有疑

問，則需就雙方的相對困境，平衡雙方

的便利。影響平衡便利的因素包括雙方

案情的相對強弱(Swatch AG v Captoon

IndustriesLtd[1995]2HKC444)、原告

人申請的快捷程度(International Connex

Holdings Pte Ltd v Wealth Resources

EnterprisesLtd[2006]3HKC601)，以

及緊接申請之前的現狀(Lam Kin Ming v

WongChunLoong,Tony[1990]1HKC

194)。

原訟法庭在發出單方面禁制令時，在裁決

中作出以下分析：

1. 由於損害賠償並非足夠的補救方法，

禁制令對原告人是適當及有效的補救

方法；

2. 平衡便利時，應在公眾使用佔領範圍

的權利與佔領人士在該處的示威或集

會的權利之間取得平衡；及

3. 經整體考慮兩案的情況，發出及延長

禁制令是平衡雙方便利的做法。

執行禁制令的指引

自發出單方面禁制令後，兩案的被告人一

直違反法庭命令，繼續在佔領範圍架設

障礙物並阻止原告人清除該等障礙物。因

此，原訟法庭除了發出及延長禁制令，亦

就執行禁制令發出指示。

關於執達主任的指示

原訟法庭對執達主任的指示如下：

1. 執達主任應採取一切合理及所需的步

驟，協助原告人及其代理人清理和移

除障礙物；及

2. 執達主任獲授權及指示在有需要時要

求警方協助。

關於授權警方的指示

原訟法庭對授權警方的指示如下：

1. 如警務人員有理由相信或懷疑任何人

士阻撓或干預執達主任履行職務以執

行有關禁制令，則有權拘捕和移走該

人士，只要將會被捕人士已獲告知禁

制令條款的要點，並知悉其行為有可

能違反禁制令和妨礙司法，以及如不

停止有關行為將會被捕；及

2. 上述被警方拘捕的任何人士須在切實

可行的情況下盡快被帶到法庭，尋求

進一步指示。

總結

佔領運動在香港是前所未見的。曾有人估

計，要結束佔領，流血可能在所難免。鑒

於公眾滋擾本身的性質，提出私人禁制令

申索來結束公眾滋擾被認為不可行。上述

兩案的裁決清楚說明，在這種情況下以公

眾滋擾為由提出私人禁制令申索的要求，

只要符合該等要求，法院亦會發出禁制

令。n

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS業界透視ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Administrative Procedure Law AmendedThe Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China 2014 (Administrative Procedure Law, also known as the Administrative Litigation Law (行政訴訟法)) is China’s framework for the judicial review of administrative decisions. Although at the time of China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation ("WTO") related legislation was amended so that the Administrative Procedure Law would comply with the judicial review requirements in China’s WTO Accession Protocol, the Administrative Procedure Law is not well known and foreign businesses in China would rarely make use of it.

The Administrative Procedure Law was amended on 1 November 2014, but the amendments will not become effective until 1 May 2015 to give the courts and government officials an opportunity to adapt to its new provisions. The unamended law is referred to below as the 1989 Administrative Procedure Law.

Businesses rarely challenged government decisions in court under the 1989 Administrative Procedure Law. This is partly because the scope of acts that give rise to a challenge was limited under the 1989 Administrative Procedure Law – the failure to issue a license, for example, was stated as a grounds for challenge but other decisions relating to the permit were not. Potential litigants may also have been discouraged by the fact that the law conferred jurisdiction on the local courts in the same administrative

division as the government department involved.

The principal implications of the amendments are:

• New provisions concerning jurisdiction permit the establishment of regional courts that will have jurisdiction over administrative cases in several regions. Once such courts have been established, litigants may be able to bring cases with courts that are perceived as less closely linked to the local administrations whose decisions they are reviewing.

• More categories of government decision are open to review. These include:

°improper decisions concerning government concession agreements;

°failure to comply with real property expropriation and compensation agreements;

°challenges to administrative determinations concerning ownership of rights to natural resources; and

°decisions related to administrative permits in general (in addition to the refusal to grant the permit in the first place; a general right to challenge a “failure to respond” to an application for a permit has also been clarified to mean a failure to reply within any applicable statutory time limit).

• The possibility of challenging administrative monopolies.

• Giving the courts some basis to challenge normative documents by

directing courts not to use those documents if they do not comply with the law and authorising them to provide government departments with suggestions for dealing with the issue.

Chen Luming, Partner at Jun He in Shanghai, points out that when they come into force, the 2014 amendments will create new causes of action upon which citizens and corporates can sue the government, and provide claimants with certain procedural safeguards. However, Chen notes that the amendments do not answer the larger questions: “Is a court truly independent and free from government interference, and free to look only to the law when deciding cases?”, and “Does China have a supreme Constitution which is the only bible for administrative judges, or may they be forced to listen to other voices?”

- Practical Law China

行政法

經修訂的行政訴訟法

《2014年中華人民共和國行政訴訟法》

(下稱《行政訴訟法》)是中國司法審查行

政決定的框架。儘管中國加入世貿組織

時已修訂相關法例，令《行政訴訟法》符

合《中國入世議定書》有關司法審查的規

定，但《行政訴訟法》不是人人皆知，身

處中國的外商也極少引用。

中國政府於2014年11月1日修訂《行政

訴訟法》，但有關修訂一直要到2015年

5月1日才生效，為的是讓法院和政府官

員有機會適應新規定。未修訂的法例在下

文稱為《1989年行政訴訟法》。


• January 2015

January 2015 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

企業極少根據《1989年行政訴訟法》在

法院上挑戰政府作出的決定。這部分原因

是《1989年行政訴訟法》載列可據之提

出挑戰的行為範圍有限，例如，當中列明

拒絕頒發執照是不服決定而提起訴訟的理

由，但其他關乎許可證的決定則不是。由

於涉及政府部門，法律賦予同一個行政區

域內的地方法院管轄權，訴訟當事人也可

能一直因這一事實而感氣餒。

有關修訂的主要影響：

• 關於管轄權的新規定批准設立地區法

院，該地區法院將可在多個區域管轄

行政案件。一旦設立這類法院，訴訟

人或許能夠將地方行政的決定提交到

被視為與相關地方政府的關連程度較

不緊密的法院審理。

• 增加可公開審議的政府決定，其中包

括下列類別：

°有關政府特許經營協議的不當決

定；

°未能遵守土地財產徵用及補償協

議；

°挑戰有關天然資源所有權的行政

決定；及

°與一般行政許可證有關的決定(除

起初拒絕發給許可證外，也釐清

就有關當局「未有回應」許可證

申請而提出挑戰的一般權利，指

的是就有關當局未能在任何適用

的法定期限內答覆而提出挑戰的

權利)。

• 有可能挑戰行政壟斷。

• 藉指示法院不使用不合法的規範性文

件，給該些法院一些依據去質疑該等

文件，並授權法院向政府部門提出處

理問題的建議。

君合律師事務所上海分所合夥人陳魯明指

出，2014年的修訂生效時，將提供新的

訴訟因由，讓公民和企業可據之控告政

府，並向索賠者提供某些程序上的保障。

不過，陳律師強調，該修訂並沒有解答更

大的問題，即：「法院作出裁決時，是否

真的獨立且不受政府干預，並只需看法

律，並無其他？」，以及「中國有沒有至

高無上的《憲法》為行政法官唯一可依

的權威，還是他們有可能不得不聽其他聲

音？」

- PracticalLawChina

AML PRACTICE UPDATE

CFA opines on Mens Rea for “Dealing” OffenceThe Court of Final Appeal judgment in HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai [2014] HKEC 1831 confirms that in the application of the words “having reasonable grounds to believe”, for the purposes of s. 25(1) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) (the anti-money laundering “dealing” offence in Hong Kong), the courts neither apply an objective nor a subjective test.

Rather, to convict a defendant of the “dealing” offence, on the basis of reasonable grounds to believe that property represented the proceeds of crime, a judge or jury must be satisfied (to the requisite standard of proof) the defendant had grounds to believe and that they are reasonable. Everything (in effect) stands or falls by the proverbial standard of “reasonableness” (including, where a judge or jury see fit, the defendant’s own perception).

Readers can make-up their own minds on the extent to which this exercise in statutory interpretation adds clarity.

It is worth stressing that in Pang Hung Fai, the prosecution did not pursue a case of “knowledge” in the alternative, although that had been included in the original charge sheet.

Of particular interest (at the time of writing in December 2014) is whether other defendants pursuing appeals arising out of s. 25(1) convictions (based on “having reasonable grounds to believe”) seek to supplement their grounds of appeal by arguing that the lower courts have misdirected themselves as to the law on the basis of previous Court of Appeal authority that is now called into question.

That said, the extent to which the legal reasoning of the top court in Pang Hung Fai assists defendants at first instance is questionable. As criminal practitioners know (and the CFA’s judgment alludes to), decision makers in criminal cases can make findings as much on circumstantial evidence and irresistible inferences and a legal direction on the meaning of words is unlikely to change that.

For lawyer readers, the message is clear. Do your due diligence and “know your client” checks and take out protection (in this case, in the form of observing the profession’s AML Practice Direction P).

- Jason Carmichael, Partner, Smyth & Co in association with RPC

反洗黑錢實務更新

終審法院就「處理」罪行的犯罪意圖提出意見

終審法院在HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai

[2014]HKEC 1831一案的判決中確認，

就《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》(第455章)

第25(1)條(香港的反洗黑錢「處理」罪)

應用「有合理理由相信」的字詞方面，法

院並不引用客觀和主觀的驗證。


相反，要根據合理理由相信財產代表犯罪

得益而將被告人判定「處理」罪成的話，

法官或陪審團必須信納(達到必要的舉

證標準)被告人有理由相信且理由是合理

的。一切(實際上)是按常說的「合理性」

標準確立或不確立(如法官或陪審團認為

合適的話，被告人的認知也包括在內)。

讀者可以自行確認，這項法定解釋在多大

程度上增加清晰度。

值得強調的是，在Pang Hung Fai 一案

中，控方沒有以「知悉」替代控罪繼續

進行案件，儘管那已列入原控罪書之內。

在2014年12月撰文之時，特別感興趣的

是，因第25(1)條定罪(基於「有合理理由

相信」)而提出上訴的其他被告人是否會

補充其上訴理由，即：下級法院基於上訴

法院的以往典據(現已受質疑)在法律方面

誤導自己。

儘管如此，終審法院在Pang Hung Fai 一

案的法律推理於初審時有多大程度協助被

告人還未可知。正如承辦刑事案件的執業

人士所知的(和終審法院的判決所提及的)

，刑事案件中的判決者同樣可以根據環境

證據和不可抗拒推論作出裁斷，而這不太

可能受字詞含義的法律指引所改變。

對身為律師的讀者而言，訊息很明確，就

是進行盡職審查和「認識你客戶」的查

證，並採取保障措施(在此情況中可透過

遵守行業的《反洗黑錢實務指示P》的方

式)。

- Jason Carmichael合夥人， Smyth & Co與RPC聯營

ARBITRATION

New Year, New Rules at CIETACIn November, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) published the CIETAC Arbitration Rules 2015 (the “2015 Rules”), which will enter into force on 1 January 2015.

The changes are designed to improve the efficiency of CIETAC arbitral proceedings and bring the CIETAC Arbitration Rules closer in line with international best practice. The 2015 Rules also introduce special provisions applicable to the CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Centre (“CIETAC Hong Kong”).

Key updates are discussed below.

Emergency Arbitrator Procedure

The 2015 Rules introduce an emergency arbitration procedure, in line with other international arbitral institutions. The procedure allows parties to apply for an emergency arbitrator to grant urgent relief, either by agreement or in accordance with the law applicable to the arbitration. The existence of emergency proceedings does not preclude a party from applying to any competent court for interim relief and the power of the emergency arbitrator would cease on appointment of the arbitral tribunal.

As the Arbitration Law in mainland China does not provide for emergency arbitrators, the new provisions will apply principally to arbitrations administered by CIETAC Hong Kong. The Hong Kong

Arbitration Ordinance was amended in July 2013 to provide for emergency relief granted by an emergency arbitrator to be enforceable in the same manner as an order or direction of the court. (The updated law supported the introduction of emergency arbitrator provisions into the HKIAC rules in mid-2013.)

Single Arbitration under Multiple Contracts

New provisions are introduced for parties to apply for a single arbitration under multiple contracts in one case, providing for greater efficiency, if the following requirements are met:

• the contracts are master and accessory contracts, or are of the same nature and between the same parties;

• the dispute arises from the same transaction or the same series of transactions; and

• the arbitration agreements of those contracts are the same or compatible.

An Enhanced Consolidation Procedure

The revised Art. 19 no longer requires the agreement of all the parties in order to consolidate parallel proceedings. At the request of a party, CIETAC may decide to consolidate several arbitrations into a single arbitration under the following conditions:

• all claims in these arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement; or

• the claims in the arbitrations are made under multiple arbitration agreements that are identical or compatible, the arbitrations involve the same parties and the legal relationships are of the same nature; or

• the claims in the arbitrations are made under multiple arbitration agreements that are identical or compatible, and the multiple contracts involved consist of a principal contract and its ancillary contracts; or


• January 2015


• all parties agree to consolidate.

New Joinder Provision

New provisions are introduced under Art. 18 for third parties to join an existing arbitration. A party may file a request at CIETAC to join a third party to the arbitration proceedings if the requesting party can establish a prima facie case that the third party is also bound by the arbitration agreement. The request for joinder is determined by CIETAC.

Provisions for Hong Kong Arbitration

CIETAC set up its Hong Kong Arbitration Centre in September 2012. The 2015 Rules introduce a new chapter of special provisions for Hong Kong arbitration.

The provisions expressly state that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the law applicable to arbitral proceedings in CIETAC Hong Kong shall be the arbitration law of Hong Kong and that the arbitral award shall be a Hong Kong award. Accordingly, enforcement of a Hong Kong award in the mainland would be pursuant to the arrangements for mutual enforcement, and not as a domestic award.

Other notable features particular to CIETAC Hong Kong include:

• the power to appoint an emergency arbitrator and the enforceability of interim relief orders;

• a fee structure different to CIETAC in the mainland: in keeping with international trends towards greater transparency, arbitrators’ fees have been separated from the administrative fee for arbitrations seated in Hong Kong; and

• the parties are free to nominate arbitrators from outside CIETAC’s panel of arbitrators.

CIETAC Structural Changes

Under the 2015 Rules, CIETAC has also undergone some structural and administrative changes:

• A new Arbitration Court has been established to take over the case administration role from the

Secretariat, allowing the Secretariat to focus on internal administrative matters.

• Following the “split” of the former Shanghai and South China (Shenzhen) sub-commissions from CIETAC (Beijing) in 2012, the 2015 Rules clarify the structure of CIETAC, with the sub-commissions listed in Appendix I. For the purpose of removing confusion and ambiguity after the “split”, new provisions are introduced under Art. 2 to confirm that where an arbitration agreement provides for arbitration before the former Shanghai or South China (Shenzhen) sub-commissions, whose authorisation has been terminated, the arbitration will fall within the jurisdiction of, and will be administered by CIETAC (Beijing).

The 2015 Rules are a welcome update to reflect international best practice and to facilitate the operation of CIETAC Hong Kong.

- Timothy Hill, Partner, Hogan Lovells Hong Kong

仲裁

貿仲委發布2015版仲裁規則

在11月，中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會

(下稱「貿仲委」)發布《中國國際經濟貿

易仲裁委員會仲裁規則(2015版)》(下稱

《2015版規則》)，此規則將於2015年1

月1日生效。

新修訂旨在改善貿仲委的仲裁程序效

率，並將貿仲委的仲裁規則與國際最佳

實務更趨一致。《2015版規則》還加入

了適用於貿仲委香港仲裁中心(下稱「貿

仲委香港」)的特別規定。

《2015版規則》的重大更新在下文討

論。

緊急仲裁員程序

《2015版規則》引進了緊急仲裁程序，

冀與其他國際仲裁機構做法相一致。該

程序允許當事人根據雙方當事人的協議

或所適用的仲裁法律申請緊急仲裁員，

以獲得緊急濟助。緊急仲裁員程序並不妨

礙一方向任何具司法管轄權的法院申請臨

時濟助，而緊急仲裁員的權力至仲裁庭組

成之日終止。

由於中國內地的《仲裁法》沒有緊急仲裁

員的規定，新規定將主要適用於貿仲委香

港所管理的仲裁。於2013年7月修訂的

香港《仲裁條例》，規定緊急仲裁員授予

的緊急濟助可用與法院命令或指示相同的

方式強制執行。(該更新的法律在2013年

年中支持緊急仲裁員條文納入香港國際仲

裁中心的規則內)。

多份合同下的單一仲裁

根據新規定，如果符合下列要求，締約方

可就某一個案中的多份合同申請單一仲

裁，以提高效率：

• 多份合同屬主從合同關係；或多份合

同所涉當事人相同且法律關係性質相

同；

• 爭議源自同一交易或同一系列交易；

及

• 多份合同中的仲裁協議內容相同或相

容。

加強合併程序

經修訂的第19條不再需要所有各方達成

協議才可合併平行程序。經一方當事人的

請求，貿仲委可以在下列條件下決定將多

個仲裁合併為單一仲裁案件：

• 各案仲裁請求根據同一份仲裁協議作

出；或

• 各案仲裁請求根據多份仲裁協議作

出，該多份仲裁協議內容相同或相

容，且各案當事人相同、各爭議所涉

及的法律關係性質相同；或

• 各案仲裁請求根據多份仲裁協議作

出，該多份仲裁協議內容相同或相

容，且涉及的多份合同為主從合同關

係；或

• 所有案件的當事人均同意合併仲裁。

新增「追加當事人」規定

第18條新增了第三方可加入現有仲裁的

規定。如一方當事人可以確立表面證據，

證明第三方也受仲裁協議所約束，則可


向貿仲委提出請求，將第三方加入仲裁程

序。追加當事人事宜由貿仲委作出決定。

關於香港仲裁的規定

貿仲委於2012年9月成立其香港仲裁中

心。《2015版規則》為香港仲裁加進了

載有特別規定的新章節。

該條文明確指出，除非各方另有約定，貿

仲委香港管理的仲裁程序所適用的法律，

應為香港仲裁法，而仲裁裁決為香港裁

決。因此，在內地強制執行的香港裁決，

將依據有關互相執行的安排，而不是當作

本地的裁決。

有關貿仲委香港的其他顯著特點包括：

• 有權任命緊急仲裁員和可強制執行臨

時濟助命令(見上文)；

• 收費結構與內地貿仲委不同：為了與

趨向更高透明度的國際標準保持一

致，把仲裁員的收費與以香港為仲裁

地的仲裁行政費用分開；及

• 當事人可以在貿仲委的仲裁委員會外

選定仲裁員。

貿仲委的結構性改變

根據《2015版規則》，貿仲委也出現了

一些結構和行政上的改變：

• 成立新的仲裁庭，接管秘書局的案件

管理角色，使秘書局把重點放在內部

行政事宜。

• 繼以前的上海分會和華南(深圳)分會

從貿仲委(北京)於2012年「分拆」

以來，《2015版規則》釐清了貿仲

委的結構，並於附件一列出各分會。

為了消除「分拆」後的混淆和含糊之

處，第2條加入新條文確認，凡仲裁

協議由(已被終止授權的)前上海或華

南(深圳)分會處理的仲裁，其管轄權

將屬於貿仲委(北京)，並由貿仲委(北

京)管理。

《2015版規則》是一項受歡迎的更新，

以反映國際最佳實務和便利貿仲委香港的

操作。

- TimothyHill合夥人，香港霍金路偉律師行

CHINESE LEGAL SYSTEM

4th Plenum Decision ApprovedThe Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”) held a Plenum on 20–23 October at which they approved the Decision Concerning Several Major Issues In Comprehensively Advancing Governance According To Law (中共中央關於全面推進依法治國若干重大問題的決定) (the “4th Plenum Decision”). The 4th Plenum Decision is the CCP’s policy blueprint for improving the Chinese legal system. Communist Party policy guides all aspects of the Chinese legal system, from the drafting of legislation to the consideration of cases in the Chinese courts.

The 4th Plenum Decision states the CCP’s intention to “govern in accordance with law” (依法治國), an expression often translated as applying the rule of law. This does not mean a separation of powers on the western model. Although the wording of the 4th Plenum Decision shows a “commitment by China’s leadership to enhance the role of the legal system and to bring consistency and a higher degree of professionalism to the implementation of law across the country,” the vision of law continues to be “instrumentalist in nature, with the legal system subordinated to the Communist Party leadership” according to Lester Ross, Managing Partner of Wilmer Hale, Beijing.

Specifically, the 4th Plenum Decision commits China to “construct a culture of socialist rule of law” (建設社會主義法治文化) in which citizens and businesses expect each other to comply with the law and recognise the mutual benefits of that culture. For foreign companies with China operations, this is a positive development. “Business clients demand actionable advice”, says Norman Page, Head of the China Practice at Davis Wright Tremaine. “Twenty years ago, the most common challenge for lawyers in China was the absence of law. China has now enacted most of the laws needed for a modern economy to work. However,

even when the law is reasonably clear, business clients need to know whether the law will actually be enforced as written.”

Implications of the 4th Plenum Decision

In the short term, the aspect of the 4th Plenum Decision with most relevance to multinationals is a renewed commitment to the Chinese government’s long-running anti-corruption campaign. In the medium term, general council should expect significant changes to China’s legal infrastructure related to foreign investment and foreign trade. The 4th Plenum Decision announces an intention to “strengthen foreign-related legal work” (強化涉外法律服務) and “perfect foreign oriented legal and regulatory systems” (完善涉外法律法規體系). The practical impact of these changes will be amendments to China’s foreign investment laws, as well as an eventual shift to a negative list system for regulating foreign investment.

The 4th Plenum Decision includes a commitment to create a professional, independent and reliable court system. This takes place alongside amendments that will take effect in May 2015 to China’s Administrative Procedure Law, which sets out the framework within which private citizens and businesses may challenge decisions by Chinese government and administrative bodies.

Foreign or foreign-invested companies and their senior management have historically encountered by turns both inconsistent and apparently politically motivated treatment, and unbiased and straightforward consideration, in the Chinese courts. The wording in the 4th Plenum Decision concerning judicial independence refers to “perfecting and ensuring the independent and just systems of exercising judicial authority according to law” (完善確保依法獨立公正行使審判權和檢察權的制度), the implication of which is that courts will remain subject to CCP leadership.

Steps have already been taken to reform the court system, for example, the recent


• January 2015


establishment of specialised courts to hear intellectual property disputes. Tim Smith, Executive at Rouse in Beijing, believes that “quiet optimism about these latest developments should be tempered by the understanding that there is still some way to go before the Chinese courts become truly impartial and independent forums; something that may never occur without political reform”.

Realising the goal of professional, independent and reliable courts will take many years. However, if the 4th Plenum Decision can create momentum toward a culture of rule of law, that momentum “can change business expectations long before the goal is fully realised,” says Page, who notes that “much friction can be removed from an economy where participants expect that courts will probably do what they are supposed to do.”


中國法律制度

四中全會通過的決定

中國共產黨(下稱「中共」)中央委員會於

2014年10月20至23日舉行全體會議，

通過了《中共中央關於全面推進依法治

國若干重大問題的決定》(下稱「《四中

全會決定》」)。《四中全會決定》是中

共推進中國法律制度改革的政策藍圖。由

起草立法至案件提交中國法院審理，黨政

策為中國法律制度的各個方面提供指導。

《四中全會決定》說明，中共將「依法治

國」──這種說法常被解釋為對法治的

運用。但這裡指的不是西方模式的權力分

立。依Wilmer Hale駐北京的管理合夥人

Lester Ross的看法，雖然《四中全會決

定》所用的措辭表明，「中國領導層承諾

提高法律制度所扮演的角色，為全國各地

施行的法律帶來一致性和提高專業性」

，但對法律的願景不變，繼續視之為「一

種工具，法律制度服從於共產黨領導」。

具體來說，按照《四中全會決定》，中

國將致力「建設社會主義法治文化」，

在這文化底下，公民和企業期望會彼此

守法，認識相互的共同利益。對於在華

開展業務的外國公司，這是一個積極進

展。戴維斯．萊特．特里梅因律師事務

所中國實務主管貝諾滿(Norman Page)

指出：「企業客戶要求可付諸行動的建

議」，又指「對於中國的律師來說，廿

年前最常遇到的挑戰是無法可依，到現

在中國制定了大部分法律切合現代經濟

運作的需要。然而，即使法律訂得相當

清楚明白，企業客戶還需要知道，法律

是否真的如所訂立般施行。」

《四中全會決定》的影響

短期來看，《四中全會決定》與跨國企

業最相關的部分，是重申中國政府致力

於長期的反腐敗運動。中期來看，首席

法律顧問應預料到，涉及外資和外貿的

中國法律基礎將出現重大改變。《四中

全會決定》宣布有意「強化涉外法律服

務」和「完善涉外法律法規體系」。這

些改變帶來的實際影響，將會是對中國

外商投資法的修訂，以及最終轉為負面

清單的外資管理制度。

《四中全會決定》承諾建立一個專業、

獨立和可靠的法院制度。這會與2015年

5月生效的新修訂《中國行政訴訟法》同

時發生。該法制訂一個框架，允許普通公

民與企業可挑戰中國政府和行政機關所作

的決定。

外國公司或外商投資公司以及其高級管理

層，過往在中國法院所遇到的情況，時而

待遇前後相悖，明顯帶有政治動機，時而

審議公平公正，直截了當。《四中全會決

定》關於司法獨立的表述，是指「完善確

保依法獨立公正行使審判權和檢察權的

制度」，暗示法院將依然受制於中共領導

層。

現時已就法院制度改革採取措施，例如最

近設立專門法院審理知識產權的爭議。羅

思(Rouse)駐北京執行管理人Tim Smith認

為，「雖已對這些最新發展頗感樂觀，但

應平復心情，明白到中國法院要做到真正

的公正獨立還有好一段路要走；如沒有政

治改革，便可能永不成事。」

要設立一個專業、獨立和可靠的法院，需

歷時多年方能成事。不過，倘若《四中全

會決定》能夠創造一個法治文化的勢頭，

貝律師認為該勢頭「能夠早在目標全面實

現前改變商界期望。」他指出，「參與者

寄望法院有可能會盡其本分履行職責，這

樣經濟領域中許多爭執便能夠消除。」

- PracticalLawChina

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Defence is Submission to JurisdictionThe case of 杭州天道實業有限公司v Chau Oi Fung [2014] HKEC 1828 confirms that the service of a defence gives the court in Hong Kong jurisdiction as of right; it is a submission to jurisdiction. The practice (if it be that with some practitioners) of serving a defence but reserving the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to Rules of the High Court (or District Court) O. 12, r. 8 is not to be encouraged and cases in which this has been done are best explained on their facts.

In Chau Oi Fung, the defendant applied to challenge the jurisdiction of the court at the same time as applying for security


for costs against the Chinese plaintiff company. A day later, the defendant filed her defence. The court held that this was a submission to jurisdiction.

Cases in which service of a defence has not been deemed to be a submission to jurisdiction involve a clear reservation of right by the defendant; for example, in a cover letter or in the preamble to the defence (Chau Oi Fung, at para. 13; Miruvor Ltd v Panama-Globe Steamer Lines SA & Ors, CACV 225 and 226 of 2006, 9 February 2007). Exceptionally, in the exercise of the court’s discretion, a submission to jurisdiction may be undone where there has been a material change of circumstances (Graeme Johnston, “The Conflict of Laws in Hong Kong”, para. 3.009 and n. 20).

While the then Vice-President of the Court of Appeal in the Miruvor case mooted the idea that a “cautious legal adviser” might have a defence ready while at the same time challenging the jurisdiction of the court, this was not an endorsement of any practice of filing and serving a defence at the same time as challenging the jurisdiction.

Indeed, it is difficult to see what benefit there is in serving a defence while at the same time reserving the right to challenge jurisdiction. The defendant’s efforts would normally be better spent preparing an affidavit or affirmation to challenge the jurisdiction, based on (for example) procedural irregularity and/or forum conveniens.

Readers wanting more may care to take a cursory look at “The Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2015” (“The White Book”) at O. 12, r. 8 (commentary 12/8/2), where the contributing editor has set out the position.

In short – if you mean to challenge jurisdiction, do so and know your procedural challenges and common law stays. Any so-called reservation of rights should be express and carefully thought through.

- Robert Rhoda, Senior Associate, Smyth & Co in association with RPC

民事訴訟程

抗辯是服從司法管轄權

杭州天道實業有限公司vChauOi Fung(

周愛鳳)[2014] HKEC 1828一案確認，

送達抗辯書給予香港法院的司法管轄權當

然權利，同時亦是對司法管轄權的服從。

部分從業員送達抗辯書，但又根據《高等

法院規則》(或《區域法院規則》)第12號

命令第8條規則保留對法院的司法管轄權

提出質疑的權利，此等做法不應予以鼓

勵。而有這樣做的案件在其案情上須予以

充分解釋。

在周愛鳳案中，被告人申請就法院的司法

管轄權提出質疑，亦同時針對原告人(中

國內地公司)申請訟費保證金。翌日，被

告人送交抗辯書。法院裁定這是對司法管

轄權的服從。

送達抗辯書而不被視為服從司法管轄權的

案件涉及被告人明確保留權利，例如在

抗辯書的附函或序言中表明(周愛鳳案，

第13段；Miruvor Ltd v Panama-Globe

SteamerLinesSA&Ors，CACV225and

226 of 2006, 2007年2月9日)。在例外

情況下，如情況發生重大變化，法院可

行使酌情權撤銷服從司法管轄權(Graeme

Johnston，TheConflictofLawsinHong

Kong，para.3.009及n.20)。

雖然時任上訴法庭副庭長在Miruvor一案

曾提出一個觀點，就是「一名謹慎的法律

顧問」可能會準備好抗辯書的同時亦會質

疑法院的司法管轄權，但這並不是對法院

的司法管轄權提出質疑的同時，把文件

送交存檔和送達抗辯書的做法表示認同。

事實上，我們很難看到送達抗辯書的同時

亦保留權利對法院的司法管轄權提出質疑

會有何好處。一般來說，被告人將心力放

在以(例如)程序上不符合規定之處及/或最便於審理的法院(forum conveniens)等理

由準備宗教式誓章或非宗教式誓詞，以質

疑法院的司法管轄權，會是較好的做法。

如欲獲知更多相關資料，讀者不妨參看

HongKongCivilProcedure2015(“The

White Book”)(第12號命令第8條規則，

評注12/8/2)，特約編輯已闡述有關情

況。

總之，如你有意質疑法院的司法管轄權，

那便這樣做，並且要認識程序上的挑戰和

普通法中的擱置法律程序。任何所謂保留

權利應當清楚訂明並經深思熟慮。

- RobertRhoda，SeniorAssociate， Smyth&Co與RPC聯營

CONDUCT

Litigation Funding UpdateAs our previous “Insights” columns in April, May and June 2014 confirm, last year generated a number of headlines about litigation funding in Hong Kong; in particular, convictions for champerty involving (among others) lawyers. Such convictions are an unwelcome distraction from the need for an informed and reasoned debate about the development of third party litigation funding in Hong Kong to assist with access to justice, if she is to maintain her presence as a major disputes resolution centre.

At the time of writing, a Law Reform Commission committee is due to report on third party funding in arbitrations in Hong Kong. While champerty and maintenance still apply as criminal offences and torts in Hong Kong, it is far less clear whether the policy that underpins them should apply (or, indeed, does apply) with respect to arbitration (eg, Cannonway Consultants Ltd v Kenworth Engineering Ltd [1995] 2 HKLR 475; Unruh v Seeberger [2007] 2 HKLRD 414, at parah 123; generally, Lo v HKSAR (2012) 15 HKCFAR 16).

Given Hong Kong’s reputation as a major disputes resolution centre, it also seems rather incongruous that her legal profession should have to keep half an eye open for champerty in the private fora of arbitration in Hong Kong, while arbitration practitioners


• January 2015


from many overseas jurisdictions who avail themselves of her arbitral seat apparently do not.

To help lead the way, Ch. 4.17 (“Contingency fee arrangements”) of the Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct could be specifically clarified to make it clear that (as far as professional conduct is concerned) the prohibition on contingency fee arrangements with respect to “contentious proceedings” does not (for this purpose) include arbitration*. The Law Society’s Guidance Committee could issue a Circular (with revised commentary) to this effect. What better way to celebrate the New Year and the forthcoming IPBA Annual Meeting in Hong Kong in May 2015?

The mischief of champerty has its origins in the perceived conflict of interest when an intermeddler helps maintain the prosecution (note) of a suit in return for a share of the spoils. It is difficult to see how that concern should apply to modern day arbitration in Hong Kong; certainly, commercial arbitration which is a pillar of the legal community here.

The Law Reform Commission committee’s report once released should be given suitable attention. Headlines such as a solicitor’s sentence (on appeal**) to three years and two months for multiple alleged offences of champerty are as irrelevant to the debate about the merits of third party commercial litigation funding as they are to what goes on in arbitration in Hong Kong (a largely consensual and private process).

- David Smyth, Senior Partner, Smyth & Co in association with RPC

* As many already understand the position to be. Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance defines “contentious business” as work done in court.

** Secretary for Justice v Ip Hon Ming & Anor [2014] HKEC 1951, CAAR No. 3 of 2014.

行為操守

訴訟資助最新進展

正如我們早前在2014年4月、5月和6月

號「透視」專欄所確認，去年本港有多宗

訴訟資助案件登上新聞頭條，尤其是當中

還涉及律師的包攬訴訟定罪。香港想要保

持主要的爭議解決中心形象，該等定罪個

案卻不受歡迎地分散了人們需明智而理性

地討論由第三方資助訴訟的發展，以協助

尋求司法渠道的關注。

在撰寫本文時，法律改革委員會已到期就

在香港由第三方資助仲裁發表報告。雖然

包攬訴訟與助訟依然在香港適用於刑事罪

行及侵權行為，但作為它們基礎的政策是

否適用於(或事實上適用於)仲裁，仍顯得

模糊不清(例如Cannonway Consultants

LtdvKenworthEngineeringLtd [1995]

2HKLR475；UnruhvSeeberger[2007]

2 HKLRD 414，第123段；一般，Lo v

HKSAR(2012)15HKCFAR16)。

本地法律界人士對香港私人仲裁法庭的包

攬訴訟「隻眼開隻眼閉」，而許多海外司

法管轄區的仲裁從業人員利用本港作為仲

裁所在地則顯然不像他們那樣。鑒於香港

被譽為主要的爭議解決中心，這情況看起

來與其打造的形象格格不入。

為了作出引導，《香港事務律師專業操守

指引》第4.17章(「按判決金額收費的安

排」)可特別澄清，訂明(就專業操守而言)

禁止爭訟法律程序的「按判決金額收費的

安排」，並不(為此目的)包括仲裁*。香

港律師會指導委員會可以發出通函(連同

經修訂的評注)，以達到此效果。還有什

麼慶祝新年及2015年5月在港舉行的環

太平洋律師協會年會的更好方式呢？

包攬訴訟的問題植根於干涉者協助保存訴

訟的檢控文件以換取當中好處時令人感到

會有利益衝突發生。我們很難看到這種顧

慮會適用於現今香港的仲裁。商業仲裁無

疑是本地法律界的支柱。

法律改革委員會一旦發表報告，我們應給

予適當關注。諸如律師因被控多項包攬訴

訟罪行而被判三年零兩個月(上訴中**)的

新聞頭條，對於討論有關第三方出資進行

商業訴訟的好處並無關連，正如跟香港的

仲裁怎樣進行(很大程度上經雙方同意和

過程保密)無關一樣。

- David Smyth，高級合夥人，

Smyth & Co 與RPC聯營

* 正如許多人已理解的情況。《法律執業者

條例》第2條界定「爭訟事務」為在法院辦

理的事務。

**Secretary forJusticev IpHonMing&Anor

[2014]HKEC1951,CAARNo.3of2014。


CONSTITUTIONAL

Magna Carta cited in Hong KongA legal industry is opening-up around the Great Charter’s 800th anniversary this year. This is of considerable interest and relevance to all common law jurisdictions, including Hong Kong.

The Magna Carta has been cited with a judicial nod in numerous cases in Hong Kong, both before and after reunification in 1997; most recently in Ghulam Rbani v Secretary for Justice (2014) 17 HKCFAR 138. Some of its core values are as relevant today as back then.

In his speech at the “St Paul’s College 163rd Anniversary Speech Day” on 4 December 2014, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, had this to say about the Magna Carta:

“So why have I spent so long in making this introduction to the importance of the rule of law in Hong Kong? It is because the underlying principles of the Magna Carta are timeless, as relevant today as they were 800 years ago”.

The full text of the speech appears on the Hong Kong judiciary website (http://www.judiciary.gov.hk/en/other_info/speeches.htm).

Some of the Magna Carta’s core values include: aspects of the right to access the courts (also see Art. 35 of the Basic Law of HKSAR), respect for private property and compensation for the deprivation of property (see Art. 6 and 105 of the Basic Law) and protection from arbitrary detention (and the later writ of habeas corpus – see Art. 28 of the Basic Law).

At the heart of many of these fundamental rights is the rule of law and observance of the court process (whether involving private citizens, corporations, or government bodies – domestic or foreign).

An interesting issue, perhaps, for law students to mull over (for example, in their legal system and legal method

classes) is the extent to which the Magna Carta can be said to be part of the common law of Hong Kong.

- Warren Ganesh, Senior Consultant, Smyth & Co in association with RPC

憲法

在香港援引的《大憲章》

今年，法律界迎來《大憲章》訂立800周

年。《大憲章》對香港在內的各個普通

法司法管轄區相當重要，而且息息相關。

香港「九七」回歸前後有多宗案件援引

了《大憲章》並得到司法機關默許，而

近期也在Ghulam Rbani v Secretary for

Justice(2014)17HKCFAR138一案中引

用。《大憲章》內的一些核心價值至今仍

然跟當年一樣適用。

香港特別行政區終審法院首席法官於

2014年12月4日出席聖保羅書院第163

屆畢業禮致辭時曾提及《大憲章》：

「我為何要花很長篇幅簡述法治在香港的

重要性？這是因為《大憲章》的基本原

則是永不過時的，八百年前訂立的《大憲

章》至今依然適用。」

演講詞全文載於香港司法機構的網站

(http://www.judiciary.gov.hk/en/other_

info/speeches.htm)。

《大憲章》的一些核心價值包括：向法院

提起訴訟的權利(另見《香港特別行政區基

本法》第35條)，尊重私有財產和徵用財

產的補償(見《基本法》第6和第105條)，

及不受任意拘留的保護(及後來的「人身保

護令」—見《基本法》第28條)。

許多這些基本權利的核心是法治和遵循法

院程序(不論是涉及普通市民、企業或政

府機構—國內或國外的。

也許，法律系學生可以在法律制度和法律

方法等課堂裡琢磨一個有趣的問題，就是

《大憲章》在多大程度上可說是香港普通

法的一部分。

- WarrenGanesh高級顧問，

Smyth&Co與RPC聯營

EMPLOYMENT LAW

New Sexual Harassment Provisions for Hong Kong On 12 December 2014 the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (“SDO”) was amended to make unlawful the sexual harassment of a person by a customer in the course of seeking to be provided with or being provided with goods, facilities or services by that person.

The new law will protect women and men working in Hong Kong’s goods and services sector. It provides a person with direct recourse against a customer who sexually harasses him/her in the course of providing goods, facilities or services to that customer.

In practical terms, the amendment has a particular impact on customer-facing employees whose roles require personal interaction with customers. For example, the following types of conduct would be caught by the amendment:

1. A customer making crude jokes or sexual comments to an employee of a service provider.

2. A customer inappropriately touching an employee of a service provider.

A customer who is an individual will be personally liable to the victim. In addition, if the person committing the unlawful harassment is an employee of a corporate customer and the act was done in the course of the employee’s employment, then the corporate customer will also be vicariously liable (whether or not the act was done with the employer’s knowledge or approval).

Further, anything done by a person as an agent for another person with the authority of that other person (whether express or implied, and whether precedent or subsequent) will be treated for the purposes of the SDO as done by that other person as well as by him. So, for example, a manager of the employee who unlawfully harasses may also be liable if the act was done with his/her authority.

There is a defence to the above forms


• January 2015


of vicarious liability if the corporate employer or manager can prove that they took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee or agent from doing the unlawful act, or from doing in the course of his employment acts of that description.

Employers should update their anti-harassment policy to deal with the amendments.

Appropriate anti-harassment training (and refreshers) should be provided to employees, particularly customer facing employees. Among other things employees should be asked to alert management to any incidents of potential harassment immediately so that they may be addressed without delay.

- Hong Tran, Partner, Mayer Brown, JSM

僱傭法

關於香港的性騷擾新規定

2014年12月12日，經修訂的《性別歧視

條例》正式生效，顧客如在某人提供或可

能提供貨品、設施或服務的過程中，向該

人作出性騷擾行為，即屬違法。

新例將保障在本港貨品與服務行業工作的

男女員工。根據新例，顧客如在他／她提

供貨品、設施或服務的過程中受性騷擾，

便可向該顧客提出直接追索。

實際來說，該項修訂對面向客戶、需要與

客戶接觸的員工有特別的影響。例如，此

修訂會觸及下列行為：

1. 顧客向服務提供者的僱員說粗俗笑話

或作出與性有關的評論。

2. 顧客不適當地觸摸服務提供者的僱

員。

個人的顧客將須向受害者承擔個人責任。

此外，如果干犯非法騷擾的人屬公司客戶

的僱員，而該作為是在該僱員的受僱工作

期間發生，則該公司客戶亦須因他人作為

而將承擔法律責任 (不論僱主是否知悉或

批准該等作為)。

此外，身為另一人授權的代理人所作的任

何事情(不論是明示或默示的，亦不論是

事前還是隨後的)，就《性別歧視條例》

而言，將被視為該另一人及其本人所作的

事情。因此，如果非法騷擾的作為是在僱

員的經理批准下進行，該名僱員的經理也

須承擔法律責任。

如果公司僱主或經理可以證明，他們已採

取合理地切實可行的步驟，以防止該僱員

或代理人進行非法的作為，或防止在其受

僱工作期間進行這種作為，則可成為上述

轉承法律責任的抗辯理由。

僱主應更新其反騷擾政策以配合修訂內

容。

公司也應向僱員(尤其是需面向客戶的僱

員)提供合適的反騷擾培訓(和複習課程)。

除此之外，管理層應要求僱員即時舉報任

何潛在騷擾事件，以便他們可從速處理。

- HongTran合夥人，

孖士打律師行

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Specialist Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and GuangzhouIn August 2014 the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee (全國人民代表大會常務委員會(全國人大

常委會) passed legislation establishing specialist courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to hear intellectual property disputes (the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Establishing Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou) (the “2014 IP Courts Law”). The Chinese government has two purposes in establishing these courts now. The first is to create a better forum for the hearing of highly technical disputes. The government’s longer term goal is to test-drive some aspects of the judicial reforms highlighted in the 4th Plenum Decision.

The 2014 IP Courts Law and the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Jurisdictions over Cases by Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou (its implementing regulations) contain four important innovations:

• permitting the courts to establish a new framework for appointing judges;

• consolidating the hearing of highly technical cases in the IP courts;

• providing a framework for cross regional jurisdiction; and

• delegating to the Beijing IP court exclusive jurisdiction over the judicial review of:

°objections against central level government agency decisions or acts concerning the granting or affirmation of patents, trademarks and certain intellectual property rights. Foreign companies bring many such cases; and

°objections against central level government agency decisions


concerning compulsory licensing on patents and certain intellectual property rights.

Three months in, the implementation of the specialised IP courts is “an encouraging beginning” says Christine Yiu, Partner with Bird & Bird in Shanghai, “but there is still a lot of work to do in building a satisfactory platform to handle complex technology cases.” Tim Smith, Executive at Rouse in Beijing foresees “increasing expertise, efficiency and consistency around the adjudication of IP issues which is clearly a positive for foreign IP rights holders.” As foreign parties feature in a far greater proportion of administrative IP cases compared to civil IP infringement proceedings, the development of the Beijing IP Court will have a disproportionate impact on foreign parties.


知識產權

京滬穗設立專門的知識產權法院

全國人民代表大會常務委員會(下稱「全

國人大常委會」)於2014年8月通過《全

國人大常委會關於在北京、上海、廣州設

立知識產權法院的決定》(下稱《2014年

知識產權法院法》)，在北京、上海、廣

州設立專門審理知識產權爭議的法院。中

國政府此時設立專門的知識產權法院，目

的有二，就是設立一個更好的法院審理高

技術類知識產權爭議的案件，長遠而言，

政府的目標是試行《四中全會決定》中所

強調的部分司法改革內容。

《2014年知識產權法院法》及《最高人

民法院關於北京、上海、廣州知識產權法

院案件管轄的規定》(及其實施條例)包含

四項重大改革：

•容許法院建立新一套任命法官的框

架；

•將涉及高技術類案件統一到知識產權法

院審理；

•為跨區域管轄提供框架；及

•授權北京知識產權法院專屬管轄司法審

查下列案件，包括：

°不服中央政府機關作出有關專利、商

標及某幾類知識產權的授權確權的決

定或行為。外國企業提起許多這類案

件；及

°不服中央政府機關作出有關專利及某

幾類知識產權強制許可的決定。

香港鴻鵠律師事務所駐上海代表處合夥人

姚捷說，三個月內落實設立專門的知識產

權法院「是一個有鼓勵作用的好開始」。

但她認為，「建設一個處理複雜技術類

案件的合適平台仍有很多工作要做。」羅

思(Rouse)駐北京執行管理人Tim Smith預

料，「提高審判知識產權爭議所需的專門

知識、效率和統一性，對知識產權外國持

有人明顯具有積極意義。」由於涉及外方

的案件在知識產權行政案中所佔比重，遠

高於知識產權的民事侵犯法律程序中所佔

者，北京知識產權法院的發展對外方的影

響尤其深遠。

- PracticalLawChina

LEGISLATION

Revenue Law Reform to Enhance Hong Kong’s Platform for Exchange Traded Funds

Summary

On 5 December 2014, the Hong Kong Government formally released its draft legislation to waive stamp duty for the transfer of shares or units of all exchange traded funds (“ETFs”). The Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014 was introduced into the Legislative Council on 17 December 2014 (“the Bill”). It is expected to have wide support. The proposed ETF stamp duty waiver will take effect on the day on which the enacted Stamp Duty (Amendment) Ordinance is published in the Gazette after its enactment by the Legislative Council.

Background

Under current law, for ETFs with their registers of holders maintained in Hong Kong that track indices comprising more than 40 percent in Hong Kong stocks, the buyer and the seller each needs to pay a stamp duty at 0.1 percent of the value of the transaction (0.2 percent in total).

The Government has since 2010 extended a stamp duty remission for ETFs with their registers of holders maintained in Hong Kong that track indices comprising not more than 40 percent in Hong Kong stocks as an initiative to encourage the Hong Kong listing of ETFs tracking regional indices. As of 30 September 2014, there were a total of 121 ETFs listed in Hong Kong; and of these, 26 ETFs fell outside the remission measure such that stamp duty applies to sale and purchase of their shares or units.

Key Points of Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014

• The Bill effects measures announced in the 2014–15 Budget to waive the stamp duty for the transfer of all ETF shares or units, so that the transaction costs of ETFs with their registers of holders maintained in Hong Kong and with more than 40 percent of Hong Kong stocks in their portfolios will be reduced as well.

• According to the Government, the measures will remove the competitive disadvantage faced by ETFs tracking Hong Kong stocks on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (“SEHK”) and which have their registers of holders maintained in Hong Kong. This appears to verify the effectiveness of past stamp duty planning measures implemented in relation to ETFs tracking Hong Kong stocks listed on stock exchanges outside Hong Kong and which maintain their registers of holders outside Hong Kong.

• ETFs are currently not defined under


• January 2015


any Hong Kong statutes. Having regard to the nature and operation of ETFs in Hong Kong and other markets, the draft legislation defines an ETF as “an open-ended collective investment scheme the shares or units of which are listed or traded on a recognised stock market”. This wide definition suggests that, with planning, the exemption can apply to a broader-class of listed collective investment schemes beyond traditional ETFs.

Overall, this is a welcome step to promote the development, management and trading of ETFs in Hong Kong, and is in line with the approach of other financial centres like London and Singapore.

- Travis Benjamin, Head of Tax, Deacons

立法

稅收法改革：提升香港的交易所買賣基金平台

摘要

2014年12月5日，香港政府正式公布

其全面寬免交易所買賣基金股份或單位

轉讓印花稅的法例草案，並於2014年

12月17日已將《2014年印花稅(修訂)

條例草案》(下稱《條例草案》)提交立

法會，預料《條例草案》會得到廣泛

支持。擬議的交易所買賣基金印花稅寬

免，由經立法會制定的《印花稅(修訂)

條例》刊憲當日起生效。

背景

根據現行法例，如交易所買賣基金在香

港備存持有人登記冊，而追蹤的相關指

數中港股所佔比重高於40%，買賣雙

方須各自繳付印花稅，金額按成交額的

0.1%計算(合共0.2%)。

政府自2010年起把印花稅減免範圍擴

大至在香港備存持有人登記冊，而追蹤

的相關指數中港股所佔比重不高於40%

的交易所買賣基金，以鼓勵追蹤區域指

數的交易所買賣基金在香港上市。截至

2014年9月30日，在香港上市的交易所

買賣基金合共有121隻，其中26隻在減

免範圍之外，故印花稅適用於該等交易

所買賣基金的股份或單位買賣。

《2014年印花稅(修訂)條例草案》的

要點：

• 《條例草案》旨在落實政府2014-15

財政年度《財政預算案》中的建議，

全面寬免交易所買賣基金股份或單位

轉讓的印花稅，使到在香港備存持有

人登記冊，而證券組合中港股所佔比

重高於40%的交易所買賣基金，也

可降低交易成本。

• 政府認為，對於追蹤香港聯合交易

所上市港股，且在香港備存持有人登

記冊的交易所買賣基金，此舉措將

消除其面對的競爭劣勢。對於那些追

蹤在香港以外地方證券交易所上市的

The information provided here is intended to give general information only. It is not a complete statement of the law. It is not intended to be relied upon or to be a substitute for legal advice in relation to particular circumstances.

本欄所提供的資訊僅屬一般資訊，並不構成相關法律的完整陳述，亦不應被依賴為任何個案中的

法律意見或被視作取代法律意見。

Feel free to write in to us with more short contributions on latest industry developments and trends. Simply contact the editor at: [email protected]

本刊歡迎各位提交短篇文章，廣大讀者分享業界的最新發展和動態。

請與本刊編輯聯絡。電郵：[email protected]

港股，且在香港以外地方備存持有人

登記冊的交易所買賣基金，這似乎證

明，所實施的舊有印花稅計劃能產生

預期成果。

• 香港現行的法規並沒有界定何謂交

易所買賣基金。考慮到交易所買賣基

金在香港及其他市場的性質和運作，

該法例草案界定交易所買賣基金為

「其股份或單位是在認可證券市場上

市或交易的開放式集體投資計劃」。

這個廣泛的定義使人想到，只要計劃

得宜，除傳統的交易所買賣基金外，

是項豁免也能更廣泛地應用到不同類

別的上市集體投資計劃。

總體而言，這是可喜的一步，既促進交

易所買賣基金在香港的開發、管理和交

易，也與倫敦和新加坡等其他金融中心

所採用的方法相一致。

- TravisBenjamin，HeadofTax，

的近律師行


CASES IN BRIEF

案例撮要ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

A v Securities and Futures Commission [2014] HKEC 1824

Court of First InstanceConstitutional and Administrative Law List Nos. 29, 31 and 33 of 2014Patrick Li J7 November 2014

Administrative law – Takeover and Mergers Panel – concurrent criminal proceedings against applicants arising out of same events – burden on applicants to prove real risk of injustice

A was the major shareholder and CEO of a public listed company in Hong Kong (the “Company”). A, B, C (the “Applicants”) and two other persons (“Xs”) were respondents in disciplinary proceedings (the “DP”) before the Takeover and Mergers Panel (the “Panel”) instituted by the Executive of the Securities and Futures Commission (the “Executive”). The Applicants were also defendants in a pending High Court criminal trial. Both proceedings arose from an investment project in which A and B agreed to sell their interest in a gas and oilfield to the Company. The Executive alleged that the Applicants and Xs were acting in concert to avoid making a mandatory general offer under r. 26.1(c) and (d) of the Takeover Codes (the “Codes”). The Applicants applied for a stay of the DP until the completion of the criminal trial, contending that in order to answer the allegation put by the Executive in the DP, they had to disclose substantially their defence in relation to

the criminal charges thereby infringing their right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination. The Chairman of the Panel rejected the Applicants’ application and they now applied for judicial review of that decision.

Held, dismissing the applications, that:

• While s. 386 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (“SFO”) provided that proceedings under the SFO would proceed although there were other concurrent proceedings which might disclose the commission of an offence, the court had the discretion to order a stay of civil proceedings by reference to competing considerations when criminal prosecutions arising out of the same events were pending. The presumption of innocence and the defendant’s right to silence in criminal proceedings were important factors to be considered, but that right did not give him the same protection in contemporaneous civil proceedings. The burden was on the defendant in the civil proceedings to show that it was just and convenient that the plaintiff’s ordinary rights of having his claim heard and decided should be interfered with. The defendant had to point to a real and not merely a notional risk of injustice in the criminal proceedings.

• In determining the nature of the proceedings, the court would consider their classification under domestic law, the nature of the offence, and most importantly the nature and severity of the potential sanction. The Rules of Procedure of

the DP (the “Rules”) provided that the DP was civil in nature. The power of the Chairperson to make directions for responding to the Executive and submission of supporting documents etc. was comparable to that in courts exercising civil jurisdiction. While the allegations against the Applicants were serious, the alleged breach of the Codes had no corresponding criminal offence. Therefore, the DP was civil in nature. The power to make a “cold shoulder” order would not make it criminal in nature, as this served to maintain the integrity of the market and was not meant to be a deterrent.

• The right to silence was of limited application in civil proceedings but the privilege against self-incrimination always applied. The power of the Chairman to give directions would not infringe the right to silence. Further, the privilege against self-incrimination was not abrogated by the Codes or the Rules and was expressly preserved under s. 65(1) of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 8). The Applicants had a choice whether to reply and how to reply. If they chose to reply, they could claim the privilege at an appropriate point. If they chose not to reply at all, they should be prepared to bear the consequences of the DP.

• While the Panel might draw adverse inferences from the failure to comply with directions, it was not absolved from considering all the evidence and drawing inferences as circumstances warranted. Adverse inferences should not be lightly drawn


• January 2015

January 2015 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

against a defendant who claimed the privilege against self-incrimination. To do otherwise was tantamount to abrogating the privilege. Therefore, the risk to an Applicant who claimed the privilege in the DP was minimal. Further, the consequence of the preceding civil proceedings would not amount to compulsion.

• The Applicants had not explained how they would be prejudiced if they answered the case put forward by the Executive. The issues in the DP would be much narrower than the criminal trial, if not entirely different, so there was little risk that the Applicants would need to disclose their defence in the criminal trial. The Chairperson had also suggested various safeguards against possible prejudice, including a restriction on publication of the DP and control of persons attending. The Court was satisfied that there was no real risk of prejudice to the criminal trial.

行政法

原訟法庭

高院憲法及行政訴訟2014年

第29、31及33號

原訟法庭法官李瀚良

2014年11月7日

行政法 — 收購及合併委員會 — 因同一事件而同時對申請人提起的刑事法律程序 — 申請人負有舉證責任證明有不公正情況的實質風險

A是本港一家公眾上市公司(下稱「該公

司」)的大股東兼行政總裁。A、B、C(下

稱「申請人」)及另外兩人(下稱「X」)是

證券及期貨事務監察委員會執行人員(下

稱「執行人員」)在收購及合併委員會(下

稱「委員會」)席前提起紀律研訊的答辯

人。申請人同時是一宗刑事案的被告人，

該案已排期在高等法院進行審訊。這兩項

程序源於一份投資項目，根據該項目，A

和B同意將他們於一塊天然氣油田的權益

售予該公司。執行人員指，申請人和X涉

嫌一致行動，以迴避根據《收購守則》(

下稱《守則》)規則26.1(c)及(d)作出強制

要約的規定。其後，申請人申請暫緩紀律

研訊，直至該刑事審訊完結為止，理由是

為了回應執行人員在紀律研訊提出的指

控，他們需要大幅披露

刑事控罪相關的抗辯理由，從而侵犯了他

們的緘默權及免使自己入罪的特權。委員

會主席拒絕申請人的暫緩申請，申請人現

就此決定申請司法覆核。

裁決－駁回申請：

• 《證券及期貨條例》(第571章)(下稱

《條例》)第386條規定，即使有其他

同時進行的法律程序可能顯示有人犯

罪，根據《條例》提起的法律程序會

繼續進行。不過，因同一事件而候審

的刑事檢控，法院則有酌情權參照互

相排斥的考慮因素命令擱置民事法律

程序。無罪推定及被告人的緘默權在

刑事法律程序中是重要的考慮因素，

但在同時進行的民事法律程序中，該

權利並不會為他提供相同的保障。在

民事法律程序中，被告人負有舉證責

任去證明，為公正及方便起見，原告

人的案件可獲得審理和裁決的一般權

利應受到干預。被告人須指出相關刑

事法律程序存在不公正情況的實質風

險，而非僅僅是概念上的風險。

• 在確定法律程序的性質時，法院會考

慮本地法律如何將其分類、罪行的性

質，以及最重要的一點，即可判處懲

罰的性質和嚴重程度。《紀律聆訊程

序規則》(下稱《規則》)規定紀律研

訊屬民事性質。主席有權就回應執行

人員及提交支持文件等作出指示，而

此權力相當於法院在行使民事司法管

轄權的權力。雖然申請人面對的指控

嚴重，但所指稱的違反《守則》行為

沒有相應的刑事罪行，因此紀律研訊

屬民事性質。有權發出「冷淡對待」

令，並不會令紀律研訊具刑事性質，

因這項命令是用作維護市場的誠信，

而非旨在起阻嚇作用。

• 緘默權在民事法律程序中的適用範圍

有限，但免使自己入罪的特權則總是

適用。主席發出指示的權力並不會侵

犯緘默權。此外，免使自己入罪的特

權不會被《守則》或《規則》廢除，

而且《證據條例》(第8章)第65(1)條

已明文保留此特權。申請人有權選擇

是否回應及如何回應。若選擇回應，

他們可以在適當時候主張該特權。若

選擇完全不回應，他們應作好準備承

擔紀律研訊帶來的後果。

• 儘管不遵從指示或會令委員會作出不

利的推論，但委員會仍然有責任考慮

所有證據及按情況需要作出推論。對

於主張免使自己入罪特權的被告人，

不應輕易作出不利的推論，否則便無

異於廢除該特權。因此，對於在紀律

研訊中主張該特權的申請人，風險極

小。此外，先前進行民事法律程序的

結果不會構成一種強迫。

• 申請人未有解釋，他們若回應執行

人員作出的案件呈述，會如何蒙受不

利。紀律研訊的爭論點會較刑事審訊

的狹窄得多，甚至截然不同，因此申

請人需要披露其刑事審訊的抗辯理

由，幾乎沒風險可言。主席亦提出了

多項保障措施，以免申請人可能蒙受

不利，包括限制公開紀律研訊及限制

出席紀律研訊人士。因此，本席信納

本案不存在對相關刑事審訊造成不公

正的實質風險。


BANKRUPTCY

Tang Tim Chue v Tang Ka Hung Robert [2014] HKEC 1864

Court of AppealCivil Appeal No. 21 of 2013Cheung CJHC, Yuen and Chu JJA29 July 2014

Bankruptcy – bankruptcy order – based on statutory demand – whether debtor not insolvent – whether entitlement to interests in land established so that order would result in injustice

C was successful in disputed probate proceedings against his half-brother, D, concerning the estate of their father (the “Estate”). D failed to pay the taxed costs (the “Debt”). C served on D a statutory demand based on the Debt and, upon D failing to comply with it, presented a bankruptcy petition. D contested the bankruptcy petition on the basis that C had relinquished the Debt, that he was not in fact a bankrupt because of his entitlement to the Estate and also because he stood to receive substantial damages from proceedings (the “Actions”) he had brought in connection with the wrongful sale of tso lands in which he had an indirect interest through his membership in another tso (the “Interest”) and that C was using the bankruptcy petition to stop him from pursuing the Actions. The Judge made a bankruptcy order, holding that D’s

assertion that C had promised to waive the Debt was incredible and in any event not supported by consideration. The Judge also held that the Actions had no prospect of success and it was not unjust to make the bankruptcy order, noting that the Courts in previous proceedings in which D was a party, had determined that the tso to which D belonged had, with the unanimous consent of its members and acting through D, transferred away its shares in the tso that owned the lands (the “Transfer”). D appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that:

• The Judge did not err in finding that C had not waived the Debt and that there was no consideration for the alleged promise.

• Upon failing to pay the Debt after being served with the statutory demand, the conditions for making a bankruptcy order had been met. D’s bare assertion that he was able to pay the Debt without concrete evidence to prove his ability to pay was insufficient to defend the petition.

• D was bound by the determination in previous proceedings that the Transfer was made with the unanimous consent of all members of the tso and was legally binding. D did not have the Interest and had no locus standi to bring the Actions. Similarly, D’s claim to be entitled to the Estate had been previously held to be time-barred.

• As for D’s argument that it was unjust to make the bankruptcy order because he would be prevented from proceedings with the Actions, it was incorrect to say that the Official Receiver (“OR”) represented C and would not make claims against C or deal with the Actions. The OR was not C’s agent, but an independent third party who would assess D’s ongoing litigations in an independent and professional manner and deal with them appropriately. Not only would no injustice be caused to D, but it would also be fairer to all parties in the litigations.

破產

上訴法庭

民事上訴2013年第21號

高等法院首席法官張舉能、

上訴法庭法官袁家寧及朱芬齡

2014年7月29日

破產 — 破產令 — 以法定要求償債書為依據 — 債務人是否無力償債 — 能否確立債務人對土地享有權益，以致頒發破產令會對他造成不公

債權人在有爭議的遺囑認證程序中獲判

勝訴，敗訴一方為其同父異母的兄弟(即

本案債務人)，而該遺囑認證程序涉及兩

人父親的遺產(下稱「該遺產」)。債務人

沒有支付該筆經評定的訟費(下稱「該債

項」)，債權人遂就該債項向債務人送達

「法定要求償債書」，但債務人沒有償

付該債項，債權人因此提出破產呈請。債

務人對破產呈請提出爭議，理由是：債權

人已放棄追討該債項；其次，他實際上不

是破產，因為他在該遺產中擁有權益，加

上他已就不當出售祖地(他以另一個祖的

成員身份間接擁有該些祖地的權益(下稱

「該權益」))提起法律程序(下稱「該等訴

訟」)，並可從中獲得巨額賠償；以及債

權人藉破產呈請阻止他進行該等訴訟。原

審法官裁定，債務人指債權人曾承諾放棄

追討該債項的聲稱不可信，而且該承諾並

無任何約價支持。原審法官亦認為，該等

訴訟沒有勝訴機會，頒發破產令不會對他

造成不公。原審法官又指出，法院在債務

人早前為訴訟一方的法律程序中已裁定，

債務人所屬的祖在祖所擁有該土地的股

權，已經在得到所有成員的同意下，透過

債務人轉讓予他人(下稱「該轉讓」)。原

審法官因此頒發了破產令。債務人不服提

出上訴。

裁決－駁回上訴：

•就債權人沒有放棄追討該債項及指稱的承諾沒有付出約價支持，本席認為

原審法官這項裁決沒有可詬病之處。

•債務人在債權人向他送達法定要求償債書後沒有償付該債項，已具備頒發


• January 2015


破產令的條件。債務人只聲稱自己有

能力償還該債項，卻沒有提供具體證

據去證明他具有償還該債項的能力，

這並不足以成功抗辯破產呈請。

•債務人受早前法律程序中所作的裁決約束，即該轉讓得到該祖所有成員的

同意，具有法律約束力。債務人不享

有該權益，因此根本沒有訴訟地位提

出該等訴訟。同樣地，債務人聲稱享

有該遺產，但這早已被法院裁定喪失

時效。

•至於債務人指頒發破產令會對他造成不公，因他不能繼續進行該等訴訟，

而破產管理官是代表債權人，不會向

債權人追討或處理該等訴訟，這些說

法並不正確。破產管理官並非債權人

的代理人，而是獨立的第三者，會以

獨立和專業的眼光衡量債務人正進行

的訴訟及恰當地處理這些訴訟。這不

但不會對債務人造成不公，亦對訴訟

各方較為公平。

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Phiniqia International Shipping LLC [2014] HKEC 1807Court of AppealMisc. Proceedings No. 2034 of 2014Cheung CJHC and Lam V-P3 November 2014

Civil procedure – costs – application to Court of Appeal for leave to appeal – direction requiring parties to submit at same time skeleton submissions and statement of costs for purposes of summary assessment – non-compliance breach of duty under O. 1A r. 3 and consideration under O. 62 r. 5 – Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub. Leg.)

On an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, P was ordered to pay the costs of D4 and D6 (“Ds”)

provisionally fixed at $30,000. Ds subsequently sought a revision of the quantum and submitted a statement of costs in support. P objected, since Ds had not, in accordance with the direction from the Chief Judge, submitted to the Registry at the same time they lodged their skeleton submissions a statement of costs for the purposes of summary assessment.

Held, granting the application in part, that on most applications for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal would try to make a final decision on costs by way of summary assessment at the same time as its decision on leave. Non-compliance with the direction was a breach of the duty under O. 1A r. 3 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub. Leg.) and was a matter the Court could take into account under O. 62 r. 5. To bar Ds entirely from pursuing their application would be a disproportionate sanction and too mechanistic an approach in case management. Instead, Ds should be responsible for the additional costs incurred in a further round of submissions which the direction was designed to avoid. Given the purpose of summary assessment, rather than conduct a detailed enquiry into such costs, a fair approach was a global assessment of the circumstances taking this default into account. Accordingly, the award of costs in favour of Ds was revised to $50,000.

民事訴訟程序

上訴法庭

雜項案件2014年第2034號

高等法院首席法官張舉能及上訴法庭

副庭長林文瀚

2014年11月3日

民事訴訟程序 — 訟費 — 向上訴法

庭申請上訴許可 — 要求各方在提

交陳詞大綱的同時，為施行簡易

程序評定而提交訟費陳述書的指

示 — 不遵守指示構成違反第1A

號命令第3條規則下的責任，亦是

法院在第62號命令第5條規則下

可予考慮的事項 —《高等法院規

則》(第4A章，附屬法例)

在一宗向上訴法庭提出上訴許可的申請

中，法院頒令原告人須向第四及第六被告

人(下稱「兩名被告」)支付訟費，金額暫

定為三萬元。兩名被告其後申請修訂申索

量，並提交了一份訟費陳述書作為支持。

原告人反對該申請，理由是兩名被告並沒

有按照首席法官的指示，在向登記處提交

陳詞大綱的同時，為施行簡易程序評定而

提交訟費陳述書。

裁決－准予部分申請：對於大部分上訴

許可申請，上訴法庭會嘗試對許可申請作

出決定的同時，以簡易程序評定方式就

訟費作出最終決定。不遵守該等指示，違

反了《高等法院規則》(第4A章，附屬法

例)第1A號命令第3條規則下的責任，亦

是法院根據第62號命令第5條規則可予考

慮的事項。完全不受理兩名被告的申請會

是不相稱的制裁，而且在案件管理方面亦

嫌採用過於機械化方法。相反，兩名被告

應為多一輪的陳詞所招致的額外訟費負上

責任，而該指示的目的正是避免多一輪陳

詞。鑒於簡易程序評定的目的，一個公平

的做法是把此違責行為列為考慮因素，再

對總體情況進行評估，而不是對該等訟費

作詳細調查。因此，兩名被告獲判給的訟

費現修訂為五萬元。


CONTRACT LAW

Korean Exchange Bank v SSCP Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd [2014] HKEC 1768

Court of First InstanceHigh Court Action No. 146 of 2013Deputy Judge Marlene Ng in Chambers

27 October 2014

Contract law — illegality — whether breach of statute rendered contract illegal — matter of statutory construction

P2 obtained judgment against D1 for an outstanding loan. P2 claimed that D1 had earlier transferred certain shares to D3, a BVI merger and acquisition advisory firm (the “Share Transfer”) with intent to defraud its creditors and to put D1’s assets out of P2’s reach so that it was unable to enforce the judgment; and sought to set aside the Share Transfer. D3 contended that it was engaged by D1’s parent company (D2) to provide advisory services (the “Agreement”) for which D2 effected the Share Transfer in partial settlement of fees owed to D3 (the “Fees”). In reply, P2 claimed that even if the Fees were outstanding, they should not be recoverable by D3, as the Agreement was an illegal contract and therefore void and/or unenforceable because of breaches by D3 of licensing and registration requirements under s. 114 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (the “SFO”), s. 333 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) and s. 5 of the Business Registration Ordinance (Cap. 310) (the “Breaches”) (the “Impugned Plea”). D3 sought to strike out the Impugned Plea, arguing that even if the relevant provisions applied and had been breached, the Agreement remained valid. P2 consequently applied to amend the Impugned Plea by deleting the words “void” and “unenforceable” (the “Revised Impugned Plea”) and averring that the Agreement was “an illegal contract”. P2 further argued the Breaches were relevant to show D3 was “capable of being unscrupulous” with “a propensity to break

the law in order to achieve its purpose.”

Held, striking out the Impugned Plea and refusing the application to amend the Revised Impugned Plea, that:

• For a contract to be illegal as being made in contravention of some statutory provision there had to be a sufficient nexus between the statutory requirement and the contract. The question was whether the statute, on its true construction, meant to prohibit the contract or rendered rights acquired and obligations incurred pursuant to the contract unenforceable.

• Here, the Revised Impugned Plea advanced an alternative proposition that the Agreement was illegal with the Breaches pleaded as particulars and not as stand-alone averments. There was no arguable basis to support the proposition that the Agreement was an illegal contract by reason of the Breaches, even though it was not void or enforceable. It could not be argued that the object of the transaction underlying the Agreement was illegal or there was a sufficient nexus between the subject matter of the Agreement and the statutory breaches. Accordingly, the Revised Impugned Plea was unarguably bad and would have been liable to be struck out had it been pleaded.

• Further, P2’s allegation that the Breaches by D3 showed a propensity for fraudulent intent or misconduct raised the spectre of grafting extraneous matters on to this litigation and the eventual trial. In the absence of a properly formulated plea, and

given that the Breaches were quite removed from the subject matter of the dispute, there was much force in D3’s argument as to an insufficient nexus or commonality with the pleaded dispute to demonstrate their materiality and probative value. Accordingly, it was inappropriate to grant leave for P2 to amend its pleadings.

合約法

原訟法庭

高等法院民事訴訟2013年第146號

原訟法庭暫委法官吳美玲

(內庭聆訊)

2014年10月27日

合約法 — 不合法 — 違反法規會否令合約不合法 — 在於如何詮釋法規

第二原告人取得第一被告人敗訴須支付尚

欠貸款的判決。第二原告人指第一被告人

在法院作出此判決前，已把若干股份轉讓

給一家在英屬維爾京群島成立的併購顧問

公司，亦即本案第三被告人(下稱「該股

份轉讓」)，意圖詐騙其債權人，並令第

二原告人無法取得第一被告人的資產，從

而無法執行該判決，故此現尋求法院把該

股份轉讓作廢。第三被告人則辯稱，第一

被告人的母公司(第二被告人)聘用它提供

顧問服務(下稱「該協議」)，而第二被告

人作出該股份轉讓，是為了局部償付欠第

三被告人的服務費(下稱「該費用」)。對

此，第二原告人指，由於第三被告人違反

了《證券及期貨條例》(第571章)第114

條、《公司(清盤及雜項條文)條例》(第32

章)第333條及《商業登記條例》(第310


• January 2015


章)第5條有關發牌及註冊的規定(下稱「違

規行為」)，令該協議成為一份不合法的

合約而無效及/或無法執行，因此即使該

費用尚未結清，第三被告人亦不能追討該

費用(下稱「受質疑申辯」)。第三被告人

尋求剔除受質疑申辯，理由是即使那些相

關條文適用而第三被告人又違反了那些規

定，該協議仍然有效。第二原告人於是申

請修訂受質疑申辯，刪除「無效」及「無

法執行」的字眼(下稱「經修訂的受質疑申

辯」)，並堅持該協議為「一份不合法的合

約」。第二原告人進一步指，違規行為是

相關的，能夠顯示第三被告人「有能力作

出無良手段」及「有為求達到目的而犯法

的傾向」。

裁決－剔除受質疑申辯，並拒絕修改經修

訂的受質疑申辯的申請：

• 要使一份合約因違反某些法定條文而

變得不合法，則該法定規定與該合約

之間必須有充分關連。問題是，根據

有關法規的真正解釋，有關條文是否

旨在禁止有關合約，還是令根據合約

獲得的權利及招致的義務無法執行。

• 本案中，經修訂的受質疑申辯提出

一個交替觀點，就是該協議是不合法

的，而且違規行為成為了此觀點的詳

情，而不是作為獨立的申辯。「該協

議雖非無效或不可強制執行，但礙於

違規行為，已成為一份不合法的合

約」這觀點沒有可爭論的理據支持。

與訟方不可辯稱該協議所涉及的交

易的目的是不合法，又或者該協議的

標的與違規行為之間有充分關連。因

此，經修訂的受質疑申辯無疑非常差

勁，即使有作訴，亦會被剔除。

• 此外，第二原告人指第三被告人的

違規行為顯示他有欺詐意圖或不當行

為的傾向，令人憂慮外來事宜會與本

訴訟及最終審訊結合起來。由於沒有

妥為擬定的申辯，並考慮到違規行為

頗為偏離本爭議的標的，因此法院認

為，第三被告人指違規行為與狀書中

的爭議沒有充分關連或共通性去證明

其重要性及作證價值，這論點顯得非

常有力。有見及此，批准第二原告人

修改狀書並不恰當。

CRIMINAL SENTENCING

HKSAR v McKay [2014] HKEC 1859Court of First InstanceMagistracy Appeal No. 645 of 2014Barnabas Fung J.11 November 2014

Criminal sentencing – theft – defendant took back money paid for sex services – alcohol consumed reacted with medication – whether self-induced intoxication – whether sufficient recognition of remorse shown D pleaded guilty to theft. D paid a prostitute, V, for sex services, after which he retrieved his money. Consequently, V prevented D from leaving and called the police. D was of clear record and submitted that he was drunk at the material time because the alcohol he had taken had reacted with his medication for depression and caused him to act out of character. The Magistrate noted that self-induced intoxication afforded little or no mitigation for offences of specific intent. He adopted a starting point of 3 months and reduced it for plea to 2 months’ imprisonment. D appealed against sentence.

Held, allowing the appeal by substituting such sentence as would allow D’s immediate release, that:

• Regarding D’s submission that he was not voluntarily intoxicated, this was not a case of a laced drink and D should not have consumed alcohol while on medication. The principle of deterrence against bullying a vulnerable female sex worker applied. Further, the most important starting point in sentencing was the offence itself which, here, was very serious.

• Accordingly, the custodial sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. However, little weight had been placed on the fact that D did stay behind to wait for the police, although he could have forced

his way out, which demonstrated some remorse. As D was due to be released from prison three days after this hearing, the sentence would be replaced by one which would allow his immediate release.

刑事判決

原訟法庭

高院裁判法院上訴2014年第645號

原訟法庭法官馮驊

2014年11月11日

刑事罪判刑 — 盜竊 — 被告人取回為性服務所支付的款項 — 酒後酒精與藥物產生反應 — 是否自願令自己昏醉 — 能否證明具足夠悔意

被告人承認盜竊罪。被告人向性工作者V

支付費用換取性服務，事後卻把有關款項

取回。V於是阻止被告人離去，並致電報

警。被告人無犯罪紀錄，並指自己在關鍵

時間已醉倒，因他喝酒後，酒精與體內的

抗抑鬱藥物產生反應，導致他作出與個性

不符的行為。裁判官指出，就特定犯罪意

圖的罪行，自願令自己昏醉未必能夠甚或

不能夠作為減刑理由。他以三個月為量刑

起點，因認罪減刑至監禁兩個月。被告人

不服判刑提出上訴。

裁決－上訴得直，改判被告人可即時獲

釋的刑期：

• 對於被告人指他並非自願令自己昏醉

這項論點，本案並非一宗在飲料中混

有藥物的案件，而且被告人服藥期間

根本不應該飲酒。對欺負易受傷害的

女性性工作者的行為須起阻嚇作用的

原則於此案適用。此外，量刑的最重

要出發點是罪行本身，而本案的罪行

是非常嚴重的。

• 因此，判處監禁既非原則上錯誤，

亦非明顯過重。然而，有一點卻被忽

視，就是被告人本可強行離去，卻留

下待警察到來，這表示他有點悔意。

被告人本可於聆訊後三天獲釋，因此

改判可令他即時獲釋的刑期。


TORT LAW

Dr. Yeung Sau Shing Albert v Google Inc. (No. 2) [2014] HKEC 1782

Court of First InstanceHigh Court Action No. 1383 of 2012Deputy Judge Marlene Ng in Chambers

29 October 2014

Tort – defamation – libel – whether Internet search engine is a “publisher” in respect of Autocomplete and related search suggestions generated by automated process

In a defamation action, the Deputy Judge dismissed the application of D, an Internet service provider, to set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction obtained by P (see [2014] 4 HKLRD 493) (the “Decision”). D sought leave to appeal against the Decision, arguing that inter alia the Deputy Judge erred in holding there was a good arguable case that: (a) publication of the offending words to P’s IT department and solicitors tasked to search/print them constituted “publication” to a third party (“Ground 1”); and (b) D was a “publisher” rather than a passive facilitator whose Autocomplete and Related Searches suggestions on its home pages were driven by algorithms which merely reflected users’ search activity (“Ground 2”). On Ground 1, D argued that the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process based on the proportionality principle laid down in Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co. Inc. [2005] QB 946. D relied on Bleyer v Google Inc. [2014] NSWSC 897, dated shortly after the Decision, which held that given the very minimal scope of publication in that case, the legal costs and resources required to determine the claim would be “out of all proportion” to the interest at stake (ie, the vindication sought).

Held, granting the application, that:

• On Ground 1, given the evidence and

the contextual background of the alleged defamatory words, including P’s public profile, his involvement in the entertainment business and the subject matter of those words being of continuing interest, the ready accessibility of the Autocomplete and Related Searches features to Internet users and statistical information compiled by D on Google searches using the keywords, it was an open question of fact, by inference or otherwise, that there might have been real and substantial publication. Further, the Court had considered the balance of interests between the scale of publication and the vindication of reputation, and between freedom of speech, press and publication and respect for others’ rights/reputations, before concluding that P had a good arguable case.

• Notwithstanding, in light of the novelty of D’s argument on abuse of process as set forth in Jameel and on staying/dismissing proceedings on the proportionality principle in this jurisdiction, guidance by the Court of Appeal on the balancing of factors, especially in the post-Civil Justice Reform regime, which might encourage courts to halt costly and time-consuming defamation actions would be relevant and useful; and it was inappropriate for this Court to make an unseemly spectacle of standing in the way of such an appeal. This fell within the “some other reason in the interests of justice” for granting leave to appeal under s. 14AA of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4).

• On Ground 2, while the algorithmic processes were automated, D deployed artificial intelligence to amass information from previous search queries and web content and then generated predictive keywords for the Autocomplete and Related Searches features. Thus, it was arguable that Google Search did deal with content and, unlike mere conduits or passive facilitators, D might be considered as a publisher of injurious content of the predictive suggestions.

Notwithstanding, leave should be also be granted on the “some other reason in the interests of justice” limb so the Court of the Appeal could impart their wisdom on the implications of divergent views in international jurisprudence on Internet defamation law for this jurisdiction.

侵權法

原訟法庭

高等法院民事訴訟2012年第1383號

原訟法庭暫委法官吳美玲(內庭聆訊)

2014年10月29日

侵權 — 誹謗 — 永久形式誹謗 — 就自動完成功能及由自動化程序產生的相關搜尋建議，互聯網搜尋器是否「發布者」

在一宗誹謗訴訟中，原告人獲批准在本

司法管轄權範圍外送達文件，而身為互

聯網服務提供者的被告人則申請將該許

可作廢，但被暫委法官駁回(見[2014] 4

HKLRD 493)(下稱「該決定」)。被告人

不服該決定申請上訴許可，理由之一是暫

委法官錯誤地裁定案件具充分爭辯理據，

包括：(a)向負責搜尋/列印相關令人反感

字眼的原告人旗下資訊科技部門和律師

發布該等字眼，構成向第三方「發布」

(下稱「理據一」)；及(b)被告人是「發布

者」，而不是被動的促進者，後者指其主

頁的自動完成和相關搜尋功能的建議是

由演算法驅動的，而演算法只不過是反

映用戶的搜尋活動(下稱「理據二」)。就

理據一而言，被告人辯稱，基於Jameel


• January 2015


(Yousef)vDowJones&Co.Inc.[2005]

QB 946一案所確立的相稱原則，本案因

濫用程序而應予以擱置。被告人以Bleyer

vGoogleInc. [2014]NSWSC897一案為依據(該案在本港法院作出該決定後不久

才頒下裁決)，該案裁定，鑑於該案所涉

的發布範圍非常小，審理該案所需的法

律費用和資源，跟案中牽涉的利益(即求

證清白)「完全不相稱」。

裁決－准許有關申請：

• 就理據一而言，鑑於被指屬誹謗言詞

的證據和背景(包括原告人的公眾形

象、他涉獵的娛樂事業及該等言詞的

課題持續受外界關注)、互聯網用戶

可隨時使用自動完成和相關搜尋功

能，以及被告人就輸入該等關鍵字

作谷歌(Google)搜尋所編製的統計資

料，(根據推論或其他方式)會否有真

正和實質的發布，是一個有待解決的

事實問題。此外，法院在得出原告人

具充分爭辯理據的結論前，已考慮發

布的規模與聲譽平反之間的利益平

衡，以及言論、新聞和出版自由與

尊重他人的權利/聲譽之間的利益平

衡。

• 儘管如此，由於被告人在論據中注

入了新元素，包括Jameel案濫用程序原則和在本司法管轄區以相稱原則為

由擱置/撤銷案件，而且上訴法庭就

平衡不同因素所作的指引將有助於本

案，尤其是民事司法制度改革後，這

些指引可鼓勵法院停止昂貴和費時的

誹謗訴訟，本法院若不合時宜地妨礙

這樣一宗上訴，則並不適當。這符合

《高等法院條例》(第4章)第14AA條

批予上訴許可的「其他有利於秉行公

正的理由」。

• 就理據二而言，雖然演算過程屬自

動化，但被告人採用了人工智能去

積累以往搜尋查詢和網頁內容的資

料，再為自動完成和相關搜尋功能

產生預測的關鍵字。因此，值得商

榷的是，谷歌搜尋確有處理內容，

而且有別於純粹提供渠道者或被動

的促進者，被告人可被視為預測建

議中具傷害性內容的發布者。儘管

如此，法院亦應該根據「其他有利

於秉行公正的理由」的因素批予許

可，使上訴法庭能夠為本司法管轄

區就國際法學對互聯網誹謗法的不

同意見的影響提出見解。

TRUSTS

Timmerton Co. Inc. v Equity Trustee Ltd [2014] HKEC 1927

Court of AppealCivil Appeal No. 53 of 2014Lam V-P and Chu JA21 November 2014

Limitation of actions – trusts – claim by beneficiary – s. 20(1)(b) not applicable to constructive trusts and trustees arising out of knowing receipt or knowing assistance of breach of trust – whether defendants arguably de facto trustees and so action not time-barred – Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347) s. 20(1)(b)

X, deceased, and his wife, W, were the directors of C, a company. D1, a company, was the trustee of a discretionary trust under which X and W’s children and W were beneficiaries (the “Trust”); and the beneficial owner of shares in another company, D2, which were assets of the Trust. C held shares in SHH while X and W held shares in SHH on trust for C, so that it was effectively the sole shareholder of shares in SHH. In late 1989 or early January 1990, 100,000 shares in SHH were issued at par value to D2 (the “Allotment”) and consequently C and D2 became equal shareholders of SHH. C brought proceedings against Ds as constructive trustees, alleging its interest in SHH was diluted by the Allotment; this was procured by X in breach of his fiduciary duties to C; and D2 had acquired C’s interest knowing it was for no value or alternatively at a substantial undervalue since the source of the funds D2

used to subscribe for shares was the respective dividends declared by SHH and C (the “Dividends”) and no monies changed hands. At issue was whether Ds were trustees within s. 20(1)(b) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347). No limitation period applied to this first class of constructive trust, where the defendant, although not appointed as trustee, had assumed such duties by a lawful transaction independent of and preceding the breach of trust and which was not impeached by the plaintiff (the “First Category”). However, the limitation period applied to the second class where the trust obligations arose as a direct consequence of an unlawful transaction impugned by the plaintiff. The defendant might be “liable to account as a constructive trustee” although there was no real trust but merely a remedial mechanism to give equitable relief (the “Second Category”). The Judge refused Ds’ application to set aside an order granting leave to serve the concurrent writ outside the jurisdiction on them, holding that it was seriously arguable that D1 as trustee of the Trust was a “fiduciary” and could be treated as an express trustee, such that no limitation defence was available. Ds appealed.

Held, allowing Ds’ appeal, that:

• S. 20(1)(b) of the Ordinance had no application to constructive trusts and trustees arising out of knowing receipt of trust property or knowing assistance of a breach of trust.

• It was not arguable that, as a result of the transactions leading to the Allotment, Ds were constructive trustees of the First Category, whether as de facto trustees or trustees de son tort, for the beneficiaries of the Trust or C, so that no limitation period applied. First, C’s submission was contrary to its pleaded case, namely that Ds were knowing recipients of C’s interest in SHH and holding it as constructive trustees for C.

• Second, there was nothing to show that when Ds received the Dividends, they intended to act as trustees


For full summaries and judgments, please refer to Westlaw and Hong Kong Law Reports & Digest at www.westlaw.com.hk

就完整的摘要和判決書，請到 www.westlaw.com.hk 參閱Westlaw及《香港法律彙報與摘錄》。

thereof and/or had assumed the obligations of a trustee vis-à-vis C. The fact that D1 was the trustee of the Trust and had in that capacity received trust assets from X was irrelevant, since C was not a beneficiary under the Trust and C’s pleaded claim was not premised on D1 being a trustee of the Trust.

• Third, on C’s case, D2 was not entitled to the Dividends. D2’s receipt of the same was at all times wrongful and adverse to C’s rights and this was a characteristic of the Second Category.

• Fourth, even on C’s case on appeal, knowledge remained an integral element, namely Ds knew their use of the Dividends to acquire the interest in SHH was not authorised by SHH’s shareholders or C and/or was a breach of X’s fiduciary duties. Any trust obligations assumed by Ds were therefore the direct consequence of the impugned transaction.

• Accordingly, C’s claim fell outside s. 20(1)(b) of the Ordinance and was time-barred; and the order for leave to serve out on Ds should be set aside.

信託

上訴法庭

民事上訴2014年第53號

上訴法庭副庭長林文瀚及上訴法庭

法官朱芬齡

2014年11月21日

訴訟時效 — 信託 – 受益人提出申索 — 第20(1)(b)條不適用於因明知接受或明知協助違反信託而產生的法律構定信託及受託人 — 被告人是否可以說是事實上的受託人，以致訴訟沒有喪失時效 — 《時效條例》(第347章)第20(1)(b)條

死者X和其妻W為C公司的董事。第一被

告人為一家公司，是一名酌情信託的受

託人，而該信託的受益人為X和W的子女

及W本人(下稱「該信託」)。第一被告人

同時是另一家公司(即本案第二被告人)股

份的實益擁有人，而這些

股份為該信託的資產。C

公司持有SHH的股份，而

X及W以信託形式為C公司

持有SHH的股份，故此C

公司實際上是SHH股份的

唯一股東。在1989年年

底或1990年1月初，SHH

向第二被告人按面值發行

了100,000股(下稱「該配

股」)，令C公司和第二被告人成為股份相

等的SHH股東。C公司向作為法律構定受

託人的兩名被告人提起法律程序，指其本

身在SHH的權益因該配股而被攤薄，而促

成此情況的是X違反了他對C公司的受信責

任。C公司又指，第二被告人收購C公司的

權益時已明知收購是無償或者是以大幅偏

低的價格收購，因為第二被告人用作認購

股份的資金來源是SHH和C公司各自宣布

的股息(下稱「該股息」)，第二被告人實

際上沒有付款。本案爭論點是，兩名被告

人是否《時效條例》(第347章)第20(1)(b)

條所指的受託人。時效期限不適用於第一

類法律構定信託，即被告人雖未獲委任為

受託人，但因獨立於且先於違反信託行為

發生的合法交易而承擔了受託人的責任，

而該交易沒有受原告人質疑(下稱「第一

類」)。然而，時效期限適用於第二類法

律構定信託，即信託義務是由不合法交易

直接引致的，而該交易受原告人所質疑。

雖然這種情況不存在真正的信託，只是給

予衡平法濟助的補救機制，但被告人或「

須被視為法律構定受託人」(下稱「第二

類」)。原審法官駁回了兩名被告人申請擱

置有關准予原告人把並存令狀在本司法管

轄權範圍外送達予他們的命令，並裁定第

一被告人作為該信託的受託人是否「受信

人」及可否被視為明示受託人，以致不存

在任何時效上的抗辯，有很大商榷餘地。

兩名被告人不服提出上訴。

裁決－判兩名被告人上訴得直：

• 《時效條例》第20(1)(b)條不適用於

因明知接受信託財產或明知協助違反

信託而產生的法律構定信託及受託

人。

• 不容置疑的是，由於該等交易導致該

配股發生，因此兩名被告人為該信託

受益人或C公司的第一類法律構定受

託人(不論是作為事實上的受託人抑

或無權的受託人)，因而時效期限不

適用。首先，C公司的陳詞與其所訴

的案情相反，即兩名被告人明知而接

受了C公司在SHH的權益，並以法律

構定受託人的身份為C公司持有該權

益。

• 其次，沒有證據顯示兩名被告人接受

該股息時，他們有意以該股息的受託

人身份行事及/或承擔了有關C公司的

受託人義務。第一被告人是該信託的

受託人，並以該身份從X獲取信託資

產，這事是不相關的，因為C公司不

是該信託的受益人，而且C公司作訴

的申索不是以第一被告人為該信託的

受託人為前提。

• 第三，就C公司的案情而言，第二被

告人無權獲得該股息。第二被告人收

到該股息無論何時都是錯誤的，並與

C公司的權利相逆，而這正是第二類

的特點。

• 第四，即使根據C公司的案情提出上

訴，知情仍然是不可或缺的元素，即

兩名被告人明知他們使用該股息收購

SHH的權益並未獲SHH的股東或C公

司的授權及/或是違反X的受信責任。

因此，兩名被告人承擔的任何信託義

務直接因相關的受質疑交易所致。

• 因此，C公司的申索並不屬於《時效

條例》第20(1)(b)條的範圍內，故已

喪失時效，同時准予把並存令狀在本

司法管轄權範圍外送達予兩名被告人

的命令也應予以擱置。


• January 2015


DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Alibaba Group Holding Limited v Guangzhou Mama Television Ltd.HK – 1400655 <alimama.org>

Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (Hong Kong Office)Matthew Murphy (Panelist)

3 December 2014

Intellectual Property – ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) – Respondent’s Prior Knowledge of Complainant’s Mark and its Activities with the Purpose to Circumventing the Application of UDRP Hinders the Panel from Finding that the Respondent has Legitimate Rights and Interests

Complainant (hereinafter “C”) was the registrant of a number of trade marks incorporating the mark of “alimama” (the “Mark”) and the owner of the online advertisement trading platform “www.alimama.com”. Respondent (hereinafter “R”) was the registrant of the domain name <alimama.org> (the “Disputed Domain Name”).

Pursuant to the UDRP, C filed a complaint with the Hong Kong Office of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (“ADNDRC”) against R to seek transfer of the Disputed Domain Name on 8 October 2014, alleging that (i) the disputed domain name was identical and confusingly similar to the Mark in which C had rights, (ii) R had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Dispute Domain Name and (iii) R registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

Under UDRP, C had a burden of proof to establish all the above three elements in order to have the Disputed Domain Name transferred. In this case, R did not contend on the first element. It was

essential whether R had legitimate rights or interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

R denied C’s contentions on the second and third elements, and submitted that it had the relevant legitimate rights and interests based on the following:-

• R’s owner, Mr. Zhang Yu (張宇先生), registered a company under the name “Alimama International Group Limited (阿里瑪瑪國際集團有限公司)” in Hong Kong in 2012;

• “alimama” is the Chinese Pinyin of “阿里瑪瑪” which was created by Mr. Zhang Yu (張宇先生);

• The website resolved by the Disputed Domain Name was for non-commercial use;

• R was known by the public by the name of “阿里瑪瑪“.

Held, granting the remedy sought, that:

C had made out a prima facie case that R had no legitimate rights and interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Hence, the burden of proof of the second element shifted to R according the principle established by the case Document Technologies, Inc. v Int’l Electronic Communications Inc. WIPO Case ID D2000-0270.

The Panel examined R’s submissions on the second element according to paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP, which provides for the circumstances in which R may have the rights or interests, namely:

• before any notice of the dispute, R’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

• R (as an individual, business or other organisation) had been commonly known by the domain name, even if R had acquired no trade mark or

service mark rights; or

• R was making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Panel was of the view that the evidence produced by R about the origin and idea of the name “阿里瑪瑪” was farfetched, and thus should not be accepted. Moreover, the Panel found that most of R’s evidence on its activities under the Mark, “阿里瑪瑪” and the Disputed Domain name was produced in recent years, ie, in or after 2011, which was after C had gained sufficient reputation on its Mark. Thus, the Panel inferred that R must have had prior knowledge about the existence of C’s Mark, and that it could not be precluded that the purpose of those activities carried out by R was to circumvent the application of UDRP. With reference to Para. 2.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (2d ed.), the Panel did not accept that R had legitimate rights and interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Panel also found that the website resolved by the Disputed Domain Name contained invitations for implantable advertisements. Hence, the Panel did not accept that R was making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain name.

Having found that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and being used in bad faith, the Panel ordered that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to C.

The full decision can be downloaded in the website of ADNDRC at http://www.adndrc.org/diymodule/docUDRP/HK-1400655_Decision.pdf.


解決糾紛

亞洲域名爭議解決中心(香港秘書處)

Matthew Murphy（專家組成員）

2014年12月3日

知識產權 — 互聯網名稱與數字位址分配機構《統一域名爭議解決政策》(《政策》) — 答辯人早已知悉投訴人標記的存在，而且其活動的目的是規避《政策》的適用性，使專家組不能因此裁定答辯人享有合法權利和權益

投訴人註冊了多個含有「alimama」的商標

(下稱「該標記」)，並擁有互聯網廣告交

易平台「www.alimama.com」。答辯人則

是域名<alimama.org>(下稱「爭議域名」)

的註冊人。

2014年10月8日，投訴人根據《政策》向

亞洲域名爭議解決中心香港辦事處提出針

對答辯人的投訴，要求轉移爭議域名，理

由是：(i)爭議域名與投訴人享有權利的該

標記相同或混淆性地相似；(ii)答辯人就爭

議域名不享有任何權利或合法權益；及(iii)

答辯人惡意註冊及使用爭議域名。

根據《政策》，投訴人有舉證責任證明具

備上述三項因素，爭議域名才可轉移。本

案中，答辯人沒有就第一項因素提出爭

議。答辯人就爭議域名是否享有任何合法

權利或權益最為關鍵。

答辯人否定投訴人就第二和第三項因素提

出的論點，並指其享有相關的合法權利和

權益，理據如下：

•答辯人的擁有人張宇先生於2012年在

香港註冊了一家公司，名為「阿里瑪瑪

國際集團有限公司」；

•「alimama」為「阿里瑪瑪」的中文拼

音，而「阿里瑪瑪」由張宇先生所創；

•爭議域名所在的網站是用作非商業用

途；

•答辯人以「阿里瑪瑪」的名稱廣為人

知。

裁決－授予所尋求的補救措施：

投訴人展示了表面證據，證明答辯人就爭

議域名不享有任何合法權利和權益。因

此，根據Document Technologies, Inc. v

International Electronic Communications

Inc.(WIPO案件編號D2000-0270)一案所

確立的原則，第二項因素的舉證責任轉移

到答辯人身上。

專家組根據《政策》第4(c)條審查答辯人

對第二項因素所作之陳詞，而該條文規定

若符合以下任何一種情況，則答辯人可享

有相關權利或權益：

• 在接到有關爭議的任何通知之前，答

辯人使用或有證據表明準備使用該域

名或與該域名對應的名稱來用於提供

誠信商品或服務；或

• 即使答辯人未獲得商標或服務標記，

但答辯人(作為個人、企業或其他組

織)一直以該域名而廣為人知；或

• 答辯人合法或合理使用該域名、不以

營利為目的，不存在為商業利潤而誤

導消費者或玷污引起爭議之商標或服

務標記之意圖。

專家組認為，答辯人提出關於「阿里瑪

瑪」的來源和創作靈感的證據過於牽強，

因此不予採信。此外，專家組發現，答辯

人以該標記、「阿里瑪瑪」及爭議域名進

行活動的證據，大部分都是產生於近年，

即2011年或之後，而當時投訴人的該標

記已有足夠的知名度。因此，專家組推斷

答辯人當時必已知悉投訴人該標記的存

在，而且不能排除答辯人進行該些活動的

目的可能是為了規避《政策》的適用性。

經參考《WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

ViewsonSelectedUDRPQuestions》(第

二版)第2.7條，專家組不接納答辯人就爭

議域名享有合法權利和權益。

專家組亦發現，爭議域名所在的網站載有

招商植入式廣告。因此，專家組不接納答

辯人是不以營利為目的合法或合理使用爭

議域名。

專家組認為爭議域名被惡意註冊和使用，

故下令將爭議域名轉移給投訴人。

裁決全文在亞洲域名爭議解決中心的網

頁可供下載：

http://www.adndrc.org/diymodule/

docUDRP/HK-1400655_Decision.pdf。

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

1. SWATCH LTD. 2. THE SWATCH GROUP LTD (THE SWATCH GROUP SA) v Zhao Ke

HKcc-1400021 <swatchgroup.me>

Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) – Hong Kong Office

Samuel Wong (Panelist)

15 December 2014

Intellectual Property – ccTLD Dispute Resolution - .ME Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (.ME UDRP) – Registering a Domain Name for the Purpose of Selling Constitutes Bad Faith

Pursuant to the UDRP-based domain name dispute resolution policy for the Country Code Top-level Domain (ccTLD) of Montenegro (the “meTLD”), the first Complaint and second Complainant (hereinafter “C1” and “C2”, or collectively “Cs”) who owned a list of marks incorporating “Swatch” or “Swatch Group” (“Marks”), jointly filed a complaint with the Hong Kong Office of ADNDRC against the Respondent (hereinafter “R”) concerning R’s registration and use of the domain name <swatchgroup.me> (the “Disputed Domain Name”).

In its complaint, Cs sought transfer of the disputed domain name from R to C2 as the remedy, based on the following assertions:

• the Disputed Domain Name consisted entirely of the Marks which had been registered by Cs in many countries as trade marks, and thus was confusingly similar or identical to the Marks in which Cs had legitimate rights and interests;

• the Marks came from a coined word created by Cs, and the registrations of the Marks as trade marks by Cs predated the registration of the


• January 2015


Disputed Domain Name by R and R was not licensed by Cs to use the Marks. Therefore, R had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name;

• R had knowledge of Cs’ Marks before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name but still registered the Disputed Domain Name. The hyper links displayed on the website resolved by the Disputed Domain Name were related to Cs’ products.

Held, granting the remedy sought, that:

• The Panel found that the predominant part of the Disputed Domain Name was confusingly similar or identical to Cs’ Marks.

• The Panel accepted Cs’ submissions and found that Cs had established a prima facie case that R had no legitimate rights and interests in respect of the disputed domain name, while R had failed to submit any evidence before the Panel.

• It was reasonable to believe that R had knowledge of Cs’ Marks, based on the fact that R’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name was much later than Cs’ entry to the Chinese market. The panel also accepted the evidence provided by Cs that indicated that R attempted to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Cs. Moreover, the information contained in the website resolved by the Disputed Domain Name might mislead the visitors and disrupt Cs’ business. These lead the Panel to conclude that the Disputed Domain Name had been registered and was being used in bad faith.

In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the .ME UDRP, the Panel granted the relief sought by ordering the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the C2.

The full decision can be downloaded in the website of ADNDRC at http://www.adndrc.org/diymodule/docUDRP/HKcc-1400021_Decision.pdf.

解決糾紛

亞洲域名爭議解決中心(香港秘書處)

王則左（專家組成員）

2014年12月15日

知識產權 — 國家地區頂級域名爭

議解決 — .ME統一域名爭議解決

政策》(.ME UDRP)— 為出售而註

冊域名構成惡意

依據《統一域名爭議解決政策》而作出

的黑山共和國國家地區頂級域名爭議解

決(meTLD)，擁有含有「Swatch」或

「Swatch Group」(下稱「該等標記」)

一系列商標的第一及第二投訴人(統稱為

「兩名投訴人」)，共同向亞洲域名爭議

解決中心香港秘書處對答辯人提出投訴。

案中涉及答辯人對域名<swatchgroup.

me>(下稱「爭議域名」)的註冊和使用。

在此投訴案中，兩名投訴人要求答辯人將

爭議域名轉移給第二投訴人作為補救措

施，理據如下：

•爭議域名完全由該等標記組成，而兩名投訴人已在多個國家註冊該等標記

為商標，因此爭議域名與兩名投訴人

享有合法權利及權益的該等標記混淆

性相似或相同。

•該等標記是由兩名投訴人所創的新詞，兩名投訴人把該等標記註冊為商

標的日期也早於答辯人註冊爭議域名

的日期，加上答辯人沒有獲兩名投訴

人許可使用該等商標。因此，答辯人

不享有爭議域名的任何權利或合法權

益。

•答辯人在註冊爭議域名前已知悉兩名投訴人的該等標記，但仍然註冊爭議

域名。在爭議域名網頁上顯示的超鏈

結與兩名投訴人的產品有關。

裁決－授予所尋求的補救措施：

• 專家組裁定，爭議域名的主要部分與

兩名投訴人的該等標記混淆性相似或

相同。

• 專家組接納了兩名投訴人的陳詞，並

裁定表面證據成立，兩名投訴人證明

了答辯人就爭議域名不享有任何合法

權利或權益，而答辯人並沒有向專家

組提交任何證據。

• 答辯人註冊爭議域名的日期遠遠晚於

兩名投訴人進入中國市場的時間，因

此有理由相信答辯人當時已知曉兩名

投訴人的該等標記。專家組亦接納了

兩名投訴人提出的證據，指出答辯人

曾試圖向兩名投訴人出售爭議域名。

此外，爭議域名網頁所載有的資料可

能會誤導瀏覽該網頁人士，破壞兩名

投訴人的業務。專家組因此裁定，爭

議域名被惡意註冊及使用。

根據《.ME統一域名爭議解決政策》第

4(a)條，專家組授予所尋求的補救措施，

下令把爭議域名轉移給第二投訴人。

裁決全文在亞洲域名爭議解決中心的網

頁可供下載：

http://www.adndrc.org/diymodule/

docUDRP/HKcc-1400021_Decision.pdf。


PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

Newly-Admitted Members 新會員

DUAN LIHUA 段黎華

DLA PIPER UK LLP SHANGHAI

HUI SZE MNUN 許思敏

WT LAW OFFICES徐沛雄律師行

KAN WENDY 鄞潁瑜

O’MELVENY & MYERS 美邁斯律師事務所

LAW SZE WAI 羅思慧

DLA PIPER HONG KONG 歐華律師事務所

LI KIN YEE VALERIE 李健怡


LI YAN YING CATHERINE 李恩盈

IU, LAI & LI 姚黎李律師行

LIANG BAIHE 梁百合

LI & PARTNERS 李偉斌律師行

LO MING KIN 勞銘健

CHEUNG & LIU, SOLICITORS 張廖律師事務所

LUK MAN WAI LETTY陸文慧

MINTER ELLISON 銘德律師事務所

MAK WING WA 麥詠樺

MO IRIS 巫敏婷

MUN HAU TING 蒙巧婷

SE-TO WAI LUN WARREN 司徒偉倫

TO KA MAN 杜嘉敏

LI & PARTNERS 李偉斌律師行

WONG JOCELYN 王苡淇

WONG YU TING TREVOR 黃宇庭

CHENG, YEUNG & CO. 鄭楊律師行

YANG FAN 楊帆



• January 2015

CHAN CHUN FAI RONALD 陳俊輝

TANG PAUL C.K. & CHIU 鄧賜強、趙貫之律師事務所

CHAN MAN CHING 陳文靜

CHAK & ASSOCIATES 翟氏律師行

CHAN SUM YI 陳心怡

TSUI & CO. 徐國森律師事務所

CHAN TIAN HSING 陳天行

CHAN WANG NGAI CLEMENT 陳弘毅

WOO, KWAN, LEE & LO 胡關李羅律師行

CHOI CHIU YEE JACQUELINE 蔡昭宜

WHITE & CASE 偉凱律師事務所

CHOI MIU SHAN 蔡妙姍

ONC LAWYERS 柯伍陳律師事務所

CHOW SHING CHIT ARTHUR 周承哲

CHU CHARLES & KENNETH SIT 朱嘉楨,薛海華律師行

CHU KAR KAI 朱嘉棨

HUI SEE WAI 許詩慧

LAU KARM HENG HAYDEN 劉淦行

MINTER ELLISON 銘德律師事務所

LAU TIN WING PARINNA 劉天穎

LEUNG HOI TING FIONA 梁凱婷

LI & CO., MYRA 李美蘭律師事務所

TAM JESSICA MATTEA 譚詩嘉

WHITE & CASE 偉凱律師事務所

TAM YAH SHEN 譚雅倩

TANG MAN WAI 鄧敏蔚

C/O CLIFFORD CHANCE

TONG KA MAN 唐嘉雯 WONG HOI YAN JOY 王愷仁

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER 富而德律師事務所

WONG SZE CHUNG HOWARD 黃思聰

TSOI HERBERT & PARTNERS 蔡克剛律師事務所

XIAO YAO 肖瑤

SIU & CO., ANTHONY 蕭一峰律師行

YIP KA YAN 葉嘉茵

Partnerships and Firms合夥人及律師行變動

changes received as from 1 November 2014

取自2014年11月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

• ABERNETHY ANDREW HAMILTON ceased to be a partner of Gregory D. Puff & Co. as from

08/11/2014. 自2014年11月8日不再出任Gregory D. Puff & Co.合夥人一職。

• BISHOP JOHN MAURICE ceased to be a partner of Pinsent Masons as from

01/11/2014. 莊本信

自2014年11月1日不再出任品誠梅森律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CHAN GEOFFREY joined Ropes & Gray as a partner as from 07/11/2014. 陳傑鴻

自2014年11月7日加入羅普斯•格雷律師事務所為合夥人。

• CHENG FUNG YEE JESSIE ceased to be a partner of John W. Wong & Co. as from

01/11/2014. 鄭鳳儀

自2014年11月1日不再出任黃約翰律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CHENG KAM LIN CATHERINE ceased to be a partner of Cheung & Yip as from

20/11/2014. 鄭金蓮

自2014年11月20日不再出任張達成葉祺智律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CHOW KIM HANG became a partner of Ma Tang & Co. as from 24/11/2014. 周劍恒自2014年11月24日成為馬世欽鄧文政黃和崢吳慈飛律師行合夥人。

• DEGRAW JAMES SENECA joined Ropes & Gray as a partner as from 06/11/2014. 自2014年11月6日加入羅普斯•格雷律師事務所為合夥人。

• HUI FUNG ceased to be a partner of Baker & McKenzie as from

01/11/2014. 許峰

自2014年11月1日不再出任貝克•麥堅時律師事務所合夥人一職。

• JORDAN MELANIE became a partner of Ashurst Hong Kong as from

11/11/2014. 自2014年11月11日成為亞司特律師事務所合夥人。

January 2015 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向


• KHOO WUN FAT WILLIAM commenced practice as the sole

practitioner of Khoo & Co. as from 18/11/2014.

丘煥法

自2014年11月18日獨資經營丘煥法律師事務所。

• KUMAR UMESH ceased to be a partner of Linklaters as

from 25/11/2014. 自2014年11月25日不再出任年利達律師事務所合夥人一職。

• LAU HARVEY ceased to be a partner of Baker &

McKenzie as from 01/11/2014. 劉哈維

2014年11月1日不再出任貝克•麥堅時律師事務所合夥人一職。

• LAU HIU PING became a partner of Stephenson

Harwood as from 19/11/2014. 劉曉冰

自2014年11月19日成為羅夏信律師事務所合夥人。

• LAU KING SUN ERIC became a partner of Eric Cheung &

Lau, Solicitors as from 07/11/2014. 劉景新

自2014年11月7日成為張子安•劉景新律師行合夥人。

• LEE SUKJOON became a partner of Clifford Chance as

from 03/11/2014. 李碩浚

自2014年11月3日成為高偉紳律師行合夥人。

• LEUNG SAI KIT ceased to be a partner of Baker &

McKenzie as from 01/11/2014. 梁世傑


• LEUNG YIN TAT commenced practice as the sole

practitioner of YTL & Co. as from 07/11/2014.

梁延達

自2014年11月7日獨資經營梁延達律師事務所。

• LI GUANG joined Kirkland & Ellis as a partner as

from 14/11/2014. 李光

自2014年11月14日加入凱易律師事務所為合夥人。

• LIM CHI YU ALVIN ceased to be a partner of Lim & Lok

as from 12/11/2014 and remains as a consultant of the firm.

林志宇

自2014年11月12日不再出任林駱律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• LISTER MARTIN CHARLES VON MENGERSHAUSEN

ceased to be a partner of Edwards Wildman Palmer as from 15/11/2014 and joined Simmons & Simmons as a partner as from 17/11/2014.

李兆德

自2014年11月15日不再出任安偉律師事務所合夥人一職，並於2014年11月17日加入西盟斯律師行為合夥人。

• LO FU KEUNG JACKIE ceased to be a partner of Baker &

McKenzie as from 01/11/2014. 盧傅強


• LUCAS CHRISTOPHER JOHN ceased to be a partner of T.H. Koo &

Associates as from 16/11/2014 and remains as a consultant of the firm.

陸嘉仕

自2014年11月16日不再出任顧增海律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• MASOOD SELMA joined Tsui & Co. as a partner as

from 01/12/2014. 馬秀雯

自2014年12月1日加入徐國森律師事務所為合夥人。

• NGAI WING KEUNG CLEMENT ceased to be a partner of Baker &

McKenzie as from 01/11/2014. 魏永強


• POON CHI HO ceased to be a consultant of

Edmund Cheung & Co. as from 28/11/2014 and commenced practice as the sole practitioner of Poon Lawyers on the same day.

潘志豪

自2014年11月28日不再出任張恩純,葉健民律師行顧問一職，並於同日獨資經營潘志豪律師行。

• SHAM YICK CHUN GARY joined Wai & Co., Solicitors as a partner as

from 01/11/2014 and remains as a partner of Day & Chan.

岑奕俊

自2014年11月1日加入衛氏律師行為合夥人，但仍繼續擔任陳與岑律師事務所為合夥人。

• SIM YUAN MENG ceased to be a partner of Baker &

McKenzie as from 01/11/2014. 沈渊明


• SLATER JOHN HEARNE ceased to be a partner of Simmons &

Simmons as from 05/11/2014. 自2014年11月5日不再出任西盟斯律師行合夥人一職。

• WAI PUI SHUEN joined Day & Chan as a partner as from

01/11/2014 and remains as a partner of Wai & Co., Solicitors.

衛珮璇

自2014年11月1日加入陳與岑律師事務所為合夥人，但仍繼續擔任衛氏律師行為合夥人。

• WONG WAH CHIU JOHN became a partner of John W. Wong & Co.

as from 31/10/2014. 黃華炷自2014年10月31日成為黃約翰律師事務所為合夥人。

• YAU SHUI LUN became a partner of Cheung & Yip as

from 20/11/2014. 邱緒麟

自2014年11月20日成為張達成葉祺智律師事務所合夥人。

• YEONG YUN HONG GARY ceased to be a partner of Yeong & Co. as

from 01/12/2014. 楊潤康

自2014年12月1日不再出任楊潤康律師行合夥人一職。

• YEUNG HON MING became a partner of Kenneth C.C. Man &

Co. as from 11/11/2014. 楊漢銘

自2014年11月11日成為文志昌律師行合夥人。

• YU BATE became a partner of Kirkland & Ellis as

from 29/10/2014. 于巴特

自2014年10月29日成為凱易律師事務所合夥人。


• January 2015

January 2015 • A BOOK REVIEW 新書速遞

HAIRCUTS & LEAGUE CUPS The Rise and Fall of Carson Yeung by Daniel Ivery and Will Giles

By Matthew Scott

It hasn’t just been the Hong Kong public that has followed Carson Yeung Ka-sing’s rise and his demise with mouths agape. Fans of

Birmingham City and football followers across the globe point to the story of an indictment of how the game is being administered in Britain.

The one-time hairdresser made himself into a millionaire many times over before he appeared out of the blue to take control of the English club, steering it to its best-ever result with a 2-1 League Cup win over Arsenal at Wembley Stadium in 2011.

That much was known. But what was revealed during the court case that left Yeung languishing inside Stanley Prison for the next six years gave a staggering insight into the labyrinth-like dealings of a man who once cut hair for Hong Kong’s rich and famous, but then – according to his testimony – played hard on the stock exchange and won.

Money laundering was what triggered Yeung’s collapse, but life-long Birmingham City fan Daniel Ivery and local solicitor Will Giles (with help of illustrations from the South China Morning Post’s Harry Harrison) bring much more to the plate in what should be required reading for anyone interested in the myriad deals and connections that make up the modern Chinese business world, and in the laws of Hong Kong.

That you can follow it all is credit to the authors’ casual style and dedication to the task at hand. No stone has been left unturned in an effort to paint a picture of Yeung and to make the facts understandable even to someone whose eyes usually glaze over at mention of accounting or law. The man himself has never made things easy in that regard. In sentencing Yeung, Judge Douglas Yau Tak-hong said he found him to be “someone who is prepared to, and did, lie whenever he felt the need to”, which may well be.

Yeung did himself no favours either in contradicting witnesses called by his own defence team and in not being able to remember anything much. But does that make him guilty of the crime for which he was charged? As Giles explains, in such cases in Hong Kong those accused are rarely cleared of the charges and the book opens up the debate about a crime for which one local silk recently commented that the courts “start with guilty and work their way down from there”.

Ivery became embroiled in the saga via the work he posts on the Often Partisan Birmingham fan site and gives the non-committed a first-hand feel of what it was like for the fans of the club as they watched their fortunes unravel along with Yeung’s. The cast of shadowy figures lurking in the club’s background – and in Yeung’s – will make your head spin.

* Book review originally appeared in South China Morning Post on 26 October 2014.

不只香港市民對楊家

誠人生的跌岩起伏

目瞪口呆。伯明翰球會球

迷及全球各地足球愛好者同樣關

注這一公訴罪行報道中有關英國如何對足球進行規管。

楊家誠由理髮師搖身一變成為富豪，到突然執掌英國伯明

翰球會，並於2011年溫布萊大球場的聯賽盃中，帶領球隊

以其歷來最佳成績2比1戰勝阿仙奴。

這些事大家都耳熟能詳。但是，除了案件裁定楊家誠被判

往赤柱監獄服刑六年外，案件在審訊期間亦披露了一些驚

人內幕，涉及多項交易，謎面經緯錯綜複雜。楊家誠曾經

替香港的顯貴理髮，據他的證供透露，他後來在股票市場

上「炒股」獲利。

洗錢案導致楊家誠「從高處滑落」。伯明翰終生球迷Daniel

Ivery和本地律師Will Giles(加上《南華早報》Harry Harrison

所畫的插圖)，向那些對建構中國現代商業世界的各類交易

和關係，以及對香港法律感興趣的人士，提供了更多必讀

的資料。

本書行文流暢易讀，這全歸功於作者的隨筆風格，專心

埋首於手頭項目。作者費盡心思地將楊家誠的面貌勾勒出

來，又將案中事實寫得簡單易明，使到對會計或法律茫然

不通的人，也能明瞭箇中要點。楊家誠愛故弄玄虛，把事

情搞得複雜。游德康法官對他作出判刑時表示，楊家誠是

「一個隨時會說謊的人，每覺有需要就會撒謊」，情況很

可能就是如此。

楊家誠與自己辯護團隊所作的證詞相矛盾，又記不起很多

事情，這些都對他本人很不利。但這是否他應就控罪被判

有罪？正如Giles解釋，在香港這類案件中，被告人很少可

以脫罪。本書也就罪行展開討論，其中一位本地資深大律

師最近提出意見，指法院「從有罪開始入手，並循這方向

一路展開工作」。

I v e r y捲入這事件中，因他經常在「Of t e n P a r t i s a n

Birmingham」球迷網站貼文，並且給那些與事件不相干的

人直接感受到，作為球會球迷看著自己與楊氏的命運不再

糾纏會怎麼樣。球會及楊氏背後潛伏的黑影會把人弄得頭

眩目轉。

* 書評原刊載於2014年10月26日的《南華早報》

理髮師到聯賽盃班主楊家誠的起跌人生DanielIvery與WillGiles合著


CAMPUS VOICES法學院新聞

RCCL Conference on Condominium Laws and Urban Governance in Asia, 27–28 November 2014Apartments in high-rise buildings are the dominant type of residential property in most parts of urban Asia. However, little has been specifically addressed to adequately capture the dynamics of the interrelationship among various actors towards effective property management. Having considered that, the Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law (“RCCL”) of the School of Law organised a Conference on Condominium Laws and Urban Governance in Asia on 27–28 November 2014 to investigate the legal rules and policies governing apartment ownership in selected Asian jurisdictions.

The one-and-a-half-day conference was divided into five sessions. During these five sessions, 11 speakers from nine jurisdictions (including China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam and South Africa) presented their national reports on the laws and policies relating to condominium laws. These reports not only gave a detailed background to the participants, but also highlighted the problems in the practice of condominium laws in different

countries, which provided a basis for discussion in each respective session.

While the time was short, this one and a half day conference was well received. Participants expressed that they found the conference productive and timely.

中國法與比較法研究中心舉

辦「亞洲公寓管理法律與城

市管治研討會」， 2 0 1 4 年

11月27-28 日

高樓公寓是大部亞洲城市住宅物業的主要

類型，但針對有效物業管理中各個因素間

的相互關係作專門研究卻寥寥無幾。有鑑

於此，法律學院的中國法與比較法研究中

心於2014年11月27至28日舉辦了「亞

洲公寓管理法律與城市管治研討會」，探

討所選的一些亞洲國家/地區在公寓所有

權方面的法律規則和政策。

為期一天半的研討會共分為五個環節。

在這五個環節中，來自中國、香港、印

度、以色列、日本、新加坡、台灣、越

南和南非等九個不同國家和地區的11位

講者，匯報了他們所在國家/地區在公寓

管理方面的相關法律和政策。他們的精

彩匯報，不僅為與會者提供了相關的背

景資料，而且亦指出了不同國家/地區在

實施公寓管理法律方面所遇到的問題，

為會議中每一環節提供了討論基礎。

雖然會期只有短短的一天半，但會議獲

得高度評價。與會者都盛讚會議極具建

設性，而且內容適合時宜。


• January 2015

January 2015 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

45th Anniversary of the HKU Law Faculty – Alumni Reunion Dinner

For thee, we celebrateIn thee, we thrive!

In celebration of the 45th anniversary of the founding of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, the HKU Law Alumni Association organised a dinner on 29 November 2014 at the Convention and Exhibition Centre to mark this memorable occasion.

The venue of the Dinner was decorated with photos and publications of law students of different generations, taking our guests down memory lane. The Dinner was filled with series of events lined up for the evening, including a keynote speech given by the Hon. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, a presentation ceremony to our Honorary Life Members (Mr. Kenneth Kwok SC, Hon. Justice Patrick Chan NPJ and Professor Johannes Chan SC), a thrilling quiz testing our guests’ knowledge of the law and the Faculty, and performance of songs about the Faculty and the study of law written by our talented students over the past 45 years. It was a wonderful evening filled with laughter and a joyful occasion to get together with former and current teachers, distinguished guests and schoolmates.

港大法律學院45周年校友聚舊晚宴

為汝，吾等慶祝

於斯，吾等茁壯成長！

為慶祝香港大學法律學院成立45周年，港大法律畢業生會於

2014年11月29日假座香港會議展覽中心舉行晚宴，紀念這

難忘的日子。

晚宴會場擺設了不同年代的法律學生的照片和出版物，帶領

貴賓踏上回憶之路。晚宴備有一連串的節目，不但邀得終審

法院首席法官馬道立先生演講和終身榮譽會員(郭慶偉資深大

律師、香港特別行政區終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷先生及資

深大律師陳文敏教授)的名銜頒授典禮，還有測試貴賓對法律

和港大法律學院認識的刺激問答遊戲，以及由法律學生過去

45載以法律學院和修讀法律為題編

寫的歌曲演出。往昔的和現

任的老師、貴賓和同學共聚

一堂，度過了一個充滿笑聲

的美好夜晚。

aims to garner feedback from you, our readers, on how you find the publication, as well as solicit feedback on areas where we can improve. We encourage you to be as frank as possible.

To show our gratitude, all respondents who successfully complete the survey will be entered to win a free iPad; while the first 50 respondents to successfully complete the survey will receive a complimentary $50 gift certificate to Urban Bakery.

Let us know what you think online: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=2592&c=0.

讀者問卷調查

Readers’ Survey

The

旨在蒐集各讀者對本刊的意見，讓我們了解需改進之

處。敬希踴躍參加，並如實填寫。

為表謝意，所有完成問卷調查的受訪者即可參加抽獎，

有機會贏取iPad乙部，而首50名完成問卷調查的受訪

者可獲贈價值50元的Urban Bakery禮券乙張。

請於： h t t p : / / w w w . h k - l a w y e r . o r g / t c / a r t i c l e .asp?articleid=2592&c=0 把您的想法告訴我們。

GRAND PRIZE

PRIZE for First 50 Respondents


Answers to Hong Kong Legal History Quiz # 8

HONG KONG LEGAL HISTORY

1. In 1934 the ships President Jefferson and Afrika collided in Hong Kong waters leading to a case that went to the Privy Council. Where did the collision occur?A. LeiyuemenB. Kowloon WharfC. North Point

2. Who was the first Chinese Solicitor General?A. Frank PoonB. Daniel FungC. Elsie Leung

3. Which of the founding partners of Johnson Stokes and Master was described as a “tall and austere man” by the editor of the Hong Kong Telegraph in 1891?A. Arthur Bulmer JohnsonB. Alfred Parker StokesC. Godfrey Cornwall Chester Master

4. How many Solicitors General in Hong Kong have been appointed Attorney General/Secretary for Justice?A. NoneB. 1C. 3D. 5

5. Which Attorney General of Hong Kong later became Chief Judge of the British Supreme Consular Court in Constantinople?A. John BucknillB. John GriffithsC. Edward O’MalleyD. George Phillippo

The questions for our quiz question series were prepared by Barrister Douglas Clark, who will this year be publishing a history of the British Supreme Court for China and Japan and the United States Court for China titled Gunboat Justice. Suggestions for additional quiz questions are most welcome.

6. Which Chief Justice of Hong Kong commanded the Hong Kong Volunteer Corps?A. John CarringtonB. William Rees-DaviesC. Denys RobertsD. Atholl MacGregor

7. The firm of Deacons acted for the Chinese Government in 1880s.A. TrueB. False

8. Which Chief Justice of Hong Kong served in the Palestine Volunteer Defence Force?A. Henry BlackallB. Leslie GibsonC. Gerard HoweD. Michael Hogan

9. How many Attorneys General of Hong Kong were knighted while serving as Attorney General?A. NoneB. 1C. 2D. 3

10. General Claire Chennault was a party to actions in the Hong Kong Supreme Court (appealed to the Privy Council) regarding the ownership of 40 planes flown from Mainland China to Hong Kong in late 1949. What was General Chennault most famous for?A. Acrobatic FlyingB. Being commander of the “Flying Tigers” in World War IIC. The action in the Hong Kong courts

We would like to congratulate Ada Chan, Legal Counsel, Managing Director’s Office, Shun Hing Electronic Trading Co., Ltd, the winner of our Legal History Quiz #8.

#9

6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5


• January 2015

Sir John Carrington, Chief Justice, 1896—1902

Contest: The first reader who sends in all ten correct answers to [email protected] will receive a bottle of Ch. La Croizille 2007 (as per the attached photo) from Global Vintage Wines Centre. The decision of Thomson Reuters is final and conclusive.

Henry Gompertz, Puisne Judge, 1908—1925

Sir W. Meigh Goodman, Attorney General, 1889—1902 and Chief Justice 1902—1905

Julian Pauncefote, Attorney General, 1865—1874

Roger Lindsell, Puisne Judge, 1934—1940 (died in office)

Sir Atholl MacGregor, Chief Justice, 1933—1946

Arthur Hooton, Solicitor General, 1952—1961

Sir Grenville Alabaster, Attorney General, 1930—1946

Thomas Anstey, Attorney General, 1855—1859

Sir Gerard Howe, Chief Justice, 1950—1954 (died in office). The picture shows how at the Proclamation of Accession of Queen Elizabeth in 1952.

香港法律史測驗#8的答案

香港法律史測驗 #9

1. 在1934年船舶President Jefferson和Afrika在香港水域相撞，導致案件去到樞密院處理。相撞事件是在哪

裡發生的？

A. 鯉魚門

B. 九龍倉碼頭

C. 北角

2. 誰是香港第一位華人律政專員(法律政策)？

A. Frank Poon

B. Daniel Fung

C. 梁愛詩

3 哪位孖士打律師行的創辦合夥人被《士蔑西報》的編

輯在1891年描述為「高大嚴肅的男人」？

A. Arthur Bulmer Johnson

B. Alfred Parker Stokes

C. Godfrey Cornwall Chester Master

4. 香港有多少位律政專員(法律政策)/法律政策專員獲委任為律政司/律政司司長？

A. 沒有

B. 1

C. 3

D. 5

5. 香港哪位律政司後來在君士坦丁堡的英國最高領事法院當首席法官？

A. John Bucknill

B. John Griffiths

C. Edward O’Malley

D. George Phillippo

本測驗中的系列問題由大律師馬錦德(Douglas Clark)

編製，馬錦德將於今年出版有關英國在華及在日最高

法院及美國在華法院歷史的專著，書名為 Gunboat Justice。我們歡迎閣下提交額外測驗問題的建議。

6. 香港的哪位首席法官指揮香港軍團(義勇軍)？

A. John Carrington

B. William Rees-Davies

C. Denys Roberts

D. Atholl MaGregor

7. 的近律師行在19世紀80年代代理中國政府法律事務。

A. 是

B. 非

8. 香港的哪位首席法官在巴勒斯坦防衛義勇軍服役？

A. Henry Blackall

B. Leslie Gibson

C. Gerard Howe

D. Michael Hogan

9. 香港有多少位律政司在任律政司的時候被封為爵士？

A. 沒有

B. 1

C. 2

D. 3

10. Claire Chennault將軍是香港最高法院(上訴至樞密院)的一個案件的其中一方與訟人；該案有關1949年末，從中國大陸飛到

香港的40架飛機擁有權的訴訟。Chennault將軍以什麼最著名?

A. 特技飛行

B. 第二次世界大戰中「飛虎隊」的指揮官。

C. 香港法庭的訴訟。

本刊謹此祝賀信興電器貿易有限公司董事總經理辦

公室法律顧問陳潔怡律師在法律史測驗＃8中勝出。

January 2015 • LEGAL HISTORY QUIZ 法律史測驗

6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5


競賽：

首名把全部十條問題的正確答案以電郵發送至cynthia.claytor@

thomsonreuters.com的讀者，可獲贈由名酒坊送出的2007年

Ch.LaCroizille美酒乙支（見圖）。湯森路透擁有最終決定權。

Sir John Carrington，首席法官，1896—1902

Henry Gompertz，陪席法官，1908—1925

Sir W. Meigh Goodman，律政司，1889—1902及首席法官，1902—1905

Julian Pauncefote，律政司， 1865—1874

Roger Lindsell，陪席法官， 1934—1940 (任內離世)

Sir Atholl MacGregor，首席法官， 1933—1946

Arthur Hooton，法律政策專員， 1952—1961

Sir Grenville Alabaster，律政司， 1930—1946

Thomas Anstey，律政司， 1855—1859

Sir Gerard Howe，首席法官， 1950—1954 (任內離世)。圖片顯示如何宣佈伊莉莎白女王於1952年登基。

your professionour passion

hays.com.hk

for more information about these opportunities, contact a Hays Legal expert:

Daryl Hodes - in-house (financial markets) opportunities e: [email protected]

Kelvin pho - law firm opportunities e: [email protected]

Heidi Hui – in-house (commerce & industry) opportunities e: [email protected]

Jen Lee – in-house (commerce & industry) opportunities e: [email protected]

or call Hays Legal direct on +852 2521 1460.

unit 5803-07, 58/f, The Center, 99 Queen’s road Central, Hong Kong.

Commerce & industry

Legal Counsel (Hospitality) Hong Kong. 7-9 pQe.

A leading operator in the hospitality and entertainment sector seeks a high calibre individual to work closely with the business in providing advice and support on all legal matters. You will have experience gained at prestigious US or UK law firms in M&A, PE and capital markets. Prior in-house experience in a similar or related industry is an advantage. Hong Kong qualification and proficiency in Mandarin are mandatory. ref: HH 1053087

senior Legal Counsel (Consumer Goods) Hong Kong. 7+ pQe.

This Fortune 500 company seeks a senior level lawyer who is looking to create a career which delivers on all levels. The position will suit someone with experience in general commercial and M&A matters and who is familiar with HKG listing rules. Hong Kong qualification and proficiency in Cantonese and Mandarin are essential. ref: HH 1062825

Legal Counsel (Construction) Hong Kong. 6-10 pQe.

A great job opportunity exists with a renowned HKEx listed organisation. The key responsibilities of this role include providing legal advice and assistance on issues relating to projects and construction matters in Hong Kong. You will negotiate and draft project/construction documentation and assist in claims and disputes review. ref: JL 1061536

Legal Manager (retail) Hong Kong. 3+ pQe.

This rapidly growing Hong Kong based organisation develops and distributes health, skincare, household, and personal care products. It is looking for a common law qualified lawyer with strong commercial experience to join its legal team. For this newly created role, English and Mandarin language skills are required. More junior individuals may be considered at Legal Officer level. ref: JL 1057355

financial Markets

Legal Counsel (DCM, Vp) Hong Kong. 5+ pQe.

A major investment bank urgently seeks a DCM specialist lawyer for its transaction management team. You will be involved in key aspects of MTN and CD programs and drawdowns, as well as debt-related matters including high yield and investment grade bonds, and a range of transactions from standard 144A issuances through to private placement. Chinese language skills are a distinct advantage. ref: DH 1062994

Legal Manager (insurance) Hong Kong. 3-5 pQe.

A financially vibrant life insurance company is concomitantly growing its legal team. It now requires a new person with excellent knowledge of corporate governance and the various financial services ordinances and regulations. English and Chinese skills are a must, and the person must have the sharp wit and gravitas to be able to advise stakeholders at various levels. ref: DH 1063934

Legal Counsel (procurement) Hong Kong. 3-7 pQe.

This large trans-global financial services provider requires an IT and sourcing-savvy contracts management specialist lawyer. You will have good exposure to a broad range and type of supplier contracts in a banking or other financial services environment. English skills are essential, Hong Kong qualification and Chinese language skills are advantageous. ref DH 1064668

Legal & Compliance Manager (funds) Hong Kong. 2-5 pQe.

This US registered investment management company has a very strong Hong Kong, PRC and South East Asian footprint. It requires a new person in its legal team to support SEC related and general legal and compliance matters. Some investment management exposure will be ideal, and English, Mandarin and Cantonese proficiency is essential. You will be a fast learner with great interactive skills. ref: DH 1064827

Law firm

associate (Corporate finance) Hong Kong. 2-5 pQe.

This well regarded law firm seeks a junior or mid level associate to join its corporate finance team in Hong Kong. You should have broad experience in public company work including takeover, rights and insider dealing advisory issues. Chinese language skills are strongly preferred. You will ideally be Hong Kong or Singapore qualified. ref: Kp 1064824

associate (funds and regulatory) Hong Kong. 3-5 pQe.

A prestigious international law firm seeks a mid level associate to join its Hong Kong office. You will ideally be Hong Kong qualified with investment management and insurance regulatory experience, preferably gained at a top tier law firm. Chinese language skills are preferred but not essential. ref: Kp 1064746

associate (finance) Hong Kong. nQ-5 pQe.

This international law firm can potentially employ a number of associates in its general banking team. You should have experience in restructuring and/or general banking, with detailed knowledge of mainstream syndicated lending, including leveraged finance. English skills are essential. Fluency in spoken Cantonese and Mandarin as well as in written Chinese is strongly preferred. ref: Kp 1064749

www.atticus-legal.com

Funds3 – 6 PQE Hong Kong

An excellent opportunity for a lawyer with solid experience in a variety of funds matters including hedge funds, PE funds and more to work alongside a highly renowned partner and a solid team assisting an eminent client base. You will ideally be common law qualified with Mandarin language skills. HKL1600

Corporate IPO/M&ANQ – 4 PQE Hong Kong

A truly brilliant opportunity for an individual with experience gained at a leading Hong Kong/international firm to work on cross-border M&A’s, equity offerings and global IPO transactions. You will work alongside established and reputable partners in the field. Hong Kong qualified with Mandarin required. HKL1569

US Securities3 – 5 PQE Hong Kong

This notable practice is looking for an individual with good experience to join its elite team to work on a range of cutting-edge corporate transactions advising the world’s leading investment banks and more as part of a dynamic and collegiate group. US qualification with Mandarin preferred. HKL1641

Litigation/Arbitration5 + PQE Shanghai

A lawyer with solid FCPA exposure and bribery matters is required to join this prominent firm and play a large part in developing and spearheading the practice. You will assist high profile clients on a global level with Mandarin language skills essential. HKL1596

Debt Capital Markets3 – 5 PQE Singapore

This is a fantastic opening for a lawyer to join a leading international practice and to work on a variety of global straight debt, non-structured capital markets transactions and more, assisting high-profile blue-chip clients. Common law qualification required for this role, no languages required. HKL1671

International Arbitration2 + PQE Singapore

A leading global firm is seeking an individual with exposure to a range of arbitration and/or litigation matters to join its close-knit and collegiate group of individuals working on a variety of complex and high profile arbitrations. You will be common law qualified, languages not essential. HKL1621

Asset Finance2 – 5 PQE Hong Kong

An individual preferably with exposure to the field of aviation is sought to become part of this leading practice to work on the leasing and financing of commercial aircraft advising lessors, financial institutions and more. You will work alongside prominent individuals and be common law qualified. There is no language requirement. HKL1661

Banking & Finance1 – 4 PQE Hong Kong

This top banking practice known for its complex and structured finance focus is seeking an individual with good exposure to a variety of finance matters to join its team and work on structured products, securitisation, derivatives and more. Mandarin essential. HKL1615

Corporate M&A5 + PQE Beijing / Shanghai

A very exciting opportunity for a lawyer to become part of this leading outfit of professionals. Your work will include focusing on a range of innovative M&A transactions on a global scale assisting eminent partners and high profile clients. International qualification essential with Mandarin fluency. HKL1679

Capital Markets1 – 4 PQE Hong Kong

A fantastic opening for an individual from a Hong Kong firm to step onto the international stage. You will be required to work on a range of innovative and global IPO transactions throughout the APAC region and more. Hong Kong qualification and Mandarin essential. HKL1160

Funds1 – 5 PQE Singapore

This eminent global firm seeks a lawyer to join their practice to work for high profile clients on a wide variety of private investment funds, including private equity, real estate, hedge funds, venture capital, mezzanine funds and distressed asset funds as well as funds-of-funds and secondaries. International qualification needed. HKL1601

Project Finance2 + PQE Singapore

A very exciting opportunity for a lawyer to join this global team to work on a range of major projects representing project sponsors, financial institutions, investors and more alongside highly regarded partners (experience related to energy work advantageous). Common law qualification needed. HKL1597

Projects3 – 6 PQE Hong Kong / Singapore

This top firm with a strong international reputation, seeks a lawyer with solid projects exposure, and experience drafting EPC and O&M and a variety of other project contracts to work on development, project structuring, financing and more. Common law qualification needed. HKL1459

Commercial Litigation2 – 5 PQE Hong Kong

A truly fantastic opportunity for an experienced lawyer to work on a range of often high profile and complex disputes across a variety of sectors with a leading team in the field assisting multi-nationals, financial institutions and more. Common law qualified and Mandarin language needed. HKL1566

Competition5 + PQE Hong Kong

A leading global practice seeks a lawyer with relevant experience to work alongside a renowned partner on a range of antitrust and competition matters as part of this distinguished team. You will advise multi-national corporations, financial institutions and more. Common law qualified with Mandarin language skills needed. HKL1662

Construction4 + PQE Hong Kong

An individual with solid exposure to construction related litigation matters including non-contentious is required to become part of this highly professional team to work on major projects and more. Hong Kong qualified with Mandarin language preferred. HKL1480

Banking & Finance2 – 5 PQE Singapore

This top US practice has a fantastic opportunity for a lawyer to join this unrivalled team and practice, working on the full range of banking & finance matters including asset and project finance deals across the APAC region. You will work alongside an eminent partner. Common law qualification essential. HKL1398

US Securities2 – 5 PQE Singapore

This notable practice is seeking a lawyer to join its highly renowned team. You will join a dynamic group working on sophisticated corporate transactions including a variety of high yield debt matters, advising some of the world’s top investment banks and more. US JD qualification needed. HKL1598

trust | honesty | integrity | partnership

This is a selection of our current vacancies; please visit our website for more opportunities, or for more information in complete confidence, please call the Hong Kong office on +852 2503 2500 or contact our Singapore office on +65 6100 1900 or email us at

[email protected], [email protected], or [email protected]

Corporate Lawyer › 4 – 6 Years PQE › Leading Global Law Firm Our client is a leading global law firm and they are looking for a hardworking and ambitious Corporate Lawyer with 4 to 6 years of PQE. As the Corporate Lawyer, you will be expected to work independently and oversee transactions in Hong Kong, China and the US. You will work alongside the hiring partner focusing mainly on IPOs, private equity as well as M&A deals. This is an excellent opportunity with promising career prospects. The ideal candidate will be qualified in Hong Kong, a common law jurisdiction, or the US. You should possess substantial relevant experience from leading international law firms. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2354520

Regulatory Lawyer › 5 – 7 Years PQE › Leading International Law FirmOur client is a top tier regulatory practice within the region. They are currently seeking a well qualified litigator who possesses broad financial litigation and/or contentious regulatory experience to join their growing practice. The successful candidate will join their leading team and gain the opportunity to work alongside major partners in the field. You must be a Hong Kong or common law qualified lawyer who possesses 5 to 7 years of PQE in this practice. Prior training and work experience gained from leading international law firms would be essential. You must be proficient in English. Proficiency in Chinese would be advantageous but not mandatory. Ref: H2307930

Legal Manager › 4 – 6 Years PQE › Established Property DeveloperAn established and leading property developer is currently seeking a Legal Manager to join their team. You will oversee a range of legal matters for the group on a global scale, including the drafting and reviewing of a variety of agreements, as well as advising on potential legal issues and risks of on-going commercial and litigation matters. They are keen to take on lawyers with strong commercial litigation and general commercial legal skills. You will be Hong Kong qualified with 4 to 6 years of PQE. In-house experience will be highly regarded, although candidates from reputable law firms will also be considered. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2338890

Legal Counsel › 4 – 6 Years PQE › Prominent Television BroadcasterA leading Hong Kong listed television broadcaster is currently seeking a Legal Counsel to join their team. Reporting directly to the Head of Legal, you will support legal matters with a regional coverage and global business involvement. You will handle a wide range of advisory work focusing on general in house commercial work for the listed company, and handling corporate activities such as Hong Kong listing rules, regulatory compliance and joint ventures, on top of general commercial activities. The ideal candidate will have 4 to 6 years of PQE. Candidates with experience gained within Hong Kong listed companies will be highly regarded. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2293460.

In-House Legal Counsel › 3+ Years PQE › China-Based International Investment Bank

Working closely with the Senior Legal Counsel, you will be responsible for the structuring and documentation of securities and structured transactions. You will assist to provide legal advice directly to the relevant business units, as well as review and negotiate contracts in both English and Chinese. You must have exposure to the brokerage business and be familiar with SFO, Companies’ Ordinance, SFC’s licensing regime, ISDA documents, HKEX rules. The ideal candidate will be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with 3 to 5 years of PQE gained from leading law firms or in an in-house environment, with expertise in securities and structured transactions. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2311660

Prime Services Lawyer › 2 – 7 Years PQE › Top Tier Investment Bank

Our client is a leading investment bank who is seeking a junior to mid level lawyer, ideally trained with leading international law firms, to join the team focusing on prime services matters. You will be looking at a regional coverage including areas of clearings, listed and non-listed derivatives, ISDA negotiation, onboard documentation, and be relied on to provide legal advice. The ideal candidate will be a qualified lawyer with at least 2 years of PQE obtained from a top tier law firm, with eagerness to move in-house, as well as to work closely with the business. You must have strong regulatory exposure particularly with the HKEC guidelines as well as other relevant rules. This is an AVP to VP level position. Ref: H2337950

M&A Lawyer › 3 – 7 Years PQE › Global Law FirmOur client is seeking an energetic and competent candidate to join their growing corporate practice. The ideal candidate should have first class academic qualifications, be Hong Kong or common law qualified, as well as have strong M&A experience with some PE experience gained from a top tier law firm. You must be familiar with drafting and negotiating joint-ventures and M&A transactions. Exposure in handling China acquisitions and commercial agreements will be an advantage. The successful candidate must have at least 3 years of PQE gained in corporate transactions or related matters. Excellent skills in communication and presentation preferred. You must be proficient in English and Chinese.

Ref: H2308420

Banking & Finance Lawyer › 2 – 5 Years PQE › Leading International Law FirmA leading international law firm is looking for a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with 2 to 5 years of PQE to join their Banking & Finance practice. The ideal candidate must be familiar with syndicated and bilateral bank lending transactions. Experience in structuring, negotiating, documenting and closing complex cross-border finance transactions would also be preferable. The ideal candidate must be organised, meticulous and have the ability to lead a team and manage a portfolio of clients. Proficiency in English, Cantonese and Chinese十is required. The ideal candidate will be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer, although registered foreign lawyers with common law qualifications will also be considered. Ref: H2133960

Legal Counsel › 5 – 8 Years PQE › Private Investment Holding CompanyA private investment holding company, with assets exceeding RMB160 billion, is seeking an independent in-house lawyer to join their group. This is a new opportunity for a capable lawyer to oversee compliance, legal and risk matters for the group and its listed subsidiaries. On a global scale, you will contribute to a range of corporate transactions, provide legal advice and handle company secretarial matters. The ideal candidate will possess 5 to 8 years of PQE, ideally gained from an in-house role, although those coming from private practice may also be considered. You should be familiar with corporate finance, restructurings, capital markets and M&A. Chinese language skills will not be required for this position. Ref: H2333840.

Legal Counsel › 8+ Years PQE › Established and Prominent ConglomerateJoining a well established team of 8 lawyers, you will support the Group on a regional scale. You will work closely with various businesses including motor trading, property, retail, hotels, financial services and more. You will handle a range of legal matters including investment, M&A, regulatory investigations, compliance, dispute resolution, and general corporate commercial matters. You will liaise with varying levels of seniority, and have the opportunity to work directly with senior management. The ideal candidate will possess at least 8 years of PQE with strong China and Hong Kong experience in the area of general corporate commercial matters. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2321220

Equity and Fixed Income Lawyer › 2 – 7 Years PQE › Leading Investment BankA global bank is seeking a common law qualified lawyer to join the team, with a regional focus on equity and fixed income. You will oversee a variety of fixed income trade products and equity linked products, as well as negotiate and oversee a range of distribution agreements and term sheets. You will possess at least 2 years of PQE obtained from a leading international law firm, with derivatives or capital markets background. Exposure in structured note platforms, distribution agreements would be useful, as is experience in advising on SFO or other regulations. Knowledge of OTC products, ULI or warrants will be a plus though not mandatory. This is an AVP to VP level position. Ref: H2349890.

OTC Derivatives & Cash Equities Lawyer › 5+ Years PQE › Leading Global Financial InstitutionJoining a well established team with over 20 lawyers, you will take on a mid to senior level position focusing on a range of OTC, cash equities, master agreements/ISDA as well as brokerage. You will have the opportunity to work closely with traders and the brokerage business with support from your team. The ideal candidate will possess 4 to 6 years of PQE with OTC derivatives / equity derivatives experience. Knowledge around confirmations is key and exposure in cash equities will be a plus though not required. The successful candidate will be able to work in a busy environment within a demanding business and meet tight deadlines. This is a VP level position. Ref: H1494850

To apply, visit www.michaelpage.com.hk/apply quoting the reference number or contact the following consultants:

LegalSpecialists in legal recruitment

www.michaelpage.com.hk

Get Connected. Stay Ahead.

PRIVATE PRACTICE FINANCIAL SERVICESIN-HOUSE CORPORATE

Olga Yung, Director, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4791 [email protected]

Carolyn Woo, Manager, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4793 [email protected]

Samantha Fong, Consultant, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4792 [email protected]

We are a specialist legal team within the leading recruitment brand of PageGroup. Our strong client network sees us working closely with international and local law firms, global and local listed and private corporations, financial institutions, as well as Hong Kong regulatory bodies.

SPECIALISTS IN LEGAL RECRUITMENTMICHAEL PAGE LEGAL

EXCLUSIVE JOB MONTHOF

THE

Derivatives Lawyer › 6+ Years PQE › Top Tier Investment BankA leading equities team is seeking for a lawyer to join at the senior end of VP level, with a view to be promoted to Director. You will oversee the notes business covering retail platform and private placements across the region. You will gain excellent exposure to bespoke products covering Hong Kong warrants, equity linked instruments, structured notes and work closely with the business on proprietary strategies. You will be a structured products lawyer with around 5 to 10 years of PQE ideally obtained within the space of notes. Any distribution experience across QDII, structured notes and debt instruments will be highly regarded. Candidates of junior to mid level seniority would be considered for an AVP or VP role instead. You must be proficient in Chinese. Ref: H2355830

#150

65

Corporate Lawyer › 6+ Years PQE › Leading Law Firm Our client is a leading law firm seeking a Corporate Lawyer with at least 6 years of PQE. In this role, you will be working closely with the partners to oversee a range of transactions in Hong Kong and the U.S. Reporting to the partner responsible for the Asia practice, you will work in a team of lawyers focusing mainly on high profile private equity and M&A deals. This is an exciting role with excellent prospects and exposure within a leading law firm. The ideal candidate would be qualified in Hong Kong or a common law jurisdiction, and must have obtained solid experience from another leading law firm. The candidate must be proficient in both English and Chinese, including Mandarin. Ref: H2365330

Real Estate Lawyer › 5 – 7 Years PQE › Leading Global Law FirmOur client is a leading global law firm and its real estate department has achieved multiple accolades. They are currently looking for a real estate / conveyancing lawyer who is highly capable of handling property transactions independently. In this role, you will be reporting to the head of department. The ideal candidate must be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with at least 5 years of PQE and possesses excellent communication skills in both Chinese and English (written and spoken). Candidates who are proficient in Putonghua will be an advantage though not mandatory. The successful candidate will also receive a highly competitive remuneration package. Ref: H2529200

Assistant Legal Counsel › 3 – 5 Years PQE › Major Property DeveloperOur client is a well established property developer who is seeking a junior to mid-level solicitor to support the Group General Counsel in a full range of legal matters of the company’s property development, leasing, estate management and hotel businesses. Working alongside a dynamic team, you will assist in drafting, reviewing and negotiating commercial and residential tenancy agreements, conducting legal research and providing legal advice in relation to acquisition, financing, leasing and management of property. You will also assist in regulatory and compliance matters. You should be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with 3 to 5 years of PQE. Proficiency in both English and Chinese is a must. Ref: H2556750

Legal Counsel › 1 – 5 Years PQE › Leading Retail and Consumer Goods GroupOur client is a Hong Kong listed retail and consumer goods business who is seeking a junior to mid-level solicitor. Reporting to the General Counsel, you will primarily support firm-wide M&A activities, negotiating day-to-day contracts with different business units and compliance matters (foreign and local). This will be an in-house corporate commercial role, where you will receive good exposure to the business side of things by covering corporate legal work, public company regulatory and general corporate commercial matters. Due to the expansion and activity of the business, our client is looking for someone who thrives in a fast paced environment. Proficiency in both English and Chinese is a must. Ref: H2553860

Legal Counsel, Corporate › 7 – 12 Years PQE › Global Financial Institution

Our client is looking for a lawyer with strong corporate and commercial experience to join their team of 4 lawyers. Reporting to the Head of Legal, you will provide legal support to the APAC region, serving a head office function to the other countries. You will support ongoing corporate work and investments including acquisitions, private M&As, joint ventures and partnerships. There will also be corporate governance and risk related matters from a legal perspective. The successful candidate will possess at least 7 years of PQE in the area of corporate, with training obtained within a sizable law firm, as well as in-house experience ideally with financial institutions. Proficiency in Chinese would be useful but not mandatory. Ref: H2555470

Legal Counsel › 5 – 12 Years PQE › Private Equity Fund House

Our client is well-established in Hong Kong for over a decade and has operations in China as well. Working in a team covering legal, compliance and risk, you will join as a sole legal counsel overseeing all legal and funds related matters. You will report to the Managing Director and work with senior stakeholders to advise and manage all fund agreements and related legal issues. You will possess at least 5 years of PQE ideally in the area of funds and private equity law. Whilst in-house financial institution / fund house experience is highly regarded, lawyers with experience in private practice will be considered. You will be a mature, independent and eager to learn individual. Proficiency in both English and Chinese is a must. Ref: H2537770

Regulatory Lawyer › 5 – 7 Years PQE › Leading international law firmOur client is a top-tier regulatory practice within the region. They are currently seeking a well qualified litigator who possesses broad financial litigation and/or contentious regulatory experience to join their growing practice. The successful candidate will join their leading team and gain the opportunity to work alongside major partners in the field. You must be a Hong Kong qualified or common law qualified lawyer who possesses at least 5 to 7 years of PQE in this practice area. Candidates with prior training and work experience gained from leading international law firms would be highly regarded. You must also be proficient in English. Proficiency in Chinese would be preferred but not mandatory. Ref: H2307930

Litigation Lawyer › 1 – 5 Years PQE › Leading Law FirmOur client is a leading law firm with a highly well established litigation practice across the region. They are currently looking to recruit litigation lawyers who will be focusing mainly on financial services litigation, general commercial litigation as well as contentious regulatory matters. The successful candidate will join their leading practice and will have the opportunity to work alongside the leading partners. You must be Hong Kong qualified with at least 1 to 5 years of PQE. You must also have obtained solid training and experience from well regarded international law firms. Proficiency in both English and Chinese (including Mandarin) is essential. Ref: H2327620

Legal Counsel › 7 – 12 Years PQE › Established Conglomerate (Pan-Asia) Our client is an Asian-based conglomerate with diversified businesses and they are currently seeking an impressive lawyer to support on a Group level. In this role, you will join a dynamic team in providing support to the Group primarily in the Mainland China region, on top of Hong Kong, Macau and Asia. This is an exciting role with stable career prospects, where you will be providing a full range of matters including investment, M&A, regulatory investigations, compliance and corporate / commercial. The ideal candidate would be qualified in Hong Kong or a common law jurisdiction and must possess solid experience from leading international law firms or MNCs. Strong communication skills in English and Chinese, including Mandarin is a must. Ref: H2456920

Senior Legal Counsel › 7 – 10 Years PQE › Multinational IT CompanyA leading multinational and one of the largest IT companies globally is currently seeking a Senior Legal Counsel to join the group. Reporting directly to the General Counsel and Company Secretary, you will be given the opportunity to support the Group on a full range of legal and compliance duties, and also gain exposure to support different jurisdictions globally. You will handle M&A and investment projects, as well as prepare, negotiate and finalise related legal and corporate documents. The ideal candidate would be qualified in Hong Kong. Those with experience gained from a listed company will be highly regarded, but not mandatory. Proficiency in both English and Chinese is a must. Ref: H2533730

Legal Counsel, TMT/IT › 5+ Years PQE › Global BankOur client is seeking a lawyer with strong exposure in the telecommunications / IT industry for their new legal team in Asia. Reporting to the Head of Legal, you will provide legal support to the APAC region focusing on technology matters. The digital banking teams in two other countries will be supporting you. You will also gain exposure to other corporate transactions and investments, including acquisitions, private M&As and joint ventures. You will work with internal stakeholders on corporate governance and risk related matters. The successful candidate will possess at least 5 years of PQE in TMT / IT with exposure to corporate commercial matters. Whilst in-house experience is useful, lawyers from law firms will also be considered. Ref: H2555680

Derivatives & ISDA Lawyer › 2+ Years PQE › Top Tier Investment BankReporting to the General Counsel and working in a sizable legal team, you will oversee legal matters in relation to derivatives, ISDA, masters and both transactional as well as documentation driven work covering the APAC region. On top of confirmations and negotiations, you will provide relevant legal analysis and advice to the businesses and stakeholders. You will also gain exposure in areas including prime brokerage and futures. The successful candidate will have at least 2 years of PQE in derivatives and ISDA, ideally with knowledge in drafting and negotiating master agreements. Prior in-house experience is useful though not required. Good experience gained within a sizable law firm is a must. Proficiency in Chinese would be useful but not mandatory. Ref: H2518590

To apply, visit www.michaelpage.com.hk/apply quoting the reference number or contact the following consultants:

LegalSpecialists in legal recruitment

www.michaelpage.com.hk

Get Connected. Stay Ahead.

PRIVATE PRACTICE FINANCIAL SERVICESIN-HOUSE CORPORATE

Olga Yung, Director, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4791 [email protected]

Carolyn Woo, Manager, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4793 [email protected]

Samantha Fong, Consultant, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4792 [email protected]

We are a specialist legal team within the leading recruitment brand of PageGroup. Our strong client network sees us working closely with international and local law firms, global and local listed and private corporations, financial institutions, as well as Hong Kong regulatory bodies.

SPECIALISTS IN LEGAL RECRUITMENTMICHAEL PAGE LEGAL

EXCLUSIVE JOB MONTHOF

THE

Senior Compliance Counsel, Asia › 7 – 10 Years PQE › U.S. Based Multinational ConglomerateAs the Senior Compliance Counsel, you will provide legal advice and corporate compliance program support to the group and its subsidiaries across the Asia region, as well as work closely with a full range of corporate units. You will have the opportunity to provide comprehensive legal services in the area of compliance including FCPA, UKBA and anti-corruption laws of subsidiary countries, and provide local support for post-acquisition due diligence work. You should be a qualified lawyer with at least 7 years of experience, familiar with legal and compliance practices across the Asia region. Strong ability to provide legal and compliance advice in English and Chinese (including Mandarin) for strategic business initiatives is a must.

Ref: H2570690

1519

6

SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENTLEGAL PROFESSIONALS

www.robertwalters.com.hk ROBERT WALTERS HONG KONG • 20/F NEXXUS BUILDING • 41 CONNAUGHT ROAD CENTRAL • CENTRAL • HONG KONG

TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THESE EXCITING LEGAL CAREER OPPORTUNITIES, PLEASE CONTACT:

Oliver Allcock +852 2103 5317 [email protected] Ricky Mui +852 2103 5370 [email protected] Altuve +852 2103 5328 [email protected] Lulu Liu +852 2161 9413 [email protected] Kam +852 2103 5360 [email protected]

FINANCIAL SERVICES

PRIVATE PRACTICE

FINANCIAL SERVICES

PRIVATE BANKING LAWYERLARGE INTERNATIONAL BANKEQA/572230

This large international bank is seeking a Private Banking Lawyer to join their expanding business in Hong Kong. Reporting to the Head of Legal APAC, you will be responsible for a broad variety of private banking matters for the region.

Key Requirements:

HEAD OF COMPLIANCEEUROPEAN ASSET MANAGEMENT FIRMLQL/560480

This fast expanding asset management firm is looking for a Head of Compliance to advise on their business in Hong Kong. You will act as the main gate keeper to ensure the company is trading in line with all relevant legislations and regulations. Reporting to the headquarters in Europe, you will have the opportunity to be involved in the company’s strategic development and build your market reputation.

Key Requirements:

CORPORATE FINANCE ASSOCIATETOP TIER INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRMNJX/576390

This well-established international firm with offices globally has a leading corporate finance/capital markets practice ranked by Legal 500 Asia. Due to growth and expansion, they are looking for a mid-level associate to join the team. This position will give you great international exposure and career progression.

Key Requirements:

LITIGATION ASSOCIATEMAGIC CIRCLE FIRMNJX/579030

A Magic Circle firm with an established dispute resolution practice is looking for a junior to mid-level associate to join their expanding team. You will be involved in multi-jurisdictional and domestic commercial litigation, international and domestic arbitration, and regulatory investigation with some of the world’s largest corporate and financial institutions.

Key Requirements:

COMPLIANCE MANAGER, VPLEADING INVESTMENT BANKLQL/570910

This global investment bank is looking to hire an experienced compliance advisor to join their capital markets division to help with the expansion of the business. The firm is well known for the corporate finance and debt capital markets business. Reporting to the Head of Legal and Compliance, you will gain exposure across APAC in a general investment compliance domain.

Key Requirements:

M&A AND PRIVATE EQUITY LAWYERINTERNATIONAL PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMOAA/572930

An international private equity financial advisory business is looking for a legal counsel to join the team of two. Reporting to the Global General Counsel, you will run deals independently and work with senior management. This role will give you exposure to complex transactions on a global basis and across a variety of sectors and clients.

Key Requirements:■ a minimum of two years’ PQE; Commonwealth qualified, ideally coming from an international law firm or multinational corporation

■ in-depth knowledge of banking laws and regulations, good understanding of financial products with experience in structured products

■ fluency in English is essential

■ a minimum of ten year’ experience in compliance gained in a Hong Kong investment management environment, with exposure and familiarity in managing related retail and institutional compliance issues

■ extensive experience in supervision and management of staff■ strong knowledge of SFC and MPFA regulations

■ a minimum of four years’ PQE; Hong Kong or Commonwealth qualified■ experience in capital markets and HKIPOs at leading international law firms■ excellent prospectus drafting skills preferred■ previous experience with PRC-related listings■ fluency in written and spoken English and Mandarin

■ two to six years’ PQE; Hong Kong or Commonwealth qualified■ experience in general commercial litigation and/or international arbitration

gained from leading international law firms ■ fluency in written and spoken English and Mandarin

■ a minimum of five years’ experience in control room trade monitoring or advisory. Exposure to a variety of commercial contracts, and solid corporate, employment and compliance experience

■ thorough understanding of an investment bank’s activities and products■ Chinese language skills are beneficial but not essential

■ a minimum of four years’ PQE; Commonwealth qualified, ideally coming from an international law firm or multinational corporation

■ extensive background in M&A and private equity■ fluency in written and spoken English and Mandarin





FINANCIAL SERVICES

PRIVATE PRACTICE

FINANCIAL SERVICES



Key Requirements:



Key Requirements:



Key Requirements:



Key Requirements:



Key Requirements:



















FINANCIAL SERVICES

PRIVATE PRACTICE

FINANCIAL SERVICES



Key Requirements:



Key Requirements:



Key Requirements:



Key Requirements:



Key Requirements:















Solicitor General (Civil Service Vacancy)The Department of Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) is inviting applications for the post of Solicitor General.

The PositionThe Solicitor General is the head of the Legal Policy Division of the Department of Justice and is responsible to the Secretary for Justice for the following -

(a) the development of legal policy issues;

(b) liaising with the legal profession and promoting the legal and dispute resolution services of Hong Kong;

(c) overseeing the Department’s legislative programme and attending bills committees of the Legislative Council on bills introduced by the Secretary for Justice;

(d) advising on a wide range of complex and sensitive legal issues and attending the Administration of Justice and Legal Services Panel of the Legislative Council, and appearing in court where necessary;

(e) advising on major issues involving the Basic Law (including promotion of the Basic Law), human rights and constitutional development;

(f) advising and overseeing work relating to Mainland legal issues and developing Hong Kong’s capacity to provide legal services in respect of such issues;

(g) serving as Chairman of relevant Government boards and committees; and

(h) managing the Legal Policy Division and assisting in the management of the Department as a whole.

The successful candidate will be appointed as Law Officer, initially to fill the post of Solicitor General but may be subject to transfer to other Law Officer posts in the Department of Justice.

The PersonCandidates should -

(a) be qualified either as barristers or solicitors in a recognised jurisdiction* as stipulated under Section 2A and Schedule 2 of the Legal Officers Ordinance (Cap. 87);

(b) have considerable knowledge of and experience in legal practice in Hong Kong at a senior level;

(c) be able to put forward constructive ideas in developing legal policy;

(d) have excellent judgement, leadership and management skills;

(e) be strong in communication and people skills; and

(f) have outstanding command of written and spoken English. An ability to speak, read and write Chinese would be an advantage.

Persons who are not permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may also apply but will be appointed only when no suitable and qualified candidates who are permanent residents are available.

* The recognised jurisdictions are Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Territories and Provinces of Canada (except Quebec), New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, Zimbabwe and Singapore.

The successful candidate will be expected to take up his or her duties in the last quarter of 2015.

Department of JusticeLEGAL POLICY DIVISION

RemunerationThe successful candidate will be appointed on civil service agreement terms for three years, which is renewable at Government’s discretion.

The current salary for the post is HK$201,950 per month. The package includes an end-of-agreement gratuity, vacation leave with leave passage allowance, medical and dental benefits, and housing benefits (subject to the eligibility criteria stipulated in the relevant civil service regulations). The appointee will be subject to the provisions of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 485) and will be required to make employee’s contribution to a Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) scheme.

Upon satisfactory completion of the agreement, the Solicitor General will be eligible for an end-of-agreement gratuity which, when added together with the Government’s contribution to the MPF scheme, equals to 25% of the total basic salary drawn during the agreement period.

How to ApplyLetter of application, which must state in detail why the applicant considers himself or herself suitable for the post, together with a full curriculum vitae, should be sent to the “Personnel Registry, Room 3131, 31/F United Centre, 95 Queensway Hong Kong”, or by email to [email protected]. For enquiries, please call Miss Grace Man on 2529 9265. The closing date of application is 6 February 2015. Candidates selected for interview will normally receive an invitation in six to eight weeks from the close of application.

ALL APPLICATIONS WILL BE HANDLED IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.

General Notes(a) Civil service vacancies are posts on the civil service establishment. Candidates selected for these vacancies will be

appointed on civil service terms of appointment and conditions of service and will become civil servants on appointment.

(b) As an Equal Opportunities Employer, the Government is committed to eliminating discrimination in employment. The vacancy advertised is open to all applicants meeting the basic entry requirement irrespective of their disability, sex, marital status, pregnancy, age, family status, sexual orientation and race.

(c) The information on the salary is for reference only and may be subject to changes. The entry pay, terms of appointment and conditions of service to be offered are subject to the provisions prevailing at the time the appointment is offered.

(d) Where a large number of candidates meet the specified entry requirements, the Department of Justice may adopt shortlisting criteria to select the better qualified candidates for further processing. In the circumstances, only shortlisted candidates will be invited to attend the selection interview.

(e) Personal data provided by job applicants will be used strictly in accordance with the Department of Justice’s personal data policies, a copy of which will be provided immediately upon request.

(f) It is Government policy to place people with a disability in appropriate jobs wherever possible. If a disabled candidate meets the entry requirements, he/she will be invited to attend the selection interview, without being subject to any further shortlisting criteria.

(g) Civil service vacancies information contained in this column is also available on the GovHK on the Internet at http://www.gov.hk.

@TaylorRootLegal

taylor-root

taylorroot.com

EA Licence Number: 12C6222

PART OF THE SR GROUP

Brewer Morris | Carter Murray | Frazer Jones | SR Search | Taylor RootUK | EUROPE | MIDDLE EAST | Asia | AUSTRALIA | OFFSHORE

To discuss any of the above roles or for a confidential discuss please contact: Jennifer Donnelly, Head of Private Practice, [email protected]; Hayden Gordine, Head of In-House, [email protected]; Alternatively, please call Jennifer or Hayden on +852 2973 6333.

In-House ROLESDirector/VP - Wealth Management . Hong KongWealth management firm seeks an experienced lawyer to work hand in hand with its wealth management professionals. You will be providing legal, advisory and support on investment management products including sales and trading, structured products & derivatives. Ref: 194650 7+ years’ PQE

AVP - IBD Legal Counsel . Hong Kong Bulge bracket bank seeks counsel to cover its APAC investment banking operations. Solid transactional experience with DCM, M&A & ECM required from a leading law firm. This is an excellent opportunity to work alongside the business on a daily basis.Ref: 199070 2-5+ years’ PQE

AVP/VP - Funds Legal Counsel . Hong KongAsset Management firm is seeking a legal counsel to work with the business providing legal & regulatory advice on funds authorisation and distribution. This is a commercially focused role working closely with senior management.Ref: 198970 2-5+ years’ PQE

AVP/VP - DCM Legal Counsel . Hong Kong European powerhouse seeks a DCM lawyer to join its regional legal team based in Hong Kong. No language skills are required although applicants must be able to demonstrate good DCM experience within a specialised DCM practice or investment bank. Ref: 199030 2-5+ years’ PQE

AVP/VP Equity Derivatives . Hong Kong Bulge bracket investment bank seeks a lawyer with broad derivatives experience in equities/cash and listed derivatives, coupled with experience drafting & negotiating prime brokerage & stock lending agreements.Ref: 196660 1-8+ years’ PQE

In-House Commercial . Hong KongInternational MNC within the food & beverage sector seeks a lawyer to join their established legal team of 3 lawyers assisting with legal matters affecting client operations & manufacturing in the APAC region. Mandarin language skills are preferable.Ref: 195930 3-6+ years’ PQE

Private Practice ROLESBanking . Hong Kong This leading international law firm is looking for a junior to mid-level banking lawyer to join its team in Hong Kong. Work will involve general lending as well as acquisition, leveraged and project finance work. Mandarin language skills are a preference. Ref: 198730 2-5+ years’ PQE

Debt Capital Markets . Hong KongInternational firm with a growing capital markets practice in Hong Kong is looking to hire a junior DCM lawyer. Work will include a mixture of high yield and investment grade bonds. Fluent Mandarin languages skills are required.Ref: 199420 1-3+ years’ PQE

Funds . Hong KongThis role is with a leading offshore firm and a mid-level funds role. Candidates will ideally have funds and/or general corporate experience and must be England & Wales or ‘commonwealth’ qualified. Mandarin language skills are not essential.Ref: 195490 3-5+ years’ PQE

TMT . Hong KongAn expansion position has become available within this leading TMT practice. This is a great opportunity to be involved in complex advisory and disputes matters in the telecom, media and technology sectors. No Chinese language skills are required. Ref: 199350 1-3+ years’ PQE

Litigation/Disputes . Hong KongThis is an opportunity for an experienced commercial litigator to join an award winning team. General commercial disputes focused, though this is an opportunity to be involved in a broad range of high-profile cross-border matters. Ref: 198750 3-4+ years’ PQE

Projects & Infrastructure . Hong KongLeading practice has an immediate opening for an experienced projects lawyer. Work will cover a broad range of energy & resources, transportation, utilities and infrastructure projects. No Chinese language skills are required.Ref: 199040 5-8+ years’ PQE

Recharge your career in 2015Taylor Root is proud to be recognised as the Recruitment International “Legal Recruitment of the Year 2014”. Our team has built its reputation on the performance of our specialist teams of recruiters, recruiting lawyers for the legal, finance services and commerce & industry sectors.

DO YOU LIKE NUMBERS?We are one of the world’s leading and most extensive smartcard payment systems, with over 68,000 readers deployed in the market.We have more than 6,000 service providers across different businesses using Octopus payment platform.We have over 26 million Octopus cards and products in circulation.We handle over 13 million transactions a day with transaction value exceeding HK$150 million.You probably have at least 1 Octopus in your wallet!

OUR MISSIONWe are a team of creative professionals with the mission to make everyday life easier for our customers by applying innovative ideas through secure and robust technology.

AT OCTOPUS, NO ONE WILL BE TREATED AS A STAFF NUMBER!We support each other as equal partners! Grasp the opportunity to join us, and MAKE A DIFFERENCE in your LIFE!

Legal Advisor To cope with our business expansion plans, we are looking for an additional Lawyer to join our Legal team.

You will be: • providing legal advice to support business units and internal clients in their commercial decision making and contract

negotiation• negotiating and drafting agreements and various legal documents as and when required and to review and comment on

external agreements and documents• developing, maintaining and updating a comprehensive list of agreement templates• dealing with legal, compliance and regulatory issues• providing legal support to overseas / cross-border consultancy projects• assisting in company secretarial work

A right fit for your portfolio? •Must be Hong Kong qualified lawyer•Minimum 5 years’ post qualification experience in private practice and / or in-house• Solid commercial experience gained from reputable law firms preferred• Strong knowledge in corporate/commercial law (expertise/knowledge in TMT an advantage)• Possess good interpersonal skills and ability to work as part of a team• Proficiency in written and spoken English and Chinese•Mature and able to work independently

We offer successful candidate an attractive remuneration package and excellent career prospects. Interested parties please send your resume, present and expected salary, contact details and quoting the reference number by e-mail to: [email protected]

Octopus Holdings Limited

Personal data collected will be used for recruitment purpose only. If you are not contacted within six weeks, you may consider your application unsuccessful. Our Company will retain your application for a maximum of one year.

Octopus is an equal opportunity employer and all employment decisions and Human Resources policies are administered; especially those relating to recruitment & selection, compensation & benefits, promotion & transfer, training & development and termination & redundancy; without discrimination and not on the basis of age, race, colour, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, pregnancy, physical and mental disability and family status but on genuine occupational qualification, job performance, employees’ ability and internal/ external relativities. For more information, please visit our web site: http://www.octopus.com.hk

Ref: OHL/LEG/2014-070

This is a small selection of our current vacancies. Please refer to our website for a more comprehensive list of openings.Please contact Emily Lewis, [email protected] + 852 2537 7408 or Andrea Richey, [email protected] + 852 2537 7413

Chris Chu, [email protected] + 852 2537 7415 or email [email protected]

www.lewissanders.com

In-House Private Practice

M&A/PE HONG KONG 5+ years

Exciting opportunity for a mid to senior level M&A/PE lawyer to join this rapidly expanding PE firm with an already impressive AUM. Strong commercial acumen & the ability to think outside of the box are required as you will be working as a key part of the deal team. HKL5086

PE FUND HONG KONG 6+ years

Growing PE fund headquartered in HK seeks a senior legal counsel. You will have experience in downstream M&A/PE investments & familiarity with the Listing Rules & Takeover Code. Excellent autonomy & opportunity to work closely with the business on offer. Chinese is essential. HKL5109

CORPORATE/COMMERICAL HONG KONG 2-5 years

MNC is looking for a junior to mid-level corporate/commercial lawyer to support the business. You will work on a range of areas including commercial agreements, employment, M&A & IT-related matters. International firm experience essential & in-house experience advantageous. HKL3731

LITIGATION HONG KONG 5-8 years

In-house opportunity for a mid-level litigator with experience in general commercial or financial services litigation. Interesting work & good work/life balance on offer. Strong analytical skills & ability to understand complex issues are required. Fluent English & Chinese is essential. HKL3989

DCM HONG KONG 3-5 years

European bank requires a junior to mid-level DCM lawyer to join its legal team in HK. You will have been trained at an international law firm or i-bank & have solid debt capital markets experience. Great work/life balance on offer. Chinese language skills not required. HKL5102

IBD LEGAL – I-BANK HONG KONG 2-4 years

Great opportunity for a junior to mid-level corporate lawyer to join the IBD legal team of a global bank to cover ECM, M&A & DCM matters. You will work closely with the business. Chinese language skills advantageous. HK, UK or US qualified candidates are welcome to apply. HKL5103

LEGAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 2-4 years

Leading global technology company seeks a HK qualified corporate lawyer to join its expanding legal team in HK. The role will cover corporate governance, compliance & general corporate matters. Solid knowledge of the HK Listing Rules & fluent Mandarin essential. HKL5106

CORPORATE FINANCE HONG KONG 5+ years

Fantastic opportunity to join a well-established corporate practice of a global law firm. You will be a senior corporate associate with at least 5 years’ PQE & have significant experience in HK listing rules & corporate finance matters. Fluent Cantonese & Mandarin is imperative. HKL4325

BANKING PARTNER HONG KONG 10+ years

Top tier US firm is looking to build out its banking & finance team with the addition of an established partner. Ideally, you will have strong, on-the-ground experience from a reputable US or UK law firm as well as a strong following & portable book of business. HKL5110

FINANCE PSL HONG KONG 5+ years

New finance PSL role at this UK firm for an experienced banking & finance lawyer. You will be HK or Commonwealth qualified & have solid experience in all aspects of banking work, particularly lending matters. Excellent work/life balance & great team environment on offer. HKL5104

LITIGATION HONG KONG 3-4 years

Leading UK firm is looking for a disputes lawyer with 3-4 years’ PQE. You will have gained relevant experience from a reputable international law firm. The role will involve general commercial litigation, arbitration, investigations & some insolvency matters. Mandarin is essential. HKL5063

DCM HONG KONG 4-8 years

Top UK firm seeks an experienced associate for its market leading financial services team to focus on DCM work. Relevant experience is essential. This is an excellent opportunity for a mid to senior level lawyer to further develop a career with a very successful platform. HKL3776

TRADEMARK BEIJING 2+ years

Top tier international IP firm requires a junior trademark lawyer to join its Beijing office. The ideal candidate should be a PRC national with at least 2 years’ experience in trademark enforcement in China. Previous experience working with a top tier China or international law firm is essential. HKL5066

US CORPORATE HONG KONG 2-5 years

Wall Street firm is looking for a mid-level US corporate associate to handle a mix of capital markets & corporate/M&A work. You must be US admitted, have top academics & international law firm experience. US JD or LLM will be considered. US rates & COLA on offer. HKL4762

�ese are a small selection of our current vacancies. If you require further details or wish to have a con�dential discussion about your career, market trends, or would like salary information, then please call our o�ce (+852 2920 9100) or contact one of the following consultants in Hong Kong:Andrew Skinner ([email protected]), Kumiko Lam ([email protected]) or Claire Park ([email protected])

(852) 2920 [email protected]

Hong Kong Singapore

(65) 6557 [email protected]

Beijing(86) 10 6567 8728

[email protected]

Shanghai(86) 21 6372 1058

[email protected]

Hong Kong • Singapore • Beijing • Shanghai

In-HousePrivate PracticeGENERAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 12+ PQEA well-known market leading sector business in Hong Kong seeks a senior counsel with experience managing large scale and complex contracts to appoint as its General Counsel. The ability to operate at board level is critical for this role as well as the ability to manage a small team. (HKL 11413)

LEGAL COUNSEL/ HONG KONG 12+ PQECOMPANY SECRETARY A well-known Hong Kong listed Group seeks a legal counsel and company secretary to lead the legal and company secretarial teams. Solid and substantive legal and compliance experience is required. Working legal and compliance knowledge in SFC regulations, Listing Rules and Companies Ordinances is critical. Fluency in spoken and written English and Cantonese is essential. (HKL 11464)

REGIONAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 6 – 10 PQELeading commercial enterprise with significant interests around the region has a vacancy for a senior corporate/commercial lawyer to handle a mix of transactional work and advise on operational issues. China experience is very important as is fluency in both Cantonese and Mandarin. (HKL 10425)

FMCG HONG KONG 5 – 10 PQEUK listed company with significant growth plans for Asia Pac has headcount to appoint its first in-house counsel in Hong Kong to support the regional management team that covers Hong Kong, China, Taiwan and Australia. Work will involve negotiating a range of commercial agreements and providing general in-house advice. (HKL 11472)

INSURANCE HONG KONG 5 – 10 PQEGlobal insurer is making a first time appointment of in-house counsel to support its growth plans in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and China. You will need a background in dealing with cross-border matters and be able to advise on regulatory issues affecting the business. Fluency in Mandarin is critical. (HKL 11471)

LEGAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 4 – 8 PQE Global investment bank seeks a corporate lawyer to provide transactional support to ECM and M&A across Asia Pacific region. The successful candidate will be a HK qualified lawyer with solid experience in corporate finance transactions gained from a leading law firm. Fluency in both spoken and written Chinese is required. The platform offers a strong franchise and excellent team culture. (HKL 11443)

LEGAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 2 – 5 PQELeading investment bank is looking to appoint a legal counsel to provide legal and risk management advice to the investment banking division across Asia Pacific region. Excellent opportunity to gain exposure in a wide range of transactions in capital markets (ECM & DCM) and M&A to other corporate finance transactions. Chinese language is not required and excellent remuneration is on offer. (HKL 11469)

US SECURITIES HONG KONG PartnerThis international firm is looking to hire a senior US securities lawyer as a partner to handle 144A transactions and offer 10b-5 opinions. No following required and “of counsel” who have reached a glass ceiling will be considered for partnership. (HKL 11453)

FINANCE ASSOCIATE SINGAPORE 5 – 8 PQEA top tier US law firm seeks a senior finance associate to join its highly regarded team in Singapore. The preferred candidate will be experienced in a broad range of work including leverage, acquisition and project finance with a proven track record gained in a Tier 1 international law firm. (HKL 11470)

TMT HONG KONG 3 – 7 PQETop-tier international law firm seeks a lawyer to join their growing TMT practice. Excellent opportunity to work with high-profile clients on a broad-range of IP/IT issues. Chinese language is not required and candidates overseas in Asia Pacific region will be considered. (HKL 11466)

LITIGATION HONG KONG 3 – 6 PQELeading international firm seeks a litigation associate to join its well-established litigation practice. Excellent opportunity to gain high-profile international arbitration and litigation work. Ideal candidates will be HK qualified and boast excellent academics. (HKL 11467)

FINANCE HONG KONG 3 – 5 PQEA US firm is expanding its finance team and will pay New York rates to finance lawyers at top tier firms. This is an exciting time to join a thriving practice and work for a tier 1 ranked partner. No language skills are required for this role. (HKL 11474)

CORPORATE FINANCE HONG KONG 1 – 6 PQEA prestigious international law firm seeks a junior to mid-level corporate finance associate to join their Hong Kong office. Solid IPO and M&A transactions experience from a leading firm and fluency in both written and spoken English and Mandarin required. (HKL 11465)

LITIGATION ASSOCIATE HONG KONG 1 – 4 PQE An international law firm is looking for a driven and talented junior litigator in Hong Kong. The ideal candidate will have a strong academic background with experience dealing with international arbitration, complex commercial litigation and cross-border dispute cases. Fluency in both written and spoken English and Chinese required. (HKL 11477)

Pure Search - leaders in global search & selection | Singapore | Hong Kong | London | New York

puresearch.com

Where will 2015 take you?

Put yourself in the driving seat, get in touch with us to discuss your career plan for 2015.

Michael AllenIn-House FS hires+852 3469 5217 | [email protected]

Roz LivingstoneLegal PP Partner hires+852 3469 5214 | [email protected]

Bridget HoughamIn-House C&I hires+852 3469 5220 | [email protected]

Mike WrightLegal PP Associate hires+852 3469 5210 | [email protected]

TheLawyer_Impact_12.2014 v2.indd 1 23/12/2014 09:46:36

Ada Chung - Hong Kong Lawyer

Documents

Transcript of Ada Chung - Hong Kong Lawyer