林家禮博士Dr. Lee George Lam

h k

- l a

w y

e r

. org

MARCH 2019 二零一九年三月

HK$308

Cover Story 封面專題

Face to Face with 專訪

Chairman of Cyberport

數碼港主席

林家禮博士

Dr. Lee George Lam

Essential Things to Know about the 2018 HKIAC Arbitration Rules2018年香港國際仲裁中心仲裁規則的須予關注事項

ArbitrAtion 仲裁

Listing Rule 13.50A: A Double-Edged Sword《上市規則》第13.50A條：一把雙刃劍

rEGULAtorY & CoMPLiAnCE 監管及合規

What’s Wrong with Lawyers Using Instant Messaging?律師使用即時通訊會有甚麼風險？

ProFESSion 專業導論

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

HONG KONG LAWYERwww.hk-lawyer.orgHong 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

Nick Chan 陳曉峰

Peter CH Chan 陳志軒

Charles CC Chau 周致聰

Michelle Cheng 鄭美玲

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

Julianne P Doe 杜珠聯

Elliot Fung 馮以德

Steven Brian Gallagher Warren P Ganesh 莊偉倫

Julienne Jen 任文慧

Karen Lam 藍嘉妍

Byron TW Leung 梁東華

Stella SY Leung 梁淑儀 Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟

Tony YH Yen 嚴元浩

tHE CoUnCiL oF tHE LAW SoCiEtY oF HonG KonG 香港律師會理事會

President 會長

Melissa K Pang 彭韻僖

Vice Presidents 副會長 Amirali B Nasir 黎雅明

Brian W Gilchrist 喬柏仁

CM Chan 陳澤銘

Council Members 理事會成員

Thomas ST So 蘇紹聰

Stephen WS Hung 熊運信

Billy WY Ma 馬華潤

Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華

Denis G Brock 白樂德

Nick Chan 陳曉峰

Serina KS Chan 陳潔心

Warren P Ganesh 莊偉倫 Simon SC Lai 黎壽昌

Roden ML Tong 湯文龍

Robert C Rhoda 羅睿德

Jonathan Ross 羅彰南

Pierre TH Chan 陳達顯

Eric TM Cheung 張達明

Karen Lam 藍嘉妍

Careen HY Wong 黄巧欣

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

Annual Subscription 全年訂閱: HK$3,696

© 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 Limited16/F, Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong KongTel: +852 2847 2088www.thomsonreuters.com ISSN 1025-9554

If undelivered, please return toUnit F, 14/F., Wah Lik Industrial Centre,459-469 Castle Peak Road,Tsuen Wan

PRINTED MATTER

EPostage PaidHong KongPort Paye

PermitNo. 5643

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

HONG KONG LAWYER

Subscribe to our FREE e-Newsletter for the latest legal trends and developments in

Hong Kong and China

HKlawyer-Carr-Sht.indd 2 4/29/18 18:21

3 EDitor’S notE

4 PrESiDEnt’S MESSAGE

6 ContribUtorS

8 FroM tHE SECrEtAriAt

12 CoVEr StorY Face to Face with

Dr. Lee George Lam Chairman of Cyberport

21 LAW SoCiEtY nEWS

27 FroM tHE CoMMiSSionEr oF tHE PCPD How Internet of Things May Expose Your Privacy

29 ProFESSion What’s Wrong with Lawyers Using Instant Messaging?

33 ArbitrAtion Essential Things to Know about the 2018 HKIAC Arbitration Rules

39 rEGULAtorY & CoMPLiAnCE Listing Rule 13.50A: A Double-Edged Sword

45 inDUStrY inSiGHtS

55 CASES in briEF

66 PrACtiCE SKiLLS Words and Phrases to Avoid When Communicating with Clients

70 ProFESSionAL MoVES

74 LAWYErS At LEiSUrE Lawn bowl Lawyering

79 CAMPUS VoiCES

90 LEGAL triViA QUiz

編者的話

會長的話

投稿者

律師會秘書處資訊

封面專題專訪

林家禮博士數碼港主席

律師會新聞

個人資料私隱專員公署專員

議題物聯網如何揭露你的私隱

專業導論律師使用即時通訊會有甚麼風險？

仲裁2018年香港國際仲裁中心仲裁規則

的須予關注事項

監管及合規《上市規則》第13.50A條：

一把雙刃劍

業界透視

案例撮要

實踐技能與客戶溝通時要避免的用語

會員動向

律師閒情

法律與草地滾球

法學院新聞

法律知識測驗

Inside your March issue 三月期刊內容

Managing Editor 執行主編 Ranajit Dam 鄧文杰

[email protected]

Tel: +65 6870 3393

Lead Editor 編輯 Navin G. [email protected]

Design and Production 設計及制作 Woncherian Wong 黄梓恒

[email protected]

translation team 翻譯組

InfoPowerTang 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:

Head of Legal Media business, AnA Amantha Chia 謝京庭 [email protected]

Tel: +65 6870 3917

For subscriptions contact:

traffic Administrator 統籌

Gloria Ng 吳傲宜

[email protected]

Tel: +852 2843 6415

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.

Hong Kong Lawyer, as the official monthly magazine of the Law Society of Hong Kong, provides the legal community with news and insights

necessary to keep abreast of the latest trends and developments.

The magazine focuses on topical, relevant content through features and regular sections, and ensures that each issue is read and trusted amongst the legal community. To get it online, simply go to

www.hk-lawyer.org.

To receive a hard copy of Hong Kong Lawyer, you can make a single purchase of HKD308 for 1 issue, or HKD3,696 for 12 issues. To proceed with print subscription, please contact Gloria Ng at:

[email protected]

STAY IN THE KNOW

March2019二零一九年三月

HK$308

Print

SUbSCriPtion

AVAiLAbLE

EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

navin G. Ahuja《香港律師》編輯

Legal Media Group

湯森路透 [email protected]

The use of instant messaging (IM) technology has grown exponentially both socially and in the workplace. With regard to the latter, whilst there might be some benefits in using IM such as communicating with clients swiftly and as though in person or over the phone, there also come risks in this form of communication. In fact, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) in the middle of 2018 issued guidance on using IM applications to receive orders from clients.1 Accordingly, the Profession feature discusses the potential risks and challenges of lawyers using IM.

Arbitral institutions are regularly revising their arbitration rules to better serve the needs of arbitration users. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre recently amended its rules to replace the 2013 HKIAC Rules which came into force on 1 November 2018 (“HKIAC 2018 Arbitration Rules”). Interestingly one of the largest moot competitions in the world (the Willem C. Vis (East) International Commercial Arbitration Moot) will take place in Hong Kong at the end of March (where 137 teams and 400 arbitrators from around the globe will compete and judge respectively), and has adopted the HKIAC 2018 Arbitration Rules as the basis of its moot problem. The Arbitration feature discusses the essential things to know about the HKIAC 2018 Arbitration Rules.

Investors are always looking out for investment opportunities. Given the rise in the number of lawyers being admitted every year in Hong Kong, can investors invest in law firms? Moreover, if so, are investors required to be legal practitioners? Thus, From the Secretariat discusses non-lawyer management, ownership and control of the legal practice in various jurisdictions including Hong Kong.

We are saddened to share that Professor Michael Wilkinson passed away on 20 February 2019. There will be further coverage of this in due course.

即時消息(IM)技術的使用無論是在社交還是在工作場所

都呈快速增長。有關後者，雖然使用IM可能有一些好

處，例如與客戶快速溝通，就像是親身或通過電話聯絡

一樣，但這種溝通形式也有風險。事實上，證券及期貨

事務監察委員會(證監會)在2018年年中發布了關於使

用即時消息的應用程式接收客戶指令的指引意見。1

因此，本行業以專欄討論了律師使用即時消息的風險

和挑戰。仲裁機構正定期修訂其仲裁規則，以便更好

地滿足仲裁使用者的需要。香港國際仲裁中心最近修

訂了其規則，以取代於2018年11月1日生效的2013

年《香港國際仲裁中心規則》(《香港國際仲裁中心

2018年仲裁規則》)。有趣的是，世界上最大的模擬

辯論賽之一(Wi l lem C.Vis1(東方)國際商務仲裁模擬辯

論賽)將於3月底在香港舉行(來自全球各地的137支隊

伍和400名仲裁員將分別作競賽和評判)，並已採用《

香港國際仲裁中心2018年仲裁規則》作為其模擬辯論

賽問題的基礎。仲裁專題將討論有關《香港國際仲裁

中心2018年仲裁規則》的基本知識。

投資者經常在尋找投資機會。考慮到香港每年有越來

越多的律師獲認許，投資者可否投資於律師行呢？此

外，如果是這樣，投資者是否必須是法律從業人員？

因此，「律師會秘書處資訊」討論了包括香港在內的

各個司法管轄區的非律師管理、擁有權和對法律業務

的控制。

我們感到悲痛的是，Michael Wi lk inson教授於2019年

2月20日去世。此事將在適當時候作進一步的報道。

November 2018 • editor’s note 編者的話March 2019 • EDitor’S notE 編者的話

www.hk-lawyer.org 3

navin G. AhujaEditor, Hong Kong LawyerLegal Media Group Thomson Reuters [email protected]

1 https://www.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announcements/news/doc?refNo=18PR45

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

Fundamental rights in a Solicitor-Client relationship

The right to confidential legal advice and choice of lawyers for timely protection of one’s lawful rights is a constitutional entitlement that every Hong Kong resident enjoys under Article 35 of the Basic Law. It provides:

“Hong Kong residents shall have the right to confidential legal advice, access to the courts, choice of lawyers for timely protection of their lawful rights and interests or for representation in the courts, and to judicial remedies. Hong Kong residents shall have the right to institute legal proceedings in the courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel.”

The right to confidential legal advice is important because if a person is not guaranteed that what he has told his lawyer will be kept in strict confidence, he may hold back half the truth from his lawyer. Further, a person has the right to refuse to disclose, even to a court, confidential communication with his lawyer made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Legal professional privilege is thus the cardinal rule that protects the independence of a solicitor-client relationship from undue interference.

“Legal professional privilege is much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case. It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole depends.” (R v Derby Magistrates)

Going hand-in-hand with these rights is the solicitors’ ethical duty of confidentiality. Solicitors are required to hold in strict confidence information acquired about their clients in the course of the professional relationship, unless their clients have

authorised disclosure or waived their relevant rights.

This duty of confidentiality extends to a solicitor’s staff and it is the responsibility of the solicitor to ensure compliance. Unauthorised disclosure of a client’s confidential information could lead to disciplinary proceedings against the solicitor and could also render the solicitor liable, in certain circumstances, to a civil action by the client arising out of the misuse of confidential information.

The obligation to maintain confidentiality of clients’ information is increasingly put to the test with the rapid technological advancements. Managing cyber risks has become an important aspect of risk management of legal practices. The Law Society and the Academy of Law regularly organise seminars on cyber risks aiming to raise awareness and share practical tips

on how to enhance information security of legal practices. Further, the Law Society has issued a set of “Information Security Guidelines for Legal Practitioners” which are made available to all members in the Members’ Zone of the Law Society website.

Also protected under Article 35 of the Basic Law is the right to choice of lawyers to protect a person’s lawful rights and interests in a timely manner.

Echoing this, a solicitor is ethically prohibited to do anything that will compromise the freedom of any person to instruct a solicitor of his choice.

On the part of a solicitor, he is generally free to decide whether to accept instructions from any prospective client, but any refusal to accept instructions should not be based on the race, colour, ethnic or national origins, sex or religious or political beliefs of a prospective client.

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2019

根據《基本法》第三十五條，每個香港居

民均有獲得保密的法律諮詢和選擇律師的

權利。該條規定：

「香港居民有權得到秘密法律諮詢、向法

院提起訴訟、選擇律師及時保護自己的合

法權益或在法庭上為其代理和獲得司法補

救。香港居民有權對行政部門和行政人員

的行為向法院提起訴訟。」

保密法律諮詢的權利很重要，因為若不能

保證告訴律師的資料能獲嚴格保密，當事人

或許不會向律師透露事實的全部。此外，當

事人有權拒絕向任何人，包括向法庭披露藉

以獲得法律建議與律師之間的保密通信。因

此，法律專業保密權是保護律師與客戶關

係不受不當干涉的基本規則。

「法律專業保密權不僅是普通的證據規

則，僅適用於特定案件事實，而是整個

司法體系賴以存在的基本條件。」(R v

Derby Magistrates)

與這些權利並存的是律師在保密方面的道

德責任。除非客戶已授權披露或放棄其相

關權利，否則律師必須在專業關係過程中

嚴格保密所獲的客戶資料。

這種保密責任亦延伸至律師的僱員，確保

合規是律師的責任。未經授權而披露客戶

的機密資料，可能導致對律師的紀律處分，

在某些情況下也可能導致律師因濫用機密資

料而被客戶提起民事訴訟。

隨著科技的迅速發展，保持客戶資料機密的

責任越受考驗。管理網絡風險已成為法律執

業風險管理的重要一環。律師會和香港法律

專業學會定期舉辦網絡風險研討會，旨在提

高對網絡風險的認識，分享如何加強法律執

業資料安全的實用技巧。此外，律師會亦已

發出《法律執業者資訊保安指引》，會員可

登入律師會網站「會員區」查閱。

律師與客戶關係中的基本權利

《基本法》第三十五條亦訂明香港居民有權

選擇律師及時保護自己的合法權益。

有見及此，律師不得作出任何會損害任何人

選擇代表律師的自由。

律師通常可以自由決定是否接受任何潛在客

戶的指示，而拒絕接受指示亦不應基於潛在

客戶的種族、膚色、民族或國籍、性別、宗

教信仰或政治信念。

目前，約有9,800名私人執業律師就廣泛的

業務範圍為公眾服務，無可避免地有法律專

業的一些成員參與有爭議的政治或社會事件

引起的事務。這種性質的事務經常引起激烈

爭論，公眾媒體的觀點兩極化。

大家可能還記得，早前有參與審理具爭議案

件的法官，曾受到惡意和毫無根據的批評。

律師會曾公開譴責這種行為。除了法官外，

在這些有爭議的案件中代表當事人的律師，

也可能因為工作成為類似批評的受害者。

律師接受客戶指示擔任其法律代表，就有責

任以客戶的最佳利益行事，並提供達到適當

標準的服務。

案件的所有當事人均有權獲得法律代表，代

表各方的律師對其客戶負有相同的責任，以

確保各自的權利和利益得到適當保護。因

此，律師只是履行維護正確執行司法工作的

角色。因對方的政治觀點不同，而試圖抹黑

代表對方的律師行或律師的聲譽，這種行為

必須受到譴責。

律師與客戶關係中的這些基本權利，易於

因各種原因受到侵蝕。我們必須保持警

惕，保護這些權利，以保護法律專業的

獨立性。

March 2019 • President’s Message 會長的話

Melissa K Pang, President 彭韻僖會長

Currently, there are around 9,800 solicitors in private practice serving the public in a wide range of practice areas. Inevitably, some members of the legal profession will be engaged in matters that arise from controversial political or social events. Matters of such nature often attract heated debates involving polarised views in the public media.

One may recall there were previous incidents where abusive and unfounded criticisms were directed personally at judges involved in hearing controversial cases. The Law Society has publicly condemned such behavior. Apart from judges, lawyers representing the parties in those controversial cases may also be victimised by similar criticisms for doing their job.

As a legal representative having accepted instructions from a client, the solicitor is under a duty to act in the best interests of the client and to provide a proper standard of service.

All parties to a case are entitled to legal representation and the solicitors representing each party are subject to the same duty towards their own clients to ensure that their respective rights and interests are properly protected. As such, solicitors are simply fulfilling their role in upholding the proper administration of justice. Any attempt to smear the reputation of law firms or lawyers because they happen to represent parties with different political views must be condemned.

These fundamental rights in a solicitor-client relationship are vulnerable to erosion motivated by a myriad of reasons. We must all be vigilant in safeguarding these rights for the protection of the independence of our profession.

www.hk-lawyer.org 5

CONTRIBUTORS投稿者

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2019

孫志偉衛達仕律師事務所合夥人

孫志偉律師為企業法律顧問團隊的

合夥人。他具逾17年的企業融資經

驗，專門就香港交易所主板及創業

板進行的首次公開招股提供諮詢，

包括房地產投資信託的上市事宜。

他在併購，企業重組，香港上市規則及本地證券監管規則

的合規事宜上亦擁有豐富經驗。孫律師是特許公認會計師

公會的資深會員及香港會計師公會會員。

趙銘揚衛達仕律師事務所見習事務律師

趙銘揚為企業法律顧問團隊的見習

事務律師。趙律師協助客戶處理

各方面的企業及商業事務，包括併

購、私募股權及創投基金投資、企

業重組、首次公開招股及上市公司

合規事宜。

黃敏晶奧睿律師事務所律師

黃敏晶律師是奧睿律師事務所訴訟

業務部的成員。黃律師專注處理複

雜的商業訴訟和企業調查。她為跨

國公司和金融機構就各類商業糾紛

及僱傭問題提供法律意見，並負責

起草法律協議及就商業法和勞動法

事宜進行法律研究。她還擁有進行與中國業務活動相關的

企業內部調查經驗。

Mike SuenPartner, WithersworldwideMike is a partner in Withers’ corporate team. He has over seventeen years’ experience in corporate finance and specialises principally in initial public offerings on the Main and Growth Enterprise Market Boards of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, including the listing of real estate investment trusts. He also has extensive experience in mergers and acquisitions, corporate reorganisations, compliance pertaining to Hong Kong listing rules and local securities regulatory compliance. Mike is a fellow member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and an associate member of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

ryan ChiuTrainee, WithersworldwideRyan Chiu is a trainee in Withers’ corporate team. He assists on a broad range of corporate and commercial matters including mergers and acquisitions, private equity/venture capital investments, corporate reorganizations and initial public offerings, involving compliance pertaining to listed companies.

Carmen WongAssociate, OrrickCarmen is a member of the firm’s Litigation Group. Her practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and corporate investigations. Carmen advises multinationals and financial institutions on a variety of business disputes and employment law matters, responsible for drafting legal agreements and conducting legal research on commercial law and employment law issues. She also has experience in conducting corporate internal investigations related to activities in China.

March 2019 • ContribUtorS 投稿者

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

John CHOONG富而德律師事務所合夥人

John專攻以亞洲為重點的國際仲裁，

及在多項具有里程碑意義的國際商業

和投資仲裁中擔任顧問，其中包括根

據香港國際仲裁中心規則進行的仲

裁。John是《香港民事訴訟程序》

的仲裁總編輯，是《香港仲裁條例：評論和注釋》的聯合編

輯。John是英國特許仲裁員協會的資深會員，獲各種法律指南

列為仲裁的翹楚。

Chan Yong Wei富而德律師事務所註冊外國

律師 (新加坡)

Yong Wei的專業主要集中在國際仲裁

和涉及多個法域的訴訟。他曾在許多

高價值的機構和特別仲裁中擔任律師

及幹事。他還有多年在新加坡法院擔

任律師的經驗。

Susan Letterman White, JD, MS

Susan Letterman White, JD, MS與律

師和律師行合作，通過戰略規劃、

培訓、團隊建立和高管培訓，來提

高領導能力、組織和團隊績效及營銷

和業務發展。她是馬薩諸塞州LCL/

LOMAP擔任執業顧問、東北大學擔

任兼任教授(教授領導能力、策略變革和溝通技巧)，以及

Letterman White Consulting擔任首席顧問。Susan從事勞工法

已20多年，是一間律師行的管理合夥人。她擁有美國大學

組織發展碩士學位(成績優異)、洛約拉法學院法學博士學位

及布蘭迪斯大學哲學學士學位。

John ChoongFreshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, PartnerJohn specialises in international arbitration with an Asia focus, and has acted as counsel in a number of landmark international commercial and investment arbitrations, including arbitrations conducted under the HKIAC Rules. John is General Arbitration Editor of the Hong Kong Civil Procedure, and a co-editor of Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance: Commentary and Annotations. John is a Fellow of the UK Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and has been listed as a leading individual for arbitration by various legal directories.

Chan Yong WeiFreshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Registered Foreign Lawyer (Singapore)Yong Wei’s practice focuses on international arbitration and multi-jurisdictional litigation. He has acted as counsel and tribunal secretary in numerous high-value institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. He also has years of experience appearing as counsel before the Singapore courts.

Susan Letterman White, JD, MSSusan Letterman White, JD, MS works with lawyers and law firms to improve leadership, organizational and team performance, and marketing and business development, through strategy planning, training, group facilitation, and executive coaching. She is a Practice Advisor at Massachusetts LCL/LOMAP, an adjunct professor at Northeastern University, where she teaches leadership, strategic change, and communication skills, and the principal consultant at Letterman White Consulting. Susan practiced employment law for more than 20 years and was the managing partner of a law firm. She received a Master’s in Organization Development with Academic Distinction from American University, a JD from Loyola Law School, and a BA in Philosophy from Brandeis University.

intricacies of a “borderless” World The legal profession is constantly evolving with the changing social

and economic environment. However, the impact of the changes

to the global legal services market in the last 20 years is probably

much more extensive and far reaching than the total effect of the

changes that took place in the last two hundred years.

The impact is compounded by the fact that the world has become

more interconnected with globalisation. It is difficult, if not

impossible, to insulate the changes made in one jurisdiction from

affecting others.

A very good example is the fundamental change to the business

structure of law firms by permitting non-lawyer management,

ownership and control of the legal practice in some jurisdictions.

Let us take a quick global overview of how it all started and the

reactions to it.

It is often mistakenly stated that England and Wales were the

global trailblazers in respect of allowing non-lawyer ownership,

management and control of law firms. In fact, New South Wales

in Australia first permitted limited forms of multi disciplinary

practices (“MDPs”) in 1994 when law firms were allowed to form

MDPs, as long as lawyers retained at least 51 percent of the

net income of the MDP and the majority of voting rights. These

restrictions were lifted in December 1999, following pressure

from the Competition Authority, which deemed that they were

anti-competitive. Subsequently in 2001, relevant legislations were

amended to enable law firms to incorporate and to permit legal

錯綜複雜的無國界世界

隨著社會和經濟環境變化，法律專業不斷演進。

過去20年，全球法律服務市場變化的影響，可能

比過去二百年更為廣泛和深遠。

世界與全球化的聯繫越來越緊密，進一步加劇了

影響。要一個司法管轄區的改變不影響其他司法

管轄區，即使並非不可能，亦會非常困難。

其中一個對律師行業務結構的重大改變，是某些

司法管轄區准許非律師管理、擁有和控制法律

執業。讓我們概述這個改變如何開始及業界的反

應。

人們往往以為英格蘭和威爾斯是准許非律師擁

有、管理和控制律師行的全球先驅。事實上，澳

洲新南威爾士於1994年開始准許有限度跨領域

執業(MDPs)，律師行獲准成立MDPs，前提是律

師必須佔MDP的淨收入最少51%和大多數投票

權。競爭管理局認為這些限制是反競爭的行為，

在競爭管理局施壓後，這些限制於1999年12月

解除。其後在2001年，相關法例進行了修訂，

律師行可成立法團，並允許法律執業以具法團地

位的律師行(ILPs)形式執業。ILP是從事法律執業

的公司，不論公司是否也提供非法律服務，但必

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2019

Ms. Heidi Chu, Secretary General秘書長朱潔冰律師

FROM THE SECRETARIAT律師會秘書處資訊

March 2019 • From the Secretariat 律師會秘書處資訊

practitioners to practise as Incorporated Legal Practices (“ILPs”). An ILP is a

corporation which engages in legal practice whether or not it also provides

services that are not legal services, but it must appoint at least one lawyer as

a legal practice director, who is responsible for both managing legal services

and ensuring those services comply with the professional obligations of

lawyers under the law. Therefore, law firms are able to establish an ILP or an

MDP; obtain external investment or have non-lawyer staff participate in the

ownership of the firm.

For England and Wales, alternative business structures (“ABSs”) became a

reality in October 2011. The definition of an ABS is broad. In a nutshell, an

ABS is a type of law firm, which enables lawyers and non-lawyers to share

the management and control of a business, which provides reserved legal,

and other services, to the public, as well as allowing 100 percent external

(that is non-lawyer) investment and ownership of law firms. In England and

Wales, it is important to understand that the decision to introduce ABSs was

part of an overall package of regulatory reform, the objective of which was to

permit greater freedom for regulated entities to organise the delivery of legal

services and business models to permit flexibility to enhance competition.

Australia and England and Wales are not alone in embracing ABSs

with external investors. Singapore also allows non-lawyers to have 25

percent external ownership in legal entities. Singapore’s decision seems

to have been motivated by the desire to evolve to meet the changing and

increasingly varied needs of international trade and business, and to ensure

that Singapore’s regulatory regime keeps pace with the changes that have

happened to the legal services markets in Australia and England and Wales.

The relevant Committee’s report noted that the new ABS models in Australia

and England and Wales had caused ‘pressure’ on Singapore’s regulatory

structure, with firms from those jurisdictions seeking to register in a similar

form to their head offices. The Committee also pointed out that Singapore

could be adversely affected if it excluded alternative foreign business

structures and subsequently found that competing jurisdictions decided

to take a more liberal approach. This best illustrates the intricacies of an

increasingly borderless world.

Further, in Denmark, lawyers may take advantage of limited co-operation

with chartered accountants, tax advisors, auditors, patent agents and

financial advisers; while in the Netherlands, lawyers may form MDPs with

notaries, tax advisers and patent agents. In Brussels, MDPs can only be

formed with accountants. The situation in Spain is slightly different, with

lawyers being permitted to form an MDP with any member of a compatible,

liberal profession. Spain also permits external capital in law firms, allowing

up to 25 percent of external investment. However, significant opposition to

須任命最少一名律師作為法律執業的主管，

負責管理法律服務，確保這些服務遵守法律

規定的律師專業義務。因此，律師行能夠成

立ILP或MDP、獲取外部投資或讓非律師參

與公司的擁有權。

在英格蘭和威爾斯，替代性商業結構(ABSs)

在2011年10月落實。ABS的定義廣泛。簡

而言之，ABS是一種律師行，律師和非律師

共享公司的管理和控制，為公眾提供保留

法律和其他服務，允許100%外部 (即非律

師)投資和擁有律師行。在英格蘭和威爾斯

引入ABSs是整個監管改革計劃的一部分，

旨在讓受監管實體有更大的自由度管理法律

服務的提供和商業模式，以提高靈活度和促

進競爭。

除了澳洲、英格蘭和威爾斯接受ABSs和外

部投資者外，新加坡亦准許非律師持有法律

實體25%由外部擁有。新加坡的決定估計

旨在滿足國際商貿日益變化的需求，確保新

加坡的監管制度跟上澳洲、英格蘭和威爾斯

法律服務市場的變化。相關委員會的報告指

出，澳洲、英格蘭和威爾斯的新ABS模式對

新加坡的監管結構構成「壓力」，來自這些

司法管轄區的公司期望以類似總辦事處的形

式註冊。委員會還指出，若新加坡排除外國

的商業結構，可能會受到不利影響，及後或

會發現競爭地區決定採取更自由的模式。這

清楚說明了一個無國界世界的錯綜複雜。

此外，在丹麥，律師可與特許會計師、稅

務顧問、審計師、專利代理人和財務顧問

有限度合作；在荷蘭，律師可與公證人、稅

務顧問和專利代理人組成MDP。在布魯塞

爾，MDP只能與會計師組成。西班牙的情況

稍有不同，律師可與相符自由職業的任何人

www.hk-lawyer.org 9

Monthly Statistics on the Profession (updated as of 31 January 2019):

業界每月統計資料(截至2019年1月31日)：

Members (with or without practising certificate) 11,246

Members with practising certificate 9,757 (out of whom, 7,413 (76%) are in private practice)

Trainee Solicitors 1,239

Registered foreign lawyers 1,602 (from 33 jurisdictions)

Hong Kong law firms 920 (46% are sole proprietorships and 43% are firms with 2 to 5 partners, 37 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Registered foreign law firms 85 (15 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Civil Celebrants 2,187

Reverse Mortgage Counsellors 448

Solicitor Advocates 63 (58 in civil proceedings, 5 in criminal proceedings)

Student Members 260

Registered Associations between Hong Kong law firms and 39 registered foreign law firms (including Mainland law firms)

會員(持有或不持有執業證書) 11,246

持有執業證書的會員 9,757 (當中有7,413位 (76%) 是私人執業)

實習律師 1,239

註冊外地律師 1,602 (來自33個司法管轄區)

香港律師行 920 (獨資經營佔46%，2至5名合夥人的律師行佔43%，37間為按照《法律執業者條例》組成的有限法律責任合夥律師行)

註冊外地律師行 85 (15間為按照《法律執業者條例》組成的有限法律責任合夥律師行)

婚姻監禮人 2,187

安老按揭輔導法律顧問 448

訟辯律師 63 (民事程序：58位，刑事程序：5位)

學生會員 260

香港律師行與外地律師行 39(包括內地律師行)在香港聯營

this trend also exists. US, Canada, Germany, Austria, France and

the Council of Bars and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE) have voiced

their resistance to outside investors in law firms.

The responses vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but a global

primary concern in all considerations is protecting the core values of

the legal profession.

Any jurisdiction contemplating such a change must first be

satisfied that sufficient safeguards have been introduced to provide

assurances that a legal practice operating in the new structure

will maintain a high ethical standard with proper client care. The

introduction of ABSs in England and Wales involved simultaneously

a historical transition from an individual-based prescriptive

regulatory model to an entity-based and outcome-focused

regulatory regime to facilitate the operation of the new structure.

Being an international legal service hub with close connection

and frequent interaction with providers around the world, the

Hong Kong legal profession is acutely aware of the challenges of

a borderless environment. All these experiences will be invaluable

to us in reflecting upon the future direction of the local legal

landscape.

士組成MDP。西班牙亦准許律師行由高達25%外

部投資組成。然而，這個趨勢亦面對強烈的反對

聲音。美國、加拿大、德國、奧地利、法國和歐

洲律師協會(CCBE) 均表達對律師行外部投資者的

反對。

不同司法管轄區的反應各有不同，但各地的主要

關注均是保護法律專業的核心價值。

考慮進行這個變更的司法管轄區，必須首先確保

已採取足夠的保障措施，確保新結構下的法律執

業將保持高操守標準，恰當保障客戶。在英格蘭

和威爾斯引入ABSs的同時，亦進行了歷史性轉

變，從個人的監管模式過渡至實體和結果為本的

監管制度，以便利新結構的運作。

作為國際法律服務中心，香港與世界各地供應商

保持密切聯繫，互動頻繁，法律界非常清楚無國

界環境的挑戰。這些經驗非常寶貴，有助我們反

思本地法律環境的未來方向。

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2019

W W W.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM/L AW-AWARDS

SAVE THE DATE!INDIA - February 28MALAYSIA - March 28SE ASIA - April 11CHINA - April 18JAPAN - June 12HONG KONG - September 6INDONESIA - October 10PHILIPPINES - October 25KOREA - November 14

SPONSORSHIPOPPORTUNITIESNOW AVAILABLE!

Contact Tracy at [email protected] join the mailing list to receive

event updates and submission details.

Contact Amantha at [email protected] more information on sponsorship and

get publicity across the region.

SHARE YOUR ALB MOMENTS ONSOCIAL MEDIA #ALBAWARDS


• March 2019

Dr. Lee George LamChairman of Cyberport

Face to Face with

March 2019 • CoVEr StorY 封面專題

www.hk-lawyer.org 13

Learning to Serve and Serving to LearnBy Thomson Reuters

Dr. Lee George Lam

One look at Dr. Lee George Lam’s extensive list of qualifications and you can tell that the Chairman of

Hong Kong’s global tech hub Cyberport loves to learn.

His academic qualifications include: a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Sciences, a Master of Science in Systems Science, and a Master of Business Administration, all of which from the University of Ottawa in Canada.

He also holds a post-graduate diploma in Public Administration from Carleton University in Canada; a post-graduate diploma in English and Hong Kong Law and a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) from Manchester Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom; and a Postgraduate Certificate in Laws from the City University of Hong Kong.

Then, there’s also a Certificate in Professional Accountancy from the School of Continuing and Professional Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong; a LLM in law from the University of Wolverhampton in the United Kingdom; a Doctor of Philosophy and a Master of Public Administration from the University of Hong Kong.

He credits his father and grandfather for inspiring him to embark on a journey of life-long learning.

“They always stressed on the importance of education and in particular lifelong learning and that we learn in order to serve - that influenced me a lot,” says Lam.

“From that background, upbringing and spirit, I’ve been very lucky. I got a good education and full support from the family.”

Lam also credits his wife for making his academic ventures a possibility, especially when he made a “later in life decision” to study law in his 40’s.

“Very few people have that luxury, and sometimes the courage, to do it. But I was very lucky and my wife was so supportive. When I told her about it, she encouraged me to go ahead and do it. Even if you're busy working in the daytime, you know you have a comfortable environment waiting when you go home,” says Lam.

“It’s very important to have people that have your back. With such good support and encouragement from the family, I must say that I did it with pleasure.”

Lam feels that familial support continues

to be an important factor, even after one has passed the bar.

“I think to be a good lawyer or to be of good use to the law, you need to achieve a delicate balance. One cannot be an extremist when it comes to a career and work or family and social activity. There must be a fine balance,” he advises.

Lam observes a lot of excellent law school graduates who have built a good career over the years but never got around to forming a family or support system for themselves.

“So I see the need for balance to achieve sustainability. Only after leaving law school, did I see this more clearly,” he says.

His decision to study law was inspired by a genuine curiosity at how legality permeated most of his professional dealings.

“When I was with the investment banking business at the Bank of China, I found that every transaction was law related, from contracts and regulations to products, client service and risk management. Everything touches the law,” says Lam.

“They say accounting is the language of business. I would say the law is the


• March 2019

language of life. It covers every aspect of our life right now including business.”

He likens an education in law to a course in understanding a game.

“If you ask me to come out and play soccer, which I love, I’d have to at least know the rules of the game. And I have to understand fully what is a yellow card, for example. And that's the only way to do it right and to do it well. So out of this curiosity and this inner urge to do my job better, I went to study law on a part time basis,” says Lam.

He says that because it was genuine learning, he got “not bad” results and was admitted to the PCLL program.

After that, he practiced as a barrister for a year. Lam credits his legal training with honing his risk management abilities.

“I think the benefit of having been trained as a lawyer is that whenever you see a situation, you see risks right away. When you go into a wedding, you imagine the complexities of a divorce, And when you go to a joint venture signing ceremony, you could easily think about the need for adequate break up clauses and the tedious process of breaking up,” Lam says, adding that such a parallel was happening in world news with Brexit.

“You are so sensitive to risks and some people in the business sector say ‘if you want to kill a deal, bring in a lawyer’”, he jokes.

But on a more serious note, he stressed the importance of maintaining the rule of law in Hong Kong.

“There can be no compromise with the importance of the rule of law. If we don't have this precondition, society cannot function: commerce cannot be carried out; liberty, rights, private property and so on cannot be respected,” says Lam.

“I fully agree that by being a lawyer, you are also a key stakeholder in the legal system. Not just to uphold it, but for the

betterment of others.”

Thus, he urges lawyers to go beyond the legal bubble to learn about various fields, in order to understand different topics and perspectives.

“It's very important to know the importance of not only the law, but also the importance of law reforms and how to keep up with changing circumstances in society and in the world. After all, the law is meant to serve the people,” says Lam.

Lam takes great pride in Hong Kong’s rule of law, believing it has the potential to help the Special Administrative Region emerge as a leader for meeting key needs in the region.

“I think litigation should be avoided where possible. That's why I'm a big supporter of mediation and arbitration. I see a big future for Hong Kong in becoming the leading arbitration and mediation centre for international projects, be it a Belt and Road project or a Greater Bay Area project.

“You know Hong Kong should be the best place to do so. But when litigation is not avoidable, then professional legal advice is absolutely needed in order to get it resolved. That’s why I think it’s important to invest in a good legal service.”

to be of Service But because of the continuing lure of banking, Lam eventually moved on to become a solicitor of the High Court.

This was so that he could simultaneously continue his investment banking business and have the flexibility to continue with his community service.

Community service is a topic Lam circles back to a fair bit in our conversation. Again, he traces this to his father and grandfather’s influence.

“I was raised in a business family that was very active in community service and international affairs as well. So from

a young age, I was exposed to this,” says Lam.

With that comes an emphasis to serve the broader community.

“There’s an expectation to serve the broader community and care about the world, while also putting family first,” says Lam.

When asked about causes he is passionate about, Lam is quick and firm in his response.

“Right now, there’s no question it’s sustainability. Because we have a responsibility to not just Hong Kong but to the earth as well. Sustainability is a key issue, as it is not just about climate change, but a host of other issues as well,” says Lam.

“So I'm very glad to see the continuing rise of impact investment for example. Also in the rising engagement of youth, green projects and the importance of making Hong Kong a green finance hub.”

Lam is also working to make Cyberport a driving force in fostering the development of Hong Kong into a smart city.

He cites that excitement as the driver for his involvement in various community service roles.

Currently, Lam is a member of the Hong Kong SAR Government Committee on Innovation, Technology and Re-Industrialization, the Council on Professional Conduct in Education, the Court of the City University of Hong Kong and Sir Murray MacLehose Trust Fund Investment Advisory Committee, a member of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council Belt and Road Committee and Convenor of its Digital Silk Road Working Group, President of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) Business Advisory Council and Chairman of its Task Force on Banking and Finance.

March 2019 • cover story 封面專題


He is also the Chairman of the Permanent Commission on Economic and Financial Issues of World Union of Small and Medium Enterprises (WUSME), Honorary Chairman – Asia Pacific of CMA Australia, Chairman of Monte Jade Science and Technology Association of Hong Kong and President of Hong Kong-ASEAN Economic Cooperation Foundation.

Previously, he also served as a part-time member of the Central Policy Unit, and a member of the Task Force on Industry Facilitation under the Digital 21 Strategy Advisory Committee, the Assessment Panel of the Small Entrepreneur Research Assistance Programme under the Innovation and Technology Fund, the New Business Committee of the Hong Kong Financial Services Development Council and the Legal Aid Services Council.

“Both my father and my grandfather also said to not be dependent on others. At the minimum, you should be a provider and taxpayer. To go beyond that, you should be a contributor and a

leader in any humble way that you can be,” says Lam.

“So that means doing more than for myself. And that's why I keep an active community service portfolio.”

Apart from serving on local and international public bodies, Lam has also taught at Tsinghua University, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University and the City University of Hong Kong.

Championing the Cyber Age with CyberportPrior to becoming the Chairman of Cyberport, Lam’s résumé also reflects a wide breadth and diversity of experience.

He has over 30 years of international management experience across the telecommunications/media/technology, financial services, consumer/

healthcare, infrastructure and energy/resources sectors.

Through his time in those industries, Lam has gained extensive experience and connections in the innovation and digital technology spheres and in general management, strategy consulting, corporate governance, direct investment, investment banking and fund management.

Lam has notched up leadership roles (including Chairman, Vice Chairman, Director, CEO, COO and General Manager) with several leading multinational corporations including Hong Kong Telecom, Singapore Technologies Telemedia (Temasek Holdings), Macquarie Capital, BOC International Holdings (the Bank of China group) and Chia Tai Enterprises International Limited (CP Group).


• March 2019

He is also the Non-Executive Chairman – Hong Kong and ASEAN Region and Chief Adviser to Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Asia.

Through Cyberport, Lam has found the perfect mix to combine his multi-industry experience with his eagerness to serve.

Lam is particularly interested in nurturing young talents and next-generation small and medium enterprises, while fostering the development of Hong Kong’s digital economy and the innovation and technology sector in his current capacity.

In its 2017/2018 financial report, Cyberport reported that GogoVan had become the tech hub’s first unicorn. Travel booking service Klook had also completed close to $60 million Series C funding, which was co-invested by investors such as Sequoia China and Goldman Sachs.

It also had over 250 companies (now over 300) in its fintech cluster, with capabilities ranging from blockchain to cybersecurity to AI and big data.

Lam is understandably proud about the potential Cyberport has under its wing. He is particularly excited about how Regtech/Lawtech could transform the legal industry.

“Regtech solutions could, for example, help law firms get up to date about regulatory changes more clearly, cost effectively and frequently,” he declares.

He believes it holds a solution for lawyers dealing with big amounts of data, ensuring they can cut costs and time, increase accuracy and pick up on things they might miss by doing things manually.

“There’s a lot of potential here and it’s going to be important for cross border transactions as well,” says Lam.

“Because the whole world now is moving into the smart economy stage

He urges lawyers to not discriminate against the smaller firms.

“Many of them are bona fide companies that can grow and develop very well over time. And they need legal advice. And something can always be worked out on a win-win basis, says Lam, who sees this as a way to get promising companies on board as lifelong clients too.

He also urges lawyers themselves to also get entrepreneurial, citing Cyberport’s Creative Micro Fund as a good way to get started.

“If you have a good idea, our Micro Fund could provide a cheque of HKD100,000 for you to turn it into a business plan. I encourage and would like to see some crazy-but-good ideas from those in the legal profession,” says Lam.

Ultimately, seeing the big picture and recognizing where one could add value comes back to Lam’s core theme of serving the broader community.

“If we do things the right way, we can help our young people in the SMEs and help our economy develop further and diversify. We need to engage the public more, from the district councils to the accounting profession,” says Lam, who feels it all feeds into the collective space we share.

And that includes himself.

“Nowadays, working on game changers like fintech is a perfect transformation for me as well. n

of development. You can call it digital, connected or smart economy. But this is the fourth industrial revolution and a time when data is comparable to gold, oil or currencies and AI is the new software,” says Lam.

So every sector in society, the legal profession included, has to embrace digital transformation or be disrupted.

A Place for Lawyers Lam intends Cyberport to be “a complete ecosystem” for bringing innovation life, from the incubation process to finding investors and accelerators.

And he sees a place for lawyers in every step of the way.

“I think lawyers have a big role to play apart from the lawtech and regtech areas. Lawyers can also assist with the law reform process, where relevant laws and regulations can be improved or created for a smart economy,” says Lam.

“Financial services account for 18 percent of our GDP. If we don't embrace fintech, our core business will be disrupted. If we do fintech well, we not only protect our core business but we can also build up the new economy with the right talents, products and framework.”

Another thing Lam would like to see is more varied professions in the same room.

“I would like to see Hong Kong lawyers become more actively involved with tech companies and be more start-up friendly. Most lawyers really like to work with established clients for good and obvious reasons. But start-ups are the ones who truly need the legal talents,” says Lam.

This could go in any direction, from help with intellectual property protection to advising on IPOs, joint ventures and investments.

• March 2019

香港 – 單看香港數碼港管理有

限公司董事局主席林家禮博

士長長的履歷，就看出他喜

愛學習。

他持有加拿大渥太華大學科學及數學學

士、系統科學碩士及工商管理碩士學位。

他亦持有加拿大加爾頓大學公共行政研究

院文憑、英國曼徹斯特城市大學英國及香

港法律深造文憑以及法律榮譽學士學位、

香港城市大學法學專業證書、香港中文大

學專業進修學院專業會計證書、英國胡佛

漢頓大學法律碩士學位，及香港大學公共

行政碩士及哲學博士學位。

他把孜孜不倦的自身學習精神，歸功於父

親和祖父的啟發。

林博士說：「他們強調教育，尤其是終身

學習的重要性，而我們學習是為了服務社

會，這庭訓對我影響深遠。」

「我很幸運在這樣的背景、教養和精神中

長大，有家庭的良好教育和支持。」

林博士亦把學術成就歸功於妻子，特別是

他年屆40才決定修讀法律。

他說：「很少人能夠擁有這種奢侈，甚

至這種勇氣。但我很幸運，妻子非常支持

我。當我告訴她時，她鼓勵我去做。即使

白天再忙碌，總有一個溫暖舒適的家等著

你回去。」

「有人在背後支持是非常重要的。在家人

的大力支持和鼓勵下，我必須說我樂在其

中。」

林博士認為，即使在取得律師資格後，家

人的支持仍然很重要。

他建議：「我認為要成為優秀的律師或對

法律作出貢獻，你需要達到微妙的平衡。

在事業和工作或家庭和社會活動之間不可

太極端，必須取得良好的平衡。」

林博士見過許多優秀的法學院畢業生，多

年來建立了優秀的事業，但從未為自己建

立家庭或自身的支持系統。

他說：「所以我認為人需要平衡以達到可

持續發展的目標。離開法學院後，我才更

清楚地領悟到這點。」

他決定修讀法律，是源於對處理過的專業

交易中的繁重法律事務感到好奇。

林博士說：「當我在中國銀行的投資銀行

業務工作的時候，我發現每筆交易都涉及

法律，從合同和法規到產品、客户服務和

風險管理，一切都觸及法律。」

「他們說會計是商業的語言。我會說法律

是生活的語言。它涵蓋了我們生活的方方


林家禮博士

學習服務從服務中學習

專訪數碼港主席

作者：湯森路透

面面，包括商業。」

他將法律教育比作理解遊戲的一門課程。

林博士說：「如果你叫我去踢足球的話，

我是很喜歡足球的，但我必須最少知道有

關遊戲規則。例如，我必須完全理解什麼

是黃牌。這是把足球踢得對、踢得好的唯

一方法。因此，出於這種好奇心及把工作

做得好的衝動，我毅然兼讀法律。」

他說，因為是真正的用心學習，他的成績

「不差」，並獲得PCLL課程取錄。

其後，他當了執業大律師一年。林博士

認為專業法律培訓加強了他的風險管理能

力。

林博士說：「我認為接受律師培訓的好處

是無論任何情況，你都會立即看到風險所

在。例如參加一個婚禮的時候，你會想像

到離婚的複雜性；參加一個合資企業的簽

約儀式的時候，你會輕易思考到周全考慮

拆夥條款的重要性和拆夥的繁瑣過程。」

他補充，這種情况正在有關英國退歐的世

界新聞中出現。

他笑說：「律師對風險真的是如此敏感，

怪不得商界有一說『如果你想協議談不

攏，就帶個律師参與談判』。」

言歸正傳，他強調維持香港法治的重要

性。

他說：「法治的重要性是不可妥協的。

如果我們沒有這個先決條件，社會就無法

運作：商業交易就不能進行；自由、權

利、私有財產等也不能得到尊重。」

「我完全同意，律師是法律體系的主要持

份者。不只為了維護法治，亦為了廣大社

會的福祉。」

因此，他敦促律師超越打破框框，積極認

識不同領域，了解不同的題材和觀點。

林博士說：「了解法律和法律改革的重要

性，以及如何跟得上社會和世界不斷變化

的環境，這點非常重要。畢竟，法律旨在

為人民服務。」



林博士為香港的法治感到自豪，相信香港

的優良法治能助香港成為解决區域內關鍵

需求的先驅。

「我認為應該盡量避免訴訟。我是調解和

仲裁的支持者。我認為香港將來能成為國

際商貿及投資項目的主要仲裁和調解中

心，無論是一帶一路或者是粵港澳大灣區

的項目。」

「香港應該是最好的國際仲裁和調解中

心。但當訴訟無可避免時，則絕對需要專

業法律意見才能解決問題。因此，我認為

投資在良好的法律服務是很重要的。」

服務社會

由於投資銀行工作需要的緣故，林博士最

終轉任高等法院律師。

這樣他就可以同時繼續從事投資銀行業務

和靈活地參與社會服務工作。

社會服務是林博士專訪的核心話題。他再

次追溯至父親和祖父的啟發。

林博士說：「我的家族從商，非常積極參

與社會服務工作和國際事務。因此，我從

小就接觸這方面。」

隨之而來是服務廣大社會的抱負。

林博士說：「父親和祖父期望我能够為廣

大社會有所服務貢獻，關心世界，同時不

可以自私，應該把家庭放在第一位。」

被問及他現在關心的議題時，林博士回答

迅速而堅定。

他說：「現在毫無疑問是如何確保可持續

發展，因為我們不僅要對香港負責，也要

對地球負責。可持續發展是關鍵議題，不

僅涉及氣候變化，還涉及許多其他嚴重問

題。」

「因此，我很高興看到創效投資、青年人

對廣大社會的投入和参與、綠色項目、香

港成為綠色金融中心等方面的進步。」

林博士也致力於令數碼港成為推動香港發

展成為智慧城市的引擎。

他指出，這是他積極參與各種社會服務的

動力。

目前，林博士是香港特別行政區創新、科

技及再工業化委員會委員、香港城市大學

顧問委員會成員、麥理浩爵士信託基金投

資顧問委員會委員、香港貿發局一帶一路

委員會委員兼其數字絲路工作組召集人、

聯合國亞太經濟社會委員會(UNESCAP)

工商諮詢理事會主席兼其銀行及金融專案

組主席。

他亦是世界中小企聯盟(WUSME)經濟及

金融事務常任委員會主席、澳洲管理會計

師公會亞太區榮譽主席、香港玉山科技協

會理事長及香港—東盟經濟合作基金會會

長。

他亦曾擔任中央政策組非全職顧問、數碼

21 資訊科技策略諮詢委員會下的行業促

進專責小組委員、創新及科技基金小型企

業研究資助計劃項目評審小組的評審員、

香港金融發展局拓新業務小組成員及法律

援助服務局成員。

林博士說：「我的父親和祖父都教導我不

要依賴別人，最低限度要做個提供者和納

稅人，再進而做一個對社會有貢獻的人及

在適當領域擔當一個謙卑的領導者。」

「所以，行事不僅為了自己和家人。這就

是為何我活躍於社會服務方面。」

除了曾任職本地和國際機構，林博士亦任

教於清華大學、香港科技大學、香港中文

大學、香港浸會大學及香港城市大學。

與數碼港領航數碼大時代

在出任數碼港主席之前，林博士已涉獵廣

泛而多元化的國際經驗。

他在電信/媒體/科技、金融服務、消費

者/醫療保健、基礎設施和能源/資源領域

方面擁有超過30年的國際管理經驗。

• March 2019

林博士在這些行業在創新和數碼科技以及

企业管理、策略諮詢、公司管治、直接投

資、投資銀行和基金管理方面積累了豐富

的經驗和人脉關係。

林博士曾在多家跨國公司，包括香港電

訊、新加坡科技電信媒體(淡馬錫控股)、

麥格理資本、中銀國際控股(中銀集團)和

正大企業國際有限公司擔任董事和高管

職務(包括主席、副主席、董事、行政總

裁、營運總監、總經理等)。

林家禮博士現為麥格理基礎建設及有型資

產之香港及東盟區非執行主席兼亞洲區首

席顧問。

通過數碼港的工作，林博士找到了完美的

組合，結合跨行業的經驗與服務社會的熱

誠。

林博士對培養年青人才和下新一代中小企

業特別感興趣，期望促進香港數碼經濟和

創新科技領域的蓬勃發展。

數碼港2017/2018年報指出，GoGoVan

已成為數碼港首家「獨角獸」，而旅遊預

訂服務公司Klook客路已完成近6,000萬美

元的C輪融資，獲得紅杉資本中國基金和

高盛兩個著名機構投資者注資。

數碼港的金融科技密集組群不斷茁壯成

長，已有逾250家(現在已經是超過300

家)金融科技企業進駐其中，涉足所有主

要技術領域如區塊鏈、網絡安全、人工智

能及大數據。

林博士對於數碼港的潛力感到自豪，對監

管科技 / 法律科技如何協助法律服務行業

落實數碼轉型感到特別有興趣。

他稱：「監管科技解決方案應用廣泛，例

如可以幫助律師事务所更清楚、更及時地

及更低成本地把握監管法規的變化。」

他認為監管科技能够為處理大量數據的律

師提供有成效的解決方案，有助他們節省

成本和時間，提高準確率，也能注意到人

手處理時可能出錯的情况。

他說：「監管科技有很大的潛力，對於跨

境交易來說也很重要。」

林博士說：「因為現在整個世界正在進入

智慧經濟發展階段，也可以稱之為數碼、

互聯或智慧經濟。這是第四次工業革命，

現在數據等同黃金、石油或新貨幣，人工

智能就是新軟件。」

因此，包括法律專業在內的各個行業都必

須擁抱數碼轉型，不然的話會受到衝擊。

律師的角色

林博士認為數碼港是促進創新的「完整生

態系統」，從初創企業孵化過程到尋找投

資者和加速器等。

在創新和創業過程中每一步律師都能佔一

席位。

他說：「我認為除了法律科技和監管科技

領域之外，律師還可以發揮重要作用，協

助推動法律改革進程，為拓展智慧經濟改

善或創造相關合適法律法規。」

「金融服務业佔香港生產總值18%。如果

我們不把握好金融科技，我們的核心業務

將會受到衝擊。把握好金融科技，我們不

僅可以保護核心業務，還可以通過合適的

人才、產品和框架，加强香港的新經濟發

展進程。」

他希望看到更多樣化的專業人才携手發展

的機會。

他說：「我希望看到香港律師更積極地參

與科技公司合作，對初創企業持更開明心

態。大多數律師都非常喜歡與成熟企業合

作，原因亦很明顯。但初創企業才真正更

需要法律人才。」

這可以是多方面，從知識產權保護到

IPO、合資企業和投資等的法律意見和協

助。

他促請律師不要小看規模較小的公司。

「它們當中許多是真正有誠意合作，假

以時日能有很好的發展。它們需要法律

意見，也可以探討雙贏合作可能性。」

林博士認為這是讓有前景的公司成為終

身客戶的方式之一。

他還鼓勵律師發揮創業精神，數碼港創

意微型基金就是其中一個起步的好方

法。

他說：「如果你有一个好主意，我們的

數碼港創意微型基金可提供10萬元種

子資金，讓意念化為商業計劃。我鼓勵

並希望看到法律專業人士提出創新構

思。」

最終，回到林博士服務廣大社會的核心

主題，就是立足全局，知道自己可以不

斷增值之處。

他說：「如此一來，我們可以幫助新一

代中小企業的年青人，幫助促進經濟

進一步發展和多元化。我們需要和公眾

互動，從區議會到會計專業等不同持份

者。」林博士認為大家都在共同建設我

們的香港家園。

這包括他本人。

「如今在引領金融科技這種改變和提升

金融行業的數碼轉型方面的工作，對我

來說也是完美的轉型。」n


LAW SOCIETY NEWS LAW SOCIETY NEWS律師會新聞

Delegations from Greater China regionIn January, the Law Society received delegations of law students of Hunan University and judges from Mainland China. The former showed great interest in the legal system of Hong Kong, as well as in the functions and structure of the Law Society; while the Mainland judges exchanged views with the Law Society representatives on the similarities and differences between the judicial systems of the two jurisdictions and shared the latest developments in judicial reform in the Mainland.

Ceremonial opening of the Legal Year 2019 in Hong KongThe Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2019 (“OLY”) was held on 14 January. Distinguished bar leaders and presidents of law societies from 20 jurisdictions around the world gathered in Hong Kong to witness this solemn ceremony. This year, we are glad to have 70 guests from 45 law associations joining the event. Apart from attending the OLY Ceremony at City Hall, the overseas delegates were invited to participate in a number of OLY activities during the day.

The day started with a visit to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. The Hon. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma welcomed the

Joint opening ceremony with Teen Talk. 法律周暨「青Teen講場」開幕典禮。

A delegation of Mainland judges visited the Law Society.內地法官代表團訪問律師會。

Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2019.2019年法律年度開啟典禮。

Secretary General Heidi Chu welcomed delegates at the Presidents’ Roundtable.秘書長朱潔冰律師歡迎各代表出席會長圓桌會議。

大中華區代表團訪問律師會

律師會於1月接待了來自大中華區

的湖南大學法學系學生以及內地法

官訪問團。前者對香港的法律制度

以及律師會的功能和架構充滿興

趣；內地法官則和與會的律師會代

表進行交流，探討兩地司法制度的

異同，並分享內地司法改革的最新

情況。


March 2019 • Law Society NewS 律師會新聞

2019年香港法律年度開啟典禮

2019年法律年度開啟典禮於1月14日隆重舉行。來自世界各地

20個司法管轄區的法律界領袖及代表雲集香港，見證此莊嚴的盛

典。今年，來自45個律師協會的70位代表，除出席在大會堂舉行

的法律年度開啟典禮，亦獲邀參加當日的眾多活動。

當天，代表團參觀香港終審法院，獲首席法官馬道立接待，並獲

專人講解香港終審法院大樓的歷史，及帶領隊伍參觀。

律師會與大律師公會為海外嘉賓合辦了一系列活動，包括會長圓

桌會議，今年的主題為「法律專業作為人才平台」、午宴及晚

宴，律政司司長鄭若驊資深大律師亦出席晚宴。展現出香港的好

客之道之餘，透過活動加強與世界各地同業的聯繫，以及交流各

地法律業界發展的最新消息。

在法律年度開啟典禮上，終審法院首席法官、律政司司長、律師

會會長及大律師公會主席均發表發人深省的演說。律師會會長的

講辭已上載至律師會網站。

律師會有幸獲邀協助司法機構接待與會的海外、內地和台灣法律

界領袖及代表，我們感謝律政司司長鄭若驊資深大律師撥冗出席

晚宴。

另外，律師會亦於1月15日分別與國際律師聯盟、The Law

Society of England and Wales、Mongolian Bar Association和

Canadian Bar Association的代表會面，討論日後合作的機會。

Over 50 delegates from different jurisdictions attended the Presidents’ Roundtable.逾50位代表團團長出席會長圓桌會議。

Delegates enjoyed the dinner reception jointly hosted by the Law Society and HKBA.代表出席律師會與香港大律師公會合辦的晚宴。

President Melissa Pang spoke at the Ceremonial Opening of Legal Year 2019.會長彭韻僖律師在2019年法律年度開啟典

禮上致辭。

delegates, and our guests were provided with a historical overview of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal building, which was followed by a guided tour.

Jointly with the Hong Kong Bar Association (“HKBA”), we hosted a series of activities for our overseas guests, including a Presidents’ Roundtable on the topic of “Legal Profession as a Talent Platform”, a luncheon and a dinner reception graced by the presence of the Secretary for Justice. It was a valuable opportunity to showcase Hong Kong’s hospitality, strengthen connections with our counterparts around the world and to update each other on the developments in the legal sector in our home jurisdictions.

At the OLY, the Chief Justice, the Secretary for Justice, the President of the Law Society and Chairman of HKBA all delivered enlightening speeches. The speech made by the President of the Law Society has been posted on the Law Society website.

It was an honour for the Law Society to have assisted the Judiciary in coordinating the participation of all overseas, PRC, Taiwan bar leaders and legal representatives on this occasion. We would further like to express our appreciation to the Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng SC who attended the dinner reception.

Meetings with representatives of several overseas lawyers associations, including International Association of Lawyers (UIA), The Law Society of England and Wales, Mongolian Bar Association and Canadian Bar Association were conducted on 15 January to discuss opportunities for future collaborations.


• March 2019

Visit by Hyogo-Ken bar AssociationEver since 2012, the Law Society has developed a close working relationship with the lawyers associations in Japan by signing memoranda of understanding with the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, Tokyo Bar Association, Osaka Bar Association and Okinawa Bar Association.

Since then, the Law Society has co-organised multiple meetings and joint seminars with our Japanese counterparts to update each other on the major legal developments in both jurisdictions and to create more opportunities for professional exchanges among our respective members.

Led by the President of the Hyogo-Ken Bar Association, a delegation of 12 members visited the Law Society on 24 January. Apart from introducing the respective legal systems and the role and functions of the two associations to each other, the delegations had fruitful discussions on the inheritance law practice in Hong Kong and Japan with members of our Probate Committee and International Legal Affairs Committee.

There is no doubt that the Law Society will continue to work closely with overseas lawyers organisations to provide a platform for information exchanges, for exploring business opportunities for our members, as well as promoting the competence and professional standard of the Hong Kong legal profession to different jurisdictions.

President Melissa Pang (left) presented a souvenir to Mr Nobuyuki Fujikake, President of Hyogo-Ken Bar Association (right).

會長彭韻僖律師(左)向兵庫縣辯護士會會長藤掛伸之先生(右)致送紀念品。

Members exchanging views on the inheritance law practice in Hong Kong and Japan.

與會者就香港和日本的繼承法律實踐交換意見。

兵庫縣辯護士會訪問律師會

律師會自2012年起先後與日本辯護士聯合會、東京辯護士會、大阪辯護

士會及沖繩辯護士會簽署諒解備忘錄，與日本的律師協會建立了密切的工

作關係。

自此，律師會與日本同業合辦了多次會議和研討會，分享兩個司法管轄區

的主要法律發展，並為兩地的會員創造更多專業交流機會。

由兵庫縣辯護士會會長帶領的12人代表團於1月24日訪問律師會。除介紹

兩地的法律制度及兩個協會的職能外，代表團亦與本會遺產事務委員會和

國際法律事務委員會的委員就香港和日本的繼承法律實踐作出討論。

律師會將繼續與海外律師協會緊密合作，為會員提供一個資訊交流的平

台、探索商機，並向不同司法管轄區推廣香港法律界的能力和專業水準。

the Hong Kong Academy of LawThe Hong Kong Academy of Law organised 17 courses in January with a total of 785 participants.

One of the 17 courses was “The New China Individual Income Tax Law” held on 29 January. The China Individual Income Tax Law (“IIT”) came into effect on 1 January 2019. The course discussed the definitions of “resident” for tax purposes and China-sourced income, the six-year rule, the new IIT withholding and self-declaration systems, the additional itemised deductions and other new tax measures, the transitional arrangements and other practical considerations. The speaker was Ms. Ellen Tong,



Mr. Jonathan Mok (left) receiving a souvenir from Mr. Ho Wai-chee, Director of Community Relations of the ICAC.

莫子應律師(左)獲廉政公署社區關係處處長何渭枝先生頒贈紀念品。

iCAC trainingMr. Jonathan Mok, member of the Criminal Law and Procedure Committee of the Law Society, conducted an in-house seminar on overseas bribery laws for the ICAC, including the UK Bribery Act 2010 and US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. At the training seminar, Mr. Mok shared his views with around 200 officers of the ICAC.

香港法律專業學會

香港法律專業學會於1月舉辦17個課程，吸引了共785

人出席。

其中一個課程是於1月29日舉行的「新《中華人民共

和國個人所得稅法》」。《中華人民共和國個人所得稅

法》於2019年1月1日生效，該課程討論了「居民」的稅務

定義、中國收入來源、六年規則、新的扣繳和自行申報制

度、額外扣稅項目和其他新的稅務措施、過渡安排和其他

實際考慮。講者為德勤僱主人力資源全球服務總監湯愛倫

女士。課程吸引了共69名參加者。

另一個課程是於1月31日舉行的「第三者資助仲裁實務守

則」。律政司於2018年12月頒布了該守則，以訂立出資第

三者在進行與第三者資助仲裁相關的活動時須遵從的常規

和標準。該課程概述了新制度和守則。講者是李遠傳律師

行主管律師李遠傳律師及柯伍陳律師事務所合夥人胡慶業

律師。課程吸引了共58名參加者。

廉政公署培訓

律師會刑事法律與程序委員會成員莫子應律師為廉政公署舉辦了

海外賄賂法律內部研討會，會上討論了包括《2010年英國反賄賂

法》和《美國反海外貪污法》。莫律師與約200名廉政公署人員分

享他的見解。

Director of Global Employer Services of Deloitte. The seminar attracted 69 participants.

Another course was the “Code of Practice for Third Party Funding of Arbitration” held on 31 January. The Department of Justice issued the Code in December 2018 which sets out the practices and standards with which third party funders are expected to comply in carrying on activities in connection with third party funding of arbitration. The course provided an overview of the new regime and the Code. The speakers were Mr. John Lee, Principal of Messrs Lee and Mr. Eric Woo, Partner of ONC Lawyers. The seminar attracted 58 participants.

Valentine’s Day Special: Chocolate Cake baking WorkshopValentine’s day is about sharing love. On 13 February, the Member Benefit Committee (“MBC”) organised a chocolate cake baking workshop for our members to learn how to make heart-shaped chocolate cakes.

The Workshop was conducted by our member Ms. Doreen Kong who runs a social enterprise bakery. In the workshop, Ms. Kong

demonstrated the fundamentals and techniques of baking and garnishing. Members then worked in pairs and made their cakes by mixing the ingredients, shaping the dough and decorating the cakes. After two and a half hours, members were excited to see the final product: delightful and tasty cakes for sharing with their loved ones.


• March 2019

Law Society table tennis team crowned Division Champion at the Hong Kong table tennis Association League tournament 2018It is truly a proud chapter of our table tennis team by winning the championship in Division II of the Hong Kong Table Tennis Association (“HKTTA”) League Tournament 2018 (the “Tournament”). This was the first time our team participated in an open tournament organised by HKTTA.

There were nine teams in our division and the Tournament was divided into two rounds over the course of six months from July to December 2018. Upon completion of the first round, we were still on par with another team but we were the only team to remain on top at the end of the second round. Mr. Lit Tat Sing of our team even came second in the ranking of the Most-Valued Male Player.

The top three teams in each division were qualified to participate in the Final Challenge Cup which was held on 5 January. One of the highlights of the finals was the mixed doubles matches where players were required to play with “sandpaper” paddles which made the spin less predictable.

Road to victory was smooth until the semi-finals. Despite facing strong rivals, our team still managed to win the mixed doubles and women’s single and also fought till the very last set in both the women’s single and men's doubles. Although we missed the ultimate championship at the end, it was definitely a glorious defeat.

Hats off to every team member for devoting their time to participate in the Tournament, where matches were held after office hours, and all their hard work dedicated to practicing for the league. We look forward to scaling new heights in the matches ahead!

Reported by: Lam Ching Ha Natalie

律師會乒乓球隊勇奪香港乒乓球總會2018球會聯賽分組冠軍

律師會乒乓球隊在香港乒乓球總會

(「乒總」)舉辦的2 0 1 8 球會聯賽

（第二組別）奪冠，實為乒乓球

隊光榮的一章，特別這是我隊第一

次參與乒總舉辦的公開賽事。

我隊所屬組別有九支球隊，於2018

年7月至12月一連六個月分兩輪對

賽。首輪賽事後，我隊與另一隊以同

分領先，但最終只有我隊能登上頒獎

台上最高位置。隊員之一列達聲律師

更獲得最有價值男球員第二名。

聯賽兩個組別的前三名共六支球隊可

晉身「終極挑戰盃」，賽事於1月5

日進行，當中混雙賽事參賽者須以

「沙板」作賽，沙板特點在於不能

制造旋轉球，為賽事增添變數。我隊

在爭標之路一直沒接受到太大考驗，

直至在四強才遇上挑戰。雖然強敵當

前，我隊仍穩勝混雙及女單賽事，並

與對手在女單及男雙賽事奮戰至最後

一局，最終未能再下一城，但我隊雖

敗猶榮。

感謝每位隊員在每天繁忙工作過後抽

空練習及作賽。期待我隊在未來的賽

事再創佳績！

由林清霞律師報導

Ms. Doreen Kong (second from left) demonstrating steps to participants..

江玉歡律師(左二)向參加者示範烘焙步驟。

Photo credits to Hong Kong Table Tennis Association.

照片由香港乒乓球總會所攝。

情人節特備節目：朱古力蛋糕烘焙工作坊

情人節是分享愛的節日。會員權益委員會於2月13日為會員

舉辦了一個朱古力蛋糕烘焙工作坊，讓會員學會如何製作心

形朱古力蛋糕。

工作坊由會員江玉歡律師教授，她經營一間社企烘焙店。在

工作坊上，江律師示範了烘焙和裝飾的基本原理和技巧。然

後，會員分成二人一組混合材料、製作麵團和裝飾蛋糕。兩

個半小時後，他們興奮地看到製成品出爐，可與親人分享的

美味可口的蛋糕。



Editorial note: The names of the team members that appeared as 2nd runner-up (tie) in the last row of Delizioso Italian: Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of Law Society’s Cooking Competition in the February 2019 issue of Hong Kong Lawyer were incorrect. The correct names are "Ms. Jonie Heung, Ms. Tam Suet Yan Sharon and Mr. Wong Chi Man Simon". Any inconvenience is regretted.

編者按：於律師會會刊二月期刊中，「意大利美饌：第十屆律師會烹飪比賽」雙季軍第二行的隊員名單出現錯誤。正確得獎名單為向載意小姐、譚雪欣律師及黃智敏律師。不便之處，敬請見諒。

會員權益：律師會聖誕派對2018

會員權益委員會舉辦的周年聖誕派對於2018年

12月13日圓滿舉行。派對以「閃亮聖誕」為主

題，超過150位會員和嘉賓聚首一堂，慶祝普

世歡騰的節日。

會長、理事會成員和會員權益委員會成員報佳

音，為聖誕派對揭開序幕。參加者被律師會樂

隊TLF和VIP樂隊的現場演奏深深吸引。會員

和嘉賓一面享受美食和飲品，一面在照相亭拍

照，捕捉美好的回憶。為了配合派對主題和競

逐「最佳服飾獎」，很多會員和嘉賓穿著閃閃

發光的服裝，十分搶眼。會員和嘉賓亦參加了

刺激的遊戲，贏取豐富獎品，將全晚的氣氛推

至最高點。

Council members with Chairman of the Standing Committee on Member Services ("SCMS") and Chairman and members of MBC.

理事會成員、會員服務常務委員會主席與會員權益委員會主席和成員合照。

SCMS Vice-Chairlady presenting attractive prizes to members and guests.

會員服務常務委員會副主席頒發豐富獎品予會員和嘉賓。

Members and guests posed for a photo shoot.

會員和嘉賓擺出各種姿勢拍照。

Member benefit: the Law Society’s Annual Christmas Party 2018The Annual Christmas Party, organised by the Member Benefit Committee (“MBC”), was successfully held on 13 December 2018. Over 150 members and guests celebrated the festive season under the theme of "Bling Bling Christmas".

The Party kicked-off with Christmas carol performance by President, some Council Members and MBC members. The audience was blown away by the remarkable music performance by the Law Society live band TLF and VIP band. Members and guests enjoyed the food and drinks while happily posing at the photo booth to capture the good memories. To match the party theme and compete for the Best Dressed competition, lots of members and guests dressed up in glittering outfits to catch everyone’s eyes. The party reached its climax when members participated in exciting games and attractive prizes were given out.


• March 2019

March 2019 • FroM tHE CoMMiSSionEr oF tHE PCPD 個人資料私隱專員公署專員議題

IoT refers to the interconnection of ordinary household or personal devices via the Internet. IoT devices are generally equipped with sensors, able to communicate and exchange data with other devices, and can be controlled remotely. Examples of IoT devices include smart watches, smart TVs, AI home assistants, connected cars and smart lamp posts. IoT devices are integral to ‘smart living’ and ‘smart cities’. Core functionalities of IoT devices entail the collection and transmission of data, and often with some levels of automated monitoring and decision-making.

Many IoT devices such as wearables, smart TVs and home appliances have the ability to collect a vast amount of intimate information concerning an individual’s health, movements,

habits and private life. Piecing together information gathered via different IoT devices could allow a profile to be constructed of the IoT user. The tracking of an IoT device may be tantamount to behavioural tracking of the user.

In August 2018, the US Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit handed down a judgment in Naperville Smart Meter Awareness v City of Naperville, No. 16-3766 (7th Cir. 2018) that energy consumption data of a household collected by a smart energy meter was protected by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (ie the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures) because the energy usage data revealed information about the happenings inside

the house. In spite of this, very often individuals are not aware that data is being collected by the IoT devices, the purpose of collection and where the data may end up. There is virtually no transparency and proper notification provided to the users on the vital information concerning their personal data.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Data Protection Principle (“DPP”) 1 of Schedule 1 to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, organisations (data users) have the obligation to collect data in a lawful and fair manner. It is essential that consumers (data subjects) are notified of the purpose for which the data is to be used, and the potential for any data to be transferred to third parties. Data collection must not be conducted covertly. DPP 3 (Use of Data) requires

By Stephen Kai-yi WONG, Barrister, Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong

How Internet of Things May Expose Your PrivacyWithout a doubt, Internet of Things (“IoT”) offers us convenience and effectiveness that we have not envisaged before. We are so accustomed to IoT devices that they become an indispensable part of our daily routine. Utility aside, we will look at the associated privacy risks.


作者: 黃繼兒大律師，香港個人資料私隱專員

data users to obtain data subjects’ consent for secondary use of personal data, such as profiling of the data subjects and advertising.

Data security is another sticky issue relating to IoT. IoT devices being relatively inexpensive, manufacturers and users may not have put in place adequate security measures in the devices. In an IoT ecosystem with many devices interconnected, the security level of the whole system may only be as strong as the weakest access point. Hackers may infiltrate information systems by first hacking into insecure IoT devices. Hackers may also launch distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks by controlling thousands or millions of compromised IoT devices. Corroborated by the figures published in the Hong Kong Information Security Outlook 2018 of the Hong Kong Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre, IoT attacks are clearly on the rise. Organisations have an obligation under DPP 4 (Data Security) to take all practicable steps to ensure that personal data under their control are protected against unauthorised or accidental access, use or loss. Security measures should be proportionate to the risk of harm of any potential breach.

We as individual IoT devices users should also be vigilant about the security setting of our IoT devices. For example, some time ago, a lot of webcams were compromised by hackers, leading to the online broadcast of device users’ lives at home. To stay away from the prying eyes, we could simply change the log-in credentials of our webcams (and other IoT devices) from factory defaults to user-customised ones.

To tackle the security problem at source, we highly encourage manufacturers of IoT devices to adopt the practice of Privacy by Design, and that consumers only deploy those IoT devices which have incorporated such design. n

Website of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong: www.pcpd.org.hk

物聯網如何揭露你的私隱

物聯網指一般家居設備或個人裝置透過

互聯網相互連繫的網絡。物聯網裝置一

般安裝了感應器，可與其他裝置通訊和

交換資料，並可以遙距控制。常見的物

聯網裝置包括智能手錶、智能電視、人

工智能家居助理、聯網汽車和智能燈柱。

物聯網裝置是「智慧生活」和「智慧城

市」不可或缺的部分，而其核心功能包

括收集及傳送資料，並往往具有某程度

的自動監控和決策功能。

許多物聯網裝置，例如穿戴式裝置、智能

電視和家庭電器，都能收集大量關於個

人健康、行蹤、習慣和私生活的私密資

料。通過整合這些資料，便可以建立物

聯網裝置使用者的個人資料檔案。因此，

對物聯網裝置進行追蹤，亦相當於對其

使用者的行為追蹤。

2018 年 8 月，美國聯邦第七巡迴上訴法

院在 Naperville Smart Meter Awareness

v City of Naperville , No. 16-3766 (7th

Cir. 2018) 一案中，裁定智能電錶所收集

的家庭能源使用資料，受《美國憲法第四

修正案》保障（即是人民在人身、住宅、

文件和財物皆享有不受無理搜查和扣押

的權利），原因是該等能源使用資料顯露

了屋內的情況。儘管如此，個人通常沒有

留意到物聯網裝置收集其資料、其收集

目的以及該等資料最終會被轉移到哪裡。

此等對重要個人資料的處理幾乎完全缺

乏透明度，亦沒有給予裝置使用者適當

的通知。

《個人資料（私隱）條例》附表 1 的保

障資料第 1 原則規定，機構（資料使用

者）須以合法和公平的方式收集資料。

消費者（資料當事人）必須獲告知他們

的個人資料的使用目的，以及該資料會

否被轉移予第三者。機構並且不得秘密

收集資料。保障資料第 3 原則（使用資

料）規定，資料使用者將資料當事人的

個人資料用於其他目的（例如對資料當

事人進行個人資料彙編及宣傳推廣）前，

須取得其同意。

資料保安是物聯網的另一個棘手問題。物

聯網裝置相對便宜，故生產商和使用者

未必會對物聯網裝置採取足夠保安措施。

在有著許多裝置相互連繫的物聯網生態

系統中，整個系統的保安強度可能只是有

如最脆弱的接入點。黑客可以首先入侵

安全度不足的物聯網裝置，然後入侵資

訊系統。此外，黑客也可透過控制數以

千計或百萬計被入侵的物聯網裝置發動

分散式阻斷服務攻擊。根據香港電腦保

安事故協調中心的「2018 年香港資訊保

安展望」，物聯網攻擊數量正明顯增加。

各個機構有責任根據保障資料第 4 原則

（資料保安），採取所有切實可行步驟，

以確保在其控制下的個人資料，不會未

經授權或意外地被查閱、使用或喪失。

保安措施應與任何潛在資料外洩所帶來

的損害風險相稱。

我們作為物聯網裝置的使用者，亦應對裝

置的安全設定有所警惕。譬如不久之前，

許多網路攝影機因受黑客入侵，導致有關

裝置使用者的家中生活狀況在網上直播。

要避免受到窺視，我們其實只需更改網

路攝影機（及其他物聯網裝置）的登入

認證，將原廠設定改為用戶自行設定。

要對症下藥，解決保安問題，我們極力

鼓勵物聯網裝置生產商採取「貫徹私隱

的設計」，而消費者亦應只使用含有此

類設計的物聯網裝置。n

香港個人資料私隱專員網頁：

www.pcpd.org.hk

毫無疑問，物聯網為我們提供從未想像過的便利和效率。我們已很習

慣使用物聯網裝置，以致它成為了我們現今生活不可或缺的一部分。

除了物聯網所帶來的效益，讓我們也來看看物聯網的私隱風險。


• March 2019

March 2019 • PROFESSION 專業導論

1 Pathfinder Report: Growing Use of Consumer Messaging Apps Exposes Organizations to Privacy, Compliance and Security Risks, October 2017.


What’s Wrong with Lawyers Using Instant Messaging?By Carmen Wong, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

Instant messaging is increasingly penetrating the workplace, and law firms are no exception. A recent study estimates that nearly 70

percent of employees use smartphones for business, and that, of those, 73 percent use instant messaging apps installed on their phones for that purpose.

Whilst it may be unsurprising that instant messaging has become the top communication tool for employees using their smartphones for business, significantly outstripping the use of smartphones for emails (66 percent) and voice calls (58 percent)1, what is probably less well known is that, whilst one of the leading messaging app provides end-to-end encryption, ensuring that only the

sender and receiver can read the message and not third parties, with some other popular messaging apps, it is either only optional, or not available at all.

The prevalent use of instant messaging apps brings new legal, professional conduct and security challenges to lawyers and law firms that are significant and worthy of attention.

Professional ConductRule 1.07 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct (the “Guide”) requires lawyers using “information communication technology”, including instant messaging tools, to ensure that such use is in compliance with the Guide, Practice Directions and all applicable law.

Confidentiality risksMaintaining confidentiality is obviously a key requirement for all lawyers. Instant messaging can however very easily lead to the inadvertent disclosure of confidential and/or privileged information to third parties. For instance, when a messaging app is installed, it may request access to the phone’s contact list to enable it to import the entire list straight onto the servers of the messaging app.

A lawyer using the app may therefore have shared his or her clients’ personal data with third parties without even knowing it, which is obviously problematic. The risk of this happening is even greater, of course, if the phone was provided by the law firm and contains an individual lawyer’s client list.


• March 2019

Privilege risksIn this fast-moving digital age, clients increasingly expect to be able to contact their lawyers at all hours of the day, wherever they are, and via a communication channel of their choice. For example, PRC clients will often wish to communicate with their lawyers via one of the most popular PRC messaging apps. Lawyers should, however, be aware that end-to-end encryption is not available for messages on that app. To the contrary, all conversations and posts on its social media platform are expressly susceptible to use as evidence in PRC courts. It follows that if clients insist on using such app to discuss their business, including potential or existing litigation, it could mean that any privilege attached to those conversations has been waived.

To preserve confidentiality and privilege, it may be prudent to consider adopting a strict protocol, such as never communicating with clients about a case via instant messaging, so that the lawyer’s ability to communicate and strategize confidentially with clients is left intact.

record retention risksLaw firms should review internal policies to determine how best to handle the departure of lawyers, particularly in the context of mobile devices and data management. Law firms should be mindful that when lawyers leave a law firm, the conversations and work documents stored on their mobile devices are likely to move with them.

For that reason, firms need to consider having a backup system in place to archive work-related materials stored on personal devices. Otherwise, documents and conversations may be lost when lawyers leave the firm, which could be a serious issue if they leave to work for a competing law firm.

Discovery risks for ClientsLawyers should also be reminded of their obligation to advise clients on what is expected of them with respect to discovery in litigation. While some of

the more popular messaging apps do not store user messages on their servers, and can at most handover metadata to a Court or to the police, clients can opt to back up their messages on the cloud. It can however be difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain where the cloud servers are located, as well as the level of data protection provided to these back up messages. The practical reality is that, even though the messages may not be stored on the servers of a messaging app, the messages backed up by clients could still be subject to discovery in Hong Kong litigation, similar to other electronic records such as emails.

Mitigating the risksTo mitigate the risks associated with the use of instant messaging apps, lawyers and law firms need to be proactive. The first step is to assess a firm’s exposure to the risks involved, taking into account its existing security policies and what devices are used by people in the firm (for example computers, tablets, mobile phones, and flash drives). The process involves determining what safeguards are in place, which areas need enhanced security measures, and whether a messaging app is the right communication tool for the practice in question.

Supervision is likely to be a significant challenge for many law firms. It can prove difficult, especially for smaller firms, to supervise and/or monitor all lawyers’ business communications via a third party messaging app.

Instant messaging management technology, such as Mobile Device Management (MDM) and/or Mobile Application Management (MAM), enables management to monitor the use of instant messaging, block content in compliance with policy, retain and store messages, and detect viruses, among other features.

This technology gives law firms control, while allowing legal and non-legal staff

to communicate with external parties via instant messaging apps. Law firms should consider whether it is cost-effective to adopt such technology if they have not already done so.

Secondly, law firms should also review internal IT policies. If the risks associated with using instant messaging are not adequately addressed, update your policies. Some suggested updates include:

• limiting (or even prohibiting) the type of documents that staff are allowed to send on the instant messaging app;

• defining appropriate use of instant messaging both in the workplace and in client communications;

• installing location tracking devices on all technology devices;

• setting up devices so they can be wiped clean remotely in case they are lost or stolen; and

• identifying the scope and type of monitoring on instant messaging apps to be conducted by your firm.

Depending on the size of the law firm, it may also be beneficial to look into the option of the firm setting up its own enterprise-grade messaging app. Some of the key benefits of this include device-to-device encryption with unique keys so that messages and data are protected during transmission, secure cloud-based storage, and giving the firm total control and management over all data and ensuring that no outside parties have access to such data.

Finally, firms should educate all their legal and non-legal staff on best practices for communicating in the digital world, ensuring that all staff will follow basic rules on usage, content and record retention. Staff, especially lawyers, are likely to use the messaging apps more sensibly if they understand the risks involved. n

March 2019 • PROFESSION 專業導論

1 Pathfinder Report: Growing Use of Consumer Messaging Apps Exposes Organizations to Privacy, Compliance and Security Risks, 2017年10月。


律師使用即時通訊會有甚麼風險？

作者：黃敏晶律師，奧睿律師事務所

在工作場所中使用即時通訊的

情況日趨普及，而律師事務

所也不例外。一項近期的研

究估計，有接近70%的僱員會透過智能

手機處理公務，而使用在手機上安裝的

即時通訊應用程式來處理公務的則佔當

中的73%。

以即時通訊應用程式作為最常用的工

作溝通工具（比使用智能手機發送電

郵的僱員（66%）和用其進行語音通

話的僱員（58%）為多[1]）或許不會

令人感到詫異，但較少人知道的是，

雖然現時某款主流通訊應用程式會提

供端對端加密功能，以確保只有發送

者和接收者才可閱讀到相關訊息，但

一些其他流行的通訊應用程式並沒有提

供此功能，或須由用戶設定後才可獲啟

用。

從法律、專業操守以及安全的層面來

說，即時通訊應用程式的普及確實為律

師和律師事務所帶來重大及不容忽視的

新挑戰。

專業操守

《香港律師專業操守指引》（下稱《指

引》）第1.07條規定，使用資訊通訊

技術（包括即時通訊工具）的律師，須

確保有關使用符合《指引》、《實務指

示》及所有適用法律的規定。

保密風險

保密無庸置疑是所有律師都必須遵守的

重要規定。然而，即時通訊卻很容易令

律師們無意地向第三方披露了機密及／

或享有法律特權的資料。例如，在為手

機安裝即時通訊應用程式的過程中，應

用程式可能會要求取得儲存於手機中的

通訊名錄，從而將整份名錄輸入其伺服

器中。

因此，使用該等應用程式的

律師可能會在不知情的情況

下向第三方分享了客戶的個

人資料，這顯然是一個嚴重

的問題。假如該部手機是由

律師事務所提供，並載有個

別律師的客戶名單，這問題

所帶來的風險將會更大。

法律特權風險

在這節奏急促的數碼年代，

客戶越來越期望能不論何時

何地，透過其選擇的通訊途

徑來聯繫律師。例如，內地

客戶通常會希望透過一款內

地最普及的通訊應用程式來與

律師溝通。然而，律師們應當

注意，該款應用程式並不能為

通訊內容提供端對端加密。更

甚者，在該社交媒體平台上進

行的所有對話和貼文，都可以

被內地法院用作呈堂證據。因此，若客

戶堅持透過該款應用程式商談事務（包

括潛在或現行訴訟事宜），就可能意味


• March 2019

著放棄了該等對話的法律特權權利。

為審慎維持保密原則和法律特權，律師

事務所可考慮訂立嚴格的議定，例如禁

止律師們與客戶透過即時通訊程式討論

案件，使律師得以保密的方式與客戶聯

繫及制訂相關策略的能力不受影響。

紀錄保存風險

律師事務所應檢討其內部政策，以決定

處理律師離職事宜的最佳方法，並尤

其顧及行動裝置及資料管理等方面的問

題。特別要注意的是，當律師離職時，

儲存在其行動裝置中的對話和工作文件

可能會被一併帶走。

因此，律師事務所須考慮建立備份系

統，將儲存於個人通訊裝置中與公務有

關的資料存檔，否則當律師離職時，這

些文件和對話便可能會遺失。假如離職

律師轉到屬業務競爭對手的律師事務所

工作，問題就會變得更為嚴重。

客戶的文件披露風險

律師亦應注意，他們有責任告知客戶，

在訴訟的文件披露過程中客戶須提供甚

麼資料。雖然一些較為流行的通訊應用

程式並沒有將用戶的訊息儲存在其伺服

器中（因此服務商極其量只能將元數據

移交給法庭或警方），但客戶仍可選擇

將訊息備份於雲端。然而，要確定該雲

端伺服器的所在位置以及已備份訊息所

獲得的資料保護程度其實是相當困難或

幾乎不可能的。實際上，即使該等訊息

並沒有被儲存在通訊應用程式的伺服器

中，客戶所備份的訊息（如電郵等其他

電子紀錄）仍有可能須在香港的訴訟中

作出披露。

減輕風險

律師和律師事務所須採取積極態度，以

減低使用即時通訊應用程式所帶來的風

險。首先，律師事務所應就相關風險進

行評估，並將現行的保安政策以及員工

所使用的通訊設備（例如桌上電腦、平

板電腦、手機、閃存記憶盤等）納入評

估範圍。此程序涉及檢視該所已制訂的

保安措施、須加強的保安範疇，以及檢

討通訊應用程式是否適合作為相關業務

的通訊工具。

對許多（特別是規模較小的）律師事務

所來說，要對所有使用第三方通訊應用

程式的律師進行業務通訊的監督及／或

監控，可能是個重大的挑戰。

即時通訊管理技術（例如「行動裝置

管理」(Mobile Device Management)

及／或「行動應用程式管理」(Mobi le

Application Management)）可讓管理層

對即時通訊的使用實施監控、攔截不符

合政策規定的內容、保留與儲存訊息，

以及偵測病毒等功能。

這項技術可讓律師事務所在容許法律執

業和非法律執業員工以即時通訊應用

程式與外界溝通的同時，監管其使用情

況。律師事務所若仍未採用該項技術，

應考慮採納該技術是否符合成本效益。

其次，律師事務所應檢討其內部資訊科

技政策。假如現行政策上並未清楚列明

使用即時通訊所涉及的風險，該所便應

更新其相關政策。一些建議措施包括：

• 限制（或甚至禁止）員工透過即時

通訊應用程式發送的文件類別；

• 界定在工作場所中及客戶溝通過程

中使用即時通訊的適當方式；

• 在所有技術設備中安裝位置追蹤裝

置；

• 在設備上進行特定設置，以便在裝

置遺失或被盜時遙控清除儲存在內

的資料；及

• 確認其律師事務所應採取的即時通

訊應用程式監控範圍和類別。

律師事務所亦可視乎自身的規模，考慮

設置符合其企業級別的通訊應用程式。

此舉的好處眾多，包括該所可設置備有

獨立鑰匙的裝置對裝置加密，使訊息和

資料在傳送過程中得到保護、設置安全

的雲端儲存，以及賦予該所對所有資料

的完全控制和管理權限，從而確保無任

何外人可取得該等資料。

最後，律師事務所應教育所有法律執業

及非法律執業人員認識在數碼世界中的

最佳通訊操作模式，以確保所有員工在

使用、內容和紀錄保存方面遵守各項基

本規則。倘若員工（尤其是律師）得悉

當中涉及的風險，便當更明智地運用通

訊應用程式。n

March 2019 • ArbitrAtion 仲裁


introDUCtionOn 1 November 2018, the 2018 Administered Arbitration Rules (“2018 Rules”) of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) came into effect. This is the third version of the rules, and comes some five years after the 2013 Rules were introduced.

The 2013 Rules were a comprehensive overhaul of the 2008 Rules and introduced several new and innovative provisions, including those relating to joinder, consolidation and tribunal fees. The 2018 Rules incorporate subtler but nonetheless important changes which refine and improve on the 2013 Rules, as well as new provisions to address recent developments in the practice of arbitration, such as third party funding and the use of technology.

This article summarises key changes in the 2018 Rules.

EMErGEnCY ArbitrAtionProvisions relating to emergency arbitration were first introduced in the 2013 rules, and they have proven to provide, in appropriate cases, an important arsenal in protecting the rights of parties. The 2018 Rules have been updated to provide speedier recourse for parties seeking emergency relief.

Shorter timelines

The 2018 Rules allow a party to appoint an emergency arbitrator before the filing of a Notice of Arbitration (Paragraph 1(a), Schedule 4, 2018

HKIAC Rules. This provision does not apply to arbitrations commenced under arbitration agreements concluded before 1 November 2018 unless the parties have agreed otherwise: see Article 1.5.) This is a significant improvement from the 2013 Rules, under which a party could only apply for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator at the same time as the filing of its Notice of Arbitration, or later (Paragraph 1, Schedule 4, 2013 Rules).

The ability to seek emergency relief before filing the Notice of Arbitration means that a party who seeks such relief will not be held up by the need to finalise their Notice. This can be useful where, for example, a claimant requires more time to confirm which arbitrator it wishes to designate in its Notice. Under such circumstances, the claimant can submit its application for emergency arbitration first, while it concurrently finalises the identity of its proposed arbitrator.

The 2018 Rules also provide that if HKIAC decides to accept an emergency arbitrator application, HKIAC shall seek to appoint the arbitrator within 24 hours (Paragraph 4, Schedule 4, 2018 Rules) – which is shorter than the two days provided for under the 2013 Rules.

The combination of the right to seek the appointment of an emergency arbitrator before the submission of a Notice of Arbitration and the 24-hour turnaround time for appointing an emergency arbitrator enhances the attractiveness of the 2018 Rules to parties requiring urgent relief. (The 2017 ICC Rules

By John CHOONG, CHAN Yong Wei

also permit a party to apply for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator before the submission of a request for arbitration. However, those rules provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator “within as short a time as possible, normally within two days” from receipt of the application. On the other hand, the 2016 SIAC Rules provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator within one day of receipt of the application and administration fee and deposits. However, those rules do not permit a party to apply for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator before the submission of a Notice of Arbitration.)

To ensure there is no undue delay in commencing the arbitration following an emergency arbitrator application, the 2018 Rules also provide that the emergency arbitrator procedure will be terminated if the applicant fails to submit a Notice of Arbitration to HKIAC within seven days of HKIAC’s receipt of the emergency arbitrator application, unless this time limit is extended (Paragraph 21, Schedule 4).5

Capped emergency arbitrator fees

The 2018 Rules also provide that unless the parties agree or HKIAC determines otherwise in exceptional circumstances, the emergency arbitrator’s fees shall not exceed the amount set by HKIAC. (At the time of publication, the HKIAC website stated that the total fees of an emergency arbitrator were not to exceed HKD 200,000.) This introduction of a cap on the emergency arbitrator’s fees

Essential Things to Know about the 2018 HKIAC Arbitration Rules


• March 2019

“I will not switch lawyers just because you are not familiar with the HKIAC 2018 Arbitration Rules.”

multiple contracts heard in a single arbitration may also raise questions of whether all parties concerned have consented to arbitration involving all other parties.

The 2018 Rules provide a comprehensive menu of options and tools for managing such disputes, further improving upon the relevant provisions which were first introduced in the 2013 Rules.

Under a new provision in the 2018 Rules, where the same arbitral tribunal is constituted in more than one arbitration, and a common question of law or fact arises in all of the arbitrations, the arbitral tribunal may, after consulting with the parties, conduct the arbitrations at the same time, or one immediately after another, or suspend any of those arbitrations (Article 30.1).

The 2018 Rules do not require the arbitrations to involve identical parties, or require the parties to specifically consent to the exercise of these powers. Instead, the Rules only require the arbitral tribunal to consult with the parties beforehand. Further, the tribunal may exercise these powers on its own motion, absent a request from the parties.

It is worth noting that the prerequisites for the exercise of these powers are

broader than the prerequisites for the consolidation of arbitrations under the 2018 Rules. (Under the Rules, HKIAC may consolidate an arbitration at the request of a party, and after consulting with the parties and any confirmed or appointed arbitrators, where (a) the parties agree to consolidate; (b) all of the claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement; or (c) the claims in the arbitrations are made under more than one arbitration agreement, a common question of law or fact arises in all of the arbitrations, the rights to relief claimed are in respect of, or arise out of, the same transaction or a series of related transactions and the arbitration agreements are compatible.) So, where there are a set of arbitrations which do not satisfy the conditions for a consolidation, it may nonetheless be possible to hold the proceedings concurrently or one immediately after the other, or to suspend one arbitration pending the determination of the other.

The 2018 Rules also provide that claims arising out of or in connection with more than one contract may be made in a single arbitration (Article 29) – there is no longer the requirement that all parties to the arbitration are bound by each arbitration agreement giving rise

will help parties to better anticipate the costs that they can expect to incur in an emergency arbitration.

Clearer test for emergency relief

The 2018 Rules also clarify that the provisions which apply to the imposition of interim measures by the arbitral tribunal, including those relating to the factors which the tribunal may take into account in deciding whether to impose interim measures, also apply to any emergency relief granted by the emergency arbitrator (Paragraph 11, Schedule 4). This helps provide greater certainty on this important question.

ProCEEDinGS inVoLVinG MULtiPLE ContrACtS AnD ArbitrAtionSDisputes involving multiple contracts and/or multiple arbitrations can raise complex issues. Where there are multiple arbitrations, there can be the risk of inconsistent findings. A party’s case in one arbitration may largely turn on the outcome of another related arbitration, raising the issue of how both arbitrations should be managed and whether both should be heard together, or one immediately after the other. Any attempt to have a dispute involving



to the arbitration (as was required under the 2013 Rules). This is sensible and consistent with the fact that the 2018 Rules (and the 2013 Rules) do

not preclude the consolidation of two arbitrations even if the parties to one arbitration are not bound by the arbitration agreement underlying the other arbitration.

EArLY DEtErMinAtion ProCEDUrEThe 2018 Rules introduce a potentially significant new procedure for parties to seek an order or award from the arbitral tribunal on specific points of law or fact before the final award is rendered (Article 43). (This provision does not apply to arbitrations commenced under arbitration agreements concluded before 1 November 2018 unless the parties have agreed otherwise: see Article 1.5.)

Parties can now ask the arbitral tribunal to apply an early determination procedure to decide one or more points of law or fact, on the basis that (Article 43.1):

(a) such points of law or fact are manifestly without merit;

(b) such points of law or fact are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction; or

(c) even if such points of law or fact are submitted by another party and are assumed to be correct, no award could be rendered in favour of that party.

A request for the arbitral tribunal to apply the early determination procedure must include, among other things, a statement of the facts and legal determination supporting the request, a proposal of the form of early determination procedure to be adopted by the arbitral tribunal and comments on how the proposed form would achieve the objectives under Articles 13.1 and 13.5 of the Rules, including avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, ensuring equal treatment of the parties and affording the parties a reasonable

opportunity to present their case, and ensuring the fair and efficient conduct of the arbitration (Article 43.4).

Parties can generally expect any request for early determination to be disposed of by the arbitral tribunal within 90 days from the date of the request, or earlier, if the tribunal decides not to grant the request for early determination. (The 2016 SIAC Rules adopt a similar approach. Where a SIAC tribunal has decided to allow an application for early dismissal of a claim or defence to proceed, the tribunal is required to make an order or award within 60 days of the date of filing of the application. On the other hand, the summary procedure provisions in the 2017 SCC Rules do not stipulate fixed timelines, only requiring the arbitral tribunal to make its order or award on the issues under consideration in an efficient and expeditious manner. Similarly, the 2017 Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide an application for the expeditious determination of any claims or defences as promptly as possible.)

The early determination procedure is an important addition to the 2018 Rules which brings the Rules in line with other leading arbitral institutions that offer similar procedures in their rules. The availability of such a procedure will provide parties and tribunals with another tool to promote the efficient and effective conduct of arbitrations.

DiSCLoSUrE oF tHirD PArtY FUnDinGThe amendments to Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) permitting third party funding in arbitration came into force on 1 February 2019. These amendments pave the way for third party funding to become

an increasingly important part of the arbitration landscape in Hong Kong.

It is therefore timely that the 2018 Rules require parties to disclose the existence of any funding agreement and the identity of any third party funder. Parties are also required to disclose any changes that occur after the initial disclosure (Article 44.3). Unlike the legislative amendments, under the 2018 Rules, these requirements will also apply to foreign-seated arbitrations.

Other changes in the 2018 Rules relating to third-party funding include (a) a carve-out in the confidentiality provisions expressly permitting parties to disclose information to a person for the purpose of having or seeking third party funding (Article 45.3(e)); and (b) a provision expressly permitting arbitrators to consider third party funding arrangements when determining costs (Article 34.4).

otHEr iMProVEMEntS to inCrEASE EFFiCiEnCYThe 2018 Rules incorporate several other changes intended to promote the efficient conduct of arbitrations.

These include provisions requiring arbitral tribunals to issue their awards within three months from the close of the entire proceedings or the relevant phase of the proceedings (Article 31.2). Once proceedings are declared closed, tribunals are also required to inform HKIAC and the parties of the anticipated date of issuance of the award (Article 31.2). These user-friendly measures provide much-needed certainty to parties on when they can expect to receive the award, and impose greater accountability on arbitral tribunals.

The 2018 Rules also expressly provide for the use of secured online repositories for written communications among the parties, the arbitral tribunal and/or HKIAC (Article 3.1). This recognizes the increasingly electronic nature of document exchanges in international arbitrations.


• March 2019

作者：John CHOONG, CHAN Yong Wei

前言

香港國際仲裁中心制訂的《2018年機構仲裁規則》（下稱

《2018年規則》）於2018年11月1日起生效，乃該規則的第三

個版本，與2013年版的實施時間相距5年。

《2013年規則》對《2008年規則》作用出了全盤審視，並

加入數項創新規定，包括追加當事人、仲裁合併、仲裁庭收

費等規定。《2018年規則》包含一些細微但重要的修改，

旨在令《2013年規則》更臻完善，及就仲裁實務的近期發

展訂立一些新規定（例如：第三方資助及科技的使用）。

本文概述該等透過《2018年規則》而作出的一些重要修

改。

緊急仲裁

《2013年規則》首度引入緊急仲裁規定，並證明其於適當

情況中，可有效保障當事人的權利。《2018年規則》已進

行更新，為需要尋求緊急救濟的當事人提供更迅速支援。

較短的時限

《2018年規則》容許當事人可在提交「仲裁通知」前指定

2018年香港國際仲裁中心仲裁規則的須予關注事項

PrACtiCE notE on APPointMEnt oF ArbitrAtorSThe HKIAC’s Practice Note on Appointment of Arbitrators also came into force on the same date as the 2018 Rules, on 1 November 2018. The Practice Note sets out HKIAC’s general practice on the appointment of arbitrators, including the factors that HKIAC will consider when appointing an arbitrator.

The Practice Note clarifies that where the parties are of different nationalities, HKIAC generally will not appoint a sole or presiding arbitrator of the same nationality as any of the parties unless

the parties expressly agree otherwise.

However, the Practice Note also states that, considering Hong Kong’s status as a Special Administrative Region with a legal system separate from that of mainland China, in cases in which at least one party is from mainland China, the holder of a Hong Kong passport may be appointed as sole or presiding arbitrator, provided that none of the parties object within a time limit set by HKIAC.

ConCLUSionThe 2018 International Arbitration Survey on “The Evolution of International Arbitration” by Queen Mary

University of London named Hong Kong as one of the five most preferred seats of arbitration, and the HKIAC as one of the five most preferred arbitral institutions. 80percent of the survey’s respondents also considered arbitral institutions to be best placed to influence the future evolution of international arbitration.

The 2018 Rules reinforce HKIAC’s contributions to the future evolution of international arbitration, and demonstrate HKIAC’s continuing drive to innovate and improve to address its users’ need for efficient and cost-effective arbitration of increasingly complex disputes. n



緊急仲裁員（《2018年香港國際仲裁中

心規則》附表4第1(a)段。但除非獲得各

當事人的同意，否則該條文不適用於根

據2018年11月1日前訂立的仲裁協議而

展開的仲裁）。若與《2013年規則》相

比，這確是一項重大改進。《2013年規

則》規定，當事人只可在提交「仲裁通

知」的同一或較後時間，申請指定緊急仲

裁員（《2013年規則》附表4第1段）。

容許當事人在提交「仲裁通知」前尋求緊

急救濟，意謂尋求有關救濟的當事人，不

必因為須最終確定其「通知」而致被耽

擱。因此，申請人若須更多時間來確認其

意欲在「通知」中指定哪一位仲裁員，

這項措施對他們便十分有用。在該等情況

下，申請人可同時地，一方面首先提交其

緊急仲裁申請，一方面最終確定其提議的

仲裁員的身份。

《2018年規則》亦規定，香港國際仲裁

中心倘決定接納某項緊急仲裁申請，便

必須尋求在24小時內指定該名仲裁員（

《2018年規則》附表4第4段），故在時

間上它比《2013年規則》所規定的兩天

時間為短。

尋求在提交「仲裁通知」前指定緊急仲裁

員，以及在24小時內指定緊急仲裁員等

權利，使《2018年規則》對尋求緊急救

濟的當事人極具吸引力（《2017年國際

商會仲裁規則》也容許當事人在提交仲裁

要求前，申請指定緊急仲裁員。然而，該

等規則訂明，指定緊急仲裁員須在盡量短

的時間內提出，而在正常情況下，須在接

到申請後兩天之內。另一方面，《2016

年新加坡仲裁中心規則》訂明，指定緊急

仲裁員須在收到申請、行政費用及訂金之

後一天內提出。然而，該等規則並不容許

當事人在提交「仲裁通知」前申請指定緊

急仲裁員）。

為了確保在提交緊急仲裁員申請後，仲

裁的展開沒有被不當延遲，《2018年規

則》亦規定，除非獲得延長期限，否則申

請人若沒有在香港國際仲裁中心收到緊急

仲裁員申請後7天內提交「仲裁通知」，

緊急仲裁員程序便會被終止（附表4第21

段）。

緊急仲裁員費用上限

《2018年規則》亦規定，除非雙方在當

時同意，或香港國際仲裁中心在例外情況

下如此決定，否則緊急仲裁員的費用，不

得超過香港國際仲裁中心所定的金額（在

刊載之時，該中心的網站述明，緊急仲裁

員的費用總額不得超過20萬港元）。訂

定緊急仲裁員費用上限，有助當事人更有

效估計其所預期的緊急仲裁費用。

緊急救濟的更清晰驗證

《2018年規則》亦明確指出，該等適用

於仲裁庭的臨時措施的規定（包括與仲裁

庭決定是否實施臨時措施時所考慮的因素

有關的規定），也適用於緊急仲裁員作出

的緊急救濟（附表4第11段），而此舉可

為該等重要問題提供更大確定性。

涉及多份合同及多個仲裁的法律程序

涉及多份合同及／或多個仲裁的爭議可能

會產生複雜問題。如果同時進行多個仲

裁，便可能存在裁決相互抵觸的風險。某

一當事人在一個仲裁的理據，大部分取決

於另一相關仲裁的結果，並產生該兩個

仲裁應如何管理，以及是否應同時進行該

等仲裁，或一個緊接著另一個地進行等問

題。試圖將涉及多份合同的爭議在單個仲

裁中處理，亦可能產生所有相關當事人是

否皆同意進行涉及所有其他當事人的仲裁

等問題。

《2018年規則》為管理該等爭議，提供

了在選擇和工具方面的廣泛選單，而得以

進一步改善《2013年規則》所首度引入

的相關規定。

根據《2018年規則》的新規定，倘有超

過一項仲裁是由同一個仲裁庭審理，而

所有該等仲裁皆產生共同的法律或事實

問題，則該仲裁庭在與各當事人進行商議

後，可同時進行該等仲裁，或一個緊接著

另一個地進行仲裁，或暫停進行任何該等

仲裁（第30.1條）。

《2018年規則》並無要求該等仲裁須涉

及相同的當事人，或須該等當事人具體同

意有關權力的行使。相反，該規則只要求

仲裁庭事先與各當事人商議。此外，仲裁

庭也可自行行使該等權力，而無需經當事

人提出有關要求。

值得注意的是，行使該等權力的先決條

件，比《2018年規則》所載的仲裁合併

的先決條件更寬泛（根據該等規則，香

港國際仲裁中心可在其中一方當事人提出

要求後將仲裁合併，而在與各當事人，

及任何被確認或指定的仲裁員商議後，如

果：(a)各當事人同意合併；(b)仲裁中提

出的所有要求，是根據同一份仲裁協議提

出；或(c)仲裁所提出的要求，是根據多

於一份仲裁協議提出、所有該等仲裁產生

共同的法律或事實問題、而要求獲得救濟

的權利，是關於或源於同一交易或一系列

相關交易、以及該等仲裁協議可以並存）

。因此，假如有一組仲裁不符合合併條

件，它也許可以同時進行該等法律程序，

或一個緊接著另一個地進行，或暫停進行

任何仲裁，直至其他仲裁作出裁決為止。

《2018年規則》亦規定，源於或涉及多

於一份合同的請求，可在單個仲裁中提


• March 2019

出（第29條），因而不再要求所有仲裁當

事人須受產生該仲裁的每一份仲裁協議的

約束（根據《2013年規則》的規定）。這

做法可說合理，也與《2018年規則》（及

《2013年規則》）並無不容許合併兩個仲

裁的情況一致（即使一個仲裁的當事人，

並不受另一個仲裁的仲裁協議所約束）。

初期決定程序

《2018年規則》為當事人尋求仲裁庭在

作出最終裁決前，先行就具體的法律或

事實問題作出命令或裁決，訂立一項也

許相當重要的新程序（第43條）（但除

非獲得各當事人同意，否則該條文不適

用於根據2018年11月1日前訂立的仲裁

協議展開的仲裁：參看第1.5條）。

在下列情況下，當事人現時可要求仲裁

庭運用初期決定程序，裁定一個或多個

的法律或事實問題：（第43.1條）

該法律或事實問題明顯缺乏依據；

(b) 該法律或事實問題明顯不在仲裁庭的

管轄權範圍內；或

(c) 即便該法律或事實問題是由另一方當事

人提出，且假定是正確的，仲裁庭也無

法作出有利於主張該問題一方的裁決。

要求仲裁庭運用初期決定程序的申請，

須包括支持該請求的事實陳述和法律論

證，提議仲裁庭採取的初期決定程序的

形式，以及就該提議的形式如何能實現

第13.1和13.5款所述的目的而發表意

見，包括避免不必要的延誤和費用、保

證各方得到平等對待及讓各當事人有合

理陳述其理據的機會、確保仲裁能公平

而有效率地進行（第43.4條）。

一般而言，當事人可預期仲裁庭在接獲

有關要求後90天內，或是更早的時間（

倘仲裁庭決定不批准該初期決定要求）

處理任何初期決定要求（《2016年新加

坡國際仲裁中心規則》實行類似做法。

如果新加坡國際仲裁中心的仲裁庭已決

定批准進行某項初期撤銷申索或抗辯的

申請，該仲裁庭須在提交申請的日期後

60天內作出有關命令或裁決。另一方

面，《2017年斯德哥爾摩商會規則》的

簡易程序條文並沒有規定固定的時限，

只要求仲裁庭須以高效、迅速方式，

就所審議的問題作出命令或裁決。同樣

地，《國際商會仲裁規則》下的《2017

年就仲裁的進行給予當事人及仲裁庭的

說明》訂明，仲裁庭須盡快對與任何申

索或抗辯有關的申請作出迅速決定）。

初期決定程序是對《2018年規則》的一

項重要增補，使該項規則與在其規則中

提供類似程序的其他主要仲裁機構的做

法一致。該項程序的制訂，可為當事人

及仲裁庭提供另一工具，促進仲裁的有

效進行。

第三方資助的披露

香港《仲裁條例》（第609章）規定，

仲裁的第三方資助於2019年2月1日起生

效。該等修訂，可為第三方資助成為香

港仲裁領域的更重要部分鋪平道路。

因此，《2018年規則》要求當事人披露

任何存在的資助協議，以及任何第三方

資助人的身份，而這確是適時的做法。

此外，當事人亦須就首次披露後的任何

變更作出披露（第44.3條）。與該等立

法修訂不同，在《2018年規則》下，有

關規定亦將適用於在外地進行的訴訟。

透過《2018年規則》作出的與第三方資

助有關的其他修訂，包括(a)在保密規定

中的豁免條文，明確准許當事人為取得

或尋求第三方資助而向某人披露資料（

第45.3(e)條）；及(b)一項關於准許仲裁

員在確定仲裁費用時，可考慮第三方資

助安排的規定（第34.4條）。

其他有助增進效率的改進措施

《2018年規則》包含其他數項旨在促進

仲裁有效進行的修訂。

當中包括：規定仲裁庭須在整個仲裁程

序或其任何階段審理終結後3個月內作

出裁決（第31.2條）。在宣佈審理終

結後，仲裁庭須通知香港國際仲裁中心

和當事人預計頒發仲裁裁決的日期（第

31.2條）。該等專門為使用者制訂的措

施，就預期於何時取得裁決而言，能為

當事人提供亟需的確定性，並賦予仲裁

庭更大的問責性。

《2018年規則》亦明確就當事人、仲裁

庭及／或香港國際仲裁中心之間的書面

通訊，對使用安全的在線存儲系統作出

規定（第3.1條），而此舉亦確認了與國

際仲裁有關的文件往來正日趨電子化。

《仲裁員指定實務指引》

香港國際仲裁中心的《仲裁員指定實務

指引》於2018年11月1日起，與《2018

年規則》同時生效。《實務指引》就香

港國際仲裁中心指定仲裁員的一般做法

作出規定，包括該中心在指定仲裁員時

會考慮的因素。

《實務指引》說明，除非獲得各當事人

明確同意，否則當事人的國籍如果不

同，香港國際仲裁中心一般而言，不會

指定由與任何一方當事人的國籍相同的

人士，擔任獨任或首席仲裁員。

然而，《實務指引》亦指出，基於香港

作為中國的一個特別行政區，其法律制

度與內地有別，因此假如有其中至少一

方當事人來自內地，香港護照持有人可

被指定擔任獨任或首席仲裁員，前提是

並無任何當事人在香港國際仲裁中心設

定的時限內提出反對。

結語

由倫敦大學瑪麗皇后學院進行的關於「

國際仲裁發展」的「2018年國際仲裁調

查」指出，香港是五個最優先選擇的仲

裁地之一，而香港國際仲裁中心也是五

個最優先選擇的仲裁機構之一。在受訪人士

中，80%認為仲裁機構是影響國際仲裁未來

發展的最合適途徑。

《2018年規則》讓香港國際仲裁中心得以

對國際仲裁的未來發展作出更大貢獻，並顯

示該中心具有持續創新和改進的動力，能

在爭議變得日益複雜的情況下，滿足使用

者對更具效率和成本效益的仲裁需求。n

March 2019 • REGULATORY & COMPLIANCE 監管及合規


By Mike Suen and Ryan Chiu

Listing Rule 13.50A: A Double-Edged Sword

introduction: Current regime and ProposalIn September 2018, the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong issued a Consultation Paper for a proposed new Listing Rule 13.50A. The proposed rule seeks to immediately suspend trading of an issuer’s shares if their auditors are unable to greenlight their financial statements without qualification, with a risk of delisting if the issue is not fixed within 18 months (12 months for the GEM Board).

Under the proposed Listing Rule 13.50A, suspension of trading will be “normally required” when an issuer publishes preliminary annual results and its auditor has issued, or indicates that it

will issue, a disclaimer or adverse opinion on the relevant financial statements (the proposal however does not apply to qualified opinions). In increasing degrees of severity, qualified opinions, disclaimers and adverse opinions are issued based on the risk of material and/or pervasive misstatements in an issuer’s financial statements. If the suspension is not lifted within 18 months, the Stock Exchange has the power to delist the issuer’s securities under Listing Rules 6.01A. In other words, on the issuance of a disclaimer or adverse opinion, the delinquent issuer’s shares will immediately be suspended from trading and a countdown to delisting begins.


• March 2019

In contrast, under the current regime, where a modification on the auditor’s opinion is likely, the issuer is only required to disclose additional information in its results announcement and annual report together with details of the modification. There is no hard and fast rule requiring suspension owing to the publication of a disclaimer or adverse opinion. Nevertheless, at present, Listing Rule 6.01 empowers the Stock Exchange to suspend or cancel the listing of an issuer to protect investors and/or maintain an orderly market, and in the Consultation Paper, the Stock Exchange gives the example of a disclaimer due to possible accounting irregularities as being one such cause for suspension in the current regime. In the event of suspension, the 18 months to delisting will begin to run. However, the major differentiating factor between the current regime and the proposal is that trading suspension, which triggers the countdown to delisting, remains for now at the discretion of the Stock Exchange, and is not a default penalty.

Analysis of the benefits and Disadvantages of the ProposalThe new regime has the stated purpose of protecting investors and, on first blush, appears to accomplish this objective. By enhancing the punishment and the certainty of punishment, it incentivises issuers to improve the reliability of their financial information and cooperate with auditors by disclosing all requisite information; and, in the event of a disclaimer or adverse opinion, encourages issuers to cure the defects as soon as possible. But despite the good intentions, the new Listing Rule raises many unintended consequences that could well defeat its stated purpose and potentially harm the investors it seeks to protect.

(i) The Auditor’s Position

Firstly, it is worth noting that independent auditors occupy a position of conflicting interests. On the one hand,

they are instructed by the directors of issuers and paid by issuers for rendering an audit opinion. On the other hand, their objective is to be independent and protect shareholders. It is not farfetched to think that issuers, when faced with a disagreement with their auditors and an impending modification, would attempt to bully auditors into a favourable opinion. They could threaten to take their business elsewhere and obtain a more palatable opinion. Auditors may feel pressured to water down what otherwise would have been a disclaimer or adverse opinion to appease paying clients. This is not to say there is no such conflict under the current regime, but auditors would feel more at ease in issuing a disclaimer or adverse opinion if they were not also given the seat of executioner. The proposed Listing Rule would shift the discretionary power currently vested with the Stock Exchange onto accountants, who, owing to their concurrent roles as independent auditors and service providers, are ill placed to take on such authority.

(ii) Reduction of Transparency

This ties in with a related concern regarding disclosure and transparency. If ramping up the conflicting pressures on auditors could undermine their independence and prompt them to issue opinions that are more benign than would otherwise be issued, this may introduce a sliver of suspicion for investors who rely on audited financial information and the independence of auditors.

But there is another factor that could further affect transparency which may result from the interaction between the existing Listing Rules and the proposed Listing Rule 13.50A. Under Listing Rule 13.50, suspension of trading is required when an issuer fails to publish its preliminary annual results announcement within three months of its financial year end. If the new Listing Rule is adopted, it would introduce a form of regulatory arbitrage in which the punishment is the same regardless of

cause. An issuer faced with a disclaimer or adverse opinion may simply elect to delay the publication of its preliminary annual results beyond the deadline of three months. If only from a reputational perspective, a suspension owing to delay could be more palatable than a suspension owing to defective financial information. As a result, the proposed Listing Rule could inadvertently lead to a lack of transparency for investors, who in such a case would be unable to ascertain the true reasons behind a suspension. Indeed, it would not be surprising to think that the current rarity of adverse opinions may be due to the fact that at least some issuers currently suspended for failing to publish timely preliminary annual results have done so to avoid the taint of an adverse opinion. The new Listing Rule may further muddle the waters by enlarging the opportunities for issuers to shop around for a preferred indictment.

(iii) Defeat of Investment

The third point relates to the unintended harm that will be done to the investors whom the proposed Listing Rule purports to protect. Suspension and delisting deprives investors of a market for their shares and renders such shares worthless, even if the underlying assets and business of the issuers are healthy and profitable. Investors will be deprived of the ability to exit a poor investment in the event of suspension, and would see their investments becoming absolutely worthless if the issuer is ultimately delisted. If for instance a financially distressed issuer disputes the judgment of its auditors in respect of whether it can continue as a going concern, investors should be able to elect to dispose of their shares or hold and perhaps allow the company access capital from the markets and work its way out.

Furthermore, as the Consultation Paper states, many of the modifications issued recently resulted from failures by issuers to obtain documents following material changes to the board and



failures to maintain proper records. It would be rather unfair for an investor to lose the entire value of his investment to an uncooperative former director or poor record-keeping, which are factors unrelated to the performance or value of the underlying assets and business of the issuer.

The suspension of an issuer’s shares may also trigger a vicious cycle, if a relatively small issue, such as poor record-keeping or an uncooperative former management, snowballs into a substantial threat to the issuer’s ability to continue as a going concern. An issuer’s creditors may for instance immediately call outstanding loans and thereby activate cross-default provisions in other loans, or key suppliers and clients may terminate major supply and purchase contracts, as a consequence of the suspension. This would only severely compound the issuer’s problems and hasten its delisting. A total defeat of an investor’s investment hardly protects his interests.

Besides, there is a question of whether 18 months (or 12 months, for GEM Board issuers) is sufficient for issuers to remedy their defects. Where the problem is financial distress, corporate governance or internal control issues, it takes a substantial period of time for a company to remedy these problems and to gain approval from the Stock Exchange. There is therefore the additional question of whether a hair-trigger suspension, and concomitant countdown to delisting, could force a healthy issuer off the capital markets before it is given sufficient opportunity to rehabilitate.

(iv) Squeeze Out

Finally, the total defeat of investment upon delisting can also become an opportunity for opportunistic shareholders. Financial statements with disclaimers or adverse opinions are not true reflections of the value of the issuer. Investors need to note that financial statements are

merely records of historical financial performance of an issuer which were prepared based on recognised financial reporting standards. These financial statements are by no means the only tools for projecting future profits or estimating value of an issuer. What really matters is the future cash flow of an issuer. By reducing the share price to worthlessness irrespective of the underlying value of the issuer, suspension and delisting would also provide opportunity for controlling shareholders to buyout other shareholders at steep and possibly unfair discounts.

ComparisonIt appears that comparable stock exchanges approximate the current regime of Hong Kong, in which the relevant stock exchange retains discretionary power to suspend trading of shares in an issuer whose financial statements are not satisfactory.

As the Consultation Paper states, the US Securities and Exchange Commission require a clear expression of an opinion on financial statements. This requirement is not satisfied where an auditor has issued a disclaimer or adverse opinion. However, in the event a qualified, adverse or disclaimer opinion or unqualified opinion with a “going concern” emphasis is issued against issuers on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the NYSE would deem the relevant issuer to be below the requisite continued listing criteria. Although the NYSE has the discretion to immediately suspend and delist the issuer’s securities upon the issuance of such modifications by auditors, there is no express provision that they by default are required to do so and indeed the NYSE adopts a wait-and-see policy to allow issuers a chance to correct their problems.

In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority has the discretion pursuant to the relevant listing rules and guidance to suspend, with effect from such time as it may determine, the listing of an issuer

where the issuer is unable to assess its financial position accurately and inform the market accordingly, which may include the situation in which an auditor issues a disclaimer or adverse opinion. Delisting may thereafter be considered if suspension exceeds six months.

ConclusionWe believe the current regime should be left intact, as it keeps the power of suspension and delisting within the discretion of the Stock Exchange. Auditors are ill-placed to and should not assume the responsibilities of the Stock Exchange. Although the intention underlying the proposal is correct, the execution of Listing Rule 13.50A could ultimately harm all stakeholders.

Hong Kong is a mature market populated by diligent investors. In the event an auditor’s disclaimer or adverse opinion is published with the financial statements of an issuer, a selloff and price correction would be due and expected. If the issuer shows no intention to or fails to solve its problems within a reasonable period, the Stock Exchange may exercise its discretion under the existing Rule 6.01 and suspend the issuer’s shares. It seems the elusive “right balance”, which all regulation ultimately seeks to strike, more closely approximates the present regime than the proposed one. n


• March 2019

前言：現行制度與建議

香港聯合交易所於2018年9月發出一份諮詢文件，建議新增《

上市規則》第13.50A條，規定核數師如未能在無保留意見情況

下認可發行人的財務報表，聯交所須即時停止該發行人的股份

交易。發行人若未能在18個月（創業板為12個月）內糾正有關

問題，便須面對被除牌的風險。

根據建議的《上市規則》第13.50A條，發行人如刊發初步全

年業績，而其核數師對相關財務報表發出、或表示會發出「無

法表示意見」或「否定意見」（該建議不適用於「保留意見」

作者：孫志偉，合夥人，衛達仕律師事務所趙銘揚，見習事務律師，衛達仕律師事務所

《上市規則》第13.50A條：一把雙刃劍

），聯交所「一般會要求」該發行人的證券停牌。核數師發

出保留意見、無法表示意見或否定意見（視乎其嚴重程度而

定），是基於發行人的財務報表存在重大及／或廣泛失實陳

述。發行人如未能在18個月內復牌，聯交所有權根據《上市

規則》第6.01A條將其證券除牌。換言之，在核數師發出無法

表示意見或否定意見後，違規的發行人的股份會被即時停止

交易，而它們距離被除牌的日子亦開始倒數。

相反，在現行制度下，核數師如果對財務報表的報告有可能

發出「非無保留意見」，發行人只須在業績公告及年報內披

露該非無保留意見的詳情等額外資料。現時並沒有硬性規



定，發行人須因核數師發出無法表示意

見或否定意見而被停牌。然而，在目前

情況下，《上市規則》第6.01條授權聯交

所，可以為保障投資者及／或維持有秩序

的市場，而指令將任何證券停牌或取消發

行人的上市地位。諮詢文件舉出一個核數

師基於可能的會計失當行為而對發行人發

出無法表示意見的例子，而這是在現行制

度下一個可被聯交所處以停牌的情況。發

行人若被停牌，18個月後被除牌的倒數

亦隨即開始。然而，現行制度和建議之間

存在主要分別，現時發行人是否被停牌（

而被除牌倒數亦由此開始）並非一項既定

的處分，而是由聯交所酌情決定。

該建議的利弊分析

新制度訂明其目的是保障投資者。乍看

之下，建議似乎可以達到目的。通過

加重對發行人的懲罰及強化該懲罰的

確定性，可促使發行人改進其財務報

表的可信度，並採取和核數師合作的

態度，披露所需的一切資料。倘若核

數師發出無法表示意見或否定意見，

它將可促使發行人盡快糾正其欠妥地

方。儘管有著良好的意願，但《上市

規則》的該項新規定會產生許多非

預期的後果，以致其既定目的無法達

成，甚至可能會損害本要保障的投資

者。

核數師的定位

首先需要關注的一點，是獨立核數師處

於一個利益衝突位置。他們受發行人的

董事委託提供審計意見，並獲發行人支

付相關的費用；但另一方面，他們需要

保持獨立和保障股東利益。不難想像，

當發行人與核數師意見不合，並面對即

將發出的非無保留意見時，發行人會試

圖迫使其核數師發出有利於他們的意

見，並威脅會改聘其他會發出對它們較

有利意見的核數師。這些核數師會因此

感受壓力，而為了取悅那些支付報酬給

他們的客戶，他們最後會淡化其本擬提

出的無法表示意見或否定意見。這並不

是說，現行制度並不存在此等衝突，但

在現行制度下的核數師顯然會認為，如

果他們無授權直接參與相關停牌決定，

在發出無法表示意見或否定意見時，他

們便無須面對過大壓力。建議的《上市

規則》會將聯交所現時行使的酌情決定

權移交給會計師（皆因他們同時扮演獨

立核數師及服務提供者的角色），但此

等權力事實上並不適合由他們行使。

降低透明度

建議與資料披露和透明度等令人關注的

情況有關。核數師面對的衝突壓力若增

加，其獨立性亦將會受到影響，並導致

他們所發出的意見會比本擬發出的較溫

和，此或令依賴經審計財務資料及核數

師的獨立性的投資者失去信心。

然而，現行的《上市規則》及建議的《

上市規則》第13.50A條之間的相互作用

可能進一步影響透明度。《上市規則》

第13.50條規定，發行人如未能在相關

財政年度結束後三個月內刊發初步全年

業績公告，它便須被停牌。如實施新《

上市規則》，這將會導致監管上的套利

情況出現，因為不論基於什麼原因，發

行人所受的處分都是一樣。核數師倘若

發出無法表示意見或否定意見，發行人

只須簡單地選擇在三個月限期過後，延

遲公佈其初步全年業績，因為從聲譽的

角度來看，因延遲公佈業績而被停牌，

比因提供不完整財務資料而被停牌有

利，但其產生的結果是，建議的《上市

規則》會無意中引起欠缺透明度情況的

出現，以致投資者無法知悉停牌背後的

真正原因。事實上，核數師現時甚少發

出否定意見，其原因或在某程度上，是

基於有些發行人因未能及時公佈初步全

年業績而被停牌，但此舉可使自己免於

因核數師對其發出否定意見以致聲譽受

損。由此看來，新《上市規則》將會使

發行人自行選擇接受何種指控的機會增

加，以致情況變得更加混亂。

投資失敗

第三點要指出的，是建議的《上市規

則》會無意地對其本意要保障的投資者

造成損害。發行人如被聯交所停牌及除

牌，將會導致投資者失去出售其股份的

市場，而其股份的價值亦將會完全喪失

（儘管該發行人的相關資產和業務仍然

健全及有利可圖）。發行人一旦被停

牌，投資者將無法脫離一個不理想的投

資項目；最後，假如該發行人被除牌，

其投資更會從此化為烏有。因此，處於

財務困境的發行人倘就其可否持續經營

與其核數師的判斷相左，投資者應可選

擇出售或持有其相關股份，或容許該公

司在市場尋求資金，助其紓困。

此外，正如諮詢文件所指出的，許多近

期發出的非無保留意見，都是由於發行

人未能在董事會出現重大變動後取得文

件，以及未能保存適當紀錄所致。如果

因前任董事不合作，或紀錄沒有被妥善

保存（此等因素均與發行人的相關資產

和業務的表現或價值無關），導致投資

者喪失其所有投資價值，這對他們而言

是不公平。

發行人的股份交易若被停牌，也會導致

惡性循環的出現。一個本屬輕微的問題

（例如紀錄的不妥善保存，或前任管理

層不合作），可以發展至市場對發行人

持續經營能力的憂慮，構成重大影響。

比如說，債權人會催促發行人馬上清還

仍未償還的貸款，從而觸發其他與該貸

款有關的交叉違約條款；或由於停牌，

導致主要供應商及客戶終止主要的供應

及採購合約。這將使發行人面對更為嚴

峻的局面，並加速它被除牌。投資者倘

因此喪失其所有投資，這將與保障投資

者的利益背道而馳。

此外，18個月（創業板為12個月）的

限期是否足以讓發行人糾正其缺失是一

個值得關注的問題。問題如涉及財政困

難、企業管治、內部控制等，公司將需

要較長的時間將問題糾正及取得聯交所

認可。因此，另一個問題是：隨時會被

觸動的停牌處分，以及隨之而來的除牌

倒數，是否會促使一名健康的發行人，

在其獲得給予充分機會恢復過來之前，

便已被迫離開其資本市場？


• March 2019

被逼離場

最後，除牌導致投資者的投資盡失，這

剛好會為投機的股東提供乘虛而入的

機會。附有無法表示意見或否定意見的

財務報表，並不能真正反映發行人的價

值。投資者需要注意的是，財務報表只

是發行人以往的財務表現紀錄，是根據

認可的財務匯報準則來編製，但並非預

測發行人未來盈利或估值的唯一工具，

而真正重要的，是發行人的未來現金

流。發行人的股份價格會因停牌及除牌

而下跌至毫無價值，但該等股份的實際

價值卻往往會被忽略，而這會為控股股

東提供機會，讓其以過高及可能不公平

的折讓來收購其他股東的股份。

比較

一些相若的證券交易所採用的制度較為

近似香港的現行制度，而它們都保留酌

情決定權，一旦發行人的財務報表達至

未能令人滿意的狀況時，便會停止有關

股份的交易。

正如諮詢文件所指出的，美國證券交易

委員會規定，公司的財務報表必須附有

明確表達的意見。倘若核數師發出無法

表示意見或否定意見，這便顯示該等財

務報表未能符合有關規定。然而，假如

核數師對在紐約證券交易所（「紐交

所」）上市的發行人發出保留意見、否

定意見、無法表示意見，或強調「持續

經營」的無保留意見，紐交所便會將相

關發行人視作未能符合持續上市準則的

要求。雖然紐交所擁有酌情決定權，可

即時將發行人的證券停牌，並在核數師

發出非無保留意見後將其除牌，但並沒

有明文規定，紐交所必須如此實行，而

事實上紐交所亦會採取觀望態度，讓發

行人有機會將問題糾正。

在英國，發行人倘若未能準確評估其財

務狀況和給予市場相應的通知時（當中

包括核數師發出無法表示意見或否定意

見等情況），英國金融行為監管局可根

據相關上市規則及指引，從該局決定的

時間開始，酌情決定停止相關發行人的

上市地位。假如該發行人被停牌超過六

個月，便可考慮將其除牌。

結論

現行制度讓聯交所在停牌和除牌方面享

有酌情決定權，我們認為該項制度應該

維持。事實上，核數師既不適合、亦不

應承擔本由聯交所承擔的責任。儘管該

項建議的動機正確，但《上市規則》第

13.50 A條的執行，最終可能會給所有持

分者帶來損害。

香港是一個成熟的、擁有眾多明智投資

者的市場。發行人刊發的財務報表如附

有核數師的無法表示意見或否定意見，

我們可以預期，拋售及價格調整的情況

勢將出現。發行人在合理期間內，如果

無意或未能解決其問題，聯交所便可根

據現行《上市規則》第6.01條行使其酌

情決定權，停止發行人的股份交易。看

來，所有監管最終尋求達致，但卻是難

以拿捏的一個「適當平衡」，似乎較為

貼近現行的而非該建議實行的制度。n

Anti-MonEY LAUnDErinG

Due Diligence and record-Keeping Stocktake for 2018-19The last twelve months have seen significant developments with regard to the local legislative regime to combat money laundering. These developments took place against the background of the Financial Action Task Force's (the inter-governmental body) mutual evaluation of Hong Kong in November 2018. The FATF's report is awaited with anticipation (and is due for "Plenary Discussion" in June 2019).

Statutory Customer Due Diligence and record-Keeping requirements

In March 2018 amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615) took effect. These amendments (among other things) extended the Ordinance's statutory customer due diligence and record-keeping requirements ("AMLCTF requirements") to certain designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs). The original Ordinance came into force in 2012 and (among other things) mandated AMLCTF requirements for financial institutions. The AMLCTF requirements are set out in Schedule 2, Parts 2 and 3 of the Ordinance and now apply to lawyers and accountants.

Where a solicitor or foreign lawyer fails to comply with an AMLCTF requirement this is (among things) potentially a serious matter of professional misconduct. The same is true for a solicitor or foreign lawyer who, while being a director of a corporation that is a Trust or Company Service Provider licensee: (i) causes

or allows a breach of an AMLCTF requirement by the corporation, or (ii) fails to take reasonable steps to prevent such a breach (s. 9A(1AAB) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance).

The government took the view that the extension of the AMLCTF requirements to certain DNFBPs was necessary to enhance Hong Kong's compliance with international standards for combating money laundering.

Significant Controllers register

At the same time (March 2018), the Companies (Amendment) Ordinance 2018 came into force. In short, companies incorporated in Hong Kong (except those listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange) are required to take reasonable steps to ascertain and identify those persons who have a significant control over the company and to maintain a significant controllers register. The register should be available for inspection by law enforcement officers (as defined) and by an officer of the Companies Registry at the place where it is kept. These officers are permitted to take a copy.

Prosecutions for failure to observe these requirements have already followed.

reporting requirements

Interestingly, in 2018, the number of suspicious transaction reports (STRs) made to the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit in Hong Kong (effectively, the police) for 2018 was 73,889 (down from 92,115 for 2017). The drop in figures is, in part, explained by a better understanding of the reporting requirements and less "defensive

reporting". "Intel" suggests that by and large STRs made by lawyers are generally of a high quality but there is still thought to be some under-reporting. Prosecutions for "failing to report" (pursuant to, for example, s. 25A(7) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance), while relatively rare, are not unknown.

reminder

Solicitors and foreign lawyers in Hong Kong should make sure they comply with Practice Direction P (AMLCTF) and keep up to date with legal developments (including, by attending relevant CPD and RME courses). They should be conducting periodic audits of their compliance with the AMLCTF requirements. Prosecutions against lawyers for anti-money laundering offences in Hong Kong do happen and, in the current environment, it is probably only a matter of time until the next one.

- Jason Carmichael, Partner, RPC

打擊洗錢

2018-19年盡職審查及備存記錄評核

打擊清洗黑錢的本地立法機制在過去12

個月有著重大發展。該等發展是在「打

擊清洗黑錢財務行動特別組織」（一個

政府間機構）於2018年11月對香港所

作的相互評核的背景下達致的，而目前

有待該組織發表相關報告（並於2019年

6月進行「全體討論」）。

法定客戶盡職審查及備存記錄規定

對《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集條

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS業界透視

March 2019 • Industry InsIghts 業界透視


例》（第615章）的修訂，於2018年

3月起生效。該等修訂（除其他以外）

將《條例》的法定客戶盡職審查及備存

記錄規定（簡稱「AMLCTF規定」）伸

延至若干指定非金融企業及行業（簡稱

DNFBP）。原來的《條例》於2012年實

施，並為（除其他以外）各個金融機構

設下AMLCTF規定。該等規定載於《條

例》的附表2、第2部及第3部，現適用

於律師和會計師。

本地律師或外地律師如違反AMLCTF規

定，可構成（除其他以外）嚴重的專業

上行為失當。本地律師或外地律師如為

法團董事（而該法團為信託或公司服務

提供者持牌人），並犯有以下行為，亦

可構成上述情況：(i)導致或容許該法團

違反AMLCTF規定，或(ii)沒有採取合理

步驟來避免發生此等違規情況（《法律

執業者條例》第9A(1AAB)條）。

政府認為將AMLCTF規定伸延至某些

DNFBP是有必要的，藉以加強香港對國

際打擊洗錢準則的遵守。

重要控制人登記冊

同時（2018年3月），《2018年公司修

訂條例》亦開始生效。這意謂，在香港

成立的公司（於香港聯合交易所上市的

除外）須採取合理步驟，以確定及識別

該些對公司擁有重大控制權的人士，並

備存重要控制人登記冊。此外，公司須

讓執法人員（如所界定的）和公司註冊

處人員在備存登記冊的地方查閱有關登

記冊並取走相關複本。

現已有公司因未能遵守該等規定而被檢

控。

呈報規定

值得注意的是，於2018年向香港聯合財

富情報組（實質上是警方）呈報的2018

年可疑交易報告的數字為73,889（比

2017年的92,115為少）。數目減少的

原因，部分是基於對呈報規定的了解加

深，以及「防禦性呈報」的數目減少。

情報組認為，大體上律師作出的可疑交

易報告一般而言是高質的，但仍被認為

有低報的情況存在。因並無作出呈報而

被檢控（根據例如《有組織及嚴重罪行

條例》第25A(7)條）的情形雖並不多

見，但亦非不為人知。

提示

香港的本地律師和外地律師應確定其遵

守了《實務指引P》（AMLCTF）的規

定，並知悉最新的法律發展境況（包括

修讀相關專業持續進修課程和風險管理

教育課程）。他們應就其對AMLCTF規

定的遵守，進行定期合規審查。律師就

打擊清洗黑錢罪行而被檢控的情況，在

香港確有出現；在目前環境中，何時會

再出現類似情況，大概也只是時間上的

問題。

-夏禮豪，合夥人，RPC

DiSPUtE rESoLUtion

Leave to Pursue Derivative ActionsFrom 9 July 2018, derivative actions commenced in Bermuda may not be continued without leave of the Supreme Court. The requirement comes by way of amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1985.

One question to which the new provision gives rise is whether it applies to any proceedings in the name of a Bermudian company, wherever commenced.


• March 2019

Conflicts of law principles dictate that in cases relating to the constitution and internal management of a company, matters of procedure are governed by the law of the forum, whereas matters of substantive law are governed by the law of the place of incorporation.

The new Bermudian provision is identical to Order 15, Rule 12A in the Cayman Islands’ Grand Court Rules. That rule provides that where a defendant in a derivative action has given notice of intention to defend, the plaintiff must apply to the Grant Court for leave to continue the action. (Rule 12A(1) provides that the rule applies to “every action begun by writ by one or more shareholders of a company where the cause of action is vested in the company and relief is accordingly sought on its behalf”. In Renova Resources Private Equity Limited v Gilbertson and Others [2009] CILR 268, leave was given to pursue a double derivative action.) Rule 12A also contains a number of provisions regulating the way a claim must proceed, such as by allowing the Court hearing the application to make directions as to the joinder of parties, the

filing of further evidence, discovery and

cross-examination of deponents.

The Rule was considered in Charles Zhi v SRK Consulting Ltd [2015] HKCFI 1547, where a shareholder brought a common law derivative action in Hong Kong on behalf of a Cayman company. The plaintiff did not file evidence or appear at the hearing of the defendant’s application to strike out the statement of claim. Judge Le Pichon granted that application on the basis that leave under Rule 12A had not been obtained. She found support for her decision in three previous Hong Kong cases (Wong Ming Bun v Wang Ming Fan [2014] 1 HKLRD 1108; East Asia Satellite Television (Holdings) Ltd v New Cotai LLC [2011] HKCA 128; Waddington Ltd v Chan Chun Hoo Thomas [2009] 2 BCLC 82.). However, none of those cases were about Cayman companies. Two of them (the Wong Ming Bun and East Asia Satellite cases as mentioned above) involved BVI companies and a consideration of Section 184C of the BVI Business Companies Act 2004 which, as we shall see below, the courts have

tended to view differently. The third, Waddington Ltd v Chan Chun Hoo Thomas [2009] 2 BCLC 82, does not appear to support a finding that leave of the Cayman Court was required (in fact, Lord Millett stated in that case that “[t]he question whether the leave of the court is required is a procedural question governed by the lex fori”).

Later decisions have taken a different view of the effect of Rule 12A. In Top Jet Enterprises Limited v Sino Jet Holding Limited [FSD 106 of 2017 (NSJ)], a shareholder of a Cayman company issued derivative proceedings in Missouri and sought the Cayman Court’s permission to continue them. Justice Segal declared that as Rule 12A was inherently procedural it did not apply to proceedings commenced overseas. The same finding was made by the New York Court of Appeals in Davis v Scottish Re Group Limited, No. 111 (N.Y. Nov. 20, 2017).

The position in respect of BVI companies appears to be different. The requirement for leave to bring proceedings in the name of a BVI



company found in Section 184C of the BVI Business Companies Act 2004 was held to be a substantive one in Wong Ming Bun v Wang Ming Fan [2014] 1 HKLRD 1108 and Novatrust Limited v Kea Investments Limited [2014] EWHC 4061 (Ch).

Whether the company concerned is domiciled in Bermuda, Cayman, BVI or elsewhere, resolving the question of whether leave is required, and from whom, is not the end of the matter. Standing to bring a derivative claim is decided according to the law of the place of incorporation incorporation (Konamaneni v. Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited and others [2002] 1 WLR 1269). The same law will also determine the merits of the claim itself if it relates to the constitution or internal management of a company. All parties to derivative claims brought outside the place of incorporation must therefore consider the extent to which expert evidence of foreign law will be required.

-Stuart Jessup, Senior Associate, Appleby

解決糾紛

提起衍生訴訟的法院許可

在百慕大展開衍生訴訟，從2018年7月

9日開始，須獲當地最高法院的許可，

否則不得繼續進行。該項規定是藉著對

《1985年最高法院規則》的修訂而實

施。

該項新規定導致產生的疑問是：它是否

適用於以百慕大公司名義展開的任何法

律程序，而不論其在何地展開？

相關法律衝突原則規定，倘與公司組織

章程和內部管理有關，程序事宜須受訴

訟地法律所管轄，而實體法律事宜，則

須受公司註冊地法律所管轄。

百慕大訂立的該項新規定，與開曼群島

的《大法院規則》第15號命令第12A條

相同。該條規定，衍生訴訟的被告人若

發出了擬抗辯通知書，原告人便必須向

大法院申請繼續進行該訴訟的許可(第

12A(1)條訂明，該項規則適用於「一家

公司的一名或以上股東藉令狀而展開的

任何訴訟（其訴訟因由歸屬該公司，因

此是代表該公司尋求有關濟助）」。在

Renova Resources Private Equity Limited

v Gilbertson and Others [2009] CILR

268一案中，申請人獲批予提起雙重衍

生訴訟的許可。)此外，第12A條也包含

若干規管如何進行一項申索的規定，例

如，容許聆訊相關申請的法院就：訴訟

方的合併、進一步證據的存檔、文件透

露、盤問宣誓人等事項作出指示。

該項規則在Charles Zhi v SRK Consulting

Ltd [2015] HKCFI 1547一案中被審

視。案中的股東代表一間開曼群島公司

在香港提起普通法衍生訴訟，但原告人

並沒有存檔任何證據，亦沒有在被告人

申請將申索陳述書剔除的聆訊中出庭。

郭美超法官以未取得第12A條下的許可

為由批准該申請。她是根據三個香港先

前案例作為其裁決依據(Wong Ming Bun

v Wang Ming Fan [2014] 1 HKLRD

1108; East Asia Satellite Television

(Holdings) Ltd v New Cotai LLC [2011]

HKCA 128; Waddington Ltd v Chan

Chun Hoo Thomas [2009] 2 BCLC 82)

。然而，這些案例沒有一個與開曼群島

的公司有關。當中兩個案例(Wong Ming

Bun 及 East Asia Satellite，見上述。)

涉及英屬維爾京群島的公司，並審視了

英屬維爾京群島《2004年商業公司法》

第184C條，而正如下文所述，不同法院

對該條文有著不同看法；而第三個案例

（Waddington Ltd v Chan Chun Hoo

Thomas [2009] 2 BCLC 82）亦看來不

能為須獲得開曼群島法院許可的裁斷提

供支持(事實上，Lord Millett在該案稱：

「是否須獲法院的許可，是一個程序性

問題，受審判地的法律管轄。」)

於較後期作出的裁決，對第12A條的效

力持不同看法。在Top Jet Enterprises

Limited v Sino Jet Holding Limited [FSD

106 of 2017 (NSJ)]一案中，一間開曼

群島公司的一名股東在密蘇里提起衍生

法律程序，並要求開曼群島法院批准繼

續進行該等程序。Justice Segal宣稱，

第12A條是屬於程序性質，不適用於在

海外展開的法律程序；紐約上訴法院在

Davis v Scottish Re Group Limited, No.

111 (N.Y. Nov. 20, 2017)一案中亦作出

同樣裁定。

不同法院對英屬維爾京群島公司的取態

似乎各有不同。英屬維爾京群島《2004

年商業公司法》第184C條所規定的，以

英屬維爾京群島公司的名義提起法律程

序，須獲法

院許可的規定，在Wong Ming Bun v

Wang Ming Fan [2014] 1 HKLRD 1108

及 Novatrust Limited v Kea Investments

Limited [2014] EWHC 4061 (Ch)等案

中，被裁定是屬於實體法性質。

不論該公司是否以百慕大、開曼群島、

英屬維爾京群島或其它地方作為居籍，

要確定其是否須獲許可及須從哪兒獲得

等問題，並非事情的終局。提起衍生

申索，須根據公司註冊地的法律來決定

(Konamaneni v. Rolls Royce Industrial

Power (India) Limited and others [2002]

1 WLR 1269)。該申索若與公司組織

章程或內部管理有關，則有關該申索本

身的是非曲直，也須根據相同法律來決

定。因此，與在公司註冊地以外提出的

衍生申索有關的所有當事方，皆須考慮

在外國法律專家證據方面的所需程度。

-Stuart Jessup，高級律師，

毅柏律師事務所

inVEStMEnt LAW

CFiUS: Are Chinese investments Still Welcome?The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has for many years examined some acquisitions of U.S. industries for their impact on national


• March 2019

security. Following a recommendation from CFIUS, the President has the authority to block proposed transactions and to order the divestiture of completed acquisitions.

new Legislation and Scope of review

Recently the framework for CFIUS review has changed dramatically with the passage of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (“FIRRMA”) and new rules (the “Interim Rules”) issued by the U.S. Treasury Department. In the past, filings with CFIUS in connection with a transaction were always voluntary, although a filing that was unexamined after a certain time period was supposed to be safe from a divestiture order. This safe harbor would not be available if a filing was not made.

Filings are now required by a pilot program for transactions that fall within certain industry sectors and those that involve “critical technologies.” These industries include, among others, aircraft manufacturing, computer storage device manufacturing, optical instrument and lens manufacturing, nanotechnology research and development, and primary battery manufacturing.

While the CFIUS review is supposed to be limited to areas closely related to national security, the view of which areas are crucial for national security seems to have widened with the recent

legislation. “Critical technologies” in the Interim Rules are now defined to include “emerging and foundational technologies” under the Export Control Act of 2018. “Emerging and foundational technologies”, however, remain undefined as of now, and may be subject to a new pilot program.

Evasive transactions and non-Controlling investments

The Interim Rules also expand the scope of CFIUS review to include “non-controlling investments” and “evasive transactions” (any transaction whose structure is “designed or intended to evade or circumvent CFIUS review”). Transactions involving minority stakes in the areas of critical technology, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal information could be subject to review if the transaction allows the foreign investor “access to any material non-public technical information in the possession of a US business.” These non-controlling structures could include “any involvement, other than voting of shares, in substantive decision-making” of a business involved in critical technology, critical infrastructure, or sensitive non-public information. The involvement could also include “membership or observer rights on a board” or access to “material non-public technical information.”

investment Funds

Some investors have considered entering

through investment funds a way to avoid the CFIUS review process. The Interim Rules now address fund investments: an indirect investment by a foreign person in an investment fund will not be covered by the pilot program as long as the foreign person is not the general partner or managing member of the fund. The foreign investor must have no ability to control the investment fund. This means no authority over investment decisions of the fund; no ability to control decisions made by the general partner or managing member of entities in which the fund invests; and no ability to unilaterally dismiss, select, or determine the compensation of the general partner or managing member.

real Estate

Real estate investment is also now a focus of CFIUS review. FIRRMA expands “covered” transactions to include any purchase or lease of real estate that is part of a port or airport, is near a military installation or other sensitive government facility, or that could provide intelligence or expose national security on nearby facilities. “Covered transactions” will not include, according to FIRRMA, single family housing or real estate in urbanised areas--although these still might be subject to review if they involve national security.

Despite the increased attention paid to Chinese investment, the CFIUS clearance rate for acquisitions involving Chinese buyers



appears to have held steady in 2018, even as new investments into the US from China fell by 95 percent. Early 2019 has seen increased political friction in the US, with a resulting government shutdown affecting approvals. Any agreement between China and the US, should one materialise, could lead to a surge in new filings.

- Jeffrey Sims, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Raymond Wong, Managing Partner of Wong, Wan & Partners (in association with Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

投資法

CFIUS：是否仍歡迎來自中國的投資？

美國外國投資委員會（CFIUS）多年來一

直就外國投資者收購某些美國產業對美

國國家安全造成的影響實施審查。總統

有權根據CFIUS的建議阻止擬議交易，或

下令剝離已完成的收購。

新法例及審查範圍

隨著2018年《外國投資風險審查現代化

法案》（《FIRRMA法案》）和美國財政

部頒布的新規則（《暫行規則》）獲得

通過，CFIUS的審查框架在近期發生了重

大變化。此前，是否就一項交易向CFIUS

提交備案屬於自願性質。如果一項備案

在提交后的一段時間內未被審查，該交

易據期應當不會被頒發剝離令，即進入

了安全港。但如果沒有提交備案，相關

交易則無法獲得安全港保障。

目前在一項試點計劃下，一旦有關交易

屬一些特定的產業領域或涉及「關鍵技

術」，則須提交備案。前述產業包括飛

機製造、電腦存儲設備製造、光學儀器

和鏡頭製造、納米技術研發、以及原電

池製造等。

雖然CFIUS審查本應僅限於與國家安全密

切相關的領域，然而有關哪些領域對于

國家安全而言屬至關重要的看法似乎隨

著近期通過的法例而得到了擴大。《暫

行規則》中提到的「關鍵技術」現被界

定為包括2018年《出口管制法》下的「

新興和基礎技術」。然而，「新興和基

礎技術」的含意目前尚未被界定，可能

須受制於新訂的試點計劃。

規避性交易與非控股投資

《暫行規則》亦將CFIUS審查的範圍擴

大至包括「非控股投資」與「規避性交

易」（結構是「旨在或意圖規避或回避

CFIUS審查」的交易）。一項非控股投

資如果涉及關鍵技術、關鍵基礎設施

或敏感個人資料這些範疇，且該交易

將令外國投資者能夠「獲取美國企業管

有的任何重大非公開技術資料」，則其

可能會受到審查。此等非控股結構可包

括在涉及關鍵技術、關鍵基礎設施或敏

感非公開資料的企業中「除股份表決權

以外對實質性決策的任何形式的參與」

。此外，參與亦可包括被賦予作為「

董事會成員或觀察員」的權利，或獲取「

重大非公開技術資料」的權利。

投資基金

目前已有一些投資者考慮透過投資基

金的途徑來規避CF IUS審查程序。《

暫行規則》現時對基金投資的處理方

法是：外國人透過投資基金進行的

間接投資不在該試點計劃的涵蓋範圍

內，但前提是該外國投資者並非該基

金的普通合夥人或管理成員，且該外

國投資者並不具備控制該投資基金的

能力。這意味著該投資者：無權干預

該基金的投資決定；不具備能力控制

由該基金所投資的實體的普通合夥人

或管理成員所作的決定；以及不具備

能力單方面委任或罷免普通合夥人或

管理層成員或釐定其報酬。

房地產

房地產投資目前也是CF IUS審查的重

點。《FIRRMA法案》將「涵蓋」交易

的範圍進行了擴大，以包括具有以下

性質的房地產買賣或租賃：有關房地

產屬於港口或機場的一部分；其靠近

軍事設施或其他敏感政府設施；或其

可就鄰近設施提供情報或暴露有關國

家安全的信息。根據《FIRRMA法案》

，「涵蓋交易」並不包括位於城市化

區域的單戶住房或房地產。然而，倘

若有關房地產涉及國家安全，相關交

易仍有可能接受審查。

儘管來自中國的投資日益受到關注，

但似乎涉及中國買家的CF IUS過審率

在2018年依然保持穩定（即使中國對

美的新投資下降了95%）。2019年

初，美國國內政治摩擦加劇導致政府機

關停擺而影響了審批工作。中美之間如

能達成任何協議并獲實施，將可促使新

提交的備案數目激增。

- 司馬杰，賽法思‧

肖律師事務所合夥人及

黃志豪，黃志豪、萬利律師

事務所（與賽法思‧肖律師

事務所聯營）主管合夥人

ProFESSion

Court of Appeal on "Without Prejudice"In Poben Consultants Ltd v Clearwater Bay Golf & Country Club [2019] HKCA 107, the Court of Appeal considered the test for determining whether a communication is made "without prejudice". Given the frequency with which parties engage in without prejudice communications the judgment is worth noting. There are some valuable lessons for those who use the label "without prejudice" without sufficient regard to the actual content of the communication.

The underlying dispute concerns ownership to certain subscription rights issued by the defendant country club. Following a disagreement between the plaintiffs and representatives of the defendant regarding entitlement to the subscription rights, a without prejudice meeting took place. There then followed a letter (marked without prejudice) from the defendant's lawyers to one of the plaintiffs. Given the context


• March 2019

of the letter, the defendant claimed it was made without prejudice. That claim was rejected by a judge at first instance on the basis that the letter was not made in a genuine attempt to settle one or more of the issues in dispute between the parties – rather, it appeared to be an outright rejection of the plaintiff's case.

It is interesting that an appeal followed given that the letter, while no doubt confidential, does not appear to have been particularly prejudicial to the defendant's case. However, permission to appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal.

Dissatisfied with the judge's reasoning, the Court of Appeal exercised its own assessment of the facts afresh. The principal issue for determination was whether the judge had focused too much on the content of the letter and not enough on the context of the discussions; in particular, that the letter was part of a continuum of negotiations following what was an undoubtedly without prejudice meeting.

The Court of Appeal summarised the relevant legal principles:

• the test for determining whether a communication is without prejudice is an objective test, taking into account such context before the communication is made as is appropriate in the circumstances;

• the actual intention of the author

or the maker of the statement is not conclusive;

• the communication must be made in a genuine attempt to settle an issue in dispute; namely, "a bona fide attempt to engage in or continue with negotiation or a genuine desire to reach a compromise" (para. 35 of the judgment).

The Court of Appeal appears to have had little difficulty agreeing with the judge that the letter was not a without prejudice communication. While the letter followed a without prejudice meeting and was marked as such, it does not appear to have evidenced (according to an objective test) any attempt at negotiation.

In these sorts of cases, hard facts sometimes make for unfortunate outcomes. The letter in question appears to have been written and sent in a wider without prejudice context and one can see some force in an argument that it was part of the continuum of the negotiations between the parties. However, in the absence of any evidence of an attempt to negotiate in the content of the letter, the defendant's claim to without prejudice privilege failed and, with it, so did its appeal.

As with all claims to privilege, a without prejudice claim falls to be decided on a document by document

(case by case) basis. There may be instances where a letter in similar circumstances is so interwoven with a wider without prejudice context (such as a meeting and prior negotiations) that it will be difficult to consider it in isolation. This was not the case here.

In the meantime, the case serves as another lesson that labels are not determinative and, on a daily basis, practitioners and their clients involved with disputes should give more thought to the substance of their communications (and not just the form).

- Warren Ganesh, Senior Consultant, RPC

專業導論

上訴法庭對「不損及固有權益」的判決

在Poben Consultants Ltd v Clearwater

Bay Golf & Country Club [2019] HKCA

107一案，上訴法庭考慮了確定通訊是

否「不損及固有權益」的測試。鑑於各

方不損害特權通信的頻率，判決值得注

意。對於沒有充分考慮通信的實際內容

而使用「不損害特權」標籤的人來說，

這個判決值得參考。

爭議涉及被告鄉村俱樂部發出的某些認

購權。在原告與被告代表就認購權存在

分歧之後，雙方舉行了一次不損及固有

權益的會議。其後，被告律師向一名原

告發出了一封標明「不損及固有權益」

的信件。被告聲稱信件的內容不損及固

有權益，但原訟法庭駁回，理由是信件

並非真正嘗試解決爭議的問題，反而似

乎在否定原告人的論據。

有趣的是，被告隨後提出上訴，儘管該

信件保密，但似乎並未特別損及被告的

固有權益。但是，上訴法院批准了上訴

許可。

W I T H O U T PREJUDICE



上訴法庭不同意法官的判決理據，重新

對事實進行判斷。需要決定的主要問題

是法官是否過分關注信件的內容，而

不是討論的背景，特別是這封信是次

會面的後續談判，而會面毫無疑問不

損及固有權益。

上訴法庭總結了相關的法律原則：

• 確定通信是否不損及固有權益是

客觀測試，在這個情況下考慮通

信前的背景是恰當的；

• 信件的作者的實際意圖不具決定

性；

• 通信必須真正嘗試解決爭議問

題，即「真正企圖參與或繼續談

判或真正希望達成妥協」(判決書

第35段)。

上訴法庭似乎難以同意法官的意見，即

該信件並非不損及固有權益的通訊。雖

然這封信是在不損及固有權益會面後發

出，而且標明不損及固有權益，但根據

客觀測試似乎沒有證據顯示嘗試談判。

在這類型的案件中，事實會導致不利的

結果。這封信似乎是在不損及固有權益

的情況下編寫和發送，可辯稱它是雙方

談判的後續部分。但是，信件的內容沒

有任何證據顯示試圖進行談判，被告不

損及固有權益的聲稱就無效了，上訴亦

因而敗訴。

與所有特權一樣，不損及固有權益聲稱

依據每宗案件的文件而異。在某些情況

下，類似信件與更廣泛不損及固有權益

偏見的情況(例如會議和事先談判)互相關

連，難以單獨考慮它。但本案的情況並

非如此。

與此同時，本案例顯示，通信的標籤並

非決定性的，涉及爭議的從業者和客戶

應該考慮他們日常通信的實質內容，而

不僅是形式。

- 莊偉倫, RPC高級顧問

inSoLVEnCY AnD CorPorAtE rECoVErY

recognition of Foreign insolvency Proceedings – "Muddling on"?The judgment of the Companies Court in Re China Fishery Group Ltd [2019] HKCFI 174 comes on the back of its judgment in Re CW Advanced Techonologies Ltd [2018] HKCFI 1705. Both judgments consider (among other things) the general principles for recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and the giving of assistance to foreign office holders associated with insolvency proceedings or other forms of corporate rehabilitation. They highlight the complexities of the issues involved.

In Re China Fishery Group Ltd, a US Chapter 11 Trustee of a Singaporean company within the group applied for the Hong Kong court's permission to use its decision (discharging the appointment of provisional liquidators in Hong Kong) for the purposes of bankruptcy proceedings in the Southern District of New York. The application was tantamount to an application for judicial assistance.

One of the principal reasons the US Trustee's application failed was that the court found there was no relevant connection between the Singaporean company (in respect of which the US Trustee had been appointed) and the jurisdiction of the US bankruptcy court.

Some of the complexities that underpin common law principles for the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings are also illustrated in Re CW Advanced Technologies Ltd – a case in which the Companies Court, for the first time, considered the possibility of recognising and giving assistance in support of the Singaporean insolvency regime in Hong Kong proceedings.

The Hong Kong courts do not recognise and assist all foreign insolvency

proceedings and office holders. How they might approach an application for recognition of US Chapter 11 proceedings remains a matter in respect of which there is (at present) no legal authority in Hong Kong.

There are no statutory provisions in Hong Kong empowering the courts to recognise or provide assistance to foreign insolvency office holders. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency is not formally recognised in Hong Kong (unlike in Singapore, which adopted it in 2017).

In the absence of statutory cross-border corporate rescue and insolvency procedures, the Hong Kong courts continue to rely on common law principles. Although the application of these principles is not without problems, in recent years the courts have shown some willingness to assist the effective implementation of cross-border insolvency and restructuring regimes.

While the government is planning to introduce legislation to provide for a corporate rescue procedure for Hong Kong, the legislative timetable is uncertain. Also being considered is the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency. It is also understood that the government is considering conducting a standalone consultation on reciprocal enforcement for cross-border insolvency matters between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

Such initiatives will be welcomed in Hong Kong (should they be implemented). In the meantime, Hong Kong muddles on*.

-Michael Maguiness, Of Counsel, RPC

Editorial note*: "To muddle on" – For

example, to continue doing something

without a clear plan or purpose or without

enough resources.


• March 2019

破產及企業重整

承認外地破產程序前景未明

公司法庭在Re China Fishery Group Ltd

[2019] HKCFI 174的判決以Re CW

Advanced Techonologies Ltd [2018]

HKCFI 1705的判決作依據。兩項判決均

考慮了承認外地破產程序及向破產程序

或其他形式企業重整關聯的外地破產清

盤人員提供協助的一般原則。這些判決

突顯了涉及問題的複雜性。

在Re China Fishery Group Ltd一案，一

間新加坡公司的美國破產法第11章受託

人向香港法院申請允許在紐約南區進行

破產程序時使用其決定(在香港任命臨時

清盤人)。申請等同於申請司法協助。

美國受託人申請不獲批准的主要原因之

一，是法院認定(任命美國委託人)的新加

坡公司與美國破產法院的管轄權之間沒

有相關聯繫。

Re CW Advanced Technologies Ltd也說

明了在普通法原則下承認外地破產程序

的複雜性 - 公司法庭首次考慮了在香港

的訴訟程序承認新加坡破產制度和提供

援助的可能性。

香港法院不承認和協助外地破產程序和

清盤人員。香港目前仍然沒有法律權力

處理承認美國破產法第11章的程序的申

請。

香港沒有法定條文授權法院承認或協助

外地破產清盤人員。聯合國國際貿易法

委員會(UNCITRAL)跨國破產示範法在香

港尚未獲正式承認(而新加坡已於2017

年實施)

在沒有法定的跨境企業救助和破產程序

的情況下，香港法院繼續依賴普通法

原則。儘管這些原則的應用並非沒有問

題，但近年來法院已表示願意協助有效

實施跨國破產和重整制度。

雖然政府正計劃制定法例，為香港提供

企業拯救程序，但立法時間表尚不明

確。政府亦計劃落實UNCITRAL跨國破

產示範法。據了解，政府正考慮就香港

與內地之間跨境破產事宜的相互執行另

外進行諮詢。

這些措施如能在香港實施，將會受到歡

迎。與此同時，香港在這方面繼續前景

未明。

- Michael Maguiness, RPC特邀律師

ConStrUCtion LAW

the invisible Pillar of Hong Kong Construction industry“Business as usual, cash flow is the king.”

This is especially true for the Hong Kong construction industry, when the success of any project counts on a chain of interdependent parties starting from the employers, consultants, to contractors, sub-contractors, sub-subcontractors and suppliers. Cash flow has to be continuously generated from one party to another along the chain. It’s the blood flowing from within that keeps the industry alive and vibrant.

Following the Chief Executive Policy Address 2018, the Hong Kong SAR Government will pilot “Construction 2.0” in public projects to promote industry enhancement. This initiative is supported by three pillars of performance targets, namely “Innovation”, “Professionalisation” and “Revitalisation”, to cope with the imminent challenges in the construction industry including the increasing construction volume in the near future, higher costs, mega-project performance, maintaining steady and satisfactory productivity. It also recognizes the high fragmentation of the industry in terms of high levels of subcontracting, resulting in intermediary organizations intending to maximize their profit margins by influencing the lower supply chain. The need of fair payment practice is prevalent and effective regulations for such practice are a prelude to successful project delivery.

Proposed Statutory Adjudication in Hong Kong

The best payment practices in construction industry have long been recognized and elucidated in in the consultation document of the "Proposed Security of Payment Legislation for the Construction Industry” published in 2015 by the



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，與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]

Government. The crux of this legislation is founded on a “Pay first, argue later” method of dispute resolution where the parties must pay an adjudicated amount according to the adjudication decision. The decision can be challenged based on the grounds as set out in the Security of Payment Legislation in the later stage. The parties must act in accordance with a strict timetable and the adjudicator must also deliver a decision within a certain period of time. A default payment scheme in the legislation will be triggered if a construction contract fails to identify a valid payment mechanism. Failure of the respondent to pay the adjudicated amount can result in suspension of works by the unpaid party. Furthermore, the non-paying party can no longer rely on any pay-when-paid provisions to refuse timely payment.

the role of Construction Adjudicators

Selection of the construction adjudicator is the fundamental right of the parties since the quality of the adjudication depends on the quality of the adjudicator. Hence, the underpinning factors in choosing a suitable construction adjudicator include the expertise, independence, impartiality, personal characters, reputation, construction experience and legal knowledge of the construction adjudicator. The qualified construction adjudicator is responsible for considering the parties’ arguments and properly delivering a decision within the strict timeframe.

Payment in the construction industry is a complex issue involving multiple interlacing factors. HKICAdj considers that timely payment is indeed the invisible pillar of the construction industry beyond all challenges.

- Albert Yeu and Gordon Kwok of Hong Kong Institute of Construction

Adjudicators (HKICAdj)

建築法

香港建造業的無形支柱

「如常運作，維持現金流為尚。」

這句話套用到香港建造業之上，更覺貼

切，因為工程項目得以順利完工，有賴

一條上連僱主、顧問，下接承判商，二

判商、分判商及供應商的關係鏈，各方

銜尾相接，互相依存。現金由上而下，

從一方流到另一方，斷不可中途截斷。

正是這股由內而外流動的生命力，保持

建造業朝氣蓬勃。

香港特別行政區政府將會依循《行政長

官2018年施政報告》的內容，以公營

項目先行先試「建造業2.0」，推進行

業改革。這項措施透過三大支柱來達成

項目表現方面的目標：「創新」、「專

業化」、「年青化」，以應付建造業

迫在眉睫的挑戰，包括在未來數年建

造工程量將會增加、成本上升、大型

項目的表現、保持穩定及理想的生產

力。措施亦意識到建造業採用多層分

判制度，高度分散，中介機構因而傾

向於支配下層供應鏈，以求賺取最高

利潤。業界普遍需要的是公平發放款

項，而有效監管公平發放款項是項目

得以順利完成的前奏。

香港的擬議法定審裁

政府早已在 2 0 1 5 年發表「擬議建造

業付款保障條例」的諮詢文件，認定

並說明建造業最理想的付款慣例。條

例的關鍵在於解決爭議所用的「先付

款，後爭議」方法，各方必須遵照審

裁員的裁決支付判定款項。不服裁決

的一方可其後以付款保障條例列明的

理由為依據，質疑裁決。各方必須嚴

格按照時間表行事，審裁員必須在某

段限定時間內作出裁決。要是建造合約

沒有確定有效的付款機制，條例的預設

付款計劃就會啟動。如果答辯人不遵照

審裁員的裁決依期付款，不獲付款的一

方可能因此而停工。此外，不付款的一

方不能再以「先收款、後付款」條款為

依據，拒絕按時付款。

建造審裁司的角色

由於審裁結果的質素取決於審裁員的質

素，自行選擇建造審裁員是各方的基

本權利。因此，選擇合適建造審裁員所

考慮的基本因素包括：建造審裁員的

專長，獨立性、公正性、個人品格、聲

譽、業界經驗及法律知識。合資格的建

造審裁員負責考量各方的爭論點，嚴格

按照時間表妥善地作出裁決。

建造業的付款問題千絲萬縷，錯中複

雜。香港建造審裁司學會應為準時付款

實在是建造業的無形支柱，這個說法絕

對不會有人反對。

-香港建造審裁司學會（HKICAdj）

的Albert Yeu及Gordon Kwok


• March 2019

March 2019 • Cases in BRieF 案例撮要

CASES IN BRIEF案例撮要

CiViL ProCEDUrE

Re Central Pacific Enterprises LimitedCourt of First InstanceMiscellaneous Proceedings No 1944 of 2017Peter Ng J in Chambers 10 August, 20 November 2018

Civil procedure — stay of proceedings — abuse of process —application to stay proceedings pending payment of costs in previous actions — whether present action concerned same subject matter as previous actions — whether abuse of process

H was the former director and executive vice-president of PEWC, a Taiwanese formerly listed company, and also a former director of CPE, a wholly owned subsidiary of PEWC. CPE was dissolved in 2001, but revived by court order in 2003 on PEWC’s application to facilitate an investigation into CPE’s intra-group transactions. In 2016, CPE’s liquidators (“Ls”) held the final meeting of members of CPE, approved its final statement of account and ceased to act as its liquidators. Meanwhile, in 2004, PEWC brought three actions (the “HCCL Actions”) against H inter alia to recover various assets (the “Properties”) in Hong Kong. The Judge found that H’s defence in the HCCL Actions was a fabrication and ordered H to return the Properties to PEWC. H’s appeals had been finally determined against him and H was ordered to pay costs in the failed proceedings (the “Taxed Costs”). Subsequently, H was convicted in Taiwan

of offences involving dishonesty and imprisoned; and his appeals finally dismissed by the Courts. Asserting that Ls had not properly discharged their duties and he was advised that there might be evidence to justify a retrial, H brought the present action against inter alia PEWC and Ls seeking: (a) an order that the dissolution of CPE be declared void; and (b) the replacement of Ls by new liquidators to conduct an investigation into CPE’s intra-group transactions to challenge the conclusions in the HCCL Actions to establish his innocence (the “Action”). PEWC sought: (a) to stay the Action pending the payment to it of the Taxed Costs (the “Stay Application”); and (b) an order requiring H to pay into court $4,406,650 as security for PEWC’s costs in the proceedings (the “Security for Costs Application”).

Held, dismissing the Stay Application and granting the Security for Costs Application in part, that:

Stay Application

1) Where a party having failed in one action commenced a second action for the same subject matter, the court had an inherent jurisdiction to stay the second action until the costs of the first action had been paid. However, this principle should not be elevated to a wide discretion to enforce unsatisfied cost orders in separate proceedings (Society of Lloyd’s v Jaffray [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 354, Investment Invoice Financing Ltd v Limehouse Board Mills Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 985 applied). (See paras. 24–26.)

2) Thus, while it was highly unsatisfactory that H had failed to pay

the Taxed Costs, it was not an abuse of process for him to have instituted the Action to “revive” CPE, appoint new liquidators in order to uncover fresh evidence which might bear on inter alia his intended application for a retrial of his criminal charges in Taiwan. It did not concern the “same subject matter” since the HCCL Actions and should not be classified as “needless procedural duplication”. (See paras. 27, 31.)

2) Assuming (without deciding) that H succeeded in invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under s. 290 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) and, even if he obtained the relief sought, the new liquidators might or might not uncover evidence to overturn his criminal convictions in Taiwan. If and when H brought fresh proceedings to challenge the concurrent findings in the HCCL Actions without first paying the Taxed Costs, he would be truly relitigating the same subject matter in a second action and it would be an abuse of process for him to do so without paying those costs. However, at this time, the Stay Application was premature. Instead, PEWC could take enforcement against H in Taiwan. (See paras. 28–30.)

Security for Costs

3) Given that H was ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction in Taiwan and taking a broad-brush approach to PEWC’s costs relating to the Action, an order for security of $2 million was appropriate. However, regarding PEWC’s costs relating to the Stay Application, as it took up most of the hearing and had failed and it was more complicated than the Security for Costs Application, the


Court, at present, was not minded to order H to provide security for PEWC’s costs. (See paras. 33–35, 39–41.)

4) Accordingly, the proceedings against PEWC were stayed pending the payment into court of $2 million in security by H. (See paras. 42–44.)

Application

This was an application by the first respondent seeking to stay the proceedings brought by the applicant pending the payment to it taxed costs ordered against the plaintiff in previous proceedings. The facts are set out in the judgment.

民事訴訟程序

Re Central Pacific Enterprises Limited原訟法庭

高院雜項案件2017年第1944號

原訟法庭法官吳嘉輝內庭聆訊

2018年8月10日，11月20日

民事訴訟程序 — 擱置法律程序 — 濫用法律程序 — 申請擱置法律程序以待之前訴訟訟費給支付 — 是次訴訟所關乎的標的事項是否與之前訴訟所關乎的相同 — 是否濫用法律程序

PEWC是台灣公司，以往在台灣證券交易

所上市；CPE是PEWC全資擁有的附屬公

司。H是PEWC的前董事兼執行副總裁，

也是CPE的前董事。CPE在2001年清盤，

但法庭在2003年因應PEWC的申請，命令

CPE復生，以便利調查CPE的集團成員之

間的交易。2016年，CPE的清盤人（「

眾清盤人」）舉行CPE成員最後大會，審

批CPE的最後賬目表，之後停止擔任CPE

的清盤人。PEWC其間在2004年針對包括

H在內的另一方提出三宗訴訟（「高院商

業訴訟」），目的是討回多項在香港的資

產（「該等物業」）。原審法官認定H在

高院商業訴訟的答辯理由是砌辭，命令H

交回該等物業給PEWC。H上訴但最終被

裁定敗訴，更在裁定他敗訴的法律程序中

被命令支付訟費（「經評定的訟費」）。

其後，H在台灣被裁定兩項涉及不誠實行

為的罪行罪名成立，之後被判處監禁；他

上訴但最後被法庭駁回。H聲稱眾清盤人

沒有好好履行他們的職責，並獲告之可能

有證據支持重審之後，針對（其中包括）

PEWC及眾清盤人提出是次訴訟，要求法

庭頒布命令：(a)宣布CPE的清盤無效；及

(b)由新清盤人取代眾清盤人調查CPE的

集團成員之間的交易，以質疑在高院商業

訴訟的結論，證明自己是清白的（「該訴

訟」）。PEWC要求法庭：(a)擱置該訴訟

以待PEWC獲支付經評定的訟費（「擱置

訴訟的申請」）；及(b)命令H向法院繳存

$4,406,650作為PEWC在法律程序的訟費

保證（「訟費保證的申請」）。

裁決 –駁回擱置訴訟的申請，部分批准訟

費保證的申請：

擱置訴訟的申請

1)凡在一宗訴訟敗訴的一方就同一標的事

項開展另一宗訴訟，法庭有固有司法管

轄權擱置第二宗訴訟，直到第一宗訴訟

的訟費給支付為止。不過在另外的法律程

序中，這個原則不應被提升為一種廣泛的

酌情決定權，用來強制執行未獲履行的訟

費令（應用Society of Lloyd’s v Jaffray

[1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 354、Investment

Invoice Financing Ltd v Limehouse Board

Mills Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 985）。（見第

24–26段）

2)因此，雖然H不支付經評定的訟費令人

極感不滿，但是H打算在台灣申請重審他

在當地被控的刑事罪，他是為了使CPE「

復生」（revive）而展開該訴訟，為了找

出可能與（其中包括）他在台灣的申請

有關的新證據而委任新清盤人，並不是

濫用法律程序。該訴訟與高院商業訴訟

的「相同的標的事項」（same subject

matter）無關，因此不應被歸類為「程

序上無用的重複」（needless procedural

duplication）。（見第27、31段）

2)假設H援引《公司(清盤及雜項條文)條

例》（第32章）第290條所指的法院的司

法管轄權而獲判勝訴（未有裁決），即使

他得到所要求的濟助，新清盤人未必可以

找到新證據來推翻他在台灣的刑事定罪。

嚴格地說，只有在H在沒有先行支付經評

定的訟費但又提出新法律程序質疑高院商

業訴訟一致的裁決的情況下，他才會是在

第二宗訴訟重新就同一標的事項興訟，而

他這樣做卻又不支付有關訟費，才會是濫

用法律程序。不過現在還未到時候提出擱

置訴訟的申請。PEWC倒可以在台灣針對

H採取強制執行的行動。（見第28–30

段）

訟費保證

3)基於H是台灣原居民，粗略評估PEWC


• March 2019


在該訴訟的訟費之後，頒布要求他向法庭

繳存$200萬作為訟費保證的命令是恰當

的。然而，說到PEWC與在擱置訴訟的申

請有關的訟費，由於PEWC參加了大多數

聆訊但申請被拒，並且擱置訴訟的申請比

訟費保證的申請更為複雜，法庭現時不打

算命令H就PEWC的訟費提供保證。（見

第33–35、39–41段）

4)因此，針對PEWC提出的法律程序被擱

置，以待H向法院繳存$200萬作為保證。

（見第42–44段）

申請擱置法律程序

這是一宗申請擱置法律程序的案件。在之

前的法律程序中，原告人被命令支付經評

定訟費。本案第一答辯人要求擱置由申請

人提出的法律程序，以待申請人支付給它

該筆訟費。案情已在判決書詳細列出。

CiViL ProCEDUrE

Lau Hak Shing v Chan Kwok HungDistrict CourtCivil Action No 3758 of 2015Judge Winnie Tsui in Chambers26 January, 24 October, 26 November 2018

Civil procedure — striking-out — action pursuant to Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219) s. 60 for order setting aside assignment of real property — whether claim should be struck out — whether adequately pleaded — whether plaintiff time-barred from bringing action

D1–2 were formerly husband and wife and joint owners of the matrimonial home (the “Property”). D1 commenced divorce proceedings in 1997 and, pursuant to an order of the Family Court dated 15 July 1998, transferred his half interest in the Property to D2 free from encumbrance (the “Order”) by an assignment dated 27 August 1999 (the “Assignment”). On 18 August

2003, P obtained final judgment for approximately $366,000 with interest against D1 based on a debt (“Debt”) (the “Judgment Sum”) which remained unpaid. P claimed that shortly afterwards, he discovered that D1 had been transferring or dissipating his assets to frustrate any recovery action. Over 16 years after the Assignment, on 15 August 2015, P issued a writ in the present action against D1–2 seeking a declaration that the Assignment was void as a disposition contrary to s. 60 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219) (“CPO”); further or alternatively, an order that the Assignment be set aside; and an order charging D1’s interest in the Property and that such interest be sold. P alleged that D1–2’s divorce was a sham, initiated by D1 knowing that he was substantially indebted to P; the Property was D1’s most significant asset and the Assignment was executed by D1 with intent to defraud creditors by making himself judgment-proof. D2 applied, inter alia, to strike out P’s statement of claim (the “S/C”) under O. 18 r. 19 of Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H, Sub.Leg.) arguing inter alia that: (a) the S/C only sought to set aside the Assignment but not the Order

which remained valid so that the Court had no power to set it aside (“Ground One”); (b) P had not pleaded that D2 had conspired with D1 to deprive P of the Judgment Sum, so that P could at most only claim against D2 for “knowing receipt” of the Property, to which D2 had a complete defence by virtue of the six-year limitation period under s. 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347) (the “LO”) (“Ground Two”); (c) P had not sufficiently pleaded the requisite intent to defraud creditors or dishonesty on D1’s part (“Ground Three”); and (d) P’s claim was stale given that the Assignment was executed in 1999 and D2 received the writ over 16 years later in 2016 (“Ground Five”). First, at issue, was whether the District Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim under s. 60 of the CPO.

Held, dismissing the striking-out application, that:

Jurisdiction

1) Section 36 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) conferred jurisdiction on the District Court to hear this action, as the title to an interest in land was in question and the value of the land was within the current prescribed


monetary limit (Ng Cho Chu v Chan Wing Hung [2017] 4 HKLRD 396 applied). (See paras. 16–17.)

Striking-out

2) Ground One was rejected. As a matter of logic, the Order would necessarily have to be set aside if the Assignment was to be declared void under s. 60. The facts P would rely on to set aside the Order had already been pleaded in respect of the Assignment. Thus, there would be no new cause of action and no time bar issue even if he sought leave to amend the S/C. There was no compelling need for P to expressly seek to set aside the Order in his pleadings. (See paras. 45, 48–51.)

3) Ground Two also failed. P was invoking his rights exercisable as a creditor under s. 60 of the CPO to enforce the Judgment Sum. D2 was joined as a necessary party, since the subject matter of the claim, ie the half interest in the Property, was transferred to her. P was not asserting any proprietary or beneficial interest in the Property as such. A creditor could apply under s. 60 to set aside a disposal of property so long as the underlying debt subsisted and was not itself time-barred. There was no separate time bar for the s. 60 application. Here, when the writ was issued, the Judgment Sum remained subsisting and the action was within time (Re Maddever (1884) 27 Ch D 523 applied). (See paras. 53–56.)

4) Ground Three was legally unsustainable. The facts as pleaded gave rise to an arguable case of insolvency when the Order was made and also an arguable case that there was no consideration for the transfer such that P had an arguable case of inferring the requisite intent to defraud by relying on the rule in Freeman v Pope. These were matters to be resolved at trial (Freeman v Pope (1869-70) LR 5 Ch App 538, Tradepower (Holdings) Ltd v Tradepower (HK) Ltd (2009) 12 HKCFAR 417 applied). (See paras. 67–74, 93.)

5) In any event, the requisite intent under s. 60 was sufficiently pleaded

even if the claim under s. 60 fell outside the rule in Freeman v Pope. In such case, it was necessary to infer from the evidence an actual intent to defraud on the disponor’s part in a “broader sense”. This required a dishonest intention on the disponor’s part in the context of the relationship of debtor and creditor, with actual deceit not being essential. Motive was irrelevant and the court was concerned with the objective consequence of the disposal and its effect on creditors. Here, D2’s focus on D1’s motive was flawed. P had expressly pleaded the objective effect of the disposal of the Property on creditors and D1’s knowledge that it would hinder or delay P in his recourse to his assets to satisfy the Debt (Lloyds Bank Ltd v Marcan [1973] 1 WLR 339, Skink Ltd v Comtowell Ltd [1994] 2 HKC 286, Tradepower (Holdings) Ltd v Tradepower (HK) Ltd (2009) 12 HKCFAR 417, Regal Castings Ltd v Lightbody [2009] 2 NZLR 433, New China Hong Kong Group Ltd v Ng Kwai Kai Kenneth (HCA 519/2010, [2011] HKEC 210) applied). (See paras. 75–95.)

6) Ground Five was also rejected. As the Order and the Assignment should be set aside at the same time, at issue was whether s. 4(4) of the LO applied so as to impose a 12-year limitation period on the setting aside of the Order. However, it was not necessary to make a ruling on this issue at this stage. Even if, contrary to P’s submission, s. 4(4) did bar him from setting aside the Order, there was an arguable case that the limitation period should be extended under s. 26(1), because P’s evidence was that he only discovered D1’s fraud in late August 2003. If true, time would only have begun to run from then and had not yet expired when the writ was issued on 15 August 2015. The material question was whether between July 1998 (when the Order was made) and August 2003, P could with reasonable diligence have found out about the Order. This involved a fact-sensitive inquiry and could only be resolved at trial not on affirmation evidence alone at this interlocutory stage. (See paras. 102–113.)

Application

This was an application by the second defendant to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim under O. 18 r. 19 of Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H, Sub.Leg.). The facts are set out in the judgment.

民事訴訟程序

Lau Hak Shing v Chan Kwok Hung區域法院

民事訴訟案件2015年第3758號

區域法院法官徐韻華內庭聆訊

2018年1月26日、10月24日、11月26日

民事訴訟程序 — 剔除 — 為了將土地財產的轉讓作廢而根據《物業轉易及財產條例》（第219章）第60條提出的訴訟 — 申索應否被剔除 — 作訴可夠充足 — 原告人是否因為法定時限屆滿而不可提出訴訟

第一和第二被告人曾經是夫妻，二人聯名

擁有婚姻居所（「該物業」）。第一被告

人在1997年開展離婚法律程序，他根據

家事法庭一份日期為1998年7月15日的命

令（「該命令」），在無產權負擔的情況

下將他在該物業的權益，即該物業的一半

權益，轉讓給第二被告人（「該轉讓」）

。轉讓書日期為1999年8月27日。由於

第一被告人拖欠原告人一筆債項（「該債

項」），原告人在2003年8月18日取得判

第一被告人敗訴的最終判決，第一被告人

須支付大約$366,000連利息（「裁決款

項」），但第一被告人一直沒有支付裁決

款項。原告人聲稱自己不久發現第一被告

人當時正將他的資產轉讓或耗散，以阻撓

原告人提出任何追討訴訟。2015年8月15

日，即該物業被轉讓16年多之後，是次訟

訟的原告人針對第一及第二被告人發出令

狀，要求法庭宣告該轉讓違反《物業轉易

及財產條例》（第219章）第60條的產權

處置，因此無效；此外，原告人要求或交

替地要求法庭命令將該轉讓作廢；以及要

求命令用第一被告人在該物業的權益作抵

押及將該權益賣掉。原告人指稱第一被告

人和第二被告人離婚是騙人的，第一被告


• March 2019


人主動提出離婚時是知道自己拖欠原告人

一筆巨債的；該物業是第一被告人最值錢

的資產，而第一被告人執行該轉讓是使自

己無法償還判定債項，企圖詐騙債權人。

第二被告人根據《區域法院規則》（第

336H章，附屬法例）第18號命令第19條

規則，申請（其中包括）剔除原告人的申

索陳述書；他辯稱（其中包括）：(a)在申

索陳述書要求的只是將該轉讓作廢，不是

將該命令作廢，該命令依然有效，因此法

庭無權將該轉讓作廢（「理由一」）；(b)

原告人沒有作訴指第二被告人與第一被告

人串謀使原告人得不到裁決款額，因此他

最多只可就該物業的「明知接收」，向第

二被告人提出申索，但由於《時效條例》

（第347章）第20(2)條規定的六年期

限，第二被告人可以上作出十足的抗辯（

「理由二」）；(c)原告人沒有充分作訴指

出，第一被告人懷有所需意圖以詐騙債權

人或不誠實（「理由三」）；及(d)基於該

轉讓是在1999年執行，而第二被告人是

在2016年，即超過16年之後，才收到令

狀，原告人的申索已是陳年舊事（「理由

五」）。首先處理的爭議是，根據《物業

轉易及財產條例》第60條，區域法院可有

司法官轄權聆訊申索及就申索作出裁定。

裁決 –駁回要求剔除申索陳述書的申請：

司法管轄權

1)由於土地權益的所有權受到質疑及土地

價值在當前訂明旳金額限制範圍內，《區

域法院條例》（第336章）第36條賦予區

域法院聆訊這宗訴訟的司法管轄權（應用

Ng Cho Chu v Chan Wing Hung [2017] 4

HKLRD 396）。（見第16–17段）

剔除

2)理由一不被接納。從邏輯上說，如果要

根據第60條宣布該轉讓無效，該命令必

定需要被撤銷。原告人申請撤銷該命令所

會依據的事實已在關於該轉讓的作訴提出

過。因此不會有新的訴因，而即使他申請

修改申索陳述書的許可，也不會有法定時

限屆滿的問題。原告人沒有迫切需要在他

的狀辭中明確要求撤銷該命令。（見第45

、48–51段）

3)理由二亦不成立。原告人當時援引《物

業轉易及財產條例》第60條所指他作為

債權人可以行使的權利，以確使自己取得

裁決款額。由於申索的標的事項，即該物

業的一半權益，已轉讓給第二被告人，因

此加入第二被告人成為必要的一方。原告

人不是堅稱在該物業的一半權益有任何所

有權益或實益權益。只要相關債項存在下

去，債權人就可以根據第60條申請將物業

的處置作廢。根據第60條提出的申請不另

設法定時限。在這宗案，令狀發出之時，

裁定款額仍然存在，而訴訟是在時限提出

的（應用Re Maddever (1884) 27 Ch D

523）。（見第53–56段）

4)理由三在法律上站不住腳。作訴的事

實構成兩項可辯證成立的理據，一是第

一被告人在該命令作出之時無力償債，

一是轉讓不涉及代價，因而原告人可

以Freeman v Pope案訂立的規則為依

據，辯證第一被告人懷有詐騙他人所需

要的意圖。這些問題有待審訊解決（應

用Freeman v Pope (1869-70) LR 5 Ch

App 538、Tradepower (Holdings) Ltd v

Tradepower (HK) Ltd (2009) 12 HKCFAR

417）。（見第67–74、93段）

5)在任何情況下，即使根據第60條提出的

申索不在Freeman v Pope案所訂規則範

圍之內，有關第60條所需意圖的作訴是

充足的。這種情況有需要按「更廣泛的定

義」理解何謂所需意圖，從證據推斷出財

產處置人確實有詐騙意圖。以債務人和債

權人的關係作為背景，要得出這個推斷，

財產處置人必須是有意圖不誠實的，有

否確實欺騙他人並不重要。動機是不相關

的，法庭關注的是處置產權的客觀後果，

以及對債權人的影響。案中第二被告人錯

在將焦點放在第一被告人的動機之上。原

告人已經明確地作訴指出處置該物業對債

權人產生的客觀影響，以及第一被告人

是知道處置該物業會阻礙或拖延原告人動

用第一被告人的資產清償該債項的（應用

Lloyds Bank Ltd v Marcan [1973] 1 WLR

339、Skink Ltd v Comtowell Ltd [1994]

2 HKC 286、Tradepower (Holdings)

Ltd v Tradepower (HK) Ltd (2009) 12

HKCFAR 417、Regal Castings Ltd v

Lightbody [2009] 2 NZLR 433、New

China Hong Kong Group Ltd v Ng Kwai

Kai Kenneth (HCA 519/2010，[2011]

HKEC 210)）。（見第75–95段）

6)理由五同樣不被接納。由於該命令和該

轉讓應該在同一時間作廢，爭議點是應否

引用《時效條例》第4(4)條，從而規定該

命令只有在12年時效期之內才可作廢。

不過現階段無需要就這爭議點作出裁決。

即使與原告人的陳詞相反，第4(4)條的確

禁止原告人申請將該命令作廢，但因為他

作供指自己在2013年8月尾才發現第一

被告人的欺詐行為，所以有可辯證成立

的理據，要求法庭根據第26(1)條將時限

延長。如果真是這樣，時限只會由發現

欺詐行為之時開始計算，因而在2015年

8月15日令狀發出的時候還未屆滿。關鍵

問題是，如果原告人盡了合理的努力，他

能否在1998年7月（該命令作出之時）到

2003年8月期間發現該命令。這需要仔細

查訊理清案情，而在這個非正審階段，問

題只可以在審訊時解決，單靠誓詞證據是

不可能的。（見第102–113段）

申請剔除申索陳述書

這是一宗申請剔除申索陳述書的案件。

第二被告人根據《區域法院規則》（

第336H章，附屬法例）第18號命令

第19條規則，申請剔除原告人的申索

陳述書。案情已在判決書詳細列出。

CiViL ProCEDUrE

Kwong Yuk Ngor v Vocational Training CouncilDistrict CourtEmployees’ Compensation Case No 189 of 2002Master David Chan in Chambers17 August, 26 October 2017, 23 February, 7 November 2018

Civil procedure — costs — taxation — stale employees’ compensation claim — legal aid certificate of applicant discharged — former solicitors seeking taxation of costs — construction of “upon


determination of proceedings under this regulation” in Legal Aid Regulations (Cap. 91A, Sub.Leg.) reg. 9(3) — referred to determination of main proceedings, not discharge or revocation of legal aid certificate or determination of retainer — — whether discretion under Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H, Sub.Leg.) O. 62 r. 4(1) or r. 9D(4) to be exercised to allow taxation before determination or conclusion of proceedings

In 2002, K was granted legal aid certificates in a personal injury action (the “PI Case”) and employees’ compensation proceedings (the “EC Case”) (the “Certificate”) against R. The PI Case was settled. The Certificate was discharged in February 2008 and the EC Case had remained stale for over 9 years. From April 2009 to April 2011, the three solicitors’ firms assigned to represent K, including M&C (the “Firms”), agreed to the assessment of their costs by the Director of Legal Aid (the “Director”). However, K disagreed on the costs so

assessed. In 2017, M&C filed a notice of commencement of taxation and served a bill of costs due to the Firms on the Director and K (the “Bill”) (the “Taxation Proceedings”). The Director objected to taxation, arguing that the EC Case had not been concluded. The Master stayed the Taxation Proceedings (the “Order”) under O. 62 r. 9D of the Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H, Sub.Leg.) (“RDC”). M&C applied to vary or revoke the Order (the “Application”) and the Director, in support, contended that the applicable provision was not O. 62 r. 9D of the RDC, but reg. 9(3) of the Legal Aid Regulations (Cap. 91A, Sub.Leg.) (“LAR”). Under reg. 9(2) of LAR, on the discharge or revocation of the legal aid certificate, the retainer of the assigned solicitors or counsel would be determined forthwith; and under reg. 9(3), upon determination of the proceedings, the assigned solicitors could proceed to have their bills of costs taxed as soon as practicable. The Director argued that reg. 9(2) and (3) should be read together so that the words “upon determination of proceedings under this regulation” in reg. 9(3) referred to the discharge or revocation of a legal aid certificate; and

after the determination of the retainer as a result of a legal aid certificate being discharged or revoked, the costs of the assigned solicitor should be taxed as soon as possible.

Held, dismissing the Application and affirming the Order, that:

1) The general rule was to debar taxation of costs until the conclusion of the action unless the exceptions under O. 62 r.4(1) or r. 9D(4) of the RDC applied. (Dyson Technology v German Pool Group Co Ltd (HCA 838/2011, [2014] HKEC 1557) applied). (See paras. 70–71.)

2) The words “upon determination of proceedings under this regulation” under reg. 9(3) of the LAR referred to the determination of the main proceedings. To read the phrase as meaning “upon discharge or revocation of the legal aid certificate” or “upon determination of the retainer” would be inconsistent with the purpose of the LAR (Ng Cho Chu Judy v Chan Wing Hung [2016] 1 HKLRD 1073 applied). (See paras. 72, 75, 78, 93.)

3) Inter alia, first, given the LAR was based on counterpart legislation in England, the departure of the wording of reg. 9(3) from that of its English equivalent, ie “upon determination of a retainer” must reflect an intention that reg. 9(3) carry a different meaning or effect, namely to defer taxation until the conclusion of the main proceedings. (See paras. 79, 87.)

4) Second, “proceeding” involved an action commenced in a court or an act of a judge or judicial officer. It did not include the Director’s decision to discharge or revoke a legal aid certificate under reg. 8 ,or the automatic determination of the assigned solicitor’s retainer under reg. 9(2), which did not fit into these definitions. (See paras. 83–86.)

5) Third, while the Director’s power to recover costs from a formerly aided person was subject to a six-year limitation period from the revocation or discharge of the legal aid certificate, taxation was a mere procedural requirement and not a condition


• March 2019


precedent to recovery. Here, the Director could seek declaratory relief under reg. 9(5) to protect its claim for costs against K from becoming time-barred (Legal Services Commission v Rasool [2008] 1 WLR 2711 applied). (See paras. 90–91.)

6) As such, reg. 9(3) did not allow taxation of costs on the discharge or revocation of the legal aid certificate and the consequential termination of M&C’s retainer, before conclusion of the EC Case. The Court therefore would not exercise its discretion under O. 62 r. 4(1). (See para. 93.)

7) There was also no reason to exercise the discretion under O. 62 r. 9D(4) so as to allow the taxation of the Bill before the conclusion of the EC Case. Neither of the parties had indicated its intention or applied to proceed with or conclude the EC Case. Thus, the Court could not accept the suggestion of non-parties (M&C and the Director) that it should be deemed to be concluded (JT Stratford Ltd v Lindley [1969] 1 WLR 1547 distinguished). (See paras. 97, 99.)

8) Further, given the EC Case was extant, at its conclusion, it was possible R might be held liable for the costs claimed under the Bill. However, if such costs were taxed now under the Taxation Proceedings, R would be denied the opportunity to argue the quantum of costs and this would be utterly unfair (Big Boss Investment Ltd v So Lai Kei [2010] 1 HKLRD 793 considered). (See para. 98.)

Application

This was an application by a solicitors’ firm which had represented a formerly legally aided applicant in employees’ compensation proceedings to vary or revoke the order made by Master Lee Siu Ho staying common fund taxation proceedings. The facts are set out in the judgment.

民事訴訟程序

Kwong Yuk Ngor v Vocational Training Council區域法院

僱員補償案件2002年第189號

區域法院聆案官陳大為內庭聆訊

2017年8月17日、10月26日；2018年2月

23日、11月7日

民事訴訟程序 — 訟費 — 訟費評定 — 陳年的僱員補償申索 — 申請人的法律援助證書已被取消 — 前任律師要求評定訟費 — 給《法律援助規例》（第91A章，附屬法例）第9(3)條的「本條所指的法律程序有裁定後」的詮釋 — 所指的是主要法律程序有裁定，不是法律援助證書被取消或撤回，也不是聘用遭終止 — 是否行使《區域法院規則》（第336H章，附屬法例）第62號命令第4(1)條或第9D(4)條規則賦予的酌情決定權，容許在法律程序有裁定或完結之前評定訟費

在2002年一宗身受傷訴訟（「該訴訟」）

和僱員補償法律程序（「該法律程序」）

中，K獲給予法律援助證書（「該證書」）

，該訴訟和該法律程序是針對R提出的。

該訴訟和解告終。該證書在2008年2月被

取消，該法律程序則陷入膠著狀態，9年多

以來毫無進展。2009年4月至2011年4月

期間，三間獲指派代表K的律師樓（「三

間律師樓」），包括M&C在內，同意法

律援助署署長（「署長」）給三間律師

樓所評估的訟費。但是K不同意所評估的

訟費。2017年，M&C提交開展訟費評定

程序通知書存檔，並向署長及K送達訟費

單，訟費單列出應付予三間律師樓的訟

費（「該訟費單」）（「訟費評定程序」

）。署長反對評定訟費，辯稱該法律程

序還未完結。聆案官根據《區域法院規

則》（第336H章，附屬法例）（「《規

則》」）第62號命令第9D條規則，擱置

訟費評定程序（「該命令」）。M&C申

請更改或撤回該命令（「該申請」），署

長其後支持該申請，但認為適用條文不

是《規則》第62號命令第9D條規則，而

是《法律援助規例》（第91A章，附屬法

例）（「《規例》」）第9(3)條。根據《

規例》第9(2)條，法律援助證書被取消或

撤回後，獲指派的律師或大律師的聘用會

即時終止；根據第9(3)條，在法律程序有

裁定後，獲指派的律師可在切實可行範圍

內盡快提交訟費單評定。署長辯稱第9(2)

條應該與第9(3)條一併理解，這樣的話，

第9(3)條的「本條所指的法律程序有裁定

後」指向法律援助證書的取消或撤回，因

而法律援助證書被取消或撤回以致聘用遭

終止後，獲指派的律師的訟費應當盡快給

評定。

裁決 –駁回該申請，維持該命令：

1)一般規則是，除非《規則》第62號命

令第4(1)條或第9D(4)條規則所指的例外

情況適用，否則訴訟完結之前，不得進

行訟費評定（應用Dyson Techno logy

v German Pool Group Co Ltd (HCA

838/2011，[2014] HKEC 1557)）。（

見第70–71段）

2)《規例》第9(3)條的「本條所指的法律

程序有裁定後」是指的主要法律程序有裁

定。將這用語的意思理解為「法律援助證

書被取消或撤回後」或「聘用遭終止後」

會與《規例》的目的不相符（應用Ng Cho

Chu Judy v Chan Wing Hung [2016] 1

HKLRD 1073）。（見第72、75、78

、93段）

3)除了別的以外，首先，由於《規例》是

以英國的對應法例作為基礎的，第9(3)條

的字眼偏離英國對等法例的字眼，即「聘

用遭終止後」，一定是表達一種意圖――

第9(3)條含有不同的意思或規定，即延遲

訟費評定，直到主要法律訴訟完結為止。

（見第79、87段）

4)第二，「法律程序」或涉及在法庭展開

的訴訟、或涉及法官或司法人員的作為。

它不包括署長根據第8條取消或撤回法律援

助證書的決定，也不包括獲指派律師的聘

用根據第9(2)條自動終止，兩者都不符合

「法律程序」的定義。（見第83–86段）

5)第三，署長有權向前受助人追討訟費，

這項權力須在六年時效期行使，時效期

由法律援助證書被撤回或取消之時開始


計算，另方面，訟費評定只是程序上的

要求，不是追討訟費的先決條件。在這

宗案件，署長可根據第9(5)條尋求宣布

性質的濟助，以保護其針對K提出的訟費

申索不會逾時失效（應用Legal Services

Commission v Rasool [2008] 1 WLR

2711）。（見第90–91段）

6)由此說來，第9(3)條不容許在該法律程

序完結前評定訟費，即使法律援助證書

已被取消或撤回及M&C的聘用因此而終

止亦然。法庭因此不會行使第62號命令

第4(1)條規則所賦予的酌情決定權。（見

第93段）

7)此外，行使第62號命令第9D(4)條規則

所賦予的酌情決定權，以便容許在該法

律程序完結前評定該訟費單，做法說不

過去。訴訟兩方都沒有表示有意繼續該

法律程序，也沒有提交結束該法律程序

的申請。因此，法庭不可能接納非訴訟方

（M&C和署長）所提出，把該法律程序視

為已經完結的建議（有別於JT Stratford

Ltd v Lindley [1969] 1 WLR 1547）。（

見第97、99段）

8)再者，基於該法律程序仍未完結，完結

之時，R有可能被認為有責任支付根據該

訟費單申索的訟費。然而，假如這筆訟費

現時根據訟費評定程序給評定，R會被剝

奪爭辯訟費款額的機會，這完全是不公平

的（考慮Big Boss Investment Ltd v So Lai

Kei [2010] 1 HKLRD 793）。（見第98

段）

申請更改或撤回命令

這是一宗申請更改或撤回命令的案件。在

僱員補償法律程序中代表申請人（前法律

援助受助人）的律師樓提出申請，要求法

庭更改或撤回聆案官李紹豪擱置按共同基

金基準評定訟費程序的命令。案情已在判

決書詳細列出。

CoMPAnY LAW

Yung Siu Wa v Raffles Family Office LtdCourt of First InstanceMiscellaneous Proceedings No 1900 of 2018Recorder Stewart Wong SC 23, 27 November 2018

Company law — directors — right to inspect documents — application by director whose removal inevitable — whether application made for improper purpose — inference to be drawn from inevitable removal as to purpose of inspection

P, K, M and T were four directors of six companies (D1–6). P was also the Chief Investment Officer (“CIO”) of D1. K was the sole owner of another company (“CMK”), which owned 44 percent of the shares in D1, which in turn wholly owned D2–6. On 23 October 2018, P’s solicitors wrote to D1–2 alleging misconduct by K and M, including a proposal by K to use part of the proceeds of a share allotment

by D1 to repay a loan allegedly owed by K and M to a company owned by them and demanded that they or CMK buy out his shares in D1 and, absent a reply, threatened court proceedings. On 25 October 2018, P was summarily dismissed as D1’s CIO. A general meeting of D1 to consider the removal of P as a director was fixed for 27 November 2018. On 30 October 2018, Ds informed the Court that they were willing to provide copies of their documents requested by P within 42 days; and P applied for inspection and the taking of copies of Ds’ documents.

Held, dismissing P’s application, that:

1) The grounds for refusing inspection by directors was not limited to an intended abuse or breach of confidence leading to injury or damage to the company. Any improper purpose, properly established by the company, constituted a ground for refusal. An attempt to achieve an advantage in proceedings, anticipated or existing, between various shareholders of the company concerned, if proven, would be an improper purpose, as this would not be for the purpose of discharging


• March 2019


one’s duties as a director (Oxford Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services Plc [2008] Bus LR 1244, Ng Yee Wah v Lam Chun Wah [2012] 4 HKLRD 40, Tsai Shao Chung v Asia Television Ltd [2012] 4 HKLRD 52, Re Tanyuen Investments Ltd (HCCW 375/2008, [2009] HKEC 1773) applied). (See paras. 24–26.)

2) The fact that a director seeking inspection was likely or inevitably to be removed soon was not per se a reason to refuse inspection. Inevitable removal might in itself be a reason to refuse interlocutory relief as this might be an important factor in the discretionary consideration of the balance of convenience. But where, as here, inspection as final relief was being sought, the matter was not one of discretion. The question was what inference could be drawn from the likely or inevitable removal regarding the purpose of the inspection in all the circumstances. The burden was on the company concerned to establish an improper purpose affirmatively with clear proof (Conway v Petronius Clothing Co Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 72 applied). (See para. 27.)

3) Here, on the facts, it was a virtual certainty that P would be removed as a director of each of Ds on 27 November 2018 or soon after. (See paras. 29–34.)

4) On 30 October 2018, P and his advisors must have known that his removal was inevitable, given that K’s camp controlled Ds, yet he persisted in his application. The clear inference to be drawn on the evidence was that P was not making, and continuing with, this application for inspection for the purpose of enabling him to discharge his duties as a director of Ds. Rather, P’s application was made for an improper purpose, namely to obtain information which might assist him in likely litigation against K and M. Accordingly, inspection should be refused (Oxford Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services Plc [2008] Bus LR 1244 applied). (See paras. 35, 40.)

Application

This was an application by the plaintiff-director of each of the first to sixth defendant-companies for inspection and copies and various of the defendants’ documents. The facts are set out in the judgment.

公司法

Yung Siu Wa v Raffles Family Office Ltd原訟法庭

高院雜項案件2018第1900號

特委法官黃繼明資深大律師

2018年11月23日、27日

公司法 — 董事 — 查閱文件的權利 — 由必然被罷免的董事提出的申請 — 申請是否為了不當目的而提出 — 從董事必然被罷免推斷查閱文件的目的

六間公司（第一至第六被告人）各自有

四名董事，四名董事是P、K、M和T。

原告人亦是第一被告人的投資總監。K

是另一間公司（「CMK」）的唯一擁有

人，CMK擁有第一被告人44%股份，

第一被告人全資擁有第二至第六被告

人。2018年10月23日，原告人的律師寫

信給第一及第二被告人，指稱K和M作出

不當行為，包括K建議動用第一被告人的

股份配發的部分所得款項償還一筆貸款，

據稱該筆是拖欠一間由K和M二人擁有的

公司的貸款；原告人也在信中要求他們或

CMK收購他在第一被告人的股份，並且

威脅如果二人不作回應，他就會展開法律

程序。2018年10月25日，原告人被即時

解除作為第一被告人投資總監的職務。第

一被告人舉行大會審議罷免原告人董事職

務的建議，大會定於2018年11月27日舉

行。原告人要求取得眾被告人多份文件的

副本；2018年10月30日，眾被告人通知

法庭，它們願意在42日內向原告人提供他

所要求的副本；原告人其後申請查閱和複

製眾被告人的文件。

裁決 –駁回原告人的申請：

1)董事意圖辜負信任或違反保密責任引致

公司蒙受傷害或損害是拒絕董事查閱文件

的理由，但不是唯一的理由。任何已被公

司妥善地證明的不當目的都構成拒絕讓董

事查閱文件的理由。涉案公司眾多股東試

圖在法律程序中得到好處，不論是預料的

還是現有的事，如證明屬實，就會是不當

的目的，因為「得到好處」不會是董事為

了履行董事職務而有的目的（應用Oxford

Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services

Plc [2008] Bus LR 1244、Ng Yee Wah v

Lam Chun Wah [2012] 4 HKLRD 40、Tsai

Shao Chung v Asia Television Ltd [2012]

4 HKLRD 52、Re Tanyuen Investments

Ltd (HCCW 375/2008, [2009] HKEC

1773)）。（見第24–26段）

2)要求查閱文件的是相當可能或必然很快

被罷免的董事是一個事實，但這個事實本

身不是拒絕讓董事查閱文件的理由。「必

然被罷免」本身可以是拒絕批予非正審濟

助的理由，因為在酌情考慮對訴訟各方的

利害的影響時，它可以是一個重要的考慮

因素。不過，如果所要求的是以查閱文件

作為最後濟助，正如這宗案一樣，這就不

是關乎酌情決定權的事。問題是，就查閱

文件的目的而言，在整體情況下，從董事

「相當可能或必然很快被罷免」可得出甚

麼推論來。舉證責任在於涉牽公司，公

司必須證據確鑿地證明有不當目的（應

用Conway v Petronius Clothing Co Ltd

[1978] 1 WLR 72）。（見第27段）

3)就案情而言，幾乎肯定在2018年11月

27日或稍後日子，原告人會被眾被告人逐

一罷免董事職務。（見第29–34段）

4)原告人和他的顧問一定在2018年10月

30日已經知道他（指原告人）必然會被罷

免，而由於K的陣營控制著眾被告人，原

告人堅持提出申請。從證據明顯推斷出，

原告人不是為了能夠履行作為眾被告人董

事的職務而提出並堅持提出查閱文件的申

請。他只是為了一個不當目的，即取得相

當可能在針對K和M而提出的訴訟中對他

有幫助的資料，才申請查閱文件。因此，

法庭應拒絕讓他查閱文件（應用Oxford

Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services

Plc [2008] Bus LR 1244）。（見第35

、40段）

申請查閱和複製文件


這是一宗申請查閱和複製文件的案件。原

告人是六間公司（第一至第六被告人）的

董事。他向法庭提出申請，要求查閱和複

製眾被告人的多份文件。案情已在判決書

詳細列出。

CriMinAL

HKSAR v Kong Tat LungCourt of AppealCriminal Appeal No 27 of 2016Yeung V-P, Cheung and Pang JJA29 June 2017, 11 August 2017

Criminal law and procedure —directions to jury — whether directions on dealing with defence evidence, drawing inferences, previous convictions and lies inappropriate and inadequate

Criminal sentencing — dangerous drugs — trafficking — part of drugs for self-consumption — reduction in sentence — proper approach where defendant’s case was: (a) substantial part of drugs for self-consumption; and (b) part, not substantial part, of drugs for self-consumption

D was found guilty of one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely

30.25 g of “Ice”, and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, arguing that: (a) the Deputy Judge’s directions on dealing with the defence evidence, drawing inferences, previous convictions, and lies were inappropriate and inadequate; and (b) the sentence was manifestly excessive because the four-month reduction allowed on the basis that part of the drugs were for D’s own consumption was inadequate.

Held, granting leave to appeal against conviction but dismissing the appeal against conviction and refusing leave to appeal against sentence, that:

Appeal against conviction

Judges’ directions to a jury were not cast in iron and inflexible. Proper directions must be given according to the circumstances of individual cases, and must be comprehensive and fair. (See para. 26.)

Here, D had disclosed his drug habit and prison sentence to strengthen his defence that the drugs were for his own consumption. The Deputy Judge directed the jury to the effect that D’s criminal record was irrelevant to whether he was guilty or not. The direction was reasonable and adequate, and did not cause any disadvantage to D. It was not necessary to give further directions on how the previous convictions affected D’s credibility and propensity to commit

the present offence, and such directions would only serve to strengthen the jury’s impression that D had a drug habit (HKSAR v Lam King Yin (CACC 162/2014, [2015] HKEC 840) considered). (See paras. 27–33, 36).

As in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, it was unnecessary for the Deputy Judge to give a lies direction. The Deputy Judge only needed to give the usual directions on the burden and standard of proof. However, the Deputy Judge’s incomplete lies direction did not affect the safety of the conviction (Yuen Kwai Choi v HKSAR (2003) 6 HKCFAR 113 applied). (See paras.37–38, 42.)

Although there might have been minor imperfections in the Deputy Judge’s directions regarding the treatment of D’s evidence, they did not render the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory. Further, as long as the directions were clear and precise, their order was not important. (See paras. 45, 49.)

Appeal against sentence

Where a defendant argued that part of the drugs were for his own consumption, in order to receive a reduction in sentence, he must make clear whether his case was that a substantial part of the drugs were for his own consumption. If so, the court should deal with the case in accordance with the principles laid down in HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau, and if necessary, decide by way of a Newton hearing whether the claim was made out. The recommendation of a 10 percent to 25 percent reduction of sentence in HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang only applied where a prominent or very substantial part of the drugs trafficked were for self-consumption. If the defendant’s case was that only a part of the drugs was for his own consumption (as opposed to a substantial part), the court could still exercise its discretion as to whether any reduction in sentence should be given and the extent of such reduction (HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 considered; HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1116 explained). (See


• March 2019


paras. 58–69.)

Under normal circumstances, and in the present case, it was not appropriate to use the reduction in sentence for self-consumption of only a part of the drugs as a ground of appeal to ask for a further reduction from the Court of Appeal. (See paras. 64, 70.)

Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence

This was an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs before Deputy Judge Poon Siu Tung. The facts are set out in the judgment.

刑事法

HKSAR v Kong Tat Lung上訴法庭

刑事上訴案件2016年第27號

上訴法庭副庭長楊振權

上訴法庭法官張澤祐

上訴法庭法官彭偉昌

2017年6月29日、2017年8月11日

刑事法及訴訟程序 — 引導陪審團 — 與處理辯方證供的方法、推論、定罪記錄及謊言有關的指引是否不適當及不充分

刑事罪判刑 — 毒品 — 販毒 —部分毒品作自用 — 減刑 — 在被告人的案情是：(a)毒品中有極可觀的部分是作自用的；及(b)毒品中有部分而不是極可觀部分是作自用之時的妥善的處理方法

被告人被裁定一項販運危險藥物罪，即販

運30.25克「冰毒」罪，罪名成立，被判

入獄八年。他不服定罪及判刑，申請上訴

許可，辯稱(a)：暫委法官關於處理辯方證

供的方法、推論、定罪記錄及謊言的指引

不適當，也不夠充分；及(b)判刑明顯過

重，因為以涉案毒品部分是被告人作自用

而給予他的4個月刑期扣減是不足夠的。

裁決–批准針對定罪提出的上訴許可申

請，但駁回針對定罪提出的上訴，並駁回

針對判刑提出的上訴許可申請：

針對定罪提出的上訴

原審法官向陪審團作出的指示並非鐵板一

片。原審法官必須根據個別案件的情況，

給予恰當的指引，但指示必須全面及公

正。（見第26段）

案中被告人透露自己有「吸毒」習慣及曾

因吸毒而入獄，目的是強化其答辯理由，

即涉案毒品是他作自用的。暫委法官引導

陪審團，所給指示的意思是被告人的刑事

罪行記錄和他是否有罪沒有關係。該指示

是合理和足夠的，沒有對申請人造成任

何不利。原審法官無必要進一步引導陪

審團，就被告人有案底一事如何影響他的

證供的可信性及他犯罪的傾向性給予指

示，這樣的指示只會加深陪審團對被告人

有「吸毒」習慣的印象（考慮HKSAR v

Lam King Yin (CACC 162/2014，[2015]

HKEC 840)）。（見第27–33、36段）.

正如在絕大部分的情況中，原審法官根本

無需要給予陪審團謊言指引。原審法官

只需要就舉證責任和標準向陪審團作出慣

常指引。然而，暫委法官不完整的謊言指

引不會影響定罪的穩妥性（應用Yuen Kwai

Choi v HKSAR (2003) 6 HKCFAR 113）。

（見第37–38、42段）

雖然原審法官關於如何處理被告人的證供

的指示可能有不太妥善之處，但沒有導致

定罪裁決變得不穩妥。此外，只要指引是

清晰明確的，指引的先後並不重要。（見

第45、49段）

針對判刑的上訴

凡被告人為了取得刑期扣減而辯稱部分毒

品是供自用，他必須表明自己是否屬於

有極可觀部分的毒品作自用的情況。如果

是這種情況的話，法庭應當根據HKSAR

v Wong Suet Hau案定下的原則及程序處

理，並在有需要時透過Newton聆訊，決

定被告人的說法是否成立。在周俊生案的

給予10%-25%的刑期扣減的建議，只適

用於被販運的毒品中有顯著或極可觀部分

作自用的案件。如果被告人的情況是只有

部分（不是極可觀部分）毒品作自用，法

庭仍可行使酌情權決定應否給予被告人任

何刑期扣減及扣減的幅度（考慮HKSAR v

Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69；

解釋HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2

HKLRD 1116）。（見第58–69段）

如果只有部分毒品是供給被告人自用，在

一般情況下，被告人不能以「毒品供自

用」應獲刑期扣減作為上訴理由，要求上

訴法庭進一步減刑。這宗案件就是這種情

況（見第64、70段）

針對定罪和判刑提出上訴許可申請

這是一宗申請上訴許可的案件。被告人在

暫委法官潘兆童席前被裁定販運危險藥物

罪罪名成立，他不服定罪及判刑，申請上

訴許可。案情已在判決書詳細列出。


PRACTICE SKILLS實踐技能

The lawyer-client relationship is a partnership. The lawyer uses legal skills to help a client solve problems and the client

cooperates by providing vital information and making decisions about the solution. The lawyer’s words and behavior profoundly affect the strength and value of the partnership from the perspective of the client. Clients do not think and feel about their matters as lawyer do. This disconnect can be the root cause of many problems prevented by avoiding comfortable, but unhelpful, words and phrases.

Communication between an attorney and client, like communication between any two people, is a complex, process of (1) perception of the other’s words and behavior, (2) decisions about what that means, and (3) decisions about what to say or do. What we perceive is limited by our own mental models, life-experiences, and feelings – physical and emotional. It’s easy for two people to share an

experience, notice different aspects, reach different conclusions about its meaning and what to do. Amy Herman, in her book Visual Intelligence, explains how even our eyes can deceive us. Our perception mechanism is prone to mistakes.

Whether a prospective client becomes a client, a client becomes a repeat client, or a repeat client becomes a referral source may depend, in part, on your communication skills. Based on my consulting experience, poor communication is at the root of many troubles lawyers have with their clients.

If you want a prospective client to hire you or, at the end of a representation, to be your brand advocate, always think before you speak and speak to develop a trusting relationship. Think about the client experience: what needs to happen at each step and what you could say or do to kill or nurture a partnership. At each point in the client experience, there are words and phrases to avoid.

no Professional relationshipAvoid:

“I’m a lawyer, working in ABC law firm. We have offices all over the world and can handle any sort of legal problem. My specialty is …”

People are people before they are clients. Tradition tells us that when you meet a stranger, give them your “elevator pitch.” If you go on and on about your practice, your droning will cause this stranger to stop listening. Instead, use a short introduction and then ask the stranger about themselves.

Prospective ClientAvoid:

“I can help you with that problem. This is how I would approach it.” OR

“Where is your business located? How many people do you employ? How long have you been in business? …”

When one realizes the person needs a

Words and Phrases to Avoid When Communicating with ClientsBy Susan Letterman White, JD, MSOD


• March 2019

http://www.masslomap.org

lawyer, many lawyers immediately talk about their expertise and experience, advocating for their hire. Alternatively, they spend too much time asking basic situation questions.

The best way to turn a prospective client into a client is by asking questions about their problem. Getting the prospect to talk about problems demonstrates that you care and are listening. It also makes problems feel more acute. After surfacing a problem, ask about the consequences of not addressing it. Then ask about the benefit of solving it. After you have gotten prospects to talk about the benefits of solving the problem, you can ask them how they would feel were the solution standing next to them.

intakeAvoid:

“You’re going to win this case.”

“Don’t worry. I’ll handling everything.”

When the prospect is ready to become a client, the relationship should be formalised. What you say should be aligned with what you write in the formal agreement and required by your ethics rules.

The formal agreement should clearly define the scope of your relationship with the client. This limits future claims from the client that go beyond the boundaries in your mind. Be clear about the scope of work you will perform, what you charge for, when you expect to be paid, whether interest will be charged for unpaid amounts due, and what will happen if the client continues to not pay. Guide expectations before, during, and at the end of an engagement to avoid subsequent surprises.

Working relationshipAvoid:

“…..”

Legal jargon

Silence is among the bigger problems that get lawyers into trouble. Clients expect to be kept informed, even when there is no new information. Return calls and emails within 24 hours. Communicate with clients at least every 6 weeks with a status update and to ask how they are. Use an out-of-office email notice when there may be a delay in returning a client’s call. When

clients’ expectations are met, it’s easier to manage the relationship and create a positive experience.

When a person enters a profession, part of the socialisation is learning and sharing the jargon. Use of jargon is a boundary builder. It binds together people while excluding others. When you use jargon with your clients, the boundary is sharpened and the partnership weakened.

Close MatterAvoid:

“Your final bill is…”

Naturally, your client needs to know what they owe you, but they need to hear, “thank you” and you need feedback. You can learn from criticisms and complements. Ask how often they would like you to keep in touch and their preferred medium of connection.

A robust and rich attorney-client partnership is created by managing expectations at every step of the client experience. Remember, what you say, may not be what your client hears. n

March 2019 • Practice skills 實踐技能

Words and Phrases to Avoid When Communicating with Clients


與客戶溝通時要避免的用語作者: Susan Letterman White, JD, MSOD

律師與客戶的關係是一種夥伴關

係。律師利用法律技巧幫助客

戶解決問題，客戶提供重要資

料，並就解決方案作出決策。從客戶的角

度來看，律師的言行嚴重影響夥伴關係的

力量和價值。客戶對事件的思考和感受與

律師不同。這種不同可能是許多問題的根

源，而避免使用無幫助的用語可防止這些

問題發現。

律師和客戶之間的溝通，正如任何兩個人

之間的溝通，是一個複雜的過程，包含(1)

對對方的言行的看法；(2)決定對方言行

的含義；及(3)決定說甚麼或做甚麼。我們

的感知受本身的心理模型、生活經歷和身

心感覺限制。兩個人很容易分享經驗，發

現不同之處，對含義得出不同結論。Amy

Herman在《Visual Intelligence》一書中解

釋，我們的眼睛甚至可以欺騙我們。我們

的感知機制容易出錯。

潛在客戶能否成為客戶，客戶能否成為老客

戶，老客戶會否推薦其他人，部分取決於你

的溝通技巧。根據我的諮詢經驗，溝通欠佳

是律師與客戶之間的許多問題的根源。

如果你想潛在客戶僱用你，或者在工仞結

束後為你做口碑，在說話前先思考，以說

話來建立信任的關係。考慮客戶的體驗：

每個步驟需要發生甚麼事，你說甚麼或做

甚麼可殺害或培養夥伴關係。在客戶體驗

的每個階段，都有要避免的用語。

沒有專業關係

避免：

「我是律師，在ABC律師行工作。我們在

世界各地設有辦事處，可以處理任何類型

的法律問題。我的專長是...」

客戶也是人。傳統告訴我們，遇到陌生

人時，向他做「電梯簡報」。如果你滔

滔不絕談論你的執業，這個陌生人會停

止收聽。相反，使用簡短的介紹，然後

詢問陌生人他的事。

潛在客戶

避免：

「我可以幫你解決這個問題。這就是我處

理的方式。」或

「你的公司在哪裡？你僱用多少人？你經

營了多久了？......」

當一個人意識到需要律師服務時，許多律

師會立即談論他們的專業知識和經驗，游

說僱用他們。又或，他們花太多時間詢問

基本情況。

將潛在客戶變為客戶的最佳方法，是詢問

他們問題。讓潛在客戶談論問題，表示

你關心他，正在聆聽，也令問題感覺更

嚴重。鋪陳問題後，詢問不解決問題的後

果。然後詢問解決它的好處。在談論解決

問題的好處後，你可以問他們覺得解決問

題的方法是甚麼。

新客戶

避免：

「這宗案你會勝訴。」

「別擔心。我會處理一切。」

潛在客戶準備成為客戶時，關係應該正式

化。你所說的內容應與正式協議的內容一

致，並符合你的操守準則。

正式協議應明確規定你與客戶的關係範

圍，限制客戶未來作出超出想象的聲稱。

訂明工作範圍、收取的費用、預期何時收

費、未付款項是否收取利息，以及若客戶

繼續不付款將採取甚麼行動。在正式合作

前、期間和結束時確立期望，以避免後續

出乎意料。

工作關係

避免：

「.....」

法律術語

沉默是導致律師陷入困境的最大問題之

一。即使沒有新消息，客戶也希望獲得通

知。24小時內回覆電話和電郵。最少每

6週與客戶溝通更新狀態及詢問他們的情

況。如果未能及時回覆客戶電話，請使

用離開辦公室的電郵通知。客戶的期望

得到滿足，就更易管理關係，創造正面

的體驗。

投身一個專業時，學習和分享行內術語

是社交的一部分。使用行內術語能建立

界線，將人們聯繫在一起，同時排除其

他人。對客戶使用行內術語，界線會變

得尖銳，合作夥伴關係也會被削弱。

案子完結

避免：

「你的最終帳單是......」

當然，客戶需要知道他們欠你多少錢，但

他們想聽到「謝謝」，而你需要反饋。你

可以從批評和讚美中學習。詢問他們想保

持聯絡的頻率和方法。

在客戶體驗的每一步管理期望，從而創

建強大而豐富的律師與客戶合作夥伴關

係。記住，你所說的可能不是客戶所聽到

的。n


• March 2019

http://www.masslomap.org

PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

AU KAR MAN區嘉文

SHEA & CO., DAMIEN SOLICITORS佘英輝律師行

CHAN DICKSON陳廸生

CHAN HO MAN陳浩文

LIPMAN KARAS立祁律師事務所

CHAN NATALIE YUEN YUEN陳元婉

ROBERTSONS羅拔臣律師事務所

CHAN WAI YEE陳慧儀

KAO, LEE & YIP高李葉律師行

CHAU HILKY周曉翹

FANGDA PARTNERS方達律師事務所

newly-Admitted Members 新會員

CHEUNG KA YUEN KEITH張嘉源

BAKER & MCKENZIE貝克• 麥堅時律師事務所

CHEUNG YUN TING KENNETH張潤廷

BAKER & MCKENZIE

貝克• 麥堅時律師事務所

CHIK NGA MAN HERMIA戚雅雯

DENTONS HONG KONG LLP德同國際有限法律責任合夥

CHIU FLORENCE招蕙莉

WITHERS衛達仕律師事務所

CHOI HIU YEE NATALIE蔡曉宜

CHOW KUNG WAI VIVIAN周宮慧

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL

HO JENNIFER何嘉津

JP MORGAN

HO VIVIEN ANNE何安怡

HONG EN洪恩

WARD FERRY MANAGEMNET

HUI TAK HEI HAYLEY許德禧

KIM MIN JU金珉柱

SHUM & CO., SOLICITORS岑明才律師行

LAM HIU MEI林曉微

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS翰宇國際律師事務所


• March 2019

BRINDLEY-MACRO KATHRYN JENIFERLEWIS SILKIN世勤律師事務所

CHAN CHI CHING陳芝菁

HO & IP何葉律師行

CHAN YUEN CHING陳元靜

CHEUNG, CHAN & CHUNG張陳鍾律師行

LAM WING YAN林穎欣

JONES DAY眾達國際法律事務所

LAU HIM WING劉謙穎

LEE CHI HANG李知衡

LEE NICHOLAS WILSONKING & WOOD MALLESONS金杜律師事務所

LEUNG KIU MAN LYDIA梁翹敏

LI LUXI李露茜

LO CHIN HONG MARTIN盧展康

CHAN & CO., VIVIEN陳韻雲律師行

LU DAN盧丹

MA YUEN TUNG ANTONIA馬婉彤

MCCARTHY KENDAL ANNEKING & WOOD MALLESONS金杜律師事務所

NG WING YEE FELICITY吳熲怡

KING & WOOD MALLESONS金杜律師事務所

SCHEU JOSEPH REN JIE仁杰

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE奧睿律師事務所

SIT HOI WAI NATHALIE薛凱蔚

STEPHENSON HARWOOD羅夏信律師事務所

SOO TSUNG JIE SEAN蘇頌杰

L & Y LAW OFFICE林余律師事務所

SUNG KA CHI宋嘉慈

DEACONS的近律師行

TANG KAM LUN鄧錦淪

DE BEDIN & LEE LLP

TONG JINGJING童菁菁

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS史密夫斐爾律師事務所

WONG HO MING ANTHONY黃浩銘

BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP

YIM KA CHI嚴嘉慈

March 2019 • professional moves 會員動向


CHEN CLAIRE QIAN HUI陳千慧

BAKER & MCKENZIE貝克• 麥堅時律師事務所

CHEN YANGBO陳仰博

THE SWEDISH CLUB HONG KONG LIMITED

CHIU YING ON LEON趙英安

FUNG YING LAM馮迎臨

BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP

HUANG NGA KI洪雅琦

KIM TAE HEE金娧希

CITI PRIVATE BANK

KO GARVIN高嘉明

DEACONS的近律師行

LAM CHEE-YAU TIMOTHY林子右

LEE MEI YEE李媺儀

LI & PARTNERS李偉斌律師行

LEUNG AGNES LOK-YAN梁樂茵

LEUNG HOI YAN梁愷茵


LI SING HEI ERIC李晟希

LO WING YIN盧穎賢

MOK KA WING莫家榮

KWC & ASSOCIATES郭允中律師事務所

NG KA YAN吳家欣

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD.

SUNG KAREN宋家慧

WAN WAH SUN温華燊

WANG LO YEE王露儀

WONG KWAN YUNG JAMES黃軍融


WONG SHU LAM MINNIE王書嵐


YUEN WING YAN阮穎欣

ZHANG JIAO張嬌

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL (HONG KONG) LLP蘇利文•克倫威爾律師事務所(香港)有限法律責任合夥

Partnerships and Firms合夥人及律師行變動changes received as from 1 January 2019

取自2019年1月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

• BRINDLEY-MACRO KATHRYN JENIFER commenced practice as a partner of Lewis

Silkin as from 15/01/2019. 自2019年1月15日成為新開業世勤律師

事務所合夥人。

• CHAN CHIN FUNG became a partner of Joseph S.C. Chan & Co.

as from 18/01/2019. 陳展峯

自2019年1月18日成為陳順祖文國權

潘慧妍律師行合夥人。

• CHAN PUN HON commenced practice as a partner of Chan &

Yeung Lawyers LLP as from 10/01/2019. 陳本漢

自2019年1月10日成為新開業陳與楊律

師行(有限法律責任合夥)合夥人。

• CHAN SHUN YAN joined Justin Chow & Co., Solicitors as a

partner as from 11/02/2019. 陳信賢

自2019年2月11日加入周廷勳律師行為

合夥人。

• CHONG YEE MEE ERICA became a partner of Orrick, Herrington &

Sutcliffe as from 16/01/2019. 莊漪薇

自2019年1月16日成為奧睿律師事務所

合夥人。

• COLES PETER TIMOTHY ceased to be a partner of Holman Fenwick

Willan as from 25/01/2019 and joined Clyde & Co. as a partner as from 26/01/2019.

自2019年1月25日不再出任夏禮文律師

行合夥人一職，並於2019年1月26日加

入其禮律師行為合夥人。

• COUPER DAVID GERARD ceased to be a partner of Kirkland & Ellis as

from 19/01/2019. 自2019年1月19日不再出任凱易律師事

務所合夥人一職。

• DONG OLIVIA became a partner of Weir & Associates as

from 08/01/2019. 唐嘉茵

自2019年1月8日成為韋雅成律師行合

夥人。

• DONG QIZHEN joined L&C Legal LLP as a partner as from

28/01/2019. 董启真

自2019年1月28日加入羅陳律師事務所

有限法律責任合夥為合夥人。

• FRANCIS DAVID NIGEL ceased to be a partner of Addleshaw

Goddard (Hong Kong) LLP as from 01/02/2019.

自2019年2月1日不再出任安勝恪道(香港)

有限法律責任合夥律師行合夥人一職。


• March 2019

• FU SHA LEE commenced practice as the sole practitioner

of SF Lawyers as from 17/01/2019. 符莎莉

自2019年1月17日獨資經營符莎莉律師

事務所。

• HODGSON JOHN LYNDON ceased to be the sole practitioner of Hodgson

& Co. as from 31/01/2019 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Hodgson joined Chiu, Szeto & Cheng as a consultant as from 01/02/2019.

自2019年1月31日不再出任Hodgson &

Co.獨資經營者一職，而該行亦於同日結

業。 Hodgson律師於2019年2月1日加

入趙、司徒、鄭律師事務所為顧問。

• JAMISON JAMES EDWARD commenced practice as the sole practitioner

of J.E. Jamison & Co. as from 14/01/2019. 自2019年1月14日獨資經營J.E.

Jamison & Co.。

• KAN KIN HANG MICHAEL joined Gallant as an assistant solicitor as

from 01/01/2019 and became a partner of the firm as from 22/01/2019.

簡健恒

自2019年1月1日加入何耀棣律師事務

所為助理律師，並於2019年1月22日成

為該行合夥人。

• LAW TAK YUEN COLIN ceased to be a partner of Shearman &

Sterling as from 16/01/2019 and joined Fangda Partners as a partner on the same day.

羅德源

自2019年1月16日不再出任謝爾曼•思

特靈律師事務所合夥人一職，並於同日

加入方達律師事務所為合夥人。

• LEE DOMINIC ceased to be a partner of de Bedin & Lee LLP

as from 05/02/2019. 自2019年2月5日不再出任de Bedin &

Lee LLP合夥人一職。

• LEUNG HOW-SUM LOUISE became a partner of Hogan Lovells as from

17/01/2019. 梁巧心

自2019年1月17日成為霍金路偉律師行

合夥人。

• LI HO MAN became a partner of L&C Legal LLP as from

07/01/2019. 李浩民

自2019年1月7日成為羅陳律師事務所

有限法律責任合夥合夥人。

• LI KWOK YING ceased to be the sole practitioner of Kevin Li

& Co. as from 31/01/2019 and the firm closed on the same day.

李國英

自2019年1月31日不再出任李國英律師

事務所獨資經營者一職，而該行亦於同

日結業。

• LO LOK KIU joined Anthony Siu & Co. as a partner as from

10/01/2019. 盧樂翹

自2019年1月10日加入蕭一峰律師行為

合夥人。

• NG KWOK WA ceased to be a partner of Tsui & Co. as from

18/01/2019. 吳國華

自2019年1月18日不再出任徐國森律師

事務所合夥人一職。

• NG WING LUN commenced practice as the sole practitioner

of Matthew Ng & Co. as from 23/01/2019. 吳穎麟

自2019年1月23日獨資經營吳穎麟律師

事務所。

• POURGOURIDES PANOS KYRIACOU joined Hill Dickinson Hong Kong as a partner

as from 01/01/2019. 自2019年1月1日加入Hill Dickinson

Hong Kong為合夥人。

• SHIU WING HO ceased to be a partner of Robert Lee Law

Offices as from 29/01/2019 and remains as an assistant solicitor of the firm.

邵永豪

自2019年1月29日不再出任李慕白律師

事務所合夥人一職，而轉任為該行助理

律師。

• WANAMBWA ANDREW commenced practice as a partner of Lewis

Silkin as from 15/01/2019.

自2019年1月15日成為新開業世勤律師


• WANG XIA joined LC Lawyers LLP as a partner as from

22/01/2019. 王俠

自2019年1月22日加入林朱律師事務所

有限法律責任合夥為合夥人。

• WEIR SHANE FREDERICK became a partner of Weir & Associates as

from 01/01/2019. 韋雅成

自2019年1月1日成為韋雅成律師行合

夥人。

• WONG CHUNG ON PETER ceased to be the sole practitioner of Peter C.O.

Wong & Associates as from 15/01/2019 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Wong remains as a partner of M.M. Wong & Co.

王從安

自2019年1月15日不再出任王從安律師

事務所獨資經營者一職，而該行亦於同

日結業。王律師仍繼續擔任王文明律師

行合夥人一職。

• WONG HOI SZE joined King & Wood Mallesons as a partner

as from 15/01/2019. 黃海思

自2019年1月15日加入金杜律師事務所

為合夥人。

• WONG MAN MING ceased to be a partner of M.M. Wong & Co.

as from 16/01/2019. 王文明

自2019年1月16日不再出任王文明律師

行合夥人一職。

• YEUNG WING KUEN WILLIAM commenced practice as a partner of Chan &

Yeung Lawyers LLP as from 10/01/2019. 楊穎權

自2019年1月10日成為新開業陳與楊律

師行(有限法律責任合夥)合夥人。

• YICK TING FAI Jeffrey became a partner of Cheung & Choy as from

24/01/2019 易庭暉

自2019年1月24日成為張世文蔡敏律師


March 2019 • professional moves 會員動向



• February 2018

Lawn bowling is a precision sport that requires a lot of coordination of different parts of the body and the mastery of

multiple simultaneous actions. Herbert Tsoi, a probate lawyer and devotee of the sport for four decades, says it is a “precision game” along the same vein as snooker or darts.

“There is a lot of tactics involved in how to read the head and play strategic shots. Then there is the joy of successfully delivering a shot as I would like to, the joy of participating in a good game and the joy of the camaraderie of the team,” explained Tsoi, a partner at his own law firm of Herbert Tsoi & Partners, who has been a lawn bowler since 1978.

By Thomson Reuters

Lawn Bowl Lawyering

Tsoi picked up the sport following his return to Hong Kong after receiving his legal training in London in the 1970s. For Tsoi, lawn bowling became a four-decade-long hobby that he not only enjoys but also actively promotes and coaches.

All Started in the ‘70sTsoi originally wanted to learn how to play golf but, knowing that it would take at least 20 years before he could become a member of the golf club in Hong Kong, switched to lawn bowling. Lawn bowling is a quintessentially English sport, so it made sense for a British-trained lawyer to take it up.

His ties to the sport came from his legal work.

“In 1978, I was handling a long case and one of the clients was a Hong Kong resident who had emigrated to Australia. He was a lawn bowler and he started playing on the lawn bowl green in Victoria Park,” Tsoi remembered.

“He soon got a following of those who were interested in the game and he decided to form a lawn bowling club with Victoria Park as the home green. I asked him about the game and soon started learning lawn bowling from him.”.

It surprises many to learn that lawn bowling has always been a favorite game in many of the membership clubs with sporting facilities in Hong Kong.


• March 2019


“The Hong Kong Cricket Club, the Kowloon Cricket Club, the Hong Kong Football Club, the Kowloon Bowling Green Club, the Indian Recreation Club, just to name a few,” Tsoi says.

“In the 60s and the early 70s, the players in Hong Kong were of world class standard, winning medals and even gold medals in the world championship and the commonwealth games,” he said.

out on the FieldAfter playing for half a dozen times, the friend who introduced Tsoi to the sport rang him up one Friday afternoon and told him that he was short a player for a league game the following afternoon. He asked Tsoi to stand in.

“I said ‘yes’. I remember how I made a mess of it, but I became a reserve player for the Victoria Lawn Bowls Club,” says Tsoi, whose memories of his start in the sport are still vivid.

At the time, Tsoi was learning the basic techniques of the sport, improving his skills and participating in competitions. He soon became one of the regular players of the Victoria Lawn Bowls Club (“VLBC”). He has only played for VLBC since then.

“I used to practice on Sunday mornings in our home greens in Victoria Park. However, league games are now played on both Saturdays and Sundays, so we also need to practice on Thursday evenings to prepare for the games,” said Tsoi.

Tsoi manages to take time off for lawn bowling despite his busy schedule.

“If you block out a time slot in your diary and try to stick to it, then it will work,” he says.

While the sport requires a lot of concentration, Tsoi sees it as an opportunity to take his mind off work for a few hours.

And to play better, Tsoi realised that just practicing lawn bowling was not enough. He also spent time swimming to train his coordination and balance

“My lawn bowling club does not have its own club premises, and our home green is the lawn bowling greens in Victoria Park. I was one of few senior members of the club who was taking up the responsibility of nurturing and recruiting new members,” Tsoi recalled.

While the highest grade of coaches is Grade III, Tsoi says he is content with his current Grade II level.

“To achieve that, you must have regularly participated in the top tier of open competitions in Hong Kong or have represented Hong Kong in international competitions. I have never been that good,” he confessed.

Tsoi remains active in the lawn bowling community. He serves as the honorary legal advisor for the Hong Kong Lawn Bowls Association (“HKLBA”), even though he is not directly involved in the management of the association.

“Coaches in Hong Kong must attend Continuing Coach Education Activities for the required number of hours in order to have their accreditation renewed. I have been giving lectures on the laws relating to sports to the coaches for both the HKCC and the HKLBA as part of the education activities,” Tsoi explained.

A Popularised GameA lawn bowler for over 40 years, Tsoi has seen the sport evolve in terms of environment and participants.

“The game is usually played in the open air and on a natural lawn, but it has evolved a lot that now we have artificial

and to increase his stamina.

“You would be surprised to find that participating in a lawn bowling game which lasts for three hours with the players standing around doing nothing most of the time can be quite tiring,” he said.

From Playing to CoachingAfter years of practicing and playing, Tsoi has become a Grade II national coach, thanks to his pursuit and commitment to the sport.

Just as he continues to expand his horizons as a lawyer, he has not tired of increasing his knowledge and expertise in lawn bowling. He regularly takes exams and gets new accreditations that can take him to the next level in the sport.

When he got his start in lawn bowling, the Hong Kong Coaching Committee (“HKCC”) was assisting each National Sports Association to set a standard for coaches with courses and tests leading to an official accreditation. The HKCC aimed to develop coaching education and accreditation programs in Hong Kong.

“I always enjoy attending courses on any subject to increase my knowledge and I don’t mind taking examinations. I attended the courses and passed the examinations for lawn bowling coaches. I eventually received the accreditation,” Tsoi explained.

Another reason Tsoi went for the accreditation was that lawn bowling clubs must be able to organise introductory courses and give training courses to recruit new members.

Lawyers at Leisure 律師閒情March 2019 •



• February 2018

greens and indoor bowling. The Hong Kong government is trying to provide a lawn bowling green in each district, with some being indoor and outdoor artificial greens,” he said. “We also have a couple of greens with real grass.”

Tsoi also noted that lawn bowling is no longer an expat-exclusive sport played in private clubs.

Today, the Men’s League has grown from two divisions to nine with 96 games played every weekend during summer. In 1978 when Tsoi first started playing, there were only two divisions of 10 teams each.

“That would mean 192 teams of 12 persons each competing every week. I am glad to see that lawn bowling is getting popular and I hope that Hong Kong bowlers will continue to collect gold medals in international games,” he said.

Get More Lawyers inAs lawn bowling was gaining popularity citywide, Tsoi thought of popularising the sport in the legal community, particularly during his term as president of the Law Society from 2000 to 2002. He set out to form a Law Society Lawn Bowling Team.

“The Law Society has two different

roles – looking after regulatory and compliance matters relating to our members and also the interest of the profession like a trade union,” Tsoi explains.

“I was thinking whether we could form an interest group and then enter a team into the Lawn Bowls League,” he adds. “This would be a good platform for solicitors who have similar interests and hobbies to meet and participate in activities not related to professional business.”

In the legal profession, Tsoi said, there are many lawn bowlers. Former Law Society president Donald Yap and Patrick Chu, senior solicitor are both strong players. He has also met a few judges and barristers during the league games.

But a lawn bowling team formed solely by lawyers proved to be a challenging goal. Most lawn bowlers were already members of their club teams and it would be difficult to pluck them out from club teams that they enjoyed playing in.

“Nevertheless, I am glad to see that the Recreation and Sports Committee of the Law Society is serving the purpose that was in my mind,” Tsoi says.

And after years of playing the sport and working as a lawyer, Tsoi has found that some of the lessons he picked up lawn bowling also apply to his legal work.

“You always need to keep good control and a cool head in any situation,” he says.

“I learned how to motivate team members during the game instead of just blaming them, and how to observe the behavior of members of other teams carefully. You need to apply what you find praiseworthy in other teams and avoid what you see as defective or undesirable,” Tsoi said. “It is always easier to spot faults in the behavior of others than to realise your own faults.” n

法律與草地滾球作者: Thomson Reuters

草地滾球是一項精準的運動，要

求身體各部位協調和同時掌握

多種動作。遺產事務律師蔡克

剛醉心草地滾球運動40年，他表示，草地

滾球與桌球或飛鏢一樣，是一項「精準的

遊戲」。

「看穿對手和發揮策略涉及很多戰術。而

草地滾球的樂趣來自能發出稱心如意的一

球，參加一場愜意的比賽及享受振奮人心

的團隊精神。」蔡律師是蔡克剛律師事務

所合夥人，自1978年起參與草地滾球。

蔡律師在70年代在倫敦修畢法律回港後，

開始接觸草地滾球。蔡律師醉心草地滾球

40年，除了玩草地滾球，還積極推廣和教

授這項運動。

始於70年代

蔡律師本來想學打高爾夫球，但知道最快

20年才能取得高爾夫球會會籍，他便轉

打草地滾球。草地滾球是典型的英國運

動，在英國修讀法律的他玩草地滾球不無

道理。

他開始接觸這項運動亦因他的法律工作

而引起。

他記起：「1978年，我處理一宗長冗案

件，其中一個客戶是移居澳洲的香港人。

他是草地滾球手，開始在維多利亞公園玩

草地滾球。」

「很快吸引了一批對草地滾球有興趣的

人追隨，他決定成立草地滾球會，以維

多利亞公園作為主場。我與他談及早地

滾球這玩意，很快就開始跟他學習打草


• March 2019


地滾球。」

令人驚訝的是，草地滾球一直在擁有運動

設施的俱樂部之間深受喜歡。

蔡律師說：「香港木球會、九龍木球會、

香港足球會、九龍草地滾球會、印度遊樂

會是其中幾個。」

他說：「在60年代至70年代初，香港球

員達世界級水準，在世界錦標賽和英聯邦

運動會上獲得獎牌，甚至金牌。」

首次上陣

玩了幾次後，一個星期五下午，介紹蔡律

師參加這項運動的朋友打電話給他，說翌

日下午的比賽欠一位球員，叫蔡律師代為

上陣。

蔡律師仍然記憶猶新：「我答應了。我記

得我打得一團糟，但我仍當上了成了維多

利亞草地滾球會的後備球員。」

當時，蔡律師正學習這項運動的基本技

巧，提高實力，參加比賽。他很快成為維

多利亞草地滾球會的正規球員之一。從那

時起他一直效力該會至今。

他說：「以往我常常在周日早上在維多

利亞公園的主場練習。不過，聯賽現在周

六和周日舉行，所以周四晚上我們也要練

習，為比賽作準備。」

儘管工作繁忙，蔡律師還是會設法抽時間

打草地滾球。

他說：「在日程中固定騰空一段時間段並

堅持跟從便做得到。」

這項運動需要很專注，蔡律師認為這更是

讓他忘掉工作幾小時的好機會。

為了發揮得更好，蔡律師意識到僅僅在草

地滾球場練習是不夠的。他還花時間游

泳，訓練協調、平衡加和耐力。

他說：「草地滾球比賽持續三個小時，球

員們大部分時間好像站著無所事事，但你

會發現其實也很累人。」

從參與到執教

經過多年的練習和比賽，蔡律師已經成為

國家二級教練，這要歸功於他對這項運動

的堅持和承諾。

他的律師事業繼續擴大的同時，亦繼續孜

孜不倦地增進草地滾球方面的知識和技巧

知識，他經常參加考試和取得認證，令他

進入這項運動的新階段。

當他開始參加草地滾球時，香港教練培訓

委員會正在協助各體育總會為教練制定標

準，提供課程和考試，以獲得官方認證。

香港教練培訓委員會旨在發展香港教練教

育和認證課程。

蔡律師解釋：「我喜歡參加任何科目的課

程，以增進知識，我亦不介意參加考試。

我參加了課程並通過了草地滾球教練考

試，最終獲得了認證。」

蔡律師考取認證的另一個原因，是草地滾

球會必須舉辦入門課程和訓練課程，才能

招募新會員。

蔡律師回憶道：「我所屬的草地滾球會沒

有自己的場地，主場是維多利亞公園的草

地滾球場。我是會中少數負責培養和招募

新成員的資深會員。」

雖然最高教練級別是三級，但蔡律師對目

前的二級水平已相當滿意。

他坦言：「要考獲三級教練，必須定期參

加香港的公開賽，或代表香港參加國際比

賽。我亦自知球技未能達到這水平。」

蔡律師仍然活躍於草地滾球界。他是香港

草地滾球總會的榮譽法律顧問，雖然沒

有直接參與總會的管理。

他解釋：「香港的教練必須參加教練延

續培訓活動達所需時數才能續牌。我一

直有為香港教練培訓委員會和香港草地

滾球總會的教練講授有關體育法律的培

訓課程。」

普及運動

作為擁有超過40年經驗的草地滾球手，

蔡律師看到這項運動在場地和參與者方

面的發展。

他說：「草地滾球通常在露天草坪上進

行，經過多年發展，現在我們有人造草

坪和室內草地滾球場。香港政府正嘗試在

每區提供草地滾球場，有些是室內，有些

是室外人造草坪，亦有幾個真草場地。」

蔡律師還指出，草地滾球不再是只有外籍

人士參與的私人會所運動。

今天，男子聯賽從兩個組別發展到九個組

別，夏季每個周末都有96場比賽。1978

年蔡律師第一次參加比賽時，夏天聯賽只

有兩個10支球隊的組別。

他說：「現在每周有192支12人隊伍參

賽。我很高興看到草地滾球越來越普及，

我希望香港草地滾球員繼續在國際比賽取

得佳績。」

Lawyers at Leisure 律師閒情March 2019 •



• February 2018

鼓勵律師參加

隨著草地滾球在香港越來越普及，蔡律師想在法律界推廣這項運

動，特別是在2000年至2002年擔任律師會會長期間，開始籌組

律師會草地滾球隊。

蔡律師解釋：「律師會有兩個角色：負責會員的監管和合規事

宜；像工會一樣維護行業的利益。」

他補充說：「我想成立興趣小組，然後參加入草地滾球聯賽。對

有類似興趣和愛好的律師來說，這將是個很好的平台，讓他們一

起參加專業以外的活動。」

蔡律師說，在法律界的草地滾球員人數不少，而且表現很好。前

會長葉天養律師和資深律師朱國熙律師都是很有實力的球手。他

在聯賽亦遇過一些法官和大律師。

但是，由律師組成的草地滾球隊甚具挑戰性。大多數草地滾球手

已加入所屬球會的球隊，很難要他們從所屬的球隊抽身。

蔡律師說：「儘管如此，我很高興看到律師會康樂及體育委員會

正在實現我的所想。」

參與草地滾球運動和律師工作多年，蔡律師發現他從草地滾球學

習到的一些知識也適用於法律工作。

他說：「在任何情況下必須保持控制和頭腦冷靜。」

蔡律師說：「我學會在比賽期間如何激勵隊員，而不只是責怪他

們。如何仔細觀察其他團隊的行為，要學習其他團隊的長處，避

免重蹈他們的缺點。在別人的行為中發現錯處，總比發現自己的

錯處來得更易。」n


• March 2019

CAMPUS VOICES法學院新聞

March 2019 • Campus VoiCes 法學院新聞

in Loving Memory of Professor Michael WilkinsonProfessor Michael Wilkinson (1945-2019), our beloved colleague and friend, passed away peacefully on the evening of 20 February 2019 in the company of his most beloved and his daughter. Professor Wilkinson joined the School of Law (as the Faculty of Law then was) of The University of Hong Kong in 1983, and taught several generations of law students the PCLL subjects of Conveyancing, Civil Procedure, Professional Ethics, and Advocacy. He had published extensively in these fields.

Professor Wilkinson served as Associate Dean of our Faculty of Law in 1990-91, Head of the Department of Professional Legal Education in 1991-93 and 1996-2005, and as Chairman of the Board of the Faculty of Law in 2006-2015. He had also served as the University’s Public Orator, a member of the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission, and a member of many committees of the Law Society of Hong Kong. In 2018, Professor Wilkinson became the second Honorary Member for Life admitted by the Law Society of Hong Kong in its history, an honour bestowed upon him in recognition of his tremendous contribution to legal education and to the legal field in Hong Kong.

Professor Wilkinson was a graduate of Cambridge University and a barrister of the Inner Temple. He started his academic career at Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge, where Andrew Li, subsequently the first Chief Justice of the HKSAR, was a student in his tutorials. He has taught for 13 years in Africa – first in Uganda and then in Malawi - before joining The University of Hong Kong in 1983, where he became the longest-serving teacher in the Faculty of Law (1983-2019).

In his interview with Hong Kong Lawyer last year, Professor Wilkinson said: “I have probably taught 60 to 70 percent of all lawyers in Hong Kong. And the best part of my work is interacting with my students.” As regards his service on many Law Society committees, he said: “The friendship, the warmth, the kindness and the tolerance of my ignorance that I have received from my fellow committee members has been so great.”

Professor Wilkinson, who courageously fought against cancer in the

深切懷念韋健生教授

我們親愛的同事與好友—韋健生教授 (1945-2019)，

於2019年2月20日晚上，在他的摯愛妻子和女兒的陪

伴下安詳離世。韋教授於1983年加入法律學院（當時

稱School of Law），講授物業轉易、民事訴訟程序、

專業倫理、訟辯等法學專業證書課程科目，堪稱桃李

滿門，受教學生跨越數個年代，而韋教授本人在法律

範疇亦著述甚豐。

韋教授於1990-91年擔任本校法律學院副院長，1991-

93年及1996-2005年任專業法律教育系系主任，以及

在2006-2015年任法律學院院務委員會主席。此外，

韋教授也曾擔任港大的讚詞宣讀員、香港法律改革委

員會委員，及香港律師會多個委員會的成員。2018

年，韋教授成為香港律師會歷史上第二位終生榮譽會

員。韋教授獲頒這項榮譽，是基於他對香港法律教育

和法律領域所作的巨大貢獻。

韋教授畢業於劍橋大學，獲頒內殿律師學院大律師資

格。他在劍橋大學菲茨維爾學院展開教學生涯，而後

來擔任香港特別行政區首任終審法院首席法官的李國

能律師，更是他當時的導修課學生。韋教授曾在非洲

任教了13年—首先在烏干達，繼而在馬拉維。之後，

他於1983年任教香港大學，且成為法律學院服務資歷

最深的老師 (1983-2019)。

他去年接受《香港律師》訪問時曾提到：「香港的律

師中，大概有60%至70%曾是我的學生，而我教學的

最獨突之處，是與學生的互動。」在談及他曾服務香

港律師會多個委員會時，他說：「我獲得的最珍貴東

西，是委員會同仁的友誼、溫情、親切，以及對我的

無知的包容。」


50th Anniversary Distinguished Lecture - Five Decades of Constitutional Change in Hong Kong and East Asia: A Macro-historical Perspective by Albert H Y Chen, Cheng Chan Lan Yue Professor in Constitutional LawInspired by the edited volume on The Law in Hong Kong 1969-1989 published in celebration of the 20th anniversary of the law school at HKU, this lecture commemorates its 50th anniversary by reviewing constitutional developments in Hong Kong and its neighbouring Asian jurisdictions in 1969-2019. In this period, the constitutional landscape of East Asia (including Southeast Asia) has changed beyond recognition. It was impossible for anyone living in 1969 in East Asia to predict what the constitutional and political system in a particular jurisdiction would look like in 2019. For us today, looking at the next 50 years, or even just looking towards 2047, the future is equally unpredictable and uncertain. But is there any “long-term rationality” (to quote from Professor Ray Huang’s book, China: A Macro History) in the last five decades of East Asian constitutional history? Has the project of constitutionalism that originated in 18th century- Europe and North America made any progress in East Asia in the last five decades? These are the questions to be explored by Albert H Y Chen, Cheng Chan Lan Yue Professor in Constitutional Law in this lecture.

Date: March 15, 2019 (Friday)

time: 6:30 – 7:30 pm

Venue: Academic Conference Room, 11/F Cheng Yu Tung Tower, Centennial Campus, The University of Hong Kong

registration: https://goo.gl/KUePuq

五十周年傑出講座 - 香港及東亞憲制轉變五十年：宏觀歷史透視；由陳弘毅、鄭陳蘭如憲法學教授主講。

受到香港大學法律學院二

十周年之際編輯出版的“

一九六九至一九八九年香

港法律”的啓發，本講座

回顧香港及其鄰近亞洲司

法管轄區在一九六九至二

0一九年度的憲制發展，

作為紀念該院成立五十周

年。在這一時期，東亞(包括東南亞)的憲政格局發生了重大的變

化。一九六九年生活在東亞的任何人都無法預測二0一九年在某

一司法管轄區的憲法和政治制度會是什麽樣子。對於我們今天來

說，展望未來五十年，甚至僅僅展望至二0四七年，未來同樣是不

可預測和不確定的。但是，在過去五十年的東亞憲政歷史中，是

否存在任何「長期理性」(引用黃仁宇教授的著作“China: A Macro

History”)？起源於18世紀歐洲和北美的憲政工程，在過去的五十

年裏在東亞取得了什麽進展嗎？這些問題都是陳弘毅、鄭陳蘭如

憲法學教授在這講座中要探討的問題。

日期：2019年3月15日(星期五)

時間：下午6：30 - 7：30

地點：香港大學百周年校園鄭裕彤教學樓11樓學術會議室

登記：https://goo.gl/KUePuq

last few years, delivered his last lecture on 28 January 2019. Throughout the course of his illness, he carried on teaching, marking and scholarly writing just the same. He told us that it was the teaching and the students that kept him strong.

We are heartbroken by Michael’s passing. Michael will always be fondly remembered as a great teacher, a wonderful friend and a great mentor. His wisdom, sense of humour and charisma will be very much missed.

Words may fail us, but Michael’s friendship, collegiality, passion for teaching, love for legal scholarship, care and concern for his colleagues, students and friends, and selfless devotion to the common good of our law school and our legal community, will always be in our hearts.

Faculty of Law

The University of Hong Kong

韋教授過去數年堅強地與癌症搏鬥。2019年1月28日，韋教授

完成了他人生的最後一堂授課。在整個患病過程中，韋教授堅

持如常授課、批改作業、撰寫學術文章。他經常說，令他堅強

活下去的，是教學和他的學生。

我們都為韋教授的離世感到傷痛。他是傑出老師、一位良朋和

好導師，我們會永遠懷念他，也永不忘記他的睿智、幽默感和

風範。

我們無法用言語一一表達我們的感受。但不管怎樣，韋教授的

友誼、合作精神、教學熱誠、治學態度、對同事、學生和朋友

的關懷愛護、對法律學院和法律界的無私奉獻，都將永誌在我

們心中。

香港大學法律學院


• March 2019


HKU Law at 50: Walk through 50 Years - Walking tourThe rule of law has been considered as a cornerstone of Hong Kong, which was first brought by the British in 1841. So over this one-and-a-half centuries, how has our legal system changed and who took part in these changes? Established in 1969, The Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong is the first law school in Hong Kong. As one of the initiatives celebrating its Golden Jubilee, the Faculty is working with Walk in Hong Kong to design a walking tour in Central and Western District to trace the path of the Faculty development in parallel with the evolution of the legal systems in Hong Kong.

This walking tour is in Cantonese and free of charge with limited quotas for HKU Law alumni on 16, 23 and 30 March 2019 (Saturday 2:00 – 4:30 pm). Please visit https://50.law.hku.hk for details and registration.

香港大學法律學院五十周年: 漫步法學路–導賞團

法治是香港重要的基石之一，而這塊石頭可說是由英國人於1841年佔領香港

島時開始放置的，百多年過去了，我們的司法制度經歷了什麼變化？當中又

有誰參與呢？香港大學法律學院於1969年成立，是本地首間法律學院，為慶

祝金禧院慶，學院與活現香港合作，設計關於法律教育與司法制度演變的導

賞團，讓大家一邊漫步中西區，一邊認識學院發展和香港法律制度的變遷。

導賞團(廣東話)費用全免，3月份導賞團(3月16日、23日及30日，星期六下

午2:00–4:30)只供港大法律校友參加，詳情及報名方法請瀏覽https://50.

law.hku.hk 。

香港電台電視部香港大學法律學院聯合製作電視節目《現身說法》

由殖民地到特別行政區，法治一直是香港的基石。完善的法治體制，

是經過多年的千錘百煉、一步一步建成的。要秉承這個傳統、捍衛這

個制度，擁有法律知識的專業人士必不可少。究竟，香港這群專業人

才是如何培養出來的？大學的法律學院，又如何面對一路以來的挑戰

呢？一連六集半小時的電視節目「現身說法」追源溯始，以紀錄片手

法為縱、戲劇形式為緯，訴說在香港社會轉變下，法律教育擔當的角

色、以及如何面迎接挑戰。2019年3月24日起逢星期日晚上八時半港

台電視31 、3月27日起逢星期三晚上六時無綫電視虹翡翠台播出。

tV Programme “A Legal Journey” co-produced by HKU Faculty of Law & rtHKThe Faculty has co-produced a 6-episode docudrama “A Legal Journey” with RTHK (Radio Television Hong Kong) on the impact and contribution that the Faculty has made in the last 50 years in shaping the development of legal education, legal system and the rule of law in Hong Kong. It will be on-aired on 24 March 2019 at RTHK 31 at 8:30 pm (6 consecutive Sundays) and 27 March 2019 (6 consecutive Wednesdays) at TVB Jade at 6 pm.


香港中文大學委任法律學院院長

香港中文大學（中大）校董會通過委任鄔楓教授為法律

學院院長，接替任期將於2019年9月屆滿的Christopher

Gane教授。

鄔楓教授為香港中文大學偉倫法律學講座教授及研究院

院長，亦是法律學院於2004年成立時的創院成員之一，

曾先後擔任法律學院副院長（研究院課程）和研究生學

部主任（2010至2014年）、學院副院長（學院發展）

（2008至2010年）、及學院國際經濟法、普通法和中國

商業法法學碩士課程主任（2008至2011年）。鄔楓教授

先後取得兩個法律哲學博士學位（Dr.iur.及Dr.iur.habil.）。

他的教研成就卓越，屢獲獎譽，包括獲中大頒發博文教

學獎（2013年）、校長模範教學獎（2007及2011年）

，以及中大傑出研究學者獎（2008-09年）。鄔楓教授曾

於中國大陸、台灣、德國和美國就讀、工作和研究；他擁

有英格蘭及威爾斯，以及德國執業律師資格，並經常獲邀

為國際律師事務所和跨國公司在大中華地區的投資項目擔

任顧問。鄔楓教授專研國際及中國商業法、國際私法及比

較法；他著作甚豐，於眾多頂級國際學術媒體發表研究成

果，並出版多本具前瞻性的著作。

有關進一步資料，請參閱中大傳訊及公共關係處的新聞

稿：https://www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk/tc/press_detail.php?1

=1&1=1&id=2963&1=1&1=1&id=2963。

CUHK Appoints Dean of the Faculty of LawThe Council of The Chinese University of Hong Kong (“CUHK”) has approved the appointment of Professor Lutz-Christian Wolff as Dean of the Faculty of Law for a term of five years upon the incumbent Dean, Professor Christopher Gane, completing his term in September 2019.

Professor Lutz-Christian Wolff is Wei Lun Professor of Law and Dean of the Graduate School at CUHK. He was a founding member of the Faculty of Law, the then School of Law established in 2004. Professor Wolff has served the Faculty of Law as Associate Dean (Graduate Studies) and Head of the Graduate Division of Law (2010 to 2014), Associate Dean (Faculty Development) (2008 to 2010) and Director of the Master of Laws Programmes in International Economic Law, Common Law and Chinese Business Law (2008 to 2011). He holds two PhD degrees in Law (Dr. iur. and Dr. iur. habil.) and has received multiple teaching and research awards such as the University Education Award (2013), Vice-Chancellor’s Exemplary Teaching Awards (2007 & 2011) and Research Excellence Award (2008-09). Professor Wolff has studied, worked and conducted research in mainland China, Taiwan, Germany and the USA. He is admitted to practice in England & Wales and in Germany and is frequently invited to work as consultant for international law firms and multi-national companies on investment projects in the Greater China region. Professor Wolff specialises in international and Chinese business law, private international law as well as comparative law. He has published in a wide range of top tier international outlets with pioneering books in various areas.

For further details, please refer to the press release issued by the CUHK Communications and Public Relations Office at https://www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk/en/press_detail.php?1=1&1=1&id=2963.

CUHK Law Alumni Annual Cocktail reception 2019Following the success of last year’s inaugural event, CUHK Law organised the Alumni Annual Cocktail Reception at the Hong Kong Club on 25 January 2019, gathering around 180 alumni from different years and programmes, Faculty members and guests to mingle and enjoy an evening of fun. This year, CUHK Law was delighted and honoured to have Dr. Simon Sik On Ip, GBS, CBE, JP joining as the Guest of Honour, who gave an inspiring address to open the event. Similar to last year, guests who have contributed to the Faculty over the years were invited to attend, including Guests of Honour of past Faculty events, PCLL External Course Assessors, Distinguished Professional Mentors, Trial Advocacy Judges, members of the Judiciary and legal professions, friends and supporters. CUHK Law would like to thank all alumni and distinguished guests for coming along, and looks forward to seeing them again at the cocktail reception next year!

Professor Lutz-Christian Wolf鄔楓教授

Guest of Honour: Dr. Simon Sik On Ip, GBS, CBE, JP.本年度酒會的主禮嘉賓葉錫安博士。


• March 2019


Guests from the Judiciary and legal professions, featuring in this picture are (from left): Mr. William Stone QC; The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberto Ribeiro; Mr. Clive Grossman SC.來自司法機構和法律專業的嘉賓，圖為 ( 左起 ) 石仲廉先生、終審法院

常任法官李義法官、郭兆銘資深大律師。

A JD alumnus with CUHK Law Dean Professor Christopher Gane (2nd from left) and Distinguished Professional Mentors, Mr. Eric Ho (left) and Dr. George Mok (right).JD 校友與中大法律學院院長 Christopher Gane 教授 ( 左二 )，以及傑

出專業導師何啟德先生 ( 左一 )、莫玄熾博士 ( 右 )。

Members of CUHK PCLL External Course Assessors and Trial Advocacy Judges were invited to the event, featuring in this picture are Mr. Anthony Chow, SBS, JP (left); Mr. Huen Wong, BBS, JP (right).不少 PCLL 校外課程評核員和審訊訟辯評委均有出席是次酒會，圖為周

永健博士 ( 左 ) 及王桂壎先生 ( 右 )。

CUHK Law Associate Dean for Alumni and Professional Affairs Mr. Richard Morris (left) with Dr. Simon Sik On Ip, GBS, CBE, JP, and Mr. George Chan and Mr. Keith Cheung who represented the undergraduate and postgraduate alumni respectively to speak at the cocktail reception.中大法律學院校友及專業事務副院長穆寧思先生 ( 左 ) 與葉錫安博士，

以及分別代表本科和研究生校友致辭的陳嘉豪先生和張嘉源先生。

An LLB alumnus with guests from the legal professions: Mr. Michael Vidler (left); Mr. Philip Dykes SC (2nd from left); Mr. Mark Daly (right).LLB 校友與來自法律專業的嘉賓：韋智達先生 ( 左一 )、香港大律師公

會主席戴啟思資深大律師 ( 左二 )、帝理邁先生 ( 右 )。

The cocktail reception was an enjoyable occasion for the alumni to catch up with old and new friends.酒會是校友們與新老朋友歡聚一堂的好機會。

2019中大法律校友年度酒會

繼去年首屆酒會取得圓滿成功後，中大法律學院於2019年1月25日假香港會

舉辦了校友年度酒會。酒會聚集了約180名來自不同年份和課程的校友、教

職員和嘉賓共聚一堂，共度歡樂之夜。今年，法律學院很高興及榮幸獲葉錫

安博士應邀出席，並以主禮嘉賓的身份為開幕禮致以鼓舞人心的講話。與去

年相若，多年來為學院作出貢獻的嘉賓均出席盛會，包括曾擔任學院活動的

主禮嘉賓、PCLL校外課程評核員、傑出專業導師、審訊訟辯評委、司法機構

及法律專業人士、各界朋友和支持者。法律學院感謝所有校友和嘉賓蒞臨，

並期待他們明年再次撥冗出席酒會！

Professor Lutz-Christian Wolf鄔楓教授

Guest of Honour: Dr. Simon Sik On Ip, GBS, CBE, JP.本年度酒會的主禮嘉賓葉錫安博士。


「卓越法官」會議

「卓越法官」會議於2019年1月25至26日在中大法律學院研究生部舉

行。會議聚集了來自不同界別的學者，討論法官們在他們身處的特定

制度和政治背景下轉變其憲法制度的現象。為期兩天的會議討論了來

自香港、澳洲、加拿大、智利、匈牙利、印度、以色列、尼泊爾、新

加坡、南非、越南和美國等司法管轄區的傑出法官。與會者探討了不

同議題，包括：(1) 為什麼我們往往在一些國家憲法和民主變革的時

刻看到傑出法官，而在其他國家卻看不到；(2) 傑出法官在促進民主

鞏固和實施憲法改革方面能發揮多大的作用；(3) 我們是否能夠找到

一些傑出法官對於民主變革產生不利影響的例子，例如透過使用錯誤

的策略、製造政治反彈，或積極宣揚反動或反自由的思想；(4) 傑出

法官留下了什麼，他們的成就是否會傳承給第二代法官。

本會議的開幕禮由香港終審法院非常任法官包致金法官致辭，有

關內容（只有英文版）可瀏覽網頁：http://www. law.cuhk.edu.

hk/20190125_keynote_JusticeBokhary。

Conference on “towering Judges”The Towering Judges Conference, which took place on 25-26 January 2019 at the CUHK Graduate Law Centre, brought together a diverse group of scholars to discuss the phenomenon of judges who, within their particular institutional and political settings, were able to transform their constitutional systems. The two-day conference discussed towering judges from jurisdictions including Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Chile, Hungary, India, Israel, Nepal, Singapore, South Africa, Vietnam, and the United States. Participants considered, among others, the following issues: (1) Why do we tend to find towering judges in moments of constitutional and democratic change in some countries and not in others; (2) how effective are towering judges in promoting democratic consolidation and in effectuating constitutional change; (3) can we find examples of towering judges that have had a detrimental effect on democratic change, either by using the wrong tactics, producing political backlash, or by actively promoting reactionary or anti-liberal ideas; (4) what kind of legacy do towering judges leave, and do their achievements carry on to a second generation of judges.

The conference opened with a keynote address delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Kemal Bokhary, a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. His address is available at http://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/20190125_keynote_JusticeBokhary.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Kemal Bokhary.終審法院非常任法官包致金法官。

(From left) Tel Aviv Associate Professor of Law Iddo Porat, CUHK Law Assistant Professor Rehan Abeyratne, The Honourable Mr. Justice Kemal Bokhary, and CUHK Law Dean Professor Christopher Gane.( 左起 ) 特拉維夫大學 Iddo Porat 副教授、中大法律學院 Rehan

Abeyratne 助理教授、包致金法官、中大法律學院院長 Christopher

Gane 教授。


• March 2019


“the Professorial Chair and the Judicial bench” – talk and book Signing for Habeas Crocodylus by the Honourable Mr. Justice bokharyTo coincide with the release of his new book titled Habeas Crocodylus, CUHK Law Honorary Professor the Honourable Mr. Justice Kemal Bokhary, a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, delivered a talk on “The Professorial Chair and the Judicial Bench” at the CUHK Graduate Law Centre on 21 January 2019. A book signing ceremony was held after the talk.

中大法律學院舉辦訪問教授研討會及公開講座

中大法律學院於2019年1月22日主辦題為「國際

經濟法下的數字服務徵稅」的研討會，由客座教授

Andrew Mitchell和Tania Voon主講，兩位教授均來

自墨爾本大學法學院。

牛津大學耶穌學院David Lewis爵士院務委員及法

律導師Peter Mirfield教授於本年二月訪問中大法律

學院，並於2月12日在法律學院研究生部主講題

為「面對原告的權利：瓦爾特．雷利爵士的死亡

意義？」的公開講座。有關研討會和公開講座的

詳情，請瀏覽中大法律學院網頁：www.law.cuhk.

edu.hk。

CUHK Law Hosted Seminar and Public Lecture by Visiting ProfessorsOn 22 January 2019, CUHK Law hosted a seminar presented by visiting professors Andrew Mitchell and Tania Voon from Melbourne Law School on “Taxing Digital Services under International Economic Law”.

In February, Professor Peter Mirfield, Sir David Lewis Fellow and Tutor in Law of Jesus College, University of Oxford visited the Faculty and delivered a public lecture on “The Right to Confront One’s Accusers: Did Sir Walter Ralegh Die for Nothing?” at the CUHK Graduate Law Centre on 12 February.

Details of the seminar and the lecture are available at the CUHK Law website: www.law.cuhk.edu.hk.

Professor Andrew Mitchell (middle) and Professor Tania Voon (right) with the seminar chair Dr. Antoine Martin..Andrew Mitchell 教授和 Tania Voon 教授與研討會主持人 Antoine

Martin 博士。

Professor Peter MirfieldPeter Mirfield 教授

Professor Peter Mirfield delivered a public lecture at the CUHK Graduate Law Centre on 12 February 2019.Peter Mirfield 教授於 2019 年 2 月 12 日在中大法律學院研

究生部舉行公開講座。

The Honourable Mr. Justice Kemal Bokhary終審法院非常任法官包致金法官


「教授席和法官席」–包致金法官新書座談會及簽名會

為配合其新書《Habeas Crocodylus》

的發行，中大法律學院榮譽教授及香

港終審法院非常任法官包致金法官於

2019年1月21日在中大法律學院研究

生部舉行了名為「教授席和法官席」

的座談會，並於座談會結束後舉行新

書簽名會。

2019年己亥新春團拜

為了慶祝和開啟新的一年，中大法律學院於2019

年2月18日為所有學生及教職員舉辦己亥新春團

拜。活動於中大法律學院研究生部舉行，以舞獅表

演開場，並由學院院長發表簡短演講，最後有茶點

供參加者享用。

中大法律學院祝願所有學生和教職員豬年身體健

康、萬事如意、馬到功成！

Chinese new Year Gathering 2019To celebrate and kick off the new year, CUHK Law organised a Chinese New Year Gathering for all students and staff at the Graduate Law Centre on 18 February 2019. The celebration began with a lion dance performance, followed by a short speech delivered by the Faculty Dean and refreshments.

CUHK Law wishes all students and staff good health, happiness and success in the Year of the Pig!

A booking signing ceremony was held after Justice Bokhary’s talk.演講後舉行了新書簽名會。

Justice Bokhary’s new book Habeas Crocodylus (left) and his former three “cartoon law books”.包致金法官的新書《Habeas Crocodylus》( 左 ) 及其前

三本已出版的卡通法律書籍。

CUHK Law Dean Professor Christopher Gane withthe lion costume.中大法學院院長 Christopher Gane 教授與身穿舞

獅戲服的表演者合照。


• March 2019


Douglas Arner教授主講大中華區法律史研討會「法規的發展 - 香港視角」 (2019年3月8日)

下一場大中華區法律史研討會將於2019年3月8日在

中大法律學院研究生部舉行，由香港大學法律學院

Douglas Arner教授擔任主講。研究會的主題為「法規

的發展-香港視角」，將闡釋法規的概念是如何形成

的、這個新領域興起的歷史原因、不同的利益相關者

如何推動其發展以及他們如何回應。研究會將解釋不

同的法規手段和結構選項，以及強大的法規體系的優

勢，並關注「RegTech」下科技的角色。此外，研討

會亦會探討特定司法管轄區的行業細節或特徵是否決

定了法規體系的發展和設計。研討會將關注香港的法

律制度和文化，並舉例說明在特定情況下遵守法律的

含義，最後總結及展望法規將如何

發展。

香港律師會已向本研討會頒發

1.5個CPD學分。如欲參加，請

於2019年3月7日下午5時前登

入http://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/

en/event-page/20190308.php

報名。

Upcoming Greater China Legal History Seminar on “the Development of Legal Compliance – A Hong Kong Perspective” by Professor Douglas Arner (8 March 2019)The next Greater China Legal History Seminar will be delivered by Professor Douglas Arner, Kerry Holdings Professor in Law of the University of Hong Kong, at the CUHK Graduate Law Centre on 8 March 2019. The seminar, entitled “The Development of Legal Compliance – A Hong Kong Perspective”, will explain how the concept of legal compliance has developed, what the historical reasons for the rise of this new area are, how different stakeholders have been driving forces behind this development and how they have reacted. It explains different compliance tools and structuring options and what the advantages of strong compliance systems are, focusing on the role of technology, under the rubric of ‘RegTech’. The seminar will also explore if industry specifics or special features of particular jurisdictions are determining factors for the development and design of compliance systems. In this regard it focuses on Hong Kong’s legal system and culture to exemplify what legal compliance means in a particular context. The seminar will conclude with a summary and an outlook as to how legal compliance will develop in the future.

The Law Society of Hong Kong has awarded 1.5 CPD points to this seminar. To attend, please register at http://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/20190308seminar_registration by 5pm, 7 March 2019.

the “Private” Law’s response to Accident, illness and DisabilityOn 18th and 19th of February 2019, the School of Law, City University of Hong Kong and the Faculty of Law, University of Otago, New Zealand jointly organized a one and a half day conference entitled “The “private” law’s response to accident, illness and disability”.

the aims of conference were:

- to assess the no-fault regime in New Zealand and consider whether it should be expanded to cover any disability irrespective of cause;

- to consider the reaction to the no-fault principle in other countries;

- to analyse private law reforms moving away from fault as the basis

私法對涉及意外、疾病和傷殘糾紛的處理

香港城市大學法律學院和新西蘭奧塔哥大學法學院

於2019年2月18至2月19日合辦為期一天半的會

議“私法對涉及意外、疾病和傷殘糾紛的處理”

。

本次會議旨在:

- 評估新西蘭的無過錯責任制度，並考慮是否應

將其擴展以涵蓋所有不論任何原因導致的傷殘;

- 討論其他國家對無過錯責任原則的態度;

- 分析私法改革方面關於擺脫以過錯責任作為補

償意外、疾病和傷殘的基礎的做法;

- 研究設定某些範疇需要特別處理的原因; 和

- 研究私法、保險和行政賠償制度之間的互動


Group Photo of Guests與會者合照

for compensating for accident, illness and disability;

- to justify why certain areas are marked out for special treatment; and

- to consider the interaction between private law, insurance and administrative compensation schemes.

the speakers included (according to the order of presentation):

• Dr Simon Connell (Faculty of Law, University of Otago, New Zealand)

• Mr Warren Forster (Barrister and Independent Researcher, New Zealand)

• Ms Dawn Duncan (University of Auckland Business School, New Zealand)

• Professor Daniel Gardner (Faculté de droit, Université Laval, Québec, Canada)

• Professor Marie-Ève Arbour (Faculté de droit, Université Laval, Québec, Canada)

• Dr Ding Chunyan (School of Law, City University of Hong Kong)

• Professor Geraint Howells (Dean & Chair Professor of Commercial Law, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong)

• Professor Thomas Wilhelmsson (Chancellor (Emeritus), Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, Finland)

• Professor Vincent Rivollier (Faculté de Droit, Savoie Mont Blanc University, France)

• Prof. Dr. Peter Rott (University of Kassel, Germany)

• Prof. Dr. Piotr Machnikowski (Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics, University of Wrocław, Poland)

Through discussion and debate, the conference’s atmosphere was full of enthusiasm. While the speakers delivered excellent and insightful presentations, the audience actively participated in the discussions sessions, giving critical comments and putting forward challenging questions to speakers.

會議發言者包括（根據發言順序）:

• S imon Conne l l博士（新西蘭奧塔哥大學法學

院）

• War r en Fo r s t e r先生（新西蘭律師和獨立研

究員）

• Dawn Duncan女士（新西蘭奧克蘭大學商學

院）

• Daniel Gardner教授（加拿大魁北克拉瓦爾大學

法學院）

• Marie-Ève Arbor教授（加拿大魁北克拉瓦爾大

學法學院）

• 丁春艷博士（香港城市大學法律學院）

• 賀嘉倫教授（香港城市大學法律學院院長及商業

法講座教授）

• Thomas Wilhelmsson教授（芬蘭赫爾辛基大學

校長（榮譽）、法學院教授）

• Vincent Rivollier教授（法國薩瓦勃朗峰大學法學

院）

• Peter Rott教授（德國卡塞爾大學）

• Piotr Machnikowski教授（波蘭弗羅茨瓦夫大學

法律、行政和經濟學院）

會議氣氛非常熱烈，與會的演講者發表了精彩而深

刻的演講，觀眾亦積極參與討論，提出重要評論，

並向演講者提出具挑戰性的問題。


• March 2019


the 24th Goff Arbitration Lecture isn’t 700 Years Long Enough? – time to think Again about Costs by Mr neil Kaplan CbE QC SbS, international ArbitratorDate: 2 April 2019 (Tuesday)

time: 7:00pm-8:15pm (Tea Reception: 6:30pm-7:00pm)

Venue: Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), 38th Floor Two Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central

registration: https://goo.gl/forms/NArg0Gyh16OktbJv2 or scan the QR code

About the speaker:

Neil Kaplan CBE QC SBS, this year’s speaker, has been a full-time practising arbitrator since 1995. During this period he has been involved in several hundred arbitrations as co-arbitrator, sole arbitrator or chairman in England and Hong Kong, but also in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Croatia, Austria, Philippines, China, Laos, Japan, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia, Denmark, Sweden and South Africa.

Called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1965, Neil Kaplan has practiced as a barrister, Principal Crown Counsel at the Hong Kong Attorney General’s Chambers, and served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong in charge of the Construction and Arbitration List. He is also past Chairman of the HKIAC and past President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He is a Governing Board Member of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) and a panelist of several arbitral institutions including China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).

In this lecture, Neil Kaplan will discuss whether the long standing English cost shifting rule is still fit for purpose in arbitration given all the changes that have occurred since it was introduced in England 700 years ago.

*Application for CPD point is being applied for by the Law Society of Hong Kong.

第二十四屆戈夫仲裁講座 700年不夠長嗎?–是時候再考慮成本問題了講者：嘉柏倫先生

日期： 2019年4月2日（星期二）

時間：晚上7時至8時15分

（6時30分茶點敬候）

地點：香港國際仲裁中心

（中環康樂廣場8號交易廣場二期38樓）

報名： https://goo.gl/forms/NArg0Gyh16OktbJv2 或

掃描二維碼報名

關於講者：

嘉柏倫先生，英國司令勛章、皇家大律師、銀紫荊星章，自

1995年起擔任全職仲裁員。在此期間，他曾擔任幾百起仲裁案

件的聯席仲裁員、獨立仲裁員以及主席。除了在英國和香港作仲

裁員之外，他也在美國、加拿大、法國、德國、克羅地亞、奧地

利、菲律賓、中國、老撾、日本、荷蘭、馬來西亞、澳大利亞、

丹麥、瑞典及南非開展仲裁。

嘉柏倫先生於1965年加入英格蘭及威爾士大律師協會，在香港

律政司擔任首席檢察官，並曾在香港最高法院擔任法官，主審建

築及仲裁案件。嘉柏倫先生也曾擔任香港國際仲裁中心的主席及

英國特許仲裁員學會主席。他如今是國際商會仲裁委員會理事會

成員。此外，他亦是包括中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會以及其它

一系列仲裁機構的專家組成員。

嘉柏倫先生在本講座將探討700年前引入英國的成本轉移規則經

過多年的變化是否仍適用於當今的仲裁。

*主辦方正為是次講座申請香港律師會持續進修（CPD）認證，

歡迎各界人士參加。


There was no winner of last month's Legal Trivia Quiz #54

LEGAL TRIVIA #55

1. Salomon v A Salomon Co Ltd is the foundational case for the doctrine of the corporate veil (now pierced in many varied ways – but that is another story). the case started out at first instance under a different title with a different named plaintiff. Who was the named plaintiff at first instance?

A. Broderick B. Broderip C. Batcheldor D. Britain

2. Donoghue v Stevenson is the leading case establishing the principles of duty of care in tort. Mrs Donoghue famously claimed to have found the decomposed remains of a snail in what type of drink?

A. Ginger ale B. Pale ale C. Ginger beer D. Beer

3. the Anton Piller order which orders a defendant to allow the search of its premies and seizure of documents and items gets it name from the case Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd. Who/what was the original Anton Piller?

A. A ship (owned by Anton Piller KG) B. A person, Mr Anton Piller, the founder

Anton Piller KG C. The Anton Piller, a famous medieval

monument located in Anton, Bulgaria

There are a number of cases which are very well known for the important legal principles that they have decided but often the backstory is forgotten. This month we look at some trivia from some of Britain’s most famous cases.

8. PJS v News Group is a landmark decision on the right to privacy of the UK Supreme Court. PJS’s husband is a famous in what capacity?

A. Actor B. Politician C. Sportsman D. Singer

9. the House of Lords decision in American Cyanamid v Ethicon established the basic test to be applied as to whether to grant an interlocutory injunction. the case involved a claim for infringement of a patent for what type of product?

A. A pharmaceutical B. An industrial chemical C. A type of sanitary napkin D. A surgical product

10. Central London Property trust Ltd v High trees House Ltd which established the doctrine of promissory estoppel involved an agreement to reduce rent due to what cause?

A. WWI B. The Great Depression C. WWII D. Brexit

4. the Mareva injunction along with the Anton Piller order is one of the nuclear weapons of the law. the Mareva was a ship owned by the plaintiff. What type of cargo was she carrying on the voyage that gave rise to the case?

A. Oil B. Grain C. Wood chips D. Fertilizer

5. the norwich Pharmacal order is so named for a company founded in norwich. Where is that town located?

A. Norfolk, England B. Ontario, Canada C. New York State, United States D. Connecticut, United States

6. Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball, is the leading case on liability for puffery. What ailment afflicted Mrs Carlill that puffing on the smokeball was meant to prevent?

A. Arthirtis B. Rheumatism C. The common cold D. Influenza

7. Mr Woolmington who was the defendant in Woolmington v DPP was accused of which crime?

A. Fraud B. Murder C. Treason D. Kidnapping

Answers to Legal trivia Quiz #541. b. NPJ means Non Permanent Judge in Hong Kong

2. A. DHCJ means Deputy High Court Judge

3. C. MR means the Master of the Rolls

4. b. The post nominal initials for the Lord Chief Justice of Engand and Wales are CJ.

5. D. There is no President of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (although, strangely, there are three Vice Presidents).

6. C. In Sri Lanka, PC is used to inidicate a President’s Counsel (the equivalent of a Senior Counsel).

7. D. The initial C is used for the Chancellor of the High Court

8. A. The Chief Baron of the Exchequer was known as LCB.

9. b. In the Hong Kong Full Court, PJ was used to indicate the Presiding Judge. The Chief Justice did not necessarily preside over the Full Court. The rules provided prior to WWII that the more senior of the Chief Justice or Chief Judge of the British Supreme Court for China would preside.

10. b. Historically, SL stood for Serjeant at Law.


• March 2019

Contest rules:To be eligible to win a bottle of Ch. Roquettes 2010 (Grand Cru) or Ch. Tour Baladoz 2006 (Grand Cru) from Global Vintage Wines Centre, please send your quiz question answers to [email protected]. The first reader to respond with the most correct answers, with no more than 3 incorrect responses, will be deemed the winner. The decision of Thomson Reuters regarding the winner is final and conclusive.

法律知識測驗 #55有不少案件因其所决定的重要法律原則而廣為人知，但其背景事件往往被遺忘。

在這個月，我們來看看英國一些最著名的案例中的一些細節。

1. 所羅門訴A所羅門有限公司(Salomon v.

A Salomon Co., Ltd)是公司面紗理論的

基礎案例 (如今，公司面紗在許多方面

都被戳穿了- 但那是另一回事)。案件最

初是在不同標題、不同名稱的原告下進

行初審的。初審時的原告是誰？

A. Broderick

B. Broderip

C. Batcheldor

D. Britain

2. Donoghue v. Stevenson一案是確立

侵權中謹慎責任原則的主要案件。Mrs.

Donoghue聲稱在哪種飲料中發現了一

具腐爛蝸牛的遺骸？這是出了名的案

件。

A. 薑汁汽水

B. 淡色苦麥芽啤酒

C. 薑啤

D. 啤酒

3. 安東皮勒命令(Anton Piller order)命令

被告允許他人搜查其處所，並沒收文件

和物品，該命令的名稱來自Anton Piller

v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd.一案。

最初的安東皮勒是誰/什麼人？

A. 一船舶(由Anton Piller KG擁有)。

B. 一個人，安東皮勒先生，即Anton

Piller KG的創始人。

C. 位於保加利亞安東的一座著名的中

世紀紀念碑Anton Piller。

4. 馬雷瓦禁令(Mareva injunction)和安東皮勒命令

是法律上的核武器之一。「馬雷瓦」號是原告

擁有的一艘船。它在航程中携帶的是什麼類型

的貨物引起了這個案件？

A.石油

B.穀物

C.木屑

D.肥料

5. 諾威治藥理命令(Norwich Pharmacal order)是以

一家在諾威治成立的公司的名字而命名的。那

個小鎮在哪裏？

A. 英國諾福克(Norfolk)

B. 加拿大安大略省

C. 美國紐約州

D. 美國康涅狄格州

6. Carlill v. Carbolic Smokeball一案是關於誇大引

致責任的主要案件。Mrs. Carlill得了什麼病，而

有人誇大了烟霧球是可防止這種病的發生？

A.關節炎

B.風濕病

C.普通感冒

D.流感

7. Mr. Woolmington是Woolmington v. DPP案的被

告，他被控犯了哪項罪行？

A. 欺詐

B. 謀殺

C. 叛國

D. 綁架

8. PJS訴新聞集團案是英國最高法院

關於私隱權的一項具有里程碑意

義的裁决。PJS的丈夫是以什麽身

份出名的？

A. 演員

B. 政治家

C. 運動員

D. 歌手

9. 上議院在“American Cyanamide

v. Ethicon”一案中的裁决確立了

是否授予非正審禁令的基本測試

標準。該案件涉及對哪種商品的

專利侵權的索償？

A. 藥品

B. 工業化學品

C. 一種衛生巾

D. 外科商品

10. Central London Property Trust

Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd.一

案確立了約定禁止反悔原則，涉

及到協議減租的原因是什麼？

A. 第一次世界大戰

B. 大蕭條

C. 第二次世界大戰

D. 英國退歐

March 2019 • LegaL Trivia Quiz 法律知識測驗

法律知識測驗#54的答案

1. B. NPJ指香港的非常任法官

2. A. DHCJ是指高等法院暫委法官

3. C. MR指的是民事上訴庭大法官

4. B. 英格蘭和威爾士首席大法官的職位名稱首字母是CJ

5. D. 香港上訴法庭沒有庭長 (雖然奇怪的是，有三名副庭長)

6. C. 在斯里蘭卡，PC是用來表示一名總統的法律顧問 (相當於一名高級律師)

7. D. 首字母C是用來表示高等法院大法官

8. A. 財政事務首席法官被稱LCB

9. B. 在香港合議庭，PJ被用來表示主審法官。首席法官不一定主持合議庭。第二次世界大戰前的規則

規定，首席法官或英國在華最高法院的首席法官之級別較高者將會主持。

10. B. 在歷史上，SL是指最高級律師


競賽規則：

讀者如欲贏取一瓶由GlobalVintageWines Centre提供的2007年Ch. Roquettes 2010 (Grand Cru)或Ch. Tour Baladoz 2006 (Grand Cru)葡萄酒，請將問題答案寄交 [email protected]。首位能提供最多正確答案(答錯的題目不得多於三題)的讀者將成為優勝者。湯森路透就得獎者所作的決定是最終及不可推翻的。

上個月的法律知識測驗＃54沒有獲勝者

SPECIALISTS IN LEGAL RECRUITMENT

To apply, visit www.michaelpage.com.hk quoting the reference number or contact our consultants.

Head of Legal & Compliance › 10+ PQE › Reputable Financial Institution

Reporting to the CEO, you will oversee the legal and compliance functions with a focus on consumer and virtual bank businesses. You will lead a lawyer and with opportunity to build your own team. Experience gained from a bank is required, as is familiarity with financing / lending / banking products. HK exposure and fluency in English and Chinese is a must. Ref: 4053384

Group Legal Counsel › 10 + PQE › Listed TMT Group

As part of the group legal team, you will report to the Assistant General Counsel and handle corporate transactions, M&A projects internationally. The successful candidate will be familiar with HK listing rules, and with extensive transactional experience from international law firms or in-house. Complete fluency in English and Chinese is essential. Ref: 4040875

Partner – Asset Finance › Newly created role › UK firm

A reputable UK firm is currently keen to increase their offerings in Hong Kong and Asia by launching a new Asset Finance practice. The ideal candidate is an experienced Partner, with or without a small team, specializing in asset finance and with has extensive experience and client network among financiers and lessors. Ref 4053455

Legal Counsel › 4+ PQE › US Asset Management Player

A new headcount for a funds lawyer to join the team. You will report to the Head of Legal and work with another senior funds lawyer also based in HK. You will possess SFC retail fund registration experience, any other related product experience is highly regarded. Prior in house experience is not required. Fluency in English and Chinese is required. Ref: 4050383

Regional Compliance Officer (Director Grade) › 8+ PQE › European Multinational

You will take the lead in the APAC region to prevent, detect and respond to anti-corruption, anti-trust, and conflict of interest matters. You will report to the Regional General Counsel and to the Chief Compliance Officer in HQ. You must have relevant regional experience. Expect to travel on need basis. Chinese is not required. Ref: 3990746

Disputes - Professional Support Lawyer › 8+ PQE › No prior experience as PSL required

Our client is a sizable firm now hiring a Professional Support Lawyer to support their Litigation practice. This is a good opportunity for a litigator to explore a different career. You will be a HK qualified lawyer with litigation experience obtained with a local or international firm. You should show strong interpersonal skills to engage with senior management. Ref: 4041881

Legal Counsel › 5+ PQE › Financial Institution

The ideal candidate will have exposure to securities brokerage work or will possess good financing or lending experience. You will enjoy working in a team environment reporting directly to the Head of Legal and with ability to work with different stakeholders including business heads. Strong language skills in English and conversational Mandarin required. Ref: 4053220

Senior Legal Counsel › 5 + PQE › Global Tech Giant

You will be reporting to the General Counsel and be part of the group level legal team. You will be handling, M&A deals, listing compliance, corporate governance and other general commercial legal matters. The ideal candidate will be HK qualified, from leading law firms or MNCs and fluent in both English and Chinese. Ref: 4051751

Associate – Corporate › 3-6 PQE

› Cravath Pay Scale

Our client is a leading US firm which regularly advises on some of the most high-profile deals in the region. You will be advising on mergers, acquisitions, disposals, restructurings, takeovers, joint ventures and general Hong Kong Listing Rules compliance. Cravath rates on offer. Chinese skills are essential for this role. Ref: 4053299

Senior Legal Manager › 6+PQE › Well-established Insurance House

To join their team of 6 lawyers, you will have a strong corporate, commercial or banking background with exposure either working within insurance or a financial institution. You will work with senior stakeholders, advise on legal issues and review different products. You will have good communication skills and proficiency in English and Chinese. Ref: 4049416

Senior Legal Manager › 5 + PQE › HK Listed Manufacturer

An excellent opportunity to move in house. You will report to the Head of Legal and be part of a team of 5. You will be responsible for all rounded legal and compliance matters including reviewing contracts, M&A projects and legal advisory to business teams. You should be familiar with HK listing rules with good analytical skills. You should also be trilingual. Ref: 4051724

Associate/ Senior Associate – Litigation and Dispute Resolution › 4+ PQE › Large Chinese Firm

A top-tier global Chinese firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution team is seeking to take on an experienced litigation lawyer. The firm has very strong established network across the region, especially China, with strong work flow and referrals from their Chinese network. The role offers very attractive remuneration and clear career progression to Counsel. Ref: 4049269

Assistant Legal Counsel › 1+PQE › Leading Regional Financial Group

You will assist the Head of Legal in providing legal advice and support to business units, manage external counsel, liaise with enforcement agencies as well as handle litigation. The ideal candidate should have at least 1 year PQE gained in a corporate or commercial practice area with some knowledge of banking legislations. Ref: 4052315

Data Privacy Counsel › 4+ PQE › Hong Kong listed company

You will be a specialist within the team being familiar with data protection laws of both HK and China. You will advise the management team directly. You will also develop, implement and monitor internal policies and complaint processes for data protection and provide training to raise awareness among relevant staff. You should be fluent in Cantonese and Mandarin. Ref: 3983313

Structured Finance Associate › 2- 5 PQE › Magic Circle Firm

Newly created opening in a Magic Circle Firm. You will join a small team specializing in complex structured finance structures and working closely with banks, funds, insurance companies and insolvency practitioners. Candidates with a solid banking and finance or derivatives background will also be considered. Chinese language skills are a plus. Ref: 4053064

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMERCIAL PRIVATE PRACTICE

LegalPart of PageGroupwww.michaelpage.com.hk

CHRYSTAL CHEUNG Consultant, Legal Support

[email protected] +852 2848 4792

MATTHEW CHAU Consultant, Private Practice


SORAYA TENNENT Senior Consultant, Legal Support


SERENA TANG Director, In House Corporate


MARTA VERDEROSA Associate Director, Private Practice


OLGA YUNG Regional Director, Financial Services


TINA WANG Managing Consultant, In-House Corporate


SABINA LI Senior Consultant, Legal Support


KAMIL BUTT Associate Manager, Financial Services


TOMAS HOWLETT Consultant , Legal Support


ANGELA LAU Consultant, Private Practice


BRIAN CHAN Consultant, Private Practice


Meet the team Meet the largest legal specialist recruitment team in Hong Kong with unparalleled coverage across major corporates, international and leading local law firms, as well as financial services institutions on a global scale. Our consultants are strategically specialised in focusing on legal recruitment for different aspects of the job function and industry. We have successfully placed candidates across all levels from Associates and Junior Legal Counsels, to Partners and Heads of Legal. Get in touch to schedule a confidential appointment to discuss your career aspirations and hiring needs.

16686_Hong_Kong_Lawyer_2019_March.indd All Pages 22/2/2019 2:49:05 PM

Corporate Hong Kong PartnerWe are working exclusively with an international firm which is looking for salaried/equity partners within the corporate M&A and private equity sectors. This is a key role to lead the department and work with the firm’s global network and Asia offices. Some following will be required as demonstration of leadership skills. (HKL 7069)

Corporate M&A Hong Kong 8+ PQELeading US firm seeks a US qualified attorney with solid M&A/PE deals experience. You will have experience managing a team of juniors, have strong client relationship management and business development skills. Mandarin language skills are helpful but not essential. (HKL 17276)

Corporate M&A/ECM Hong Kong 2-6 PQEThis well-regarded corporate practice seeks a corporate lawyer with solid transactional experience in capital markets and M&A deals. This is a great opportunity for a lawyer to work with household names on a range of corporate transactions. Chinese language skills are essential (HKL 17277)

Intellectual Property/Technology Hong Kong 4+ PQEWell-established IP team of a global law firm seeks a commercial IP lawyer to focus on a range of IP matters including transactions, commercial advisory, trademarks, e-commerce, cyber security/data protection and more. Experience working with clients in the TMT, retail and healthcare sector would be advantageous. Chinese language skills are necessary. (HKL 17329)

Litigation Associate FCPA Hong Kong 2-4 PQEInternational law firm is looking for a junior- mid level US qualified litigators to join their litigation practice. The firm handles high value international disputes within the regulatory, finance and fraud. Candidates will be from a US legal background with solid exposure to FCPA. (HKL 17364)

Debt Capital Markets Hong Kong 1-3 PQEThis leading international law firm seeks a junior DCM lawyer to join its Hong Kong team. This is a great opportunity for English, Singaporean or HK qualified lawyers with DCM experience to gain exposure to leading global developments in the financial markets. Chinese languages skills will be helpful. (HKL 17335)

Corporate Hong Kong 1-3 PQEA highly regarded offshore law firm seeks a bilingual lawyer to join their corporate practice. In this position you will focus mostly on public company work. Candidates should be common law qualified with corporate experience at an international law firm. HK qualified lawyers who are willing to take English conversion exams will be considered. (HKL 17327)

Senior Legal Counsel (M&A/Commercial) Hong Kong 12-15 PQEEstablished international entertainment business seeks a lawyer to lead complex commercial transactions and handle a range of commercial work for the business. Experience gained within an international corporation and/or international law firm, and proven team management skills are important. Excellent English and Chinese drafting skills is mandatory. (HKL 17128)

Senior Legal Counsel Hong Kong 12 + PQEOur client is a leading player in the e-commerce market. They are looking to hire a senior lawyer to manage a small team and take responsibility for a range of work across the e-commerce sectors. In-house lawyers with retail and consumer experience would be ideal. Fluent Cantonese is critical for this role. (HKL 17248)

Head of Legal Hong Kong 10+ PQEOur client is an MNC with a substantial presence across the Asia Pac region. The group are looking for a senior commercial lawyer with in-house experience who is either leading a legal team or a deputy looking for a head of legal role. Excellent opportunity to manage a quality in-house team. No language skills required. (HKL 17298)

MNC Hong Kong 10+ PQE This well-regarded MNC has a vacancy for a senior in-house commercial lawyer with good China and regional experience. Work will involve advising senior management on an interesting mix of contract, general commercial, employment and some compliance legal matters, and advising senior management on strategic matters. Fluent Mandarin skills highly desirable. (HKL 17200)

Senior Legal Counsel Hong Kong 8 + PQEFinancial services group seeks a lawyer to head its legal team to focus on investments and commercial work for their businesses which include securities, asset management, investments and IPO work. You will work closely with senior management and advise the business on a range of matters related to the group. Chinese language skills are mandatory. (HKL 17346)

Senior Commercial Litigator Hong Kong 8+ PQEA Hong Kong conglomerate seeks a lawyer with solid commercial dispute resolution experience from a reputable law firm or in-house to manage the disputes including data privacy and personal injury related matters. You will advise senior management on contentious matters for the group’s various businesses. Cantonese language is mandatory. (HKL 17251)

Commercial/Media Hong Kong 4-8 PQEA leading TMT company with a multitude of fast growing businesses is looking for a group legal counsel to support their media team on a range of commercial legal matters. Opportunity for a mid-senior lawyer with general commercial experience and familiarity with media & entertainment business. English and Chinese language skills are required. (HKL 17349)

Private Practice In-house

+852 2920 9101

[email protected]

+852 2920 9113

[email protected]

+852 2920 9100

[email protected]

+852 2920 9105

[email protected]

Find your next move with usWe are working on a significant number of roles both in-house and in private practice. Contact us for a career discussion or to find out about new opportunities across a diverse range of sectors.

LinkedIn WeChat

In-House

Private Practice

Commercial5+ Years|Hong KongAn innovative property start-up seeks a legal counsel with at least 5 years of experience

to join in a sole legal counsel position. You will have strong

contract drafting skills, commercial acumen and be

fluent in English. Exposure to leasing will be advantageous.

Young vibrant team and flexible working on offer.

HKL7735

Derivatives3+Years|Hong KongTop tier international bank is looking for a lawyer to join

its derivatives team. You will have at least 3 years of PQE with fixed income/structured credit products. Lawyers with DCM or banking experience will also be considered. No

Chinese language skills needed. HKL7513

Data Privacy10+ Years|Hong KongGlobal luxury retailer seeks a senior data privacy lawyer to join the legal team. You will have extensive experience

of regulatory and compliance issues impacting businesses

arising out of data privacy and data protection. Chinese language skills not required. Attractive remuneration on

offer. HKL7079

Commercial 4+ Years|Hong Kong

A designer brand seeks a legal counsel with at least 4

years of experience to join its team in Hong Kong. You will be commonwealth qualified

with either in-house or top tier private practice experience, have strong contract drafting skills and be fluent in English.

HKL7724

US Asset Manager 2-5 Years|Hong Kong

US asset manager seeks a junior to mid-level lawyer to join its legal team. This role will support expansion into the PRC, as well as dealing with the broad funds-related

work. Corporate lawyers are also welcome to apply.

Business level Chinese language skills are essential.

HKL6938

Knowledge Lawyer 5+Years|Hong Kong

Offshore firm is looking for a knowledge lawyer to support

the funds, corporate and finance teams in Hong Kong. You will be commonwealth

qualified and have experience in funds, corporate or finance transactions. Experience in training lawyers will be an

advantage. HKL7661

Disputes Partner10+ Years|Hong KongInternational law firm seeks a disputes partner to join its team. You will have exposure

to financial services or technology disputes in the region. This is a great role

for a counsel who is looking to step up to a partnership

role. Fluent English and business development skills

essential. HKL7707

TMT2-4 Years|Hong Kong

International firm is looking for a TMT lawyer to join its leading TMT practice. You

should have at least 2 years’ solid TMT experience ideally including some experience in the UK. Lawyers with a UK qualification are preferred. No Chinese language skills

required. HKL7652

Litigation 1-3 Years|Hong Kong

A well-renowned UK firm is looking for a junior litigator in Hong Kong. You must have solid experience in dispute

resolution matters gained at an international firm. Chinese language skills are required. Excellent opportunity to work with a reputable partner in the

field. HKL7690

Senior BD Manager 6-9 Years|Hong KongGreat role for BD professionals or lawyers looking to transition

out of fee-earning. You will provide strategic business

development advice, financial and operational support to all

banking fee earners, alongside the regional PE and funds

practice. AC7688

DCM10+ Years|Hong KongInternational firm is looking to expand its busy DCM team with the hire of a counsel or junior partner. You should

have at least 8 years’ DCM experience from a Magic Circle or top international firm. Chinese language

skills essential. No book of business required. HKL7738

Funds 2-4 Years|Hong KongAn international firm in Hong

Kong is looking for Funds associates to join its growing team. You should have prior funds experience gained at a top tier international firm. Chinese language skills not

required. HKL6695

Litigation/Regulatory 4-7 Years|Hong KongReputable bank with a strong

presence in the region is looking to add a regulatory litigation lawyer to its team. You should have experience

in dealing with the HKMA, ideally within a retail and

corporate banking context. Mandarin is highly preferred.

HKL7700

Contact Us to find out moreKarishma Khemaney [email protected] +852 2537 0895

Camilla Worthington [email protected] +852 2537 7413

Chris Chu [email protected] +852 2537 7415

Roshan Hingorani [email protected] +852 2537 7416

For more information:

Singapore+65 6870 3275

[email protected]

Hong Kong+852 2847 [email protected]

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

林家禮博士Dr. Lee George Lam

Documents

Transcript of 林家禮博士Dr. Lee George Lam