Geoffrey Ma 馬道立先生

FEBR

UA

RY 20

21 2021年2月

FEBRUARY 2021二零二一年二月

HK$308

Overview of the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission Sub-committee’s Consultation Paper on Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration香港法律改革委員會仲裁結果有關的收費架構諮詢文件概覽

ARBITRATION 仲裁 FAMILY LAW 家庭法

A Speedy and Confidential Resolution of Financial Disputes in Matrimonial and Family Proceedings婚姻及家事法律程序中財務糾紛的快速、保密排解方法

A New Era for Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and Hong Kong內地與香港仲裁裁決跨境承認和執行的新時代

ARBITRATION 仲裁

COVER STORY 封面專題

Former Chief Justice

Geoffrey Ma GBM QC SC

前任終審法院首席法官

馬道立先生GBM QC SC

www.hk-lawyer.org 1

www.hk-lawyer.org

Inside your February issue二月期刊內容

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

Editorial Board 編輯委員會

Chairman 主席Huen Wong 王桂壎

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Warren P Ganesh 莊偉倫Julienne Jen 任文慧Karen Lam 藍嘉妍Tin Yan Lee 李天恩Stella SY Leung 梁淑儀Sauw Yim 蕭艷Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟Tony YH Yen 嚴元浩

THE COUNCIL OF THELAW 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C. M. Chan 陳澤銘

Council Members 理事會成員Denis Brock 白樂德Warren P. Ganesh 莊偉倫Roden M.L. Tong 湯文龍Jonathan Ross 羅彰南Pierre T.H. Chan 陳達顯Eric T.M. Cheung 張達明Karen Lam 藍嘉妍Careen H.Y. Wong 黃巧欣Calvin K. Cheng 鄭偉邦Mark Daly 帝理邁Doreen Y.F. Kong 江玉歡Christopher K.K. Yu 余國堅Kenneth Lam 林洋鋐Janet H.Y. Pang 彭皓昕Michelle W.T. Tsoi 蔡頴德Davyd Wong 黃耀初

Secretary General 秘書長Heidi K.P. Chu 朱潔冰

Deputy Secretary General 副秘書長Christine W.S. Chu 朱穎雪

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

Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Limited15/F, Cityplaza 3, 14 Taikoo Wan Road, Hong KongTel: +852 2847 2088www.thomsonreuters.com

ISSN 1025-9554

© 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.

3 EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

7 CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

9 DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決

12 FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

15 FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

17 COVER STORYFace to Face with Former Chief JusticeGeoffrey Ma

封面專題專訪前任終審法院首席法官馬道立

30 LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

33 ARBITRATIONA New Era for Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and Hong Kong

仲裁內地與香港仲裁裁決跨境承認和執行的新時代

39 ARBITRATIONOverview of the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission Sub-committee’s Consultation Paper on Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration

仲裁香港法律改革委員會仲裁結果有關的收費架構諮詢文件概覽

45 FAMILY LAWA Speedy and Confidential Resolution of Financial Disputes in Matrimonial and Family Proceedings

刑事法婚姻及家事法律程序中財務糾紛的快速、保密排解方法

52 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

64 CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

73 PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

81 LAWYERS AT LEISUREIP Lawyer May Chan Sings Through Life

律師閒情知識產權律師陳德美的演唱人生

85 CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

99 PRACTICE MANAGEMENT 實務管理

2 www.hk-lawyer.org

Acting Editor 代理編輯Ranajit Dam 鄧文杰[email protected]: +65 6870 3393

Design and Production 設計及製作Benedict Cheung 張恩澤[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 Group,Asia & Emerging MarketsAmantha Chia 謝京庭[email protected]: +65 6870 3917

For subscriptions contact:

Traffic Administrator 統籌Jordy Lee 李樂遙[email protected]: +852 2841 5861

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 theLaw Society of Hong Kong, provides the legal community with

news and insights necessary to keep abreast of the latest trendsand developments.

The magazine focuses on topical, relevant content throughfeatures 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 contactJordy Lee at: [email protected]

STAY IN THE KNOW

FEBRUARY 2021二零二一年二月

HK$308

PRINT

SUBSCRIPTION

AVAILABLE

www.hk-lawyer.org 3

It gives me great pleasure to introduce this special issue of the Hong Kong Lawyer that pays tribute to Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, who recently retired after more than a decade as the Chief Justice of Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. Since his retirement, Ma has received accolades and praise from fellow members of the bench, the legal profession, and the broader community; for example, the South China Morning Post said he would be “remembered as a fair-minded, down-to-earth judge.”

Our own coverage of former Chief Justice Ma strives to do justice to his accomplishments and legacy. We begin with an interview with Ma himself, where he looks back on an extremely eventful decade for the city of Hong Kong. We then feature excerpts from his speech at his Farewell Sitting, in which he shares his thoughts on the independence of the judiciary, and also reveals his immense pride in his fellow judges. Then, we spotlight his achievements from his storied career, and end with tributes from individuals who had a chance to work closely with him. On behalf of the editorial team here at the Hong Kong Lawyer, I wish him all the best going forward.

As for the rest of the February issue, I would urge you not to miss our other important features, including one on why a “new era” has dawned for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards between the mainland and Hong Kong. Staying on the subject of arbitration, we feature an overview of the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission Sub-committee’s consultation paper on outcome-related fee structures for arbitration. Then, we moved to family law, with an article on resolution of financial disputes in matrimonial and family proceedings.

I would also like to request our readers to kindly take our Readers’ Survey. In order to serve your needs better, and know what to enhance and improve, we’d like to invite you to share your candid thoughts. We will use your responses to shape our print and online content and delivery going forward. You can take the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HKLSurvey21.

Finally, best wishes to you and your family for the Lunar New Year. Kung Hei Fat Choy!

Ranajit Dam Acting Editor, Hong Kong Lawyer

我很高興介紹這期《香港律師》特刊，向擔任香港終

審法院首席法官超過十年後最近退休的馬道立致敬。

自退休以來，馬道立得到了同僚、法律界及社會各界

的讚譽和好評；例如，《南華早報》稱他將「獲銘記

為一個公正的、務實的法官」。

我們對前首席法官馬道立的報道，力求公正地展現他

的成就及留下的功績。我們首先對馬道立本人進行了

採訪，他在採訪中回顧了對香港這座城市來說極其多

事之秋的十年。我們將摘錄他在退休前法庭儀式上的

致詞，他在致詞中分享了他對司法獨立的看法，並透

露了他對其他法官感到無比自豪。然後，我們將聚焦

於他在其傳奇職業生涯中的成就，並以曾與他密切

合作的人士的頌詞作為結束。在此，我代表《香港律

師》編輯部祝願他在未來的日子裏一切順利。

至於 2 月號的其他內容，我希望大家不要錯過我們

的其他重要專題，包括一篇有關內地與香港之間仲裁

裁決跨境承認及執行的「新時代」的文章。在仲裁方

面，我們會概述香港法律改革委員會轄下小組委員會

就與結果有關的仲裁收費結構所發表的諮詢文件。然

後，我們轉到家事法，有一篇文章介紹婚姻及家事法

律程序中財務糾紛的排解辦法。

我還希望讀者能參與我們的「讀者調查」。為了

更好地滿足您的需求，並瞭解哪些方面需要加强

與改進，我們誠摯地邀請您分享您的想法。我們

將根據您的反饋來制定我們的印刷和網上內容以

及未來的傳遞方式。您可以在這網址進行調查： https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HKLSurvey21

最後，祝願您和您的家人在新春佳節快樂。恭禧發

財！

鄧文杰《香港律師》代理編輯

編者的話

EDITOR'S NOTE

February 2021 • EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE會長的話

In my last President’s Message, I reflected on how our Judiciary has evolved since the resumption of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. With the formal retirement of former Chief Justice Ma on 11 January, I would like to specially devote this issue to express our deep gratitude to him for his significant contribution to upholding the Rule of Law in Hong Kong throughout the past decade of his strong leadership of the Hong Kong Judiciary.

Under section 6(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484), the Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary and is also charged with the administration of the Judiciary.

Former Chief Justice Ma was appointed the second Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong on 1 September 2010. In attending the first Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year of Hong Kong in that capacity in 2011, he made it clear first and foremost that “I want to discuss the fundamentals of the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law I have pledged to uphold for the whole of my

tenure as Chief Justice, and it is this that underlines everything I do in this capacity.”

Indeed, former Chief Justice Ma has manifested himself to be a staunch supporter and defender of the Rule of Law in Hong Kong and the Independence of Judiciary as one of its essential features throughout his judicial career. Besides adjudicating cases in the Court of Final Appeal, he has seized every possible opportunity to speak and explain about these core values of Hong Kong to the people locally and worldwide as the spokesman of the Judiciary. Where necessary, he has also fearlessly spoken out against the politicisation of the Judiciary and of the work of the courts in defence of judicial independence for Hong Kong.

The important parts played by different key persons in the administration of justice, including the judges, legal practitioners and the litigants themselves, and indeed everyone in the community were also constantly stressed by him.

For his part, as the Chair of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, former Chief Justice Ma placed great importance on the judicial recruitment exercise and the need to maintain a strong, independent, impartial and internationally respected judiciary for Hong Kong. In his words, so far as judges (including judicial officers) are concerned, “it is imperative that the highest standards of ability and integrity are maintained. Without these qualities, the public (whom we serve) cannot have the confidence that a society needs to have in the Judiciary.” In stressing the importance to maintain the high standards expected of judges, he also said on many occasions that “it is better to leave positions vacant than to have appointments of persons not of the requisite standard.” A strong judiciary was maintained during his time with judges of eminent standing and reputation being appointed to different judicial positions. Among others, the incumbent Chief Justice Cheung was appointed the Chief Judge of the High Court in June 2011 and the Hon Mr. Justice Robert Tang and the Hon Mr. Justice

Tribute to the Second Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal

• February 2021

www.hk-lawyer.org 5

Joseph Fok were appointed Permanent Judges of the Court of Final Appeal in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

To address the long-term needs of the Judiciary and to ensure that cases can be handled expeditiously and efficiently while at the same time also fairly and strictly in accordance with the law, the Judiciary conducted various reviews, including on the conditions of service of judges and on retirement age, under his leadership. Legislative amendments for extending the statutory retirement age of Judges and Judicial Officers (“JJO”) were passed in 2019 to encourage recruitment of the best legal talents to the Judiciary, as well as help retain experienced serving JJOs.

I talked about the Judiciary’s adoption of technology in my last President’s Message. Another landmark achievement during his tenure that I would like to mention is the relocation of the Court of Final Appeal to its existing venue at 8, Jackson Road in September 2015. The Court of Final Appeal used to be in the Former French Mission Building at 1 Battery Path since its establishment in 1997. The historic building in Jackson Road was originally designed to be a law court and was once the location of the old Supreme Court from 1912 to 1983, before it became the former Legislative Council building from 1985 to 2011. The Judiciary assumed this important yet demanding relocation project in 2011 soon after former Chief Justice Ma has taken over office and has successfully completed the project in 2015 with a view to enhancing the efficient and smooth functioning of the Court of Final Appeal in this prestigious historic building as a lasting and tangible symbol of Hong Kong's rule of law.

At the risk of repeating myself, I must thank former Chief Justice Ma for his support to the work of the Law Society and the solicitors’ profession. He graced us with his presence at many of our big

annual events like the Annual Cocktail Reception, Spring Reception, Teen Talk, Law Week, and many sports events such as the Law and Order Cup where he exchanged views with our members and members of the community. He is a strong supporter of our Pro Bono and Community Work Recognition Programme and has been the officiating guest of its Award Presentation Ceremony since its inauguration in 2010. He encouraged our members to provide pro bono services to the public as an important element to enhance access to justice by all and applauded those who have done so.

There is just not enough space here for me to give a fair account of his good work. Members are invited to read the other articles in this issue of Hong Kong Lawyer relating to former Chief Justice Ma’s contributions during his tenure.

We sincerely wish former Chief Justice Ma every success with the next chapter of his life. At the last Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year that he attended as Chief Justice in 2020, former Chief Justice Ma stressed: “The Rule of Law is rightly cherished by the community and is the foundation of a cohesive society. We must all do our best to preserve it and to treasure it because once damaged, this is not something from which our community can easily recover.” On that note, we welcome the new Chief Justice Cheung and look forward to working with him to continue our work to uphold the Rule of Law together for Hong Kong.

Melissa K Pang, President

February 2021 • PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE 會長的話

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

暢運作，成為香港法治持久和實在的

象徵。

容許我再重申，我必須感謝前任首席

法官馬道立對香港律師會之工作和律

師行業的支持。他出席了我們許多的

大型年度活動，如周年招待酒會、新

春酒會、青 Teen 講場、法律周，以

及許多體育活動，如法紀盃，與我們

的會員和社會人士交流意見。他是本

會公益法律服務及社區工作嘉許計劃

的堅定支持者，自 2010 年成立以來，

他一直是頒獎典禮的主禮嘉賓。他鼓

勵本會會員為市民提供公益法律服

務，作為利便所有人尋求司法公正的

重要一環，並表揚有此成就的會員。

我在這裡有限的篇幅並沒法詳盡介紹

他出色的工作。請大家細閱本期《香

港律師》中有關前任首席法官馬道立

任內貢獻的其他文章。

我們衷心祝願前任首席法官馬道立在

下一個人生篇章中取得圓滿成功。在

最後一次以首席法官身份出席的 2020年法律年度開啟典禮上，前任首席法

官馬道立强調：「社會應當珍惜法治，

法治是凝聚社會的基石，我們必須盡

最大的努力加以維護和珍視，因為一

旦法治受到破壞，我們的社會要復元

將殊不容易。」在此前提下，我們歡

迎新任首席法官張舉能，並期待與他

合作，繼續我們共同維護香港的法治

的工作。

彭韻僖會長

我在上一篇會長的話中，回顧了香港

自 1997 年回歸以來司法機構的發展歷

程。隨著前任首席法官馬道立於 1 月

11 日正式退休，我希望用這一期的篇

幅特地向他致以深切的謝意，感謝他

在過去 10 年對香港司法機構的有力領

導，為維護香港的法治作出了重大貢

獻。

根據《香港終審法院條例》（第 484章）第 6(2) 條，終審法院首席法官是

司法機構之首，負責司法機構的行政

管理。

前任首席法官馬道立於 2010 年 9 月 1日獲委任為第二任香港終審法院首席

法官。他在 2011 年首次以該身份出

席香港法律年度開啟典禮時，首先明

確表示：「我會在此討論『法治的要

素』。作為首席法官，我承諾在我任

內定必維護法治；我在履行我的職責

時，定以此為依歸。」。

事實上，前任首席法官馬道立在其司

法生涯中，一直堅定支持和捍衛香港

法治，以及作為香港法治的重要特徵

之一的司法獨立。除了在終審法院

審理案件外，他還把握一切可能的機

會，以司法機構發言人的身份，向本

地及世界各地的大眾講述及解釋這些

香港的核心價值。在必要時，他也無

畏地發言，反對把司法機構及法院工

作政治化，以捍衛香港的司法獨立。

他還不斷强調不同的關鍵人物，包括

法官、法律執業人士、訴訟的當事人，

乃至社會上每一個人，在秉持公正中

均扮演重要角色。

作為司法人員推薦委員會的主席，前

任首席法官馬道立則非常重視司法人

員的招聘工作，以及認為香港需要維

持一個强大、獨立、公正及受國際尊

向第二任香港終審法院首席法官致敬

重的司法機構。套用他的話來說，就

法官（包括司法人員）而言，「在才

能和品德方面，必須保持至高的水

平。若欠缺這些質素，公眾人士（我

們服務的對象）便無法抱有社會對司

法機構應當有的信心。」在强調保持

對法官的高水平期望的重要性時，他

還多次表示，「與其委任水準不符的

人士，倒不如容許職位懸空。」。在他任職期間，維持了一個强大的司法

機構，不同的司法職位都任命了有名

望和聲譽的法官。其中，現任終審法

院首席法官張舉能於 2011 年 6 月獲委

任為高等法院首席法官，而鄧國楨法

官及霍兆剛法官則分別於 2012 年和

2013 年獲委任為終審法院常任法官。

為了應付司法機構的長遠需要，並確

保案件能被迅速及有效率地處理，同

時亦能公平及嚴格地依法辦事，司法

機構在他的領導下進行了多項檢討，

包括檢討法官的服務條件及退休年

齡。延長法官及司法人員法定退休年

齡的修例在 2019 年獲得通過，以鼓

勵最優秀的法律人才加入司法機構，

並幫助挽留經驗豐富的在職法官及司

法人員。

我在上一期會長的話中談到司法機構

採用科技的情況。我想在這期提及在

他任期內的另一項里程碑式的成就。

終審法院於 2015 年 9 月遷往昃臣道

8 號的現址。終審法院自 1997 年成

立以來，一直在炮台里 1 號的前法國

外方傳道會大樓。這座位於昃臣道的

歷史建築原設計為法庭，在 1912 年

至 1983 年期間曾是前最高法院的所

在地，1985 年至 2011 年則成為前立

法會大樓。前任首席法官馬道立上任

後不久，司法機構於 2011 年承擔了這

一項重要而又艱巨的搬遷任務，並於

2015 年順利完成，以期在這幢著名的

歷史建築中提升終審法院的效率與順

• February 2021

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

投稿者

CONTRIBUTORS

Ronald SumPartner, Addleshaw Goddard

Ronald is a Partner in the Hong Kong office and Head of Dispute Resolution in Asia of Addleshaw Goddard (Hong Kong) LLP. He concentrates his practice in all areas of dispute resolution, specializing in China related matters, cross border disputes, complex commercial disputes, regulatory bodies investigations, transportation, international trade, insurance and reinsurance including export credit insurance, product liability and product recall, including arbitration, litigation, mediation and investigations. Ronald is a fellow member of the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators and the fellow member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He is the council and appointments committee member of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.

岑君毅安勝恪道香港有限法律責任合夥律師行合夥人

岑律師是安勝恪道（香港）有限法律責

任合夥律師行香港辦事處的合夥人，也

是亞洲地區爭議解決的負責人。他專注

於爭議解決的所有領域，專門處理與中

國有關的事務、跨境爭議、複雜的商業

爭議、監管機構調查、運輸、國際貿易、

保險和再保險（包括出口信用保險）、

產品責任和產品召回，包括仲裁、訴訟、

調解和調查。他是香港仲裁司學會的資

深會員和英國特許仲裁員協會的資深會

員。他是香港國際仲裁中心理事會及委

任委員會成員。

Daniel LeeCounsel, Addleshaw Goddard

Daniel has been practicing commercial and shipping law for more than 15 years, with focus on litigation and arbitration. On the contentious side, his experience includes insurance disputes, contractual disputes, debt recovery action, shareholders disputes, employment disputes, bankruptcy, winding up of companies, and e-mail frauds. He also represents clients in various types of shipping disputes, such as charterparty disputes, bill of lading disputes and cargo claims.

李漢光安勝恪道香港有限法律責任合夥律師行律師

李律師從事商法及航運法工作已超過 15年，主攻訴訟及仲裁。在訴訟方面，他

的經驗包括保險爭議、合約爭議、債務

追討訴訟、股東爭議、僱傭爭議、破產、

公司清盤及電子郵件欺詐。他還代表客

戶處理各種類型的航運爭議，如租船合

約爭議、提單爭議及貨物索償。

Kathryn Sanger Co-chair, Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration Sub-committee of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong

Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills

Kathryn has over 15 years’ experience of advising clients on arbitration and litigation proceedings in Asia Pacific across a wide range of industries and locations, with particular strengths in private equity, financial services, M&A, and in China-related matters. Her arbitration skills and reputation in China matters are enhanced by her ability to speak and read

張清明香港法律改革委員會轄下的與仲裁結果有關的收費架構小組委員會聯合主席

史密夫斐爾律師事務所合夥人

張律師在亞太地區為客戶提供仲裁和訴

訟程序諮詢方面擁有超過 15 年的經驗，

涉及的行業與地區廣泛，尤其在私募股

權、金融服務、併購和與中國有關的事

務方面具有優勢。她的仲裁技能及在中

國事務中的聲譽因她能講和閱讀中文而

February 2021 • CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

Dennis HoPrincipal Partner, Ho & Ip Solicitors

Dennis is a solicitor, a mediator and a part-time lecturer. He is the Chairman of the Family Law Committee of the Law Society of Hong Kong and he also chaired the Domestic Violence Subcommittee and Enforcement of Maintenance Subcommittee. Dennis is also a member of the Judiciary’s Family Proceedings Court Users’ Committee. He has given lectures and talks on Family Laws for over 15 years to lawyers, social workers and students. He was also a part-time lecturer on Family Laws to Juris Doctorates at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and City University. Dennis was also an adjunct professor at the Hong Kong Shue Yan University from 2010 – 2020 and at City University from 2017 – 2019.

何志權律師何葉律師行主要合夥人

何先生是一名事務律師、調解員及兼職講

師，他是香港律師會家事法委員會主席，

也是家庭暴力小組委員會和贍養費強制執

行小組委員會的主席。他也是司法機構的

家事法律程序法庭使用者委員會的成員。他為律師、社會工作者與學生舉辦有關家

事法的講座及研討會超過 15 年。他還曾為

香港中文大學和城市大學法學博士擔任家

事法的兼職講師。他並於 2010 年至 2020年為香港樹仁大學客座教授，2017 年至

2019 年為城市大學客座教授。

Briana Young Co-chair, Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration Sub-committee of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong

Foreign Legal Consultant (England and Wales)/ Professional Support Consultant, Herbert Smith Freehills

Briana has over 15 years’ experience in international arbitration, first as counsel and now as a foreign legal consultant and professional support consultant in Herbert Smith Freehills’ Greater China international arbitration team. She is also an experienced Tribunal Secretary, and sits as arbitrator. Based in Hong Kong, she is a senior member of the Herbert Smith Freehills team and an expert in international arbitration law and procedure.

楊安娜香港法律改革委員會轄下的與仲裁結果有關的收費架構小組委員會聯合主席

史密夫斐爾律師事務所外國法律顧問（英格蘭及威爾斯）／專業支援顧問

楊律師在國際仲裁領域有超過 15 年的經

驗，最初是作為律師，現在是史密夫斐爾

律師事務所大中華區國際仲裁團隊的外國

法律顧問及專業支援顧問。她也是一名經

驗豐富的仲裁庭秘書，並擔任仲裁員。她

常駐香港，是史密夫斐爾律師事務所團隊

的資深成員，也是國際仲裁法律及程序方

面的專家。

Dee TamlinHead of Client and Legal Project Management, Pinsent Masons Vario

Dee is Head of Legal Project Management at Pinsent Masons Vario. In her role, Dee provides strategic Legal Project Management leadership to Pinsent Masons and their clients. She takes an active role in managing the Legal Project Management Team, and also provides legal project management support and expertise to Pinsent Masons lawyers and clients to improve their ways of working and to maximise the value and benefits of their legal services.

Dee TamlinPinsent Masons Vario客戶及法律項目管理主管

Dee 是 Pinsent Masons Vario 的法律項目

管理主管。在其崗位上，Dee 為 Pinsent Masons 及其客戶提供戰略性的法律項目

管理領導。她在管理「法律項目管理團隊」

方面發揮了積極作用，同時也為 Pinsent Masons 的律師及客戶提供法律項目管理

支援與專業知識，以改善他們的工作方

式，並最大限度地提高他們法律服務的價

值和效益。

Mandarin Chinese. Kathryn has an impressive profile in the Asian international arbitration market. She was a Council Member of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) between 2008 and 2019.

得到提升。張律師在亞洲國際仲裁市場上

的形象令人印象深刻。2008 年至 2019 年

期間，她是香港國際仲裁中心的理事會成

員。

• February 2021

February 2021 • DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決

www.hk-lawyer.org 9

紀律裁決

DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS

Law Shui Kei Martin (the “Respondent”), former solicitor of Messrs. Martin Law & Co. (a closed firm)(“the Firm”) • Rules 7, 7(a)(iii), 10(1), 10(2) and 10A(b)(ii) of the Solicitors’ Accounts

Rules (“SAR”)

• Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (“SPR”)

• Section 8AA of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (“LPO”)

• Principles 7.01, 7.02, 9.03 and 14.02 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct (Volume 1) 2nd Edition (“Guide”)

Hearing Date: 22 July 2020Statement of Findings and Order: 7 December 2020

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the following complaints against the Respondent proved:

Complaint 1Breaches of Rule 7(a)(iii) of the SAR and Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent paid to Client A from the Firm’s client account a sum of US$3,500,000.00 belonging to Client B without the Client B’s authority.

Complaint 2Breaches of Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(2) of the SAR in that the Respondent failed at all times to keep properly written up books and accounts to show all his dealings with clients’ money held, received or paid by him for the period from July 2011 to September 2012, and that the Respondent also failed to record all dealings with clients’ money held, received or paid by him within 3 working days after the date of such dealings, in a clients’ cash book for the period from July 2011 to September 2012.

Complaint 3Breaches of Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(2) of the SAR in that the Respondent failed at all times to keep properly written up books and accounts to show all his dealings with clients’ money held, received or paid

• 《律師帳目規則》第 7、7(a)(iii)、10(1)、10(2)

及 10A(b)(ii) 條（下稱《帳目規則》）

• 《律師執業規則》第 2(a)、(c)、(d)及 (e)條（下

稱《執業規則》）

• 《法律執業者條例》第 8AA 條（下稱《執業

者條例》）

• 《香港事務律師專業操守指引》（第一冊）

第二版（下稱《指引》）第 7.01、7.02、9.03及 14.02 條原則

聆訊日期：2020 年 7 月 22 日

裁斷及命令日期：2020 年 12 月 7 日

律師紀律審裁組（下稱「審裁組」）就答辯人的

以下各項申訴裁斷屬實：

第一項申訴

答辯人在未經當事人 B 授權的情況下，從律師

行的當事人帳戶中向當事人 A 支付了屬當事人 B的 3,500,000.00 美元，因而違反了《帳目規則》

第 7(a)(iii) 條及《執業規則》第 2(a)、(c)、(d) 及

(e) 條。

第二項申訴

答辯人在 2011 年 7 月至 2012 年 9 月期間，沒有

備存所需的妥為詳細記敍的簿冊及帳目，以顯

示他所持有、收取或支付的當事人款項的所有

交易，而答辯人亦沒有在交易日期後的 3 個工作

天內，將他在 2011 年 7 月至 2012 年 9 月期間所

持有、收取或支付的款項的所有交易記錄在當事

羅瑞祺（下稱「答辯人」），前為羅瑞祺律師行（已結業的律師行）（下稱「律師行」）的律師

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

• February 2021

by him for the period from July 2011 to September 2012, and that the Respondent also failed to record all dealings with clients’ money held, received or paid by him within 3 working days after the date of such dealings, in a clients’ cash book for the period from July 2011 to September 2012.

Complaint 4Breach of Rule 7 of the SAR in that the Respondent allowed money so drawn from the Firm’s client accounts on divers occasions for the period from July 2011 to October 2012, which exceeded the total of the money held for the time being in such accounts.

Complaint 5Breach of Rule 10A(b)(ii) of the SAR in that the Respondent failed to prepare bank reconciliation statements with regard to the Firm’s client accounts for the period from 1 July 2011 to 31 October 2012.

Complaint 6Breach of Rule 10A(b)(ii) of the SAR in that the Respondent failed to provide the causes of the differences between the balances shown on the Firm’s clients’ cash book and the total of the balances of the clients’ ledgers of the Firm’s liabilities to clients in the client reconciliation statements for the period from 1 January to 31 October 2012.

Complaint 7Breaches of section 8AA of the LPO and Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed to comply with the Notice of Inspection dated 15 November 2012 to produce the requisite documents within the stipulated time.

Complaint 8Breaches of Principle 9.03 of the Guide and Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed to cease to act for Client A when a conflict of interest arose between Client B and Client A.

Complaint 9Breaches of Principles 7.01 and 7.02 of the Guide and Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed to disclose with complete frankness to Client B that the Respondent had a personal interest in a transaction in which the Firm was acting for Client B and put himself in a position where his own interests conflicted with his duty to Client A.

Complaint 10Breaches of Principle 14.02 of the Guide and Rule 2(d) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed to honour an undertaking as evidenced in his letter dated 5 January 2012.

The Tribunal made the following orders against the Respondent:1. On Complaints 1 and 10, the Respondent be struck off the Roll of

Solicitors;

2. On Complaint 2, the Respondent be censured and fined HK$30,000.00;

人現金簿冊內，因而違反《帳目規則》第 10(1) 及 10(2) 條。

第三項申訴

答辯人在 2011 年 7 月至 2012 年 9 月期間，沒有備

存所需的妥為詳細記敍的簿冊及帳目，以顯示他

所持有、收取或支付的當事人款項的所有交易，

而答辯人亦沒有在交易日期後的 3 個工作天內，

將他在 2011 年 7 月至 2012 年 9 月期間所持有、收

取或支付的款項的所有交易記錄在當事人現金簿

冊內，因而違反《帳目規則》第 10(1) 及 10(2) 條。

第四項申訴

答辯人在 2011 年 7 月至 2012 年 10 月期間多次允

許從律師行的當事人帳戶中提取的款項，超過了

在該等帳戶當時持有款項的總額，因而違反了

《帳目規則》第 7 條。

第五項申訴

答辯人沒有為律師行擬備 2011 年 7 月 1 日至 2012年 10 月 31 日期間的當事人帳戶的銀行對帳表，

因而違反了《帳目規則》第 10A(b)(ii) 條。

第六項申訴

答辯人沒有就 2012 年 1 月 1 日至 10 月 31 日期間

在當事人對帳表中，律師行當事人現金簿冊顯示

的餘額與律師行對當事人分類表所顯示對當事人

債務所有結餘額總數出現的差異，提供原因，因

而違反了《帳目規則》第 10A(b)(ii) 條。

第七項申訴

答辯人沒有遵從 2012 年 11 月 15 日的查閱通知，

在規定時間內出示所需文件，因而違反了《執業

者條例》第 8AA條及《執業規則》第 2(a)和 (d)條。

第八項申訴

答辯人在當事人 B 及當事人 A 之間出現利益衝突

時，沒有終止為當事人 A 的委聘指示，因而違

反了《指引》第 9.03 條原則及《執業規則》第 2(a)、(c)、(d) 和 (e) 條。

第九項申訴

答辯人沒有絕對坦率地向當事人 B 披露，答辯人

在律師行代表當事人 B 進行的交易中持有個人利

益，並使自己的利益與對當事人 A 的責任發生衝

突，因而違反了《指引》第 7.01 及 7.02 條原則以

及《執業規則》第 2(a)、(c)、(d) 和 (e) 條。

February 2021 • DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決

www.hk-lawyer.org 11







9. On Complaint 9, the Respondent be censured and fined HK$130,000.00; and

10. To pay the specified fixed amounts of the costs of the Applicant and the Prosecutor and the costs of the Tribunal Clerk under a gross sum assessment.

Representation:

Mr. Glenn Haley of Messrs . Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Prosecutor for the Law Society, the Applicant

The Respondent was absent

Mr. Iu Ting Kwok, Clerk to the Tribunal

Tribunal Members:

Ms. Anita Leung Ping-fun (Chairlady)

Mr. Yu Tat-man

Mr. Matthias Li Sing-chung

第十項申訴

答辯人沒有履行其在 2012 年 1 月 5 日的信中的一項承

諾，因而違反了《指引》第 14.02 條原則及《執業規則》

第 2(d) 條。

審裁組命令：

1. 就申訴 1 及 10，將答辯人從律師登記冊上除名；

2. 就申訴 2，對答辯人進行譴責，並罰款港幣 30,000.00 元；







9. 就申訴 9，對答辯人進行譴責，並罰款港幣 130,000.00 元；及

10. 支付申請人，檢控員及審裁組書記的定額訟費。

代表：

檢控員博凱立有限法律責任合夥律師行的 Glenn Haley先生代表申請人香港律師會

答辯人缺席

審裁組書記姚定國先生

審裁組成員：

梁丙焄女士（主席）

余達文先生

李繩宗先生

律師會秘書處資訊

FROM THESECRETARIAT

Heidi Chu, Secretary General 秘書長朱潔冰律師


The People’s CJIn 2012, the Law Society hosted the annual conference of the International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives (“IILACE”) in Hong Kong. We had the honour of having former Chief Justice (“former CJ”) Geoffrey Ma, the then Chief Justice, to be our Guest of Honour at a cocktail function attended by international guests from around the world. After the event, all my IILACE friends nicknamed him as “the People’s CJ”. His warmth, his friendliness, his eloquence, his articulated speech and his power to connect and engage those around him has captured the heart of everyone.

人民的首席法官在 2012 年，律師會在香港主辦了國際法律協會首長學會 (“IILACE”) 周年大會，我們榮幸邀得時任終審法院首席法官

馬道立擔任酒會的主禮嘉賓，出席酒會包括來自世界各地的賓客。活動結束後，我所有 IILACE 朋友都暱稱他為「人民

的首席法官」。他的溫暖、友善、口才、引人入勝的演講，以及聯繫和凝聚周遭的人的能力，贏得了所有人的心。

Throughout his tenure, former CJ Ma has been very supportive of the Law Society events. We were graced by his presence in different events ranging from networking events like the Annual Cocktail and the Spring Reception, to sports and recreational activities like golfing in the Law and Order Cup and singing in Christmas parties, as well as to special events like the Law Society 110th Anniversary Dinner.

在任期內，前任首席法官馬道立一直非常支持律師會的

活動。我們非常榮幸，邀請到他出席多項活動，包括周

年招待酒會和新春酒會等聚會、各項康體活動如在法紀

盃高爾夫球賽中參賽和在聖誕派對中唱歌，以及律師會

成立 110 周年誌慶晚宴等特別活動。

Cocktail reception at IILACE Annual Conference in 2012 hosted by the Law Society in Hong Kong律師會在香港主辦 2012 年 IILACE 周年大會中的招待酒會

Law Society Christmas Party 20112011 年律師會聖誕派對

• February 2021


前任首席法官馬道立亦熱心關懷後輩，從他撥冗參加律

師會青 Teen 講場和法律周，以及出席業界精英午餐講座

等活動時，與學生及年青律師進行互動，就可見一斑。

Former CJ Ma has also constantly shown his immense care for our future generations. The time he spent in interacting attentively with student participants in the Law Society’s Teen Talk and Law Week and with young solicitors in events like our Distinguished Speakers’ Luncheon said it all.

Law Society Law and Order Cup 20152015 年律師會法紀盃

Law Society 110th Jubilee Celebration Dinner 20172017 年律師會成立 110 周年誌慶晚宴

Law Society Spring Reception 20162016 年律師會新春酒會

Annual Cocktail Reception 20182018 年律師會周年招待酒會

Law Week 2010法律周 2010

Law Week 2011法律周 2011

February 2021 • FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊


Monthly Statistics on the Profession(updated as of 31 December 2020):

業界每月統計資料( 截至 2020 年 12 月 31 日 )：

Members (with or without Practising Certificate) 12,296

Members with Practising Certificate 10,790 (out of whom 7,854 (73%) are in private practice)

Trainee Solicitors 1,091

Registered Foreign Lawyers 1,546 (from 34 jurisdictions)

Hong Kong Law Firms 942 (47% are sole proprietorships and 42% are firms with 2 to 5 partners, 49 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Registered Foreign Law Firms 86 (14 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Civil Celebrants of Marriages 2,266

Reverse Mortgage Counsellors 448

Solicitor Advocates 76 (70 in civil proceedings, 6 in criminal proceedings)

Student Members 290

Registered Associations between Hong Kong law firms and 38registered foreign law firms (including Mainland law firms)

會員(持有或不持有執業證書) 12,296

持有執業證書的會員 10,790 (當中有7,854 (73%) 是私人執業)

實習律師 1,091

註冊外地律師 1,546 (來自34個司法管轄區)

香港律師行 942 (獨資經營佔47%，2至5名合夥人的律師行佔42%，49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 86 (14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 2,266

安老按揭輔導法律顧問 448

訟辯律師 76 (民事程序：70位，刑事程序：6位)

學生會員 290

香港律師行與外地律師行 38(包括內地律師行)在香港聯營

Former CJ Ma has also tirelessly educated the legal profession on its wider duty to act in the public interest and to serve the community in the true spirit of public service. He has been a strong supporter of the Law Society’s Pro Bono and Community Work Recognition Programme and attended nearly all our Pro Bono and Community Service Award Presentation Ceremonies as our Guest of Honour.

前任首席法官馬道立一直表示，法律界要以顧全公眾利益為

己任，並本著真正的公共服務精神，為社會服務。他鼎力支

持律師會公益法律服務及社區工作嘉許計劃，幾乎每年的公

益法律服務及社區工作嘉許計劃頒獎典禮，均出席擔任主禮

嘉賓。

正如律師會在 1 月 8 日就前任首席法官馬道立榮休之聲明所述，我們衷心祝福他在人生新一頁事事順景美滿！

As noted in the Law Society statement on the retirement of former CJ Ma on 8 January, we sincerely wish him every success in the next chapter of his life!

Law Society Distinguished Speakers Luncheon 20172017 年律師會業界精英午餐講座

Law Society Pro Bono Award Presentation Ceremony 20102010 年律師會公益法律服務嘉許計劃頒獎典禮

Teen Talk 2017青 Teen 講場 2017

• February 2021

February 2021 • FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題


理事會議題

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE

有關香港首次公開招股結算程序現代化的諮詢文件

香港交易及結算所有限公司 ( 港交所 ) 於 2020 年

11 月 16 日發表了諮詢文件，就透過推出嶄新網上

服務 FINI (Fast Interface for New Issuance)，把香

港首次公開招股（公開招股）結算程序全面現代

化及數碼化的建議，徵求市場意見 ( 框架諮詢文

件 )。FINI 旨在讓公開招股市場參與者、顧問和監

管機構就有關端對端公開招股結算程序在內的多

個重要步驟，進行暢通無阻的數碼化溝通。港交

所稱， FINI 料可把公開招股的定價到上市交易所

需的時間由現時平均五個營業日或以上縮短至一

個營業日，即結算週期可減省高達八成。

律師會整體上支持上述建議，並就框架諮詢文件

提交了意見書。會員可按以下連結往律師會網站

瀏覽意見書的全文。

http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20201222b.pdf

有關香港加強打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集規管的立法建議的諮詢文件

另外，財經事務及庫務局於 2020 年 11 月 3 日發

出諮詢文件 ( 諮詢文件 )，就加強香港打擊洗錢及

恐怖分子資金籌集條例的立法建議，徵詢意見。

諮詢文件旨在就加強打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌

集制度的立法建議徵詢意見，以符合財務行動特

別組織 (FATF) 所訂明的國際標準。FATF 在 1989年成立，以制訂打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集國

際標準。香港自 1991 年起成為 FATF 成員。

Consultation on Modernising Hong Kong’s IPO Settlement ProcessThe Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (“HKEX”) issued a concept paper on 16 November 2020 seeking market feedback on its proposal to comprehensively modernise and digitalise Hong Kong’s IPO settlement process (“Concept Paper”) through the introduction of a new web-based service called “FINI” (Fast Interface for New Issuance). FINI is aimed to enable IPO market participants, advisers and regulators to interact digitally and seamlessly on the steps that comprise the end-to-end IPO settlement process. According to HKEX, the introduction of FINI will, among other things, shorten the time gap between IPO pricing and trading from its current average of more than five business days to as little as one business day, meaning that the settlement time frame can be reduced by as much as 80%.

The Law Society in general supports the above proposal, and made a submission in response to the Concept Paper. Members who are interested may refer to the link below on the Law Society’s website for the submission.

http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20201222b.pdf

Consultation on the Legislative Proposals to Enhance Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing RegulationAnother consultation paper was issued by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (“FSTB”) on 3 November 2020 (“Consultation Paper”) on legislative proposals to enhance Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Regulation (“AML/CTF Regulation”) in Hong Kong.

The Consultation Paper sought views on legislative proposals to enhance the AML/CTF Regulation in Hong Kong in order to meet with the international standards set by The Financial Action Task Force

• February 2021


(“FATF”). The FATF was established in 1989 to set international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Hong Kong has been a member of the FATF since 1991.

The Consultation Paper introduced (a) a licensing regime for virtual asset service providers (“VASP”); (b) a registration regime for dealers in precious metals and stones; and (c) miscellaneous technical amendments under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615).

With the assistance of its specialist committees, the Law Society provided views on the Consultation Paper and made a submission in response thereto. In summary, the Law Society agreed with most of the FSTB’s proposals. It was additionally suggested that the VASP licensing regime could extend to non-Hong Kong companies (as defined in the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622)) on top of the locally incorporated companies.

The above submission could be found in the link below

http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20201222a.pdf

Consultation on the Management and Disclosure of Climate-Related Risks by Fund ManagersThe Council has also reviewed the “Consultation on the Management and Disclosure of Climate-related Risks by Fund Managers” issued by the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) on 29 October 2020 (“Consultation Paper”). In this Consultation Paper, the SFC proposes to amend the Fund Manager Code of Conduct to require fund managers to take climate-related risks into consideration in their investment and risk management processes as well as to make appropriate disclosures to meet investors’ growing demand for climate risk information and to combat greenwashing. The proposed requirements cover four key elements: governance, investment management, risk management and disclosure.

The Law Society supports the SFC’s proposal to focus initially on climate change, and encourages the SFC to prioritise the development of a broader environmental, social and governance (“ESC”) regulatory framework to address other aspects of environmental risk. This would enable Hong Kong to keep pace with global regulatory developments in this area. The Law Society made a submission in response to the Consultation Paper on the above and provided further comments. Members may refer to the link below on the Law Society’s website for the submission.

http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20201222.pdf

諮詢文件建議在《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌

集條例》( 第 615 章 ) 下 (a) 引入虛擬資產服務

提供者發牌制度；(b) 建立貴金屬及寶石交易

商的兩級註冊制度；以及 (c) 作出雜項技術修

訂。

律師會在專業委員會的協助下，就諮詢文件提

交了意見書。律師會整體上認同財經事務及庫

務局的大部分建議。此外，律師會建議，除本

地註冊成立的公司外，虛擬資產服務提供者發

牌制度亦可擴展至非香港公司 ( 按《公司條例》

( 第 622 章 ) 的定義 )。

上述意見書的全文可瀏覽：

http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20201222a.pdf

有關基金經理管理及披露氣候相關風險的諮詢文件

理事會亦審視了證券及期貨事務監察委員會

( 證監會 ) 於 2020 年 10 月 29 日發出的「有

關基金經理管理及披露氣候相關風險的諮詢文

件」( 諮詢文件 )。證監會在諮詢文件中建議修

改《基金經理操守準則》，規定基金經理須在

其投資及風險管理流程中考慮氣候相關風險，

並須作出適當的披露，藉此滿足投資者對於

氣候風險資訊愈見殷切的需求，以及打擊「漂

綠」行為。建議的規定將涵蓋四個要素：管治、

投資管理、風險管理及披露。

律師會支持證監會的建議，先關注氣候變化，

並鼓勵證監會優先建立更廣泛的環境、社會和

管治監管框架，以應對環境風險的其他方面，

使得香港能夠跟上有關的全球監管發展。律師

會就上述諮詢文件提交了意見書，提供進一步

意見。會員可按以下連結往律師會網站瀏覽意

見書的全文。

http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20201222.pdf


Face to Face with

By Sonali Khemka

Former Chief Justice

Geoffrey Ma

Geoffrey Ma, whose tenure as the second Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal recently came to a close, is being hailed by the legal profession for his wisdom and poise in a unique period in the city's history. During his distinguished time as the topmost judge of the Judiciary, former CJ Ma has strived relentlessly to maintain professionalism and fairness in the courts.

February 2021 • COVER STORY 封面專題


What first attracted you to the practice of law, and how did your viewpoint change when you were appointed to the bench?

I was attracted to the law almost as soon as I started at the University of Birmingham in 1974. Prior to that, although I had an uncle and aunt who were lawyers in Shanghai, I took no real interest in legal practice. When I was studying for my A levels in England, I was even at a loss to know what to read at university. It was a stroke of fortune that my elder brother suggested that I consider law. I never looked back. The interest I developed in learning the law stayed with me throughout my practice as a barrister and my career on the bench. It continues to this day. The law is fascinating in its diversity of subject matter, it poses great intellectual challenges and above all, it is relevant to the community. Far from being some sort of ivory tower, the law is there is serve society. There is no other reason for it.

How well do you think the Hong Kong public understands the rule of law?

Anyone who takes an interest in the welfare of the community should have a grasp of the rule of law and its importance within it. Distilled to its essence, the rule of law ensures the proper functioning of a society in which each person is accorded dignity in the way he or she works or lives, and respect for oneself and for others in the community. It also requires an independent Judiciary to enforce the law. With the law affecting us ever increasingly, I believe that more people are becoming interested in learning about

its significance. There is no doubt that it can be complex at times, and that is why we have lawyers to explain it and to provide assistance so that rights can be protected. The rule of law is about fairness and equality because these constitute the essence of justice. I believe it to be incumbent on all lawyers to explain the proper meaning and significance of the rule of law to members of the public. Otherwise there is a danger of not truly comprehending the vital importance of this concept.

What achievements are you most satisfied with from your tenure as Head of the Judiciary?

I have often said it is for others to judge my work. Nevertheless, I will say this: I am proud of the professionalism of the judges in the Judiciary. Day in, day out, whether times are good or not, they approach their constitutional responsibilities bearing in mind that they have to do their best to uphold the rule of law, regardless of whatever criticisms are made against them. I am glad that I leave the Judiciary with this degree of professionalism in its ranks. Improvements can of course be made but as long as the fundamentals are there, we can have confidence in the Judiciary.

As Chief Justice, was it challenging to lead the bench of the Court of Final Appeal as well as the Judiciary as a whole?

The challenge for me was to make sure that at all times I was fully aware of the pressures facing the Judiciary and to be able to deal with them to the best of my

ability. There is no guarantee that one would arrive at the right answer every time but there cannot be any excuse not to be as prepared as one can be or to fail to do one’s best. Judges look to the Chief Justice to lead and I know of no leader who does not meet challenges head on and who does not make decisions however difficult. There are many problems to which there is no obvious right answer and one simply has to make the best decision in the circumstances. Not confronting problems or skirting difficult issues is not really an acceptable approach. So, the simple answer to your question is -yes, it was at times very challenging.

Looking back, what judgment speech or other law related written work are you most proud of and why? How have your views changed since you wrote it? What would you change if you were to write it again now?

The most important judgments have obviously been the public law and constitutional ones because they tend to engage the public interest more than in other areas. These are the judgments that have also caused the most controversy, even at times attracting considerable criticism. Whatever the reactions have been, even with hindsight I do not see how any different a result should have been reached in those cases, even if some of the criticism or controversy could have been avoided by a different outcome. This is consistent with the judicial method: cases are decided according to the law, legal principle and the spirit of the law, and nothing else. They are not decided with a view to the outcome of a case being popular or whether it may be politically acceptable. But your question also asks which judgment I am most proud of. Here, I have a personal favourite. It is Hua Tyan Development Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd (2014) 17 HKCFAR 493. It is not a particularly important or complex judgment but I have (since my days in practice) always wanted to write a judgment on marine insurance. Cases in this area of the law rarely come before the courts.

In this wide-ranging interview with Hong Kong Lawyer, he talks about his journey till date and the way forward for Hong Kong’s legal system, legal education and legal professionals. Despite a celebrated career, it is evident that for former CJ Ma, the rule of law is the real star of the story and using it to serve the community is the way to go.

• February 2021


In your farewell speech, you advised CJ Cheung to always be guided by his principles, for it is these principles that will see him and the community through all seasons. What are some of the principles that guided you during your tenure and how did they help you?

The overriding principle for me has always been being true to the judicial oath I took when I became a judge. It encapsulates in solemn form the meaning of the rule of law. The oath is not a mere formality. It is quite the opposite: it defines the essence of the responsibilities of a judge.

There were fears that you may be a “conservative” judge when you assumed office a decade ago and today there are similar thoughts on CJ Andrew Cheung. In your case, it turned out to not be the case. How do you interpret the word “conservative” when it comes to judges and why might people be fearful of such a quality?

I have always been somewhat skeptical of labels for judges such as “conservative” or “liberal”, particularly if they carry political undertones as well. I know many people like to use labels for judges, particularly lawyers and academics. As I have said, judges decide cases according to the law, legal principle and the spirit of the law. There is no room to introduce another factor to judging, much less impose a personal trait. Very often labels are descriptive only by reference to the outcome in cases, especially those having political origins (these being cases usually involving the government as a party). It can be as simple as: if the court decides in favour of the government, it is “conservative”; if the government loses, then the court is a “liberal” one. I was indeed described as being conservative when I became Chief Justice in 2010: this was on the basis that I had held in favour of the government in some high profile cases when I was in the Court of Appeal and that I had represented the government in a number of public law cases when I was in practice.

How do you feel judicial independence should best be balanced against the power of the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law?

The two are not incompatible. Of course, under the Basic Law, the NPCSC has the power to give authoritative interpretations of the provisions of that Law and the Hong Kong courts are bound to give effect to such interpretations. This does not, however, affect the independence of the Judiciary (which is also prescribed under the Basic Law).

What are some of the main developments during your tenure as Chief Justice that you feel particularly shaped the Hong Kong Judiciary to what it is today and what do you think are fundamental issues or threats the Judiciary faces till today?

One of the more noticeable developments in Hong Kong since the exercise of the resumption of sovereignty in 1997 has been the interest shown by the community in the law and the work of the courts. The past ten years has seen this interest increase. This is a healthy trend because it is important that the community should try to understand the concept of the rule of law and our system of law. Afterall the law is an important part of the society in which we all work and live. That said, it is important that the law and rule of law are properly understood and not be distorted. I have constantly spoken out (as indeed have both my predecessor Chief Justice Andrew Li and my successor Chief Justice Andrew Cheung) that the work of the courts must not be politicised.

How do you see the future development of the legal professions in Hong Kong? Is a fused profession likely or desirable in your view?

There has not been much discussion in recent years about fusing the legal professions. But the way forward for the professions should be directed to serving the public interest by concentrating on the law and the rule of law. These are the only matters on which the community can reasonably expect the professions to comment.

What is your view on legal education in Hong Kong today? What should the educational institutions be focusing on?

I think that on the whole, the law schools in Hong Kong are doing very creditably. This is demonstrated by the quality of the lawyers practising in Hong Kong, some of whom are among the best I have seen in any common law jurisdiction. If I had to suggest an area in which it is worthwhile emphasising at law school, it would be the rule of law, pure and simple, shorn of political considerations.

What would you like to see as your legacy?

It is far too grandiose to talk in terms of a legacy. Judges and chief justices should not be talking in terms of leaving a legacy. They should strive instead on their retirement to feel that they have done their best to have served the community, upheld the rule of law and abided by their oath. No one could ask for more than that and judges should not expect anything less of themselves.

Knowing what you know now, having served for more than a decade, would you have approached the role in any different way? If you had the chance to do it all over again, what would you do differently?

You have saved the hardest question to answer for last! It is tempting of course to say that one would have avoided certain pitfalls and mistakes if one had known certain things but it is of course pointless thinking along these lines. The fact is that in real time decisions had to be made and one simply had to do the best that one could in the prevailing circumstances. Often there was no obvious right answer and many decisions involved the balancing of many factors. The important thing for a Chief Justice to remember is that when a decision has to be made, make the decision. Without doubt, this is always the only option. Not making a decision is the worst of all options.



專訪

文：Sonali Khemka

前任終審法院首席法官

第二任香港終審法院首

席法官馬道立最近退

休。他在香港歷史上的

獨特時期，表現出智慧

和沉著，備受法律界稱

頌。在擔任終審法院首

席法官期間，他致力維

護法院的專業和公正。

馬道立

• February 2021


最重要的判決必然是有關公法和憲

法的判決，因為它們相比其他範疇更

吸引公眾關注。這些判決引起的爭

議最大，甚至有時被大肆批評。無

論反應如何，事後回想起來，我看

不到這些案件應該有甚麼不同的結

果，即使不同的結果或可避免一些批

評或爭議。這與司法方式是一致的：

案件只應根據法律、法律原則和法律

精神來判決，絕無其他；案件判決不

是為得出受歡迎或在政治上可接受

的結果。您問我最引以為傲的判決，

我個人最喜歡 Hua Tyan Development Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd (2014) 17 HKCFAR 493。它並非特別重要或複

雜，但自執業以來我一直想撰寫有關

海運保險的判詞，這個法律領域的案

件很少在法院審理。

在您的告別致辭中，您寄語張舉能首

席法官秉持原則，因為這些原則能夠

幫助他和社會大眾渡過四時更迭變

化和各種挑戰。在您的任期內，您的

原則是甚麼？它們如何幫助您？

對我而言，首要的原則是緊遵出任法

官時作出的司法誓言。它以莊嚴的形

式概括了法治的含義。誓言不僅是形

式，恰恰相反，它界定了法官職責的

本質。

十年前您上任時，有人擔心您會是個

「保守派」法官，今天人們對張舉能

首席法官也有類似的想法。結果您並

非如此。就法官來說，您如何詮釋

「保守」一詞？為何人們會對此有所

擔憂？

當初甚麼吸引您從事法律執業？獲

委任為法官時，您的看法有何改變？

1974 年剛入讀伯明翰大學時，我就

被法律深深吸引。此前，我對法律

執業並沒有多大興趣，儘管我有兩

位長輩在上海當律師。在英格蘭讀 A Level 時，我仍茫然不知在大學應該

主修甚麼科目，幸好我的哥哥建議我

考慮修讀法律。我沒有後悔。在整個

大律師和法官的生涯中，我對法律的

興趣一直伴隨著我，直至今天。法律

議題的多元化令人著迷，法律挑戰人

的智慧，最重要的是，法律與社會息

息相關。法律絕非象牙塔，而是為社

會服務，僅此而已。

您認為香港市民理解法治的程度如

何？

任何關注社會福祉的人，均應理解法

治和法治對社會的重要性。從本質上

看，法治確保社會正常地運作，讓市

民大眾得以有尊嚴地生活和工作，並

尊重自己和他人的權益。法治亦需要

獨立的司法機構來執行法律。隨著法

律對我們的影響日益增加，我相信越

來越多人開始有興趣了解法律的重

要性。法律無疑有時很複雜，故此我

們有律師解釋法律和提供協助，從而

保障人們的權利。法治關乎公正和平

等，這兩者構成公義的本質。我相信

所有律師均有責任向公眾解釋法治

的正確含義和重要性，否則公眾或不

能真正理解法治這個至關重要的概

念。

終審法院首席法官為司法機構的首

長，您任內最為滿意的成就是甚麼？

正如我經常說，我的工作應由他人去

評價。然而，我會說：我對司法機構

法官的專業水平感到自豪。不論時勢

是好是壞，他們日復一日地履行憲制

責任，對外界的批評不為所動，牢記

必須竭盡全力維護法治。我很高興在

我離開時，司法機構有此專業水平；

當然仍然有進步空間，但只要基礎仍

在，我們就可以對司法機構保持信

心。

作為首席法官，領導終審法院和整個

司法機構的工作是否具有挑戰性？

對我來說，挑戰在於確保自己時時刻

刻都充分意識到司法機構面對的壓

力，並能盡我所能應對這些壓力。我

們不能保證每次都得出正確的答案，

但沒有藉口不作好準備或不盡力而

為。法官期待首席法官扮演領導者的

角色，沒有一個領導者不須迎頭面對

挑戰、不須作出困難的決定。很多問

題並沒有明顯的正確答案，我們只能

根據情況作出最好的決定。不正面面

對問題或迴避困難是不可接受的。所

以，這個問題的簡單答案是：是的，

有時非常具有挑戰性。

回顧過去，最令您引以為傲的判詞或

其他法律著作是哪一份？為什麼？

撰寫後您的觀點有何變化？如果現

在再次撰寫，您會更改甚麼？

他接受《香港律師》訪問，談到過去的經驗，以及香

港法律體系、法律教育和法律專業的未來發展。對前

任首席法官馬道立來說，法治是真正的重點，以法治

服務社會是正確的方向。



我一直對「保守派」或「自由派」等

對法官的標籤持懷疑態度，尤其是當

它們帶有政治色彩。我知道很多人喜

歡為法官貼上標籤，尤其是律師和學

者。正如我說，法官是根據法律、法

律原則和法律精神就案件作出判決，

沒有考慮其他因素的餘地，更遑論加

入個人特質。標籤往往是因案件的結

果而來，尤其是涉及政治的案件 ( 通

常政府是其中一方 )。很簡單，如果

判決政府勝訴，就是「保守派」；

如果判政府敗訴，就是「自由派」。

我在 2010 年出任終審法院首席法官

時，的確被形容為「保守派」，這是

因為我在上訴法庭審理一些備受矚

目的案件時判政府勝訴，而且在執業

期間曾在多宗公法案件中代表政府

一方。

您認為司法獨立與人大常委會解釋

《基本法》的權力之間，應如何取得

平衡？

兩者並非不可並存。當然，根據《基

本法》，人大常委會有權對《基本

法》的條文作出權威性的解釋，香港

法院則有責任落實該等解釋，但這不

會影響司法獨立 (《基本法》也有此

規定 )。

擔任終審法院首席法官期間，你認為

哪些主要變化對塑造今天的香港司

法機構影響最大？司法機構現時正

面對哪些重大問題或威脅？

自 1997 年回歸以來，最顯著的變化

之一是社會大眾對法律和法院工作

的關注。在過去十年，公眾的關注日

益增加。這是個健康的趨勢，社會大

眾嘗試理解法治的概念和我們的法

律體系是很重要的。畢竟，法律是我

們賴以安居謀生的社會重要一環。同

時，正確地理解法律和法治，避免扭

曲，也很重要。正如我和終審法院前

任首席法官李國能及繼任首席法官

張舉能經常指出，法院的工作一定不

能被政治化。

您如何看香港法律專業的未來發

展？您認為融合法律專業是否可能

或可取？

近年來關於融合法律專業的討論不

多。法律專業的發展方向應該是通過

專注法律和法治，為公眾利益服務。

這些是社會可以合理地期望法律界

評論的僅有事項。

您對現今香港的法律教育有何看

法？法律教育機構應關注甚麼？

總體來說，我認為香港的法律學院做

得非常好，從香港執業律師的質素可

見一斑，他們當中有些是我在所有普

通法司法管轄區中見過最好的律師。

若要指出法律學院值得加強的領域，

那就是法治，單純而不受政治考慮影

響的法治。

您希望自己留下甚麼功績？

講求功績未免過於浮誇。法官和首席

法官不應談論功績。他們應努力令自

己在退休時，自覺已盡力為社會服

務，維護法治，遵守誓言。人們對法

官的要求這樣就夠了，法官對自己的

期望也應如此。

累積了超過十年的知識和經驗，回望

過去，您會以不同的方式來擔任這個

職位嗎？若有機會重新開始，您的做

法會有甚麼不同？

最後一條問題最難答！當然，我們很

容易會說如果一早知道某些事，就可

以避免某些陷阱和錯誤，但這種想法

本來就是毫無意義的。事實上，人在

當下必須作出決定，而且只能按當時

的情況盡力而為，往往沒有明顯的正

確答案，而是很多決定都是要在許多

因素之間取得平衡。終審法院首席法

官必須緊記，要作決定時就作決定，

毫無疑問，這是唯一的選擇，猶豫不

決是最差的選擇。

• February 2021


The rule of law represents in any community the necessary foundation to enable all who live and work in it to do so with dignity, and to do so acknowledging the interests of others. That is why it is said to be a cornerstone of the Hong Kong community. It is not just about being conducive to business and investment. It also includes the recognition and enforcement of those rights we call human rights and fundamental freedoms (such as the freedom of assembly, of procession, of association and the freedom of the press), always of course recognising as well the importance of the respect for the rights and entitlements of others in the community. The importance we place on rights and freedoms is a fundamental feature of the Basic Law. That constitutional document, which was enacted by the National People’s Congress in accordance with the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, remains the starting point in any discussion about Hong Kong’s system of government.

The Basic Law devotes a whole chapter in Chapter III to the fundamental rights and duties of residents. Chapter I sets out the general principles that govern Hong Kong beginning with Article 1 stating that the HKSAR is an inalienable part of the PRC, followed by Article 2 which prescribes that Hong Kong is to enjoy, among other matters, independent judicial power. The concept of independent judicial power is repeated in Article 19 (in the chapter dealing with the relationship between the central authorities and the HKSAR) and in Article 85 (under Chapter

IV “Political Structure”) requiring the courts in Hong Kong to “exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference”.

So, whenever there are discussions about the rule of law, the independence of the Judiciary and the role and responsibilities of judges in relation to these fundamental features, the foundation for such discussions must be to refer to the Basic Law.

And let there be no misunderstanding as to what the independence of the Judiciary means. The independence of the Judiciary, which is at the heart of the rule of law, is the guiding concept that underlines the way judges discharge their constitutional responsibilities. The role and responsibilities of the Judiciary are clearly and unambiguously set out in the Basic Law. The independence of the Judiciary means in essence the responsibility and duty imposed on the courts to adjudicate on the law and on legal disputes fairly, evenly and strictly in accordance with legal principle and the spirit of the law. Underlying this is the recognition, again required under the Basic Law, that all are equal before the law and this of course includes the executive authorities. To repeat a phrase that bears reminding at all times: no one is above the law, all are subject to it and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Not only that, no one is able to influence the court in the adjudication of a legal dispute, whether civil or criminal. All this guarantees fairness and justice.

When I became a judge in 2001, like all judges, I took an oath of office (this oath is required under the Basic Law) to uphold the Basic Law, to discharge my judicial duties “conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity” and to “safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit”. The judicial oath is a solemn promise to ensure that justice is done, is seen to be done, and that nothing and no one will be allowed to influence a judge to act or compromise in any way the demands of this oath.

The constitutional model mandated under the Basic Law is that of “one country, two systems”. I have always placed great emphasis on the need to have meaningful exchanges with the Mainland courts to enhance mutual understanding of the two legal systems. I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to [successive Presidents of the Supreme People’s Court ] and to the other judges of the Court and also to the many other Mainland judges whom I have met, for their insight and exchange of views. These mutual exchanges and cooperation must, I firmly believe, continue to strengthen.

The Hong Kong Judiciary does not comprise a large number of judges (I include in this term judicial officers such as magistrates). Hong Kong’s judges are dedicated to the practical implementation of the rule of law as I have described and represent the embodiment of the independence of the Judiciary. Throughout my tenure as

Excerpts from Former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma’s Speech at the Farewell Sitting

6 January 2021 at The Court of Final Appeal

This is an abridged version of the speech, for the full version, please visit https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202101/06/P2021010600683.htm



重其他人的權益。正因如此，法治被

視為香港社會的基石。法治不單關乎

營商和投資；法治亦涵蓋充分肯定和

貫徹落實我們稱為人權和基本自由

（例如集會、遊行和結社的自由以及

新聞自由）的種種權利，惟當然亦要

時刻意識到尊重社會其他人的權利和

應有權益的重要性。重視權利和自由

是《基本法》的根本要點。《基本法》

是全國人民代表大會根據《中華人民

共和國憲法》制定的憲制文件，是所

有關乎香港管治制度討論的起點。

《基本法》第三章以整章闡述居民的

基本權利和義務。第一章列明治理香

港的總則，開端的第一條訂明香港特

別行政區是中華人民共和國不可分

離的部分；緊接的第二條訂明香港特

別行政區享有的權利，包括獨立的司

法權。第十九條（載於處理中央和香

港特別行政區的關係的章節）重申獨

立司法權這個重要概念，而第八十五

條（載於第四章「政治體制」）亦訂

明香港法院「獨立進行審判，不受任

何干涉」。

故此，任何有關法治、司法獨立，及

法官的角色和職責這些根本概念的

討論，必須以《基本法》為依歸。

前任終審法院首席法官馬道立在退休前法庭儀式上致辭的節錄

司法獨立的含意不容誤解。司法獨立

作為法治的核心，是法官應如何履行

憲制責任的指引。《基本法》清楚並

毫不含糊地列明司法機構的角色與

責任。司法獨立的基本含意，是指法

庭的職責在於公平公允地，及嚴格根

據法律原則和精神，對法律的相關事

宜和爭議作出判決。司法獨立背後的

理念是法律面前人人平等，這同樣是

《基本法》所規定的；而人人在法律

面前皆平等，當然包括行政機關在

內。容我在此覆述一句值得時刻銘記

的話：沒有人可以凌駕於法律之上，

所有人均須受法律約制，及法律眼

中，人人平等。不僅如此，沒有人能

夠影響法庭的裁斷，不拘是民事或刑

事的法律爭議。這一切為公平和公義

提供了保證。

我 2001 年成為法官時，如同所有法

官一樣（按《基本法》規定）作出就

職誓言，宣誓擁護《基本法》，並於

履行司法職務時「盡忠職守，奉公守

法，公正廉潔」，「以無懼、無偏、

無私、無欺之精神，維護法制，主持

正義」。司法誓言是莊嚴的承諾，確

保公義得以秉行，而且是有目共睹之

下得以秉行；再者，任何人或事都不

得影響法官行事，或使法官以任何形

式不遵行誓言的要求。

《基本法》所訂明的憲制模式是「一

國兩制」。我一直十分強調需要與

內地法院進行有意義的交流，藉以

加深了解彼此的法制。我謹向 [ 歷任

最高人民法院院長 ]、最高人民法院

其他法官 ( 原演辭是 “… and to the other judges of the Supreme People's Court” 不是“ … and to the other judges of the courts”)，以及我認識

的許多其他內地法官致謝，感謝他們

分享精闢的見解和意見的交流。我深

信必須維持和深化這種互相交流與

協作。

香港司法機構法官的人數並不多（這

裏我包括裁判官等司法人員在內）。

正如我所描述的，香港的法官竭盡所

能，貫徹執行法治，這象徵了司法獨

立得以體現。我可以說，在我擔任法

官的整個期間，尤其是擔任終審法院

首席法官這十年以來，對於所有法官

同儕無畏無懼、不折不扣地維護法

治，並緊遵誓言，我一直引以為榮。

香港的政治、社會或經濟氛圍不論是

好是壞，我們的法官都忠誠盡心地履

行所肩負的責任，貫徹始終；無論遭

受何種或何等嚴苛的批評，他們都不

為所動。讓人感到欣慰的是，正如我

所相信，市民大眾大都信任我們的法

官，亦對他們在處理日常工作時緊守

原則感到放心。

個人而言，我想對每一位法官深表感

謝。他們幾乎始終如一、全心全意支

持我，並且恰如其分地執行司法工

作。展望未來，我想指出，法官在才

能以至操守方面都必須達致並維持

在至高水平。此外，法官在履行職責

時保持政治中立，亦至為關鍵。

a judge and particularly in the last ten years as Chief Justice, I can say that I remain proud of all the judges in the way they have fearlessly and without compromise upheld the law and been true to their oath. Whether the political, social or economic atmosphere of Hong Kong has been good or not, the judges have discharged their responsibilities consistently and conscientiously, without

regard to the type or level of criticism that may be directed against them. It is comforting to know, as I believe, that the vast majority of our community has confidence in them and find reassurance in the principled way they carry out their daily work.

For my part, I wish to express my deep

gratitude to our judges. They have almost invariably given me their wholehearted support and have played their proper role in the administration of justice. For the future I wish to say it is essential that the highest standards, not only of ability but also of integrity, are observed and maintained. It is also critical that judges remain apolitical in the discharge of their duties.

2021年 1月 6日，終審法院

此為致辭的節錄，閱讀致辭的全文，請瀏覽 http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202101/06/P2021010600682.htm

• February 2021


Year 年份 Career Highlights and Achievements 事業亮點和成就

1977Receives his Bachelor of Laws degree from University of Birmingham獲伯明翰大學法學學士學位

1978

Called to the Bar by Gray’s Inn in London, and commences his practice as a Barrister in England and Wales獲倫敦格雷律師學院授予大律師資格，開始在英格蘭和威爾斯執業

1980

Called to the Bar in Hong Kong; Bar qualifications for the State of Victoria (Australia) and Singapore follow in 1983 and 1990, respectively獲香港大律師資格；1983 年和 1990 年分別獲得澳洲維多利亞

省和新加坡大律師資格

1993Appointed as Queen’s Counsel獲委任為御用大律師

1994-2001Serves as Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal Panel (Buildings)擔任上訴審裁團 ( 建築物 ) 主席

1999-2001Serves as Deputy Chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission Appeals Panel擔任證券及期貨事務上訴委員會副主席

2000Appointed by the Hong Kong Judiciary as Recorder of the Court of First Instance of the High Court獲香港司法機構委任為高等法院原訟法庭特委法官

2001Becomes a Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court成為高等法院原訟法庭法官

2002Elevated to the position of Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal of the High Court升任高等法院上訴法庭法官

2003Appointed as Chief Judge of the High Court of Hong Kong獲委任為香港高等法院首席法官

Former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma: Career Highlights and Achievements

前任終審法院首席法官馬道立的事業亮點和成就


2004

Elected an Honorary Bencher of Gray’s Inn, only the third person in Hong Kong conferred with such an honour獲格雷律師學院頒授名譽管理委員，是香港第三位獲此榮銜者

2004-2009Serves as Chairman of the Steering Committee on Civil Justice Reform擔任民事司法制度改革督導委員會主席

2009-2010Serves as Chairman of the Monitoring Committee on Civil Justice Reform擔任民事司法制度改革監察委員會主席

2010Assumes office as second Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal出任終審法院第二任首席法官

2011 Admitted to the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) by the University of Birmingham獲伯明翰大學榮譽法學博士學位

2012

Awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal; made an honorary fellow of Harris Manchester College, Oxford獲頒授大紫荊勳章；獲牛津大學哈里斯曼徹斯特學院頒授榮譽院士

2015Conferred the title of Officier de l’Ordre de la Legion d’Honneur by the French Government獲法國政府頒授榮譽軍團勳章軍官勳章

2016

Becomes an Honorary Bencher of the Middle Temple; admitted to the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) by the Chinese University of Hong Kong獲中殿律師學院頒授名譽管理委員；獲香港中文大學榮譽法學博士學位

2019Admitted to the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) by the University of Hong Kong獲香港大學名譽法學博士學位

2020Admitted to the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) by the Lingnan University獲嶺南大學榮譽法學博士學位

2021Appointed as Honorary Chair and Professor in the Birmingham Law School獲委任為伯明翰法律學院榮譽系主任及教授

2021Becomes an Honorary Professor of the Faculty of Law of The University of Hong Kong獲委任為香港大學法律學院名譽教授


• February 2021


Tributes for Former CJ Ma向前任終審法院首席法官馬道立先生致敬

Mr. Justice Joseph Paul Fok,

Permanent Judge of the Court of

Final Appeal終審法院常任

法官霍兆剛

What is former CJ Ma’s greatest legacy? On his recent appointment as an honorary professor by Birmingham University, Chief Justice Ma was

described by its Vice-Chancellor as “a globally respected figure”. That is high praise but duly deserved. It also provides a short answer to the question posed. It reflects the fact that Ma CJ has achieved a towering stature in the common law world and also earned the respect, admiration and affection of a wide and distinguished community of legal professionals around the globe. But his legacy is considerably more than just his personal stature. Because of his leadership and example, the entire Hong Kong Judiciary has aspired to maintain the highest standards of professionalism and fairness in the administration of justice in Hong Kong. And because of his global reputation, the Judiciary’s principled role in supporting and upholding the rule of law here is recognised internationally. Politics has shone an international spotlight on Hong Kong. Geoffrey Ma has ensured some of that light illuminates a positive message for the Hong Kong community and also the wider world. When reasonable people think about Hong Kong, they identify its Judiciary, led by Ma CJ for the past decade, among its advantages.

— Mr. Justice Joseph Paul Fok, Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal

前任首席法官馬道立遺留下來最有價值的是甚麼？

首席法官馬道立最近獲伯明翰大學任命為名譽教授，該校的校長形容他為「全球備受尊崇的人物」。校方的高度讚揚，他當之

無愧，也為上述問題提供一個答案，反映他在普通法領域舉足輕重的地位，贏得全球傑出法律專業人士的尊敬、仰慕和喜愛。

但他留下來的，不只是其個人聲望。在他的領導和樹立的典範下，香港司法機構致力在司法工作中保持最高的專業水平和公正

性，亦因為他在全球享負盛名，司法機構堅持原則、支持和維護法治的工作獲得國際認可。當政治環境令香港被國際置於鎂光

燈下，馬道立確保鎂光燈仍向香港乃至國際社會照出正面信息。當有理的人想到香港時，會認為過去十年由馬道立領導的司法

機構，是香港的優勢之一。

–終審法院常任法官霍兆剛

What is your favourite memory of former CJ Ma? Apart from his quality as a lawyer and his popularity among judges and staff of the Judiciary which

are well known, Chief Justice Ma is equally well known for his keen interest for good food. Like many gourmets, Geoff (as we usually call him) is never shy in tasting new and strange dishes. At one of the staff lunches, we had Shanghainese food. The person who ordered the menu had, with the best of intentions, ordered a dish called “deep fried stinky tofu”. When it was still almost 10 feet away, everybody, irritated by its pungent smell, turned and stared at it as it was slowly and carefully delivered to the table. Knowing who Geoff was, the waitress courteously placed it right in front of him. Everybody waited for his first plunge. He did, and like a gentleman, politely paused for a moment and then started to have a bite. As he was chewing the food, judging from his looks, we were all relieved. “The Chief loves it”, commented his secretary. We were told that was the first time he had this famous traditional dish and since then, it has become one of his favourite dishes.

– Mr. Justice Patrick Chan, Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal

Mr. Justice Patrick Chan, Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷

你對前任首席法官馬道立最喜歡的回憶是甚麼？

除了是一位出色的律師，以及深受司法機構的法官和同事歡迎外，首席法官馬道立對美食的濃厚興趣，亦廣為人知。正如許多美

食家一樣，Geoff（我們通常這樣稱呼他）向來勇於嘗試新奇的菜餚。有一次員工午餐，我們吃上海菜。訂菜的同事出於好意，

訂了「炸臭豆腐」，10 尺以外的所有人均聞到臭味，轉過身來，望著這道菜被小心翼翼地端上桌上。侍應生很了解 Geoff，禮貌

地將臭豆腐放在他的面前。所有人都在等他先吃。他禮貌地停了一下，然後開始咬一口。看到他咀嚼的樣子，我們都鬆了一口氣。

他的秘書說：「首席法官喜歡吃這個。」這是他第一次品嚐這道著名的傳統美品，從那時起，成為了他最喜歡的菜餚之一。

–終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷



What will you remember former CJ Ma most for? My enduring image of Geoffrey Ma is how little he has changed over the years. I first met him when he

was barely 23. A confident young man who knew his worth, who was not afraid to speak his mind but was always able to do so without hurting the feeling of others. Anyone who has met him knows that his interest in people is genuine and not just good manners.

His great success has not changed him.

What made the greatest impression on me was his appearance before the Court of Final Appeal when he had the unenviable task of asking the Court to clarify its decision in Ng Ka Ling. In that excited time, Geoffrey’s unexcited reasonableness helped the Court to come to a momentous decision with its dignity and authority intact.

His calm strength became even more evident after he became Chief Justice. His steadfast commitment to the rule of law despite unprecedented attack provided a welcome ray of hope to many who care about an independent Judiciary.

I am happy to have him as a friend.

– Mr. Justice Robert Tang, Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal

Mr. Justice Robert Tang,

Non-Permanent Judge of the

Court of Final Appeal

終審法院非常任法官鄧國楨

你會記得前任首席法官馬道立的哪些方面？

我對馬道立最深刻印象是，他這麼多年來幾乎沒有變。我們首次見面時，他只有 23 歲，是個有自信的年青人，知道自己的價值，

不怕說出自己的想法，但不會因此傷害他人的感受。任何與他相處過的人都知道，他待人真誠，而不僅是出於禮貌。

他並沒有因為成功而改變。

令我印象最深刻的，是他擔任資深大律師參與吳嘉玲案時的艱巨任務，要求法庭就其決定作出澄清。在那個沸沸揚揚的時刻，

Geoffrey 以理性協助法院作出了具有尊嚴和權威的重大判決。

成為首席法官後，他的沉著冷靜顯得更有力量。儘管遭受前所未有的攻擊，他對法治的堅定承諾，為許多關心司法獨立的人帶

來了希望。

我很高興有他這個朋友。

–終審法院非常任法官鄧國楨

What is former CJ Ma’s greatest legacy? We are all indebted to Chief Justice Ma for his leadership of the Hong Kong Judiciary and his strong

commitment in defending the rule of law and judicial independence fearlessly, vigorously and relentlessly over the last decade.

In 2015, Chief Justice Ma delivered the annual International Rule of Law Lecture, titled “Strength and Fragility in Tandem: The Rule of Law in Hong Kong”. In that lecture, he listed six indicators which enable an objective assessment to be made of the existence of the rule of law in Hong Kong, including: -

1. the transparency of the legal system;

2. the public has access to the reasons for the outcome of any court proceedings;

3. the reasons provided for any judicial decision will precisely reveal the thought processes of the court and enable the public to verify that all decisions have been made according to law and according to the spirit of the law.

4. the system of the appointment of judges;

5. access to justice;

6. the views of those persons who are in regular contact with the legal system matter.

Each of these factors involves the legal profession, and he rightly reminded us, as members of the legal profession, to have the duty to promote a proper understanding of the rule of law and also to stand up for it whenever it has been unfairly criticized or sought to be undermined or even proclaimed to be dead. In this time of turmoil, I echo the call to our members to do our part as staunch defenders of the rule of law.

– Melissa Pang, President of the Law Society of Hong Kong

Melissa Pang, President of the Law Society of Hong Kong香港律師會會長彭韻僖

• February 2021


你會記得前任首席法官馬道立的哪些方面？

馬道立先生是位優秀的首席法官。他在法官席上總是心平氣和，對律師們以禮相待。在法庭上，他方方面面均展現出法律的風

度。

除了這些可作楷模的司法特質外，令我印象最深刻的，是他在法庭以外的性格。

馬道立先生一直致力維護法治，也善於溝通，無論說話或書寫均風格突出，流暢而有說服力。他以深入淺出的方式講解法律知

識，令艱澀難明的概念變得容易理解。即使最厭倦膩煩的商業律師，聽他一席話後，也可重新激發保護基本權利的熱誠。

在紛紛擾擾的爭議之中，馬道立先生為法治發出清徹的聲音，會長留人們心中。

– 戴啟思資深大律師，香港大律師公會前任主席

前任首席法官馬道立遺留下來最有價值的是甚麼？

我們感謝前任首席法官馬道立在過去十年領導香港司法機構，不懈努力地捍衛法治和司法獨立，無畏無懼，堅定不移。

前任首席法官馬道立在 2015 年的國際法治年度講座發表演講，講題為「Strength and Fragility in Tandem: The Rule of Law in Hong Kong」。在講座中，他就對香港的法治進行客觀評估，列出了六項指標，包括：

1. 法律制度的透明度；

2. 市民大眾可以知悉任何法庭程序結果的理由；

3. 法官對司法決定所給予的理由會明確地反映法庭的思考過程，讓公眾可以確實知道所有決定都是根據法律和按照法律精神作

出的；

4. 任命法官的制度；

5. 向法院提出訴訟的權利；

6. 有恆常接觸法律制度的人士的意見。

這些指標均涉及法律專業，他正確地提醒我們，作為法律界的一員，我們有責任促進對法治的正確理解，在有人惡意批評或試

圖損害法治，甚至聲稱法治已死時，我們亦要堅持這個立場。在這個動蕩的時代，我響應他向會員的呼籲，恪守我們作為法治

的堅定捍衛者之職責。

– 香港律師會會長彭韻僖

What will you remember former CJ Ma most for? Geoffrey Ma was a good Chief Justice. He invariably displayed an even temper on the bench and

showed great courtesy to the bar. In court, he was, in all respects, a gentleman of the law.

However, what impressed me more than these exemplary judicial attributes, which I should say that some other judges also possess, was his out of court personality.

Geoffrey Ma was, and still is, a great spokesperson for the Rule of Law and an able communicator. He speaks and writes on the subject with style, conviction and fluency. When addressing an audience, he wears his legal learning lightly and, like a good advocate, makes difficult concepts appear easy to understand. He can rekindle enthusiasm for protecting fundamental rights in even the most jaded commercial lawyer sitting in an audience.

People will remember Geoffrey Ma for many years to come as the one clear voice of the Rule of Law in times of dissension and noisy dispute.

– Philip Dykes SC, Former Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association

Philip Dykes SC, Former Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association戴啟思資深大律師, 香港大律師公會前任主席



律師會新聞

LAW SOCIETY NEWS

Teen Talk 10th Anniversary and Law Week Opening CeremonyThe Teen Talk 10th Anniversary & Law Week Opening Ceremony was held successfully online on 23 December 2020. Honourable guests from the public and legal sectors including the then Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, The Honourable Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew Cheung, The Honourable Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng, Dr. William Leung, Chairman of the Legal Aid Services Council, Mr. Thomas Kwong, Director of Legal Aid and Mr. Philip Dykes, the then Chairman of Hong Kong Bar Association, together with representatives from the Law Society including President Melissa Pang, Mr. Roden Tong, Council Member & Chairman of Teen Talk 10th Anniversary Organising Committee and Ms. Nadine Lai, Chairlady of Law Week 2020 Organising Committee, officiated the ceremony.

Immediately following the ceremony, an online Basic Law Talk was hosted by Mr. Thomas So, Immediate-Past-President of the Law Society, in which the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the Basic Law for Macau were introduced and discussed. The event was brought to a climax when the student participants were intensely engaged in the exciting online quiz scheduled after the talk. The ceremony ended with great success and was well-received by guests and participants.

青 Teen 講場 10 周年暨法律周網上開幕禮

青 Teen 講場 10 周年暨法律周開幕禮已於 2020年 12 月 23 日順利舉行。開幕禮史無前例於網

上進行，並邀請到時任終審法院首席法官馬道

立、政務司司長張建宗先生、律政司司長鄭若

驊資深大律師、公民教育委員會社區參與小組

召集人林長志先生、法律援助服務局主席梁永

祥博士、法律援助署署長鄺寶昌律師、時任香

港大律師公會主席戴啟思資深大律師，聯同香

港律師會會長彭韻僖律師、理事及青 Teen 講場

10 周年籌委會主席湯文龍律師和法律周 2020籌委會主席黎蒑律師作為開幕禮主禮嘉賓，主

持開幕儀式。

開幕禮過後，律師會前會長蘇紹聰律師擔任主

講嘉賓，於網上舉行《基本法》講座，加深學

生對中國憲法、香港及澳門《基本法》的了解。

緊接的《基本法》網上問答比賽緊張刺激，更

成為活動的高潮。是次活動在既愉快又刺激的

氣氛下圓滿結束。

Honourable guests from the Administration and the legal sector joined the leaders of the Law Society to kick off the opening ceremony online.一眾政務界和法律界的重量級嘉賓齊集網上平台，與律師會代表一同主持別開生面的線上開幕儀式。

Mr Thomas So, Immediate-Past-President of the Law Society introduced and discussed the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the Basic Law for Macau at the Teen Talk 10th Anniversary Basic Law Talk.律師會前會長蘇紹聰律師擔任青 Teen 講場 10 周年《基本法》網上講座的主講嘉賓，介紹和討論中國憲法、香港及澳門《基本法》。

• February 2021


The Law Society 2020 Pro Bono and Community Service Recognition Programme

Below are the recipients of the distinguished and special awards of the 2020 Programme:2020 年各「傑出表現獎」及「特別嘉許獎」得獎者名單如下 :

Award 獎項 Recipient(s) 得獎者

Distinguished Pro Bono Service Award傑出公益法律服務獎

Ms. Patricia Ann Ho 何珮芝律師

Distinguished Community Service Award傑出社區服務獎

Mr. Chan Nicholas Hiu Fung 陳曉峰律師 Mr. Cheung Tat Ming Eric 張達明律師

Mr. Chong Yiu Kwong 莊耀洸律師

Mr. Luk Yiu Chung David 陸耀宗律師

Ms. Wong See Nga Sarah 王思雅律師

Distinguished Pro Bono Law Firm Award傑出公益律師行獎

Mayer Brown 孖士打律師行

Morgan Lewis & Bockius 摩根路易斯律師事務所

Distinguished Community Service Law Firm Award傑出社區服務律師行獎

Baker & McKenzie 貝克 ‧ 麥堅時律師事務所

Hogan Lovells 霍金路偉律師行

King & Wood Mallesons 金杜律師事務所

Young Lawyer Special Award年青律師特別嘉許獎

Mr. Isaac Laban Shaffer

Award for Elderly Service長者服務嘉許獎

Mr. John Robertson Budge 白仲安律師 (Individual 個人組別 )

Mak & Co., B. 麥耀華律師行 (Law Firm 律師行組別 )

Due to the pandemic, the award winners for the 2020 Pro Bono and Community Service Recognition Programme ("the Programme") were announced in a video of the ceremony. We were very honoured to be graced by the participation of the then Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma and The Honourable Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng in the ceremony.

This year’s Programme was well received by members and law firms with over 300 applications. A total of 43 law firms and 227 lawyers received awards under the Programme. Apart from the Individual and Law Firm awards (Gold, Silver and Bronze), a number of distinguished awards and special awards were presented.

律師會 2020 年公益法律服務及社區工作嘉許計劃

由於疫情關係，2020 年公益法律服務及社區工作嘉許計劃 (「計劃」) 的得獎者名單在頒獎典禮影片中公佈。我們榮

幸邀得時任終審法院首席法官馬道立及律政司司長鄭若驊資深大律師參與頒獎典禮。

今年的計劃得到會員和律師行鼎力支持，共收到超過 300 份申請，合共有 43 家律師行和 227 位律師獲獎。除了「公

益律師獎」及「公益律師行獎」之金、銀及銅獎外，亦頒發了多個「傑出表現獎」及「特別嘉許獎」。

February 2021 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞


Pro Bono and Community Service 10-Year Achievement Award 公益法律及社區十年服務嘉許獎

Mr. Chan Nicholas Hiu Fung 陳曉峰律師

Ms. Chang Lai Shan Eliza 鄭麗珊律師

Ms. Lo Fung Yee Daphne 盧鳳儀律師

Mr. Ma Ching Nam 馬清楠律師

Ms. Pang Melissa Kaye 彭韻僖律師

Mr. Wong Kam Shan Kenny 黃錦山律師

Mr. Wong Kong Tin James 黃江天律師

Mrs. Wong NG Kit Wah Cecilia 黃吳潔華律師

Mr. Wong Wing Cheong Philip 黃永昌律師

Mr. Yeung Yuen Bun Benny 楊元彬律師

Our sincere gratitude is extended to members of the Judging Panel from various sectors, who made the most difficult decisions in selecting the recipients of the Distinguished Awards. Panel members for the Distinguished Pro Bono Awards included Mr. Ricky Chu, Chairperson of Equal Opportunities Commission; Ms. Winnie Chiu, The Ombudsman; Ms. Ada Chung, Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data; Mr. Thomas Kwong, Director of Legal Aid; Mr. Paul Lam, Chairman of Consumer Council; Mr. C.M. Chan, Vice-President and member of Pro Bono and Community Work Recognition Committee of The Law Society; Mr. Ip Shing Hing, Past President and member of the Pro Bono and Community Work Recognition Committee of The Law Society; and Mr. Alan Schiffman, Chairman of the Pro Bono Committee of The Law Society. Panel members for the Distinguished Community Service Awards included Mr. Chua Hoi Wai, Chief Executive of The Hong Kong Council of Social Service; Mr. Andy Ho, Executive Director of The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups; Dr. Shum Chi Wang, Chairman of Agency for Volunteer Service; Mr. Stephen Yau, Chief Executive of International Social Service Hong Kong Branch; Ms. Melissa Pang, President and Chairlady of Pro Bono and Community Work Recognition Committee of The Law Society; and Mr. Philip Wong, member of Pro Bono and Community Work Recognition Committee of The Law Society.

For the video ceremony and the list of awardees, please visit the website: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/probono/news.asp or the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/probonoaward.

律師會衷心感謝來自各個界別的評

審委員會成員，在芸芸傑出提名人中

選出得獎者。傑出公益法律服務獎的

評審委員會成員包括：平等機會委員

會主席朱敏健先生、申訴專員趙慧賢

女士、個人資料私隱專員鍾麗玲大

律師、法律援助署署長鄺寶昌律師、

消費者委員會主席林定國資深大律

師、律師會副會長兼公益法律服務及

社區工作嘉許委員會成員陳澤銘律

師、律師會前會長兼公益法律服務及

社區工作嘉許委員會成員葉成慶律

師，以及律師會公益服務委員會主席

Alan Schiffman 先生。傑出社區服務

獎的評審委員會成員包括：香港社會

服務聯會行政總裁蔡海偉先生、香港

青年協會總幹事何永昌先生、義務工

作發展局主席沈之弘醫生、香港國際

社會服務社行政總裁邱浩波先生、律

師會會長兼公益法律服務及社區工

作嘉許委員會主席彭韻僖律師，以及

律師會公益法律服務及社區工作嘉

許委員會成員黃永昌律師。

如欲觀看頒獎典禮的影片和得獎者名單，請瀏覽以下網址 http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_c/probono/news.asp 或

Facebook 專頁：https://www.facebook.com/probonoaward。

Members of the Judging Panel for Distinguished Pro Bono Awards.傑出公益獎的評審委員會成員。

Members of the Judging Panel for Distinguished Community Service Awards.傑出社區服務獎的評審委員會成員。

• February 2021


GeneralPrior to 1997, awards made in the Mainland China were enforced in Hong Kong on the strength of the New York Convention, of which the United Kingdom extended its application to Hong Kong with effect from 21 April 1977. After unification, the New York Convention was no longer applicable to the enforcement of Mainland awards in Hong Kong. In

order to alleviate the problems arising from the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards, the Supreme People’s Court and the Hong Kong Government signed the Arrangement Concerning the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong SAR (the “Arrangement”) in 1999 for mutual enforcement of arbitral awards. In order to perform the Arrangement,

amendments have been made to the Arbitration Ordinance by introducing a new Division 3 in Part 10 for the enforcement of Mainland awards.

The implementation of the Arrangement has greatly facilitated the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards of the Mainland and Hong Kong. Now, after passing of 20 years, some practical

By Ronald Sum, Partner, Addleshaw Goddard Daniel Lee, Counsel, Addleshaw Goddard

A New Era for Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and Hong Kong

February 2021 • ARBITRATION 仲裁


issues will inevitably arise. On 27 November 2020, the Supreme People’s Court and the Hong Kong Government signed the Supplemental Arrangement Concerning the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong SAR (the “Supplemental Arrangement”) to clarify some issues and enhance the enforcement process. More important, it brings the enforcement of Mainland awards more in line with the provisions of the New York Convention.

“Recognition” of Arbitral AwardsThe full name of the New York Convention is “United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards” (“New York Convention”/ “Convention”). Article I of the Convention provides, amongst others, that:

“1. This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a State other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought, and arising out of differences between persons, whether physical or legal. It shall also apply to arbitral awards not considered as domestic awards in the State where their recognition and enforcement are sought.”

Despite the fact that the two words “recognition” and “enforcement” are used in pair, they are held to be construed disjunctively in Re H (A Child) (Foreign Order), The Times, 19 November 1993. Although this case concerns about the use of the words “recognition and enforcement” in article 10(1) of the European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on the Restoration of Custody of Children, there is no good reason why the same words used in the New York Convention will be construed in a different manner. If this understanding is correct, recognition of an arbitral award is not necessarily followed by enforcement of the award. However, an award which is being enforced by a Court must first be recognized by the Court.

The Arrangement deals with the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards, without referring to the preliminary step of recognition of the arbitral awards. Nevertheless, since an award which is enforced by a Court must have first been recognized by the relevant Court, the lack in reference to “recognition” in the Arrangement will not create any practical problems. However, it has now been clarified in the Supplemental Arrangement that the Mainland awards and HK awards which are enforced under the Arrangement are recognized by the HK Courts and People’s Courts respectively.

Preservation Measures – Pre and Post Enforcement of Arbitral AwardsOne should recall that, on 2 April 2019, the Supreme People’s Court and Hong Kong Government signed an Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “Interim Measure Arrangement”). This Interim Measure Arrangement allows the parties of one side to apply to the Courts of the other side for pre-award interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings to be commenced or commenced in the other side. In the case of the Mainland, the interim measures refer to property preservation, evidence preservation and conduct preservation. The interim measures which may be granted by the Hong Kong Courts are mainly in the form of injunction, such as Mareva injunction, Anton Pillar order, mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction, and so forth.

The availability of preservation measures which may be used in aid of the arbitral proceedings raises a question as to whether these measures are also available for the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards.

According to the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (“AO”), a Mainland award can be enforced in the same manner as a judgment (sections 84 and 92, AO). Under section 21L of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4), the Court of First Instance may by order (whether

interlocutory or final) grant an injunction in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient to do so, and such order may be made either unconditionally or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just (sections 21L(1) and (2), High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4)). Insofar as Hong Kong Courts are concerned, the power to grant injunctive relief is very wide, which clearly covers pre- and post-enforcement of arbitral awards, including Mainland awards.

In any case, the authorities of the Mainland and Hong Kong have now clarified this issue in the Supplemental Arrangement that preservation measures are available in aid of the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards. A Hong Kong award creditor who wishes to enforce a Hong Kong award against the award debtor in the Mainland may now apply to the relevant People’s Court for preservation measures against the award debtor or its assets before or after the People’s Court’s acceptance of the application for enforcement of the arbitral award. Similarly, a Mainland award creditor may also apply to the relevant Hong Kong Court for injunctions against the award debtor or its assets in Hong Kong before or after the Hong Kong Court’s acceptance of the enforcement application.

Seat of ArbitrationThe seat of arbitration is important in determining (i) the procedural law which governs the conduct of the arbitration, which is also called the “lex arbitri” or “curial law”, (ii) the rights of the parties in the arbitration, and (iii) the Court which is competent in exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the conduct of the arbitration. Although the “seat of arbitration” is usually referred to as the “place of arbitration” in many legislations, including the AO, it refers to the legal seat of the arbitration, distinguishing from the “venue of arbitration”, which is the physical place where the arbitration is being held. The difference of “seat of arbitration” and “venue of arbitration” is shown in many arbitration rules, such as article 14 of the HKIAC 2013 Administered Arbitration Rules and article 18 of the ICC 2017 Arbitration Rules. The importance

• February 2021


of the legal seat of an arbitration can be illustrated in Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara [2003] HKCFI 390; [2003] 4 HKC 488; HCCT 28/ 2002 (27 March 2003). In this case, the Court granted leave to the plaintiff, ex parte, to enforce an arbitral award against the defendant. The defendant applied to the Court to set aside the order on, amongst others, the ground that the award had been set aside by the Indonesian Court (i.e. paragraph 1(e) of Article V of the New York Convention). It was undisputed that the arbitration was conducted under Swiss law. After examining the relevant facts and law, the Court found that the legal seat of the arbitration was Geneva, Switzerland, albeit the tribunal, for convenience, sat in Paris. Although the award had been set aside by the Indonesian Court, since the Indonesian Court was not “the competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made” as referred to in the New York Convention, the defendant’s set aside application was dismissed by the Court. The defendant’s appeal was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The Arrangement states at the beginning that “… the People’s Court of the Mainland agree to enforce the awards made in the HKSAR pursuant to the Arbitration Ordinance of the HKSAR...” It therefore appears that, for a Hong Kong award to be eligible for enforcement in the Mainland, there are 2 conditions required to be satisfied, namely the award (i) is “made in the HKSAR” and (ii) is made “pursuant to the Arbitration Ordinance of the HKSAR”. The phrase “made in the HKSAR” is not a term of art and is arguable that it refers to the place where the award is physically made. Section 5(1) AO provides, amongst others, that:

“… this Ordinance applies to an arbitration under an arbitration agreement, whether or not the agreement is entered into in Hong Kong, if the place of arbitration is in Hong Kong.”

The “place of arbitration” in the legal sense refers to the “seat of arbitration”.

Accordingly, the legal seat of the arbitration under which an award (i) is “made in the HKSAR” and (ii) is made “pursuant to the Arbitration Ordinance of the HKSAR” must be “Hong Kong”. However, an award made in an arbitration, “pursuant to the Arbitration Ordinance of the HKSAR”, with its legal seat in Hong Kong may not be “made in the HKSAR”, since the tribunal may sit outside of Hong Kong. This problem may create a peculiar situation for a Hong Kong award to be enforced in the Mainland Courts, albeit there is apparently no such problem arises to date.

The Supplemental Arrangement has now clarified the position by adopting the “seat of arbitration” approach in defining arbitral awards. Accordingly, the People’s Courts agree to enforce an award which is made in an arbitration with its seat in Hong Kong. On the other hand, the Hong Kong Courts agree to enforce an award which is made in an arbitration with its seat in the Mainland.

Simultaneous Applications of Enforcement of Arbitral AwardsContrary to the 3 points above, which basically clarify the current position, this last point is important that it enhances the practicality of the Arrangement.

Pursuant to section 93 AO, if a party commences enforcement action in Mainland, he cannot enforce the Mainland award at the same time in Hong Kong, or vice versa. This restriction reflects Article 2 of the Arrangement, which provides, amongst others, that “… the applicant shall not file applications with relevant courts of the two places at the same time …” The purpose of this is to avoid “double enforcement”.

In practice, since the limitation period for enforcement of an arbitral award under the PRC law is shorter than the 6 years

under Hong Kong law, an award creditor usually commences enforcement action in the Mainland first, so as to avoid the potential time-bar issues under the PRC law. In addition, the legal proceedings in the Mainland are generally moving quicker. After completion of the enforcement proceedings in the Mainland, the award creditor will generally still have time to commence enforcement action in Hong Kong, if required. Accordingly, the restriction generally will not cause much practical problems, except in some special circumstances, as demonstrated in CL v SCG [2019] HKCFI 398; [2019] 2 HKLRD 144; HCCT 9/2018 (18 February 2019).



In 深圳市開隆投資開發有限公司

訴長興電業製品廠（國際）有限

公司 [2003] 3 HKLRD 774 (“the Kai Long case”), A Cheung J. commented that “double enforcement” may cause “annoyance or even oppression” to the award debtor and “in the context of reciprocal enforcement of awards, there is nothing unreasonable in designating double enforcement as a potential mischief and enacting provisions to stop that mischief.” However, from the award creditor’s standpoint, is the award debtor obliged to settle the outstanding award debt from the first place? Most of the award creditors will not want to spend legal costs in enforcing outstanding awards. If an award debt can be satisfied by an enforcement action commenced in one jurisdiction, a reasonable award creditor will not commence unnecessary enforcement actions in other jurisdictions. It is only in the situation that an award debtor is elusive and tries to hide his assets to evade enforcement of the award that an award creditor is required to trace the award debtor’s assets and commence enforcement actions in different jurisdictions.

This problem is now finally resolved in the Supplemental Arrangement that an award creditor may commence enforcement actions in both Mainland and Hong Kong at the same time, provided the total amount recovered by the award creditor will not exceed the amount awarded. This will no doubt greatly facilitate cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards of the Mainland and Hong Kong.

ConclusionTo bring the operation of the Arrangement to be more in line with the provisions of the New York Convention will certainly be greatly welcome by the legal practitioners of both jurisdictions. The Supplemental Arrangement does not only clarify some practical concerns, but also facilitates cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards by allowing the parties to make enforcement applications to the People’s Courts and Hong Kong Courts at the same time. Hopefully, this will lessen the potential problems caused by the statutory time bar.

作者：岑君毅，安勝恪道香港有限法律責任合夥律師行合夥人李漢光，安勝恪道香港有限法律責任合夥律師行律師

內地與香港仲裁裁決跨境承認和執行的新時代

概述

英國於 1977 年 4 月 21 日把《紐約公

約》的適用範圍擴展至香港，1997年之前在中國內地作出的仲裁裁決

根據該公約在香港執行。回歸後，

《紐約公約》不再適用於在香港執行

內地裁決。為減輕跨境執行仲裁裁決

而引起的問題，最高人民法院與香港

政府於 1999 年簽署了《關於內地與

香港特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決

的安排》( 下稱《安排》)。為了執行

《安排》，《仲裁條例》進行了修訂，

在第 10 部中新增了第 3 分部，以便

執行內地的裁決。

安排的實施大大促進了內地與香港

仲裁裁決的跨境執行。經過 20 年，

無可避免地會出現一些實際問題。在

2020 年 11 月 27 日，最高人民法院

與香港政府簽署了《關於內地與香港

特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決的補

充安排》(《補充安排》)，以澄清一

些問題並加強執行過程，更重要是使

內地裁決的執行更符合《紐約公約》

的規定。

「承認」仲裁裁決

《紐約公約》的全名是《聯合國承

認及執行外國仲裁裁決公約》(《公

約》)。《公約》第一條規定：

「1. 仲裁裁决，因自然人或法人

間之爭議而產生且在申聲請

承認及執行地所在國以外之

國家領土內作成者，其承認

及執行適用本公約。本公約

對於仲裁裁決經聲請承認及

執行地所在國認為非內國裁

決者，亦適用之。」

儘管「承認」和「執行」兩個詞同

時使用，但在 Re H (A Child) (Foreign Order), The Times, 19 November 1993案中，英國法院認為二者應分開解

釋。該案涉及《歐洲承認及執行關於

兒童監護權和恢復兒童監護權的決

定的公約》第 10(1) 條中「承認及執

行」(recognition and enforcement) 一

詞的使用，但我們並沒有充分理由指

出該詞在《紐約公約》中應以不同的

方式詮釋。如是者，承認仲裁裁決不

一定等於執行裁決，但由法院執行的

裁決，則必須先獲法院承認。

《安排》處理仲裁裁決的跨境執行，

但沒有提及承認仲裁裁決的初步步

驟。然而，由於由法院執行的裁決必

須先獲相關法院承認，因此，儘管

《安排》未提及「承認」問題，但這

不會造成任何實際問題。不過，《補

充安排》現已明確規定，根據該安排

執行的內地裁決和香港裁決，均分別

得到香港法院和人民法院的承認。

• February 2021


仲裁裁決執行前後的保全措施

大家應該記得，最高人民法院與香港

政府於 2019 年 4 月 2 日簽署了《關

於內地與香港特別行政區法院就仲

裁程序相互協助保全的安排》(《保

全安排》)。《保全安排》容許其中

一方的當事人在裁決作出前向另一

方的法院申請保全，以協助在另一方

開始或已開始的仲裁程序。就內地而

言，保全包括財產保全、證據保全及

行為保全。香港法院可能批准的保全

措施主要為禁制令形式，例如資產凍

結令、容許查察令、強制性禁制令，

禁止性禁制令等。

可用於仲裁程序的保存措施引起了

一個問題，就是這些措施是否也可用

於跨境執行仲裁裁決。

根據《仲裁條例》( 第 609 章 )，內

地作出的裁決可猶如具有同等效力

的法庭判決般執行 (《仲裁條例》第

84 條及第 92 條 )。根據《高等法院

條例》( 第 4 章 ) 第 21L 條，在法庭

覺得如此行事是公正或適宜的所有

情況下，可藉命令 ( 不論是非正審命

令或最終命令 ) 授予強制令。任何該

等命令可無條件作出，或按法院認為

公正的條款及條件作出。(《高等法

院條例》第 21L(1) 及 (2) 條 )。香港

法院授予禁制令的權力範圍很廣，顯

然涵蓋仲裁裁決執行之前和之後，包

括內地裁決。

無論如何，內地和香港當局現已在

《補充安排》中澄清，可採取保全措

施以協助仲裁裁決的跨境執行。希望

對內地債務人執行香港裁決的香港

債權人，在人民法院接受執行仲裁裁

決的申請之前或之後，可向人民法院

申請對債務人或其財產採取保全措

施。同樣，內地債權人也可在香港法

院接受執行申請之前或之後，向相關

香港法院申請對債務人或其在香港

的財產發出禁制令。

仲裁地

仲裁地對於確定以下事項甚為重要：

(i) 管轄仲裁行為的程序法 ( 也稱為

仲裁地法 (lex arbitri) 或仲裁程序法

(curial law))；(ii) 當事人在仲裁中的

權利；以及 (iii) 有權對仲裁行為行使

監督管轄權的法院。儘管「仲裁地」

(seat of arbitration) 在許多法律 ( 包括

《仲裁條例》) 中通常稱為「仲裁地

點」(place of arbitration)，但前者是

指仲裁法律的所在地，與進行仲裁

的實際場地 (venue of arbitration) 有所

不同。許多仲裁規則均指明仲裁地

(seat of arbitration) 與仲裁地點 (venue of arbitration) 的區別，如《2013 香

港國際仲裁中心機構仲裁規則》第

14 條和《國際商會 2017 年仲裁規

則》第 18 條。Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara [2003] HKCFI 390; [2003] 4 HKC 488; HCCT 28/ 2002 (27 March 2003) 案例可說明仲裁法律地

點的重要性。該案中，法院授予申請

人單方面許可，對答辯人執行仲裁裁

決。答辯人向法院提出撤銷該項命令

的請求，其中一個理由是印尼法院

已撤銷該裁決 ( 即《紐約公約》第五

條 1(e) 款 )。該仲裁是根據瑞士法律

進行的。審視了有關的事實和法律

後，法院認為仲裁法律地點是瑞士日

內瓦，儘管為方便起見仲裁庭位於

巴黎。雖然印尼法院已撤銷該裁決，

但根據《紐約公約》，印尼法院並非

「裁決地所在國或裁決所依據法律之

國家之主管機關」，因此，法院駁回



了答辯人的撤銷申請。上訴法院也駁

回了答辯人的上訴。

《安排》開首便指出，「……內地

人民法院同意執行在香港特區按香

港特區《仲裁條例》所作出的裁

決……」。因此，香港的裁決要在內

地執行，必須滿足兩個條件，即裁決

(i)「在香港特區作出」和 (ii)「按香

港特區《仲裁條例》所作出」。「在

香港特區作出」並非術語，可說是指

實際作出裁決的地方。《仲裁條例》

第 5(1) 條規定：

「……如仲裁地點是在香港，則

本條例適用於根據仲裁協議 ( 不

論該協議是否在香港訂立 ) 而進

行的仲裁。」

法律意義上的「仲裁地點」(place of arbitration) 是指「仲裁地」(seat of arbitration)。因此，仲裁裁決 (i)「在

香港特區作出」和 (ii)「按香港特區

《仲裁條例》所作出」，其法律地點

必須為香港。然而，「按香港特區

《仲裁條例》所作出」的仲裁裁決，

其法律地點在香港，但裁決可能並非

「在香港特區作出」，因為仲裁庭可

能位於香港以外。這個情況可能會導

致內地法院執行香港的裁決時遇到

問題，儘管迄今似乎還沒出現過這樣

的問題。

《補充安排》澄清了仲裁裁決的「仲

裁地」(seat of arbitration) 的定義。因

此，人民法院同意執行以香港為仲裁

地的仲裁的裁決。同樣地，香港法院

同意執行以內地為仲裁地的仲裁的

裁決。

同時執行仲裁裁決

上述三點基本上闡明了目前的情況，

最後一點很重要，因它可以提高《安

排》的可行性。

根據第《仲裁條例》條第 93 條的規

定，如已有人開始在內地執行裁決，

則該裁決不能同時在香港執行，反之

亦然。《安排》的第二條亦反映了這

個限制，該條規定「……申請人不

得同時分別向兩地有關法院提出申

請……」，目的是為了避免「雙重執

行」。

實際上，由於中國法律下執行仲裁裁

決的時效期限短於香港法律下的六

年執行期限，因此債權人通常會先在

內地開始執行訴訟，以避開中國法律

下的潛在時限問題。此外，內地的法

律程序通常較快。在內地完成執行程

序後，債權人通常仍有時間根據需要

在香港採取執行行動。因此，該限

制通常不會引起很多實際問題，除

了在某些特殊情況下，例如 CL v SCG [2019] HKCFI 398; [2019] 2 HKLRD 144; HCCT 9/2018 (18 February 2019)。

在深圳市開隆投資開發有限公司訴長興電業製品廠（國際）有限公

司 [2003] 3 HKLRD 774 案中，張舉能

法官指「雙重執行」可能會對債務人

「造成煩惱甚至壓迫」，「在相互執

行裁決的情況下，把雙重執行視為潛

在的惡行，並制訂條款阻止這種惡

行，不無道理。」然而，從債權人的

角度來看，試問債務人是否有責任首

先解決未償還的債務？大多數債權

人都不想浪費法律費用來執行未償

還的裁決。若債務已在一個司法管轄

區獲得解決，那麼合理的債權人將不

會在其他司法管轄區採取不必要的

執行程序。只有在債務人試圖隱藏資

產以逃避執行裁決的情況下，債權人

才需要追踪債務人的資產，並在不同

的管轄區展開執行程序。

該問題終於透過《補充安排》得到解

決，只要債權人追回的總金額不超過

裁決金額，債權人可以同時在內地和

香港展開執行程序。這無疑會大大便

利內地和香港仲裁裁決的跨境執行。

總結

將《安排》的運作變得更加符合《紐

約公約》的規定，當然會受到兩個司

法管轄區的法律從業者的歡迎。《補

充安排》不僅澄清了一些實際問題，

亦通過容許當事雙方同時向人民法

院和香港法院提出執行申請，便利仲

裁裁決的跨境執行，從而希望可減少

因法定時限所引起的潛在問題。

• February 2021


In October 2019, the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission established a Sub-committee on Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration (the

“Sub-committee”) to “review the current position relating to outcome related fee structures for arbitration, to consider whether reform is needed to the relevant law and regulatory framework and, if so, to make such recommendations for reform as appropriate.”

On 17 December 2020, the Sub-committee published its Consultation Paper on Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration (“Consultation Paper”). The Sub-committee unanimously proposed that the law in Hong Kong should be amended to permit lawyers to use outcome related fee structures (“ORFSs”) for arbitration taking place in and outside Hong Kong. It also made recommendations on the operation of individual regimes relating to ORFSs. These recommendations represent the

By Kathryn Sanger, Co-chair, Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration Sub-committee of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills

Briana Young, Co-chair, Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration Sub-committee of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong Foreign Legal Consultant (England and Wales)/ Professional Support Consultant, Herbert Smith Freehills

Overview of the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission Sub-committee’s Consultation Paper on Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration



jurisdictions, such as France, Sweden, Switzerland and South Korea. The Sub-committee has also made reference to the Law Reform Commission’s previous study of conditional fees for proceedings (including arbitration) between 2003 and 2007 as well as third party funding for arbitration between 2013 and 2016.

One of the major recommendations of the Consultation Paper is that the law in Hong Kong should be amended to permit lawyers to use ORFSs for arbitration taking place in and outside Hong Kong. The scope of the proposed reform in Hong Kong is currently limited to (a) arbitration proceedings and related court proceedings in Hong Kong, and (b) work done by lawyers in Hong Kong for arbitrations seated outside Hong Kong. The Sub-committee’s terms of reference do not include ORFSs for litigation and so the Sub-committee’s proposals do not cover the removal of the prohibition on the use of ORFSs for litigation proceedings before the Hong Kong courts.

Arguments For and Against ORFSs for ArbitrationAmong other things, the Consultation Paper also discusses the arguments for and against ORFSs for arbitration. The major arguments for ORFSs for arbitration include (a) preserving and promoting Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a leading arbitration centre, (b) enhancing access to justice, (c) responding to client demand and providing pricing flexibility, (d) supporting freedom of contract, (e) weeding out weak claims and (f) enabling lawyers in Hong Kong to compete on an even playing field with other jurisdictions where ORFSs are allowed.

On the other hand, the Sub-committee has also considered in detail the arguments against ORFSs for arbitration, namely, (a) the risk of conflict of interest and unprofessional conduct, (b) increase in opportunistic and frivolous litigation, (c) excessive legal fees, (d) reliance on after-the-event / litigation insurance and (e) the risk of increase in satellite litigation.

After careful analysis, the Sub-committee has unanimously concluded that the arguments for introducing ORFSs

Sub-committee’s preliminary views and are presented for consideration by interested parties. The consultation period closes on 16 March 2021.

What Are ORFSs?For the purposes of the Consultation Paper, an ORFS is an agreement between a lawyer and client, whereby the lawyer receives a financial benefit if the case is won. It includes several types of agreements, namely, conditional fee agreements (“CFAs”), damages-based agreements (“DBAs”) and hybrid damages-based agreements (“Hybrid DBAs”).

There are two forms of CFA. One form is a “no win, no fee” arrangement where the lawyer charges no fee during the course of the proceedings and is paid his or her usual fee plus an uplift if the client’s case succeeds. Another form is a “no win, low fee” arrangement where the lawyer charges at the usual rate or, more likely, at a discounted rate during the course of the proceedings, plus a success fee if the client’s case succeeds. For these two forms of arrangements, the success fee refers to an additional fee that the client agrees to pay the lawyer only upon the success of the case. It can be an agreed flat fee, or calculated as a percentage “uplift” on the fees charged during the course of the proceedings.

A DBA is another form of “no win, no fee” arrangement. If the client’s case is unsuccessful, the lawyer charges no fee. In the event of success, under a DBA, the lawyers’ fee is calculated by reference to the outcome of the proceedings, for example as a percentage of the amount awarded or recovered (“DBA Payment”).

A Hybrid DBA is a form of “no win, low fee” arrangement. The lawyer charges a fee for the legal services rendered (typically at a discounted rate) and, in the event of success, the DBA Payment.

Why Should ORFSs Be Permitted in Hong Kong?At present, lawyers in Hong Kong are prohibited from charging outcome related fee in arbitration. By contrast, with the exception of Singapore, all

major arbitral seats (these include England and Wales, Mainland China, Australia, the United States of America, France, Sweden, Switzerland and South Korea) permit some form of ORFS for arbitration. In October 2019, Singapore also completed a public consultation to introduce a framework for conditional fee agreements in relation to international and domestic arbitration proceedings and is now awaiting the outcome of that consultation. Evidence shows that there is rising client demand for alternative pricing and funding options, not only from impecunious clients seeking to fund meritorious claims, but also from clients looking to take some (or all) of the costs of arbitration off their balance sheet. These clients are generally free to seat their arbitrations anywhere in the world. If Hong Kong continues to prevent its lawyers from sharing that risk through ORFSs, it is likely that clients will choose to arbitrate elsewhere.

The Sub-committee considers that permitting ORFSs is essential to Hong Kong’s continued status as one of the world’s leading centres for arbitration services, and will enable Hong Kong to compete on an even playing field with other popular arbitral seats which allow some form of ORFSs. Given the continuing rise in arbitrations seated in Hong Kong involving Mainland Chinese parties, including claims arising out of the Belt and Road Initiative, it is more important than ever for lawyers in Hong Kong to be able to fund cases on the same, or similar, bases to lawyers from other jurisdictions where ORFSs are permitted. This is particularly so in the context of arbitration, where parties are, on the whole, commercial entities or business people familiar with negotiating commercial terms and related pricing for those services.

The Sub-Committee’s Consultation Paper

OverviewThe Consultation Paper sets out a summary of the relevant law in Hong Kong and in nine jurisdictions where arbitration commonly takes place, including Singapore, England and Wales, Australia, Mainland China, USA, and some civil law

• February 2021


for arbitration clearly outweigh the arguments against. Moreover, many of the perceived risks associated with ORFSs are historic or of no relevance to the current consultation, which is limited in scope to arbitration, and can in any event be managed by appropriate safeguards.

The RecommendationsApart from recommending the removal of the prohibition on the use of ORFSs for arbitration for lawyers, the Sub-committee also makes recommendations on the operation of individual regimes relating to CFAs, DBAs and Hybrid DBAs. Some of the main recommendations are highlighted below.

Recommendation 2 - Non-recoverability of success fees from the unsuccessful party

Where a CFA is in place, the Sub-committee recommends in Recommendation 2, among other things, that any success fees agreed by the claimant with its lawyers should not be recoverable from the respondent (or losing party), following the current

English provisions on recoverability of success fees.

Based on the Sub-committee’s study of overseas jurisdictions, the Sub-committee notes that, in England and Wales, the ability of a successful claimant to recover the success fee from the respondent led to an explosion of litigation. It would also be unfair if the losing respondent were responsible for these costs in circumstances where the respondent is not party to these contracts and has no control over the pricing structure agreed between the successful claimant and its lawyers. This is also consistent with the view of the Law Reform Commission’s Report on Conditional Fees in 2007.

Recommendation 3 – Capping the success fee

The Sub-committee recommends in Recommendation 3 that there should be a cap on the success fee for the CFA regime which is expressed as a percentage of normal or “benchmark” costs.

The Sub-committee’s study shows that other jurisdictions have put in place a cap on the success fee. In England and Wales, the success fee is capped at 100 percent of normal costs. In Australia, for contentious proceedings the success fee is subject to a lower cap of 25 percent (excluding disbursements) of the legal fees otherwise payable.

The Sub-committee notes that in many cases the success fee will be profit and accordingly invites proposals on what an appropriate cap should be, up to a maximum of 100 percent. The Sub-committee also invites proposals on whether barristers should be subject to the same, or a different, cap and, if different, what that cap should be, up to a maximum of 100 percent.

Recommendation 6 – Recovery of costs based on “Ontario model” v “Success fee model”

In England and Wales, the recovery of costs in a DBA context is currently based on the so-called “Ontario model”. Under



作者：張清明，香港法律改革委員會轄下的與仲裁結果有關的收費架構小組委員會聯合

主席 ; 史密夫斐爾律師事務所合夥人

楊安娜，香港法律改革委員會轄下的與仲裁結果有關的收費架構小組委員會聯合

主席 ; 史密夫斐爾律師事務所外國法律顧問（英格蘭及威爾斯）／專業支援顧問

香港法律改革委員會仲裁結果有關的收費架構諮詢文件概覽

香港法律改革委員會於 2019年 10 月成立了與仲裁結果

有關的收費架構小組委員會

( 小組委員會 )，以「檢視現時與仲

裁結果有關的收費架構，考慮是否需

要改革相關法律和規管架構；如需改

革，會作出合適的改革建議。」

小組委員會在 2020 年 12 月 17 日發

表了仲裁結果有關的收費架構諮詢

文件 (「諮詢文件」)。小組委員會建

議應修訂香港法律，准許律師就在香

港及在香港以外地方進行的仲裁採

用與結果有關的收費架構。小組委員

會也就與結果有關的收費架構的個

別機制應如何運作，作出建議。這些

建議代表小組委員會的初步看法，供

關注者考慮。諮詢期將於 2021 年 3月 16 日結束。

the Ontario model, clients cannot recover the full DBA Payment from the losing opponent, if it is higher than the costs that would otherwise be recoverable. The client must pay any shortfall between recoverable costs and the DBA Payment. Conversely, as a result of the indemnity principle, if the DBA Payment is lower than the costs that would otherwise be recoverable, only that lower amount can be recovered.

One of the recommendations proposed by Professor Rachael Mulheron and Nicolas Bacon QC, who were invited by the UK Ministry of Justice to conduct an independent review of the existing Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 in England and Wales, is to switch to the “Success fee model”. Under the Success fee model, costs recovered from the respondent are outside of, and additional to, the DBA Payment. The DBA Payment is thus treated as the success fee, which can be retained by the lawyer on top of the recoverable costs awarded.

The Sub-committee invites submissions on whether the Ontario model or the

Success fee model should apply to DBAs. It is the Sub-committee’s preliminary view that the recommendation proposed by Professor Rachael Mulheron and Nicolas Bacon QC to move to a Success fee model should be followed.

Recommendation 7 – Capping the DBA Payment

The Sub-committee recommends in Recommendation 7 that there should be a cap on the part of the financial benefit obtained in respect of DBA payment for the DBA and Hybrid DBA regimes, which should be expressed as a percentage of the “financial benefit” or “compensation” received by the client.

The Sub-committee’s study shows that, in England and Wales, the current cap is 50 percent of the “financial benefit” or “compensation” received by the client, while a 30 percent cap of “the claim amount in a dispute stated in a contract for legal service” applies in Mainland China.

The Sub-committee is of the view that there is scope for capping the maximum DBA payment at less than the 50 percent

cap currently adopted in England and Wales for commercial claims, particularly if the Success fee model is adopted, and that an appropriate range for consultation is 30-50 percent.

Recommendation 13 – Further consultation on safeguards as well as personal injury and other non-commercial claims

The Sub-committee invites submission on what specific safeguards should be addressed in the professional codes of conduct of the two legal professional bodies and subsidiary legislation. Another issue on which the Sub-committee invites comments is whether personal injury claims should be treated differently from other claims in arbitration and whether any additional category/categories of claim should be treated differently from other claims that are submitted to arbitration if ORFSs are introduced.

ConclusionThe Sub-committee welcomes views, comments and suggestions on any of the issues discussed in the Consultation Paper by the close of the Consultation Period on 16 March 2021.

• February 2021


甚麼是仲裁結果有關的收費架構？

根據諮詢文件，與結果有關的收費架

構是律師與當事人訂立的協議。根據

該協議，律師在法律程序獲得成功時

收取財務利益。與結果有關的收費架

構包括按條件收費協議、按損害賠償

收費協議，以及混合式按損害賠償收

費協議。

按條件收費協議有兩種。其中一種是

「不成功、不收費」(no win, no fee)

的協議，律師在法律程序過程中不收

取費用，如當事人的案件成功，律師

方獲支付慣常的收費及一筆「額外」

的費用。另一種是「不成功、低收

費」(no win, low fee) 的協議，律師在

法律程序過程中按慣常收費率或折

扣收費率收取費用，如當事人的案件

成功，則加收成功收費。就這兩種協

議，成功收費指當事人在案件成功的

情況下，同意向律師支付的額外費

用。成功收費的數額可以是雙方議定

的固定金額，也可以按法律程序過程

中所收取費用的某個百分比「額外」

計算。

按損害賠償收費協議是另一種「不成

功、不收費」的協議。如當事人的案

件不成功，律師不收取費用。如當事

人獲得勝訴，律師方收取費用，而該

費用是參照法律程序的結果計算的，

例如按所獲判給或討回的數額的某

個百分比計算 (「按損害賠償收費協

議費用」)。

混合式按損害賠償收費協議是一種

「不成功、低收費」的安排。律師就

所提供的法律服務收取費用 ( 一般按

折扣每小時收費率收取 )，並在當事

人獲得勝訴時另再收取「按損害賠償

收費協議費用」。

為何香港應准許與結果有關的收費

架構？

目前，香港的律師不得就仲裁收取與

結果有關的收費。然而，除新加坡

外，世界所有其他主要仲裁地 ( 包括

英格蘭及威爾斯、中國內地、澳洲、

美國、法國、瑞典及韓國 ) 都准許律

師就仲裁向當事人提供部分或全部

形式的與結果有關的收費架構。在

2019 年 10 月，新加坡亦完成了公眾

諮詢，建議就國際仲裁程序和本地仲

裁程序引入按條件收費協議框架，現

正等待諮詢結果。有證據顯示，當事

人對另類釐定收費及資助來源選項

的需求日增。這種需求不單來自為有

理據的申索尋求資助而財力短絀的

當事人，也來自希望將部分仲裁費用

從資產負債表減除的當事人。這些當

事人一般可以自由選擇以世界任何

地方作為仲裁地。如香港繼續阻止律

師透過與結果有關的收費架構分擔

該風險，當事人便相當可能乾脆選擇

在別處進行仲裁。

小組委員會認為，准許與結果有關的

收費架構，對維持香港作為世界主要

仲裁地之一的地位至為重要，讓香港

的律師可在公平環境下，與其他准許

某種形式的與結果有關的收費架構

的主要仲裁地競爭。由於以香港為仲

裁地並涉及中國內地當事方的仲裁

案件持續增加 ( 當中包括因「一帶一

路」倡議而提出的申索 )，讓香港的

律師能夠比照來自其他准許與結果

有關的收費架構的司法管轄區的律

師，按相同或相類基準資助案件，比

任何時候都來得重要。在仲裁方面尤

其如此，因為當事各方大都是商業實

體或商人，他們對於如何商議商業條

款及為有關服務釐定收費均相當熟

悉。

小組委員會的諮詢文件

概覽

諮詢文件概述了香港和 9 個常用的

仲裁司法管轄區的相關法律，包括新

加坡、英格蘭及威爾斯、澳洲、中國

內地、美國及一些大陸法司法管轄

區，例如法國、瑞典、瑞士和韓國。

小組委員會亦參考了法律改革委員會

2003 年至 2007 年有關訴訟 ( 包括仲

裁 ) 按條件收費的研究，以及 2013年至 2016 年有關第三者資助仲裁的

研究。

諮詢文件的主要建議之一，是應修訂

香港法律，准許律師就在香港及在香

港以外地方進行的仲裁採用與結果

有關的收費架構。在香港進行的建議

改革範圍目前僅限於 (a) 在香港進行

的仲裁程序及有關連的法院程序，及

(b) 律師在香港為其他仲裁地的仲裁

所辦理的工作。小組委員會的研究範

圍不包括在訴訟方面與結果有關的

收費架構，因此小組委員會的建議並

不涵蓋撤銷在香港法院訴訟程序採

用與結果有關的收費架構的禁止規

定。

贊成和反對與仲裁結果有關的收費

架構的論據

諮詢文件還討論了贊成和反對與仲

裁結果有關的收費架構的論據。贊成

與仲裁結果有關的收費架構的主要

論據包括 (a) 維持及提高香港作為主

要仲裁中心的競爭力；(b) 公義渠道；

(c) 回應當事人需求和提供釐定收費



的彈性；(d) 支持訂約自由；(e) 汰除

理據薄弱的申索；及 (f) 讓香港的律

師可在公平環境下與准許與結果有

關的收費架構的其他司法管轄區競

爭。

另一方面，小組委員會亦詳細考慮反

對與結果有關的收費架構的論據，包

括(a)利益衝突和不專業行為的風險；

(b) 具投機性質和瑣屑無聊的申索案

件增加；(c) 法律費用過高；(d) 對事

後 / 訴訟保險的倚賴；及 (e) 附屬訴

訟增加。

經仔細分析，小組委員會所得結論是

贊成引入與仲裁結果有關的收費架

構的論據，明顯較反對的論據有力。

再者，很多被視為關連到與結果有關

的收費架構的風險亦已成過去，或是

與範圍限於仲裁的本諮詢並不相關。

如某些風險仍然存在，可以透過適當

保障措施來制衡。

建議

除了建議應撤銷對律師於仲裁採用

與結果有關的收費架構的禁止規定

外，也就按條件收費協議、按損害賠

償收費協議及混合式按損害賠償收

費協議的個別機制應如何運作，作出

建議。以下是一些主要建議。

建議 2 - 不可向敗訴方討回成功收費

就訂立了按條件收費協議的情況而

言，小組委員會在建議 2 建議，應

依循英格蘭現行有關可否討回成功

收費的條文，不可向答辯人 ( 或敗訴

方 ) 討回申索人分別與其律師所議定

的成功收費。

根據小組委員會對海外司法管轄區

的研究，小組委員會指出，在英格蘭

及威爾斯，勝訴的申索人能夠向答辯

人討回事後保險的保費和成功收費，

這個做法令訟案激增。而且，收費的

款額是由勝訴的申索人與其律師議

定的。敗訴的答辯人並非有關合約的

訂約一方，對議定的收費亦無控制

權，若要負擔這些費用，實在並不公

平。這與法律改革委員會 2007 年按

條件收費的報告的觀點一致。

建議 3 – 為成功收費設定上限

就訂立了按條件收費協議的情況而

言，小組委員會在建議 3 建議應為成

功收費設定上限，而該上限應定為相

等於正常或「基準」訟費的某個百分

比。小組委員會的研究顯示，其他司

法管轄區有為成功收費設定上限。在

英格蘭及威爾斯，成功收費的上限為

正常訟費的 100%。在澳洲，爭訟法

律程序的成功收費則受較低的上限

所規限，最高為本來須付的法律費用

的 25%( 不包括代墊付費用 )。

鑑於很多時成功收費純粹是利潤，小

組委員會就該上限應定於甚麼水平

及理由為何，諮詢公眾，最高上限為

100%。小組委員會亦就大律師應否

受不同的上限所規限，以及如應該的

話，該上限應定於甚麼水平及理由為

何，諮詢公眾，最高上限為 100%。

建議 6 – 按「安大略省模式」還是

「成功收費模式」討回訟費

在英格蘭及威爾斯，討回按損害賠償

收費協議所涉的訟費，現時是以所謂

的「安大略省模式」為基礎。根據安

大略省模式，如按損害賠償收費協議

費用高於原本可討回的訟費，則當事

人不能向敗訴的對方全數討回該費

用。當事人必須支付可討回訟費與按

損害賠償收費協議費用之間的不足

之數。反過來說，基於彌償原則，如

按損害賠償收費協議費用低於原本

可討回的訟費，則只可討回該較低的

款額。

英國司法部邀請梅麗朗教授及貝根

御用大律師對《2013 年按損害賠償

收費協議規例》進行獨立檢討，他們

的其中一個建議就是轉用「成功收費

模式」。成功收費模式下的計算方式

並不相同，從對方討回的訟費是在按

損害賠償收費協議費用以外另再計

算的。因此，按損害賠償收費協議費

用會被視為成功收費，律師可在獲判

給的可討回訟費之外另再保留該費

用。

小組委員會邀請公眾就以下問題提

交意見書：究竟是安大略省模式還是

成功收費模式應適用於按損害賠償

收費協議。小組委員會的初步看法

是，應依循梅麗朗教授及貝根御用大

律師的建議，轉用成功收費模式。

建議 7 – 為按損害賠償收費協議費

用設定上限

小組委員會在建議 7 中建議，應為根

據按損害賠償收費協議或混合式按

損害賠償收費協議所獲財務利益的

部分設定上限，而該上限應定為相等

於當事人所收取的「財務利益」或

「補償」的某個百分比。

小組委員會的研究顯示，英格蘭及威

爾斯的現行上限為當事人所收取的

「財務利益」或「補償」的 50%，

而中國內地為「收費合同約定標的

額」的上限為 30%。

小組委員會認為，尚有空間可以把按

損害賠償收費協議費用的上限定為

低於英格蘭及威爾斯現時就商業申

索所採納的 50%，尤其是如採納成

功收費模式，更應如此。小組委員會

又認為，供諮詢的適當上限範圍應介

乎 30% 至 50% 之間。

建議 13 – 有關保障措施及人身傷害

申索和其他非商業申索的進一步諮

詢

小組委員會邀請公眾就兩個專業團

體的專業行為守則及附屬法例應涵

蓋甚麼具體的保障措施，提交意見

書。小組委員會亦邀請公眾就人身傷

害申索應否作出與其他仲裁申索不

同的處理，以及如引入與結果有關的

收費架構的話，是否有額外類別的申

索應以與其他提交仲裁的申索不同

的方式處理，提交意見書。

總結

小組委員會歡迎各界就諮詢文件所

列議題提出意見、評論或建議。諮詢

期將於 2021 年 3 月 16 日結束。

• February 2021


Introduction On 9 January 2015, the Chief Justice signed the Practice Direction PDSL 9 (“PDSL 9”) for the commencement of a pilot scheme for resolution of financial disputes. This is another alternative dispute resolution in Matrimonial and Family Proceedings called “Private Financial Adjudication” (“PFA”). The pilot scheme commenced on 19 January 2015 for three years and it has been extended for another three years from 19 January 2018 to 18 January 2021. After reviewing the likely use of this method of resolution, the PDSL 9 is now extended for another three years up to 18 January 2024 with some modification at paras 8, 9, 20, and its Appendix 1 at para 5.6.

What is Private Financial Adjudication? The PFA is another mode of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) to further the objective for settlement facilitation provided by the Judiciary in addition to and without affecting the existing modes of ADR provided by the Judiciary for mediation under PD 15.10, financial dispute resolution under PD 15.11 (“FDR”) and children dispute resolution under PD 15.13 (PDSL 9 paras. 3 and 4.) This procedure applies to any application for financial orders and/or financial relief under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap. 192, Guardianship of Minors Ordinance Cap. 13, Separation and Maintenance Orders

Ordinance Cap.16 and Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance, Cap.481. It also includes any other applications of a financial nature in Matrimonial and Family Proceedings to which the court agrees that the procedures should apply.

As suggested by the title of this mode of ADR, it has nothing to do with children’s custody, care and control, access, education or upbringing. Hopefully, this may be extended to resolving children issues in future.

Before the parties choose to go for PFA, the PD provides that the parties to the application should have considered

By Dennis Ho, Principal Partner, Ho & Ip Solicitors

A Speedy and Confidential Resolution of Financial Disputes in Matrimonial and Family Proceedings(A Pilot Scheme for Private Financial Adjudication under Practice Direction PDSL 9)

February 2021 • FAMILY LAW 家庭法


participating in mediation and FDR. They should also have made financial disclosure by exchanging the parties’ respective Form E (the financial statement) unless there is good reason for taking an exceptional course. There is a discretion for the court to approve a PFA to go ahead without going for mediation or FDR in certain circumstances.

To proceed with PFA, the parties or any other third parties involved (if any), will have to sign a PFA agreement (“PFA Agreement”). The PDSL 9 provides a specimen agreement in its Appendix A. The involved parties can draw up their own PFA agreement, but, under the PDSL 9 it requires to cover the following terms

(PDSL 9, para. 14): -

1. All involved parties have to confirm that they have obtained their own adequate and independent legal advice on the nature, implications, procedures and the issue of confidentiality concerning the PFA. It is expected that all parties are legally represented;

2. The parties must state in the agreement whether they have attended mediation or a FDR hearing. If that is not done, they must state the reason for not doing so. It is not expected that there must be mediation or FDR hearing before the parties can proceed to PFA, the judge in approving the application for PFA will consider the reason for not having done the mediation or the FDR hearing;

3. The PFA Agreement should spell out what or which issue of the financial dispute is to be dealt with in the PFA. In other words, it can deal with all issues in the financial disputes or restrict it to certain issues such as maintenance pending suit for spouse or interim maintenance for children. It could also confine it to deal with only preliminary issues involving third party in any beneficial interests of the family assets. This sort of applications may consider as the exception for not having the FDR hearing or perhaps, even before mediation;

4. After signing of the PFA Agreement the

parties have to make an application by way of consent summons within 14 days to seek the court’s approval for the appointment of the private adjudicator, as agreed by all parties involved in the PFA, and the commencement of the PFA. The parties should also seek the court’s approval to stay all or part of the proceedings between the parties pending the PFA. This provides a situation where the issues for preliminary issues or interim maintenance are going to be adjudicated by way of PFA, the other matters such as children or discovery of other financial information can be proceeded simultaneously in the court proceedings. This will certainly speed up the whole process of finalizing the divorce proceedings. This is particular so, because at present if there is a preliminary issue, very often the judge in the docket system would prefer to resolve the preliminary issue first which may take a year or more before the parties can have the determination of the preliminary issue;

5. The parties will also confirm in the Agreement that they will follow the appointment of the private adjudicator as approved by the court;

6. All parties have to accept that the decision(s) of the private adjudicator on procedures in the process of the PFA and the issues he is asked to determine as final and this could only subject to the overriding discretion of the court as provided in paragraph 14(8) of the PDSL 9. This aspect of finality provides parties with a higher level of certainty and allows the parties to get on with their lives, particularly if the parties are keen to resolve matters expeditiously. However, the commitment to finality in the process of PFA may deter many parties from using PFA otherwise it is an efficient and costs effective process. Yet, if the PFA is to deal with interim order such as MPS and interim maintenance, the parties should not be over concern with this commitment for the simple reason that such interim orders are subject to variation on change of circumstances. Practically speaking, this may more be applicable

to an ancillary relief claim which is for a “need” case seeking for periodical payments. The fact that there is no right to appeal should not stop parties from committing to the process of PFA for those issues discussed above. If it is for a final ancillary relief issue it would not bring the parties to a position worse than those parties who have obtained an arbitration award;

7. After the private adjudicator’s decision is provided to the parties, the parties shall within 14 days of receipt of such decision filed a consent summons incorporating the terms of the decision for the court’s approval;

8. The parties should acknowledge that the court retain the overriding discretion as to whether, and in what terms, to the make the order(s) embodying the decision and the parties agree to take all necessary steps to see such orders are made; and

9. It is the responsibility of the party who applies for ancillary relief to submit a PFA report (“PFA Report”) to the court within 14 days after the completion of the PFA process. If both parties in the Matrimonial or Family Proceedings are making the claim, the Petitioner or the Applicant, as the case may be, shall be under the duty to submit the PFA Report.

The Use of PFA Arbitration is available to deal with family financial disputes in England & Wales, Australia, Ontario, Canada and Scotland. In England and Wales, there is an organization called Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (“IFLA”) set up eight years ago, as a not-for-profit company, which provides the rules and training scheme for their arbitrators under the scheme. In the past years, the use of arbitration has become increasingly accepted and in July 2016 it has extended to issues concerning children in private cases. It has been reported that “speed, confidentiality and cost-effectiveness” operated under the Finance Scheme to resolve family financial disputes is widely recognized with leading judgment supporting the scheme and various extrajudicial

• February 2021


statements of approval at the highest level.

In Hong Kong, the Institute of Private Family Adjudicators (Hong Kong) was set up in 2019 with rules and training scheme for adjudicators to assist the running of PFA. There are 24 Hong Kong lawyers seeking accreditation as PFA adjudicators undertook training and a decision writing examination recently. This Institute’s website is www.ipfahk.com which provides some useful information regarding PFA.

Soon after the introduction of PFA, practitioners have great reservation to recommend it to parties in financial disputes. The main concern is paragraph 14(6) of the PDSL 9, which provides that decision(s) of the private adjudicator whether in terms of procedure or the adjudication shall be final subject only to the overriding discretion of the court.

Sir Bernard Eder commented at the 2014 Mauritius International Arbitration Conference and said that when the parties agree to arbitration they “buy the right to get the wrong answer”. This would mean the grounds to challenge an award are very limited. Mostyn J in agreeing to this comment in DB v DLJ [2016] EWHC 324, gave his views on the traditional grounds for challenging a financial remedy order in family court proceedings i.e., mistake, fraud, non-disclosure and the existence of a supervening event. Under paragraph 20 of the PDSL 9, parties should apply for a

consent order within 14 days after the delivery of the adjudicator’s decision. If no consent summons is filed, either party may seek for directions. This could mean an application to show cause why that party should not be bound by the decisions of the adjudicator. The need to show cause is now specifically stated in the amended new version of PDSL 9 which adopts a procedure similar to the one used in Rose v Rose [2002] EWCA Civ 208 and considered in CSFK v HWH [2020] HKLRD 586.

In a recent English case, Hayley v Hayley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369 Lady Justice King have this to say:

“In my view, the logical approach by which to determine whether the court should decline to make an order in the terms of the award, is by reference to the appeal procedure and the approach found in the FPR 2010. In other words, when presented with a refusal on the part of one party to agree to the conversion of an arbitral award into a consent order, the court should, at an initial stage, ‘triage’ the case with the reluctant party having to ‘show cause’ on paper why an order should not be made in the terms of the arbitral award. Such approach would be similar to the permission to appeal filter found at FPR rule 30(7) where the trial has taken place under

the MCA 1973. If the judge is of the view that there is a real prospect of the objecting

party succeeding in

demonstrating that the arbitral award is wrong, then the matter can be set down for a hearing. That hearing will, as with an appeal, be confined to a review and will not be a rehearing, subject to any case management directions which the judge may make in relation to updating or other evidence and subject to, as under FPR 30.12(1)(b), the court considering that “it would be in the interests of justice to hold a re-hearing”.

Australia had extended arbitration to family disputes by way of amendments introduced in the Family Law Act 1975 since 1991, but there was little use for its first decade. Since 2017, lawyers in Australia started to see the benefits of arbitration to resolve family financial dispute. Perhaps, a lesson to learn from Australia is that Family lawyers in Hong Kong should see the virtue of this alternative dispute resolution and make use of it to assist parties who wants to resolve matters expeditiously.

In Hong Kong, the need to go for preliminary issue hearing profound by TL v ML has brought about long delay in resolution of ancillary relief claim. The established procedure to have proper pleadings, disclosure and filing of witness’s statements before the preliminary issues hearing very often take the matter to 6 to 8 months or more before it can be heard by the family judge.

Likewise, a simple maintenance

p e n d i n g



suit application may take a few months before it can be dealt with by the judge when the applicant could be in desperate need for an appropriate financial support. Such delay could be avoided or for the least shortened if parties are willing to go for PFA. The virtue of PFA is “speed, confidentially and costs-effectiveness”. Hence, family law practitioners should be reminded of the availability of PFA which offers speedy resolution for issues such as preliminary issues and interim maintenance in view of the very often tight schedule of the Family Courts.

We should note that the scheme for arbitration on children issues are working well in the UK. Basically, children’s matters should be given priority for the simple reason that any delay in dealing with it is against the best interest principle enshrined in the Guardianship of Minor Ordinance, Cap. 13. Hong Kong needs to have an alternative approach to resolve children matters by a judgelike adjudicator speedily. Quite a number of cases on children would take a few months or may be a year before a judge can have the opportunity to deal with the dispute. A relocation application can

easily take more than half a year to have the trial dates.

ConclusionViews have been sought from the Bar Association, the Family Law Committee of the Law Society and the Family Law Association about their position on this PD for financial adjudication, they are all in support of the pilot scheme to give Hong Kong an opportunity to make use of this alternative dispute resolution.

Other dispute resolutions are working well such as mediation and the FDR. However, there is a situation when parties are not able resolve their differences in mediation or a FDR hearing when a stronger party who insists to hold out until the other backs down. By contrast, an adjudicator can deal with the dispute in the same way as a family judge whose decision is expected to be endorsed by the judge.

The first PFA took place in May 2019 and the decision was delivered by the adjudicator in July 2019. The parties in this first PFA agreed to bring their disputes to be adjudicated because of

the Covit-19 pandemic which delayed their ancillary relief trial to many months later after having waited for the trial to come round for a long time. The PFA was signed a few months before the actual PFA hearing and the matter was resolved within a few months. If the matter were to be dealt with by the court, it could take a much longer time. Besides, Family Judges have very heavy caseloads, one cannot expect to receive judgments from the court as promptly as a private adjudicator who is paid by the parties. One other big advantage in PFA is confidentiality which allows those public figures to keep their matter away from Courts and subsequent reporting in the judiciary website.

Hence, parties can quickly agree on appointment of an adjudicator and proceed with the hearing within a short period of time. The PFA provides this very virtue to resolve disputes between the parties with its speed, confidentiality and costs-effectiveness way. This is an alternative route for the parties when they are facing long delay for a trial to come through and finalize their divorce proceedings.

作者：何志權律師，何葉律師行主要合夥人

婚姻及家事法律程序中財務糾紛的快速、保密排解方法（根據實務指示 PDSL 9進行的私人財務審裁試驗計劃）

引言

2015 年 1 月 9 日，終審法院首

席法官簽署了實務指示 PDSL 9（「PDSL 9 」），從而開展財務糾

紛排解試驗計劃。此乃婚姻及家事法

律程序中另一種另類排解爭議方式，

稱為「私人財務審裁」（「私人財務

審裁」）。該項試驗計劃於 2015 年

1 月 19 日展開，為期三年，其後再

予延長三年，由 2018 年 1 月 19 日至

2021 年 1 月 18 日。在對該排解方法

的可能運用進行檢討後，PDSL 9 現

時再予延長三年至 2024 年 1 月 18 日，

並同時對第 8、9、20 段及其附錄一

第 5.6 段進行若干修改。

何謂私人財務審裁？

私人財務審裁是司法機構訂立的另

一種達致和解的另類排解爭議方式

（「另類排解爭議方式」），附加

於並且不影響司法機構為《實務指示

• February 2021


15.10》下的調解、《實務指示 15.11》下的財務糾紛排解（「財務糾紛排

解」）、及《實務指示 15.13》（PDSL 9 第 3 及 4 段）下的排解子女糾紛而

訂立的另類排解爭議方式之現行模

式。該項程序適用於在《婚姻法律程

序與財產條例》（第 192 章）、《未

成年人監護條例》（第 13 章）、《分

居令及贍養令條例》（第 16 章）、

及《財產繼承（供養遺屬及受養人）

條例》（第 481 章）下的財務命令及

／或財務濟助申請。此外，它亦包括

在婚姻及家事法律程序中，法庭同意

應予適用有關程序的任何其他財務

性質申請。

正如該另類排解爭議方式模式之標

題所顯示的，它們與子女管養、照顧

和監管、探視、教育或撫養無關。可

予寄望的是，它們於未來可伸延至解

決子女問題。

在各當事方選擇訂立私人財務審裁

之前，實務指示規定申請人應已考慮

進行調解及財務糾紛排解，以及通

過交換當事方各自的表格 E（財務報

表）進行財務披露（除非有充分理由

採取例外做法）。於若干情況下，法

庭可酌情決定批准私人財務審裁的

訂立而無需進行調解或財務糾紛排

解。

若訂立私人財務審裁，各當事方或任

何其他相關第三方（如有）須簽署私

人財務審裁協議（「私人財務審裁協

議」），PDSL 9 附錄 A 載有該等協

議樣本。各當事方可訂立自身的私

人財務審裁協議，但根據 PDSL 9，

其必須涵蓋以下條款（PDSL 9 第 14段）：-

1. 有關各方均須確認其已就私人財

務審裁的性質、含意、程序及保

密問題取得充分和獨立法律意

見，並預期有關各方均有法律代

表；

2. 有關各方必須於協議中述明曾否

出席調解或解決財務糾紛財務糾

紛排解聆訊。若否，便必須說明

原因。各當事人並非必須先進行

調解或財務糾紛排解聆訊才可進

行私人財務審裁，而法官於批准

私人財務審裁申請之前，將會考

慮沒有進行調解或財務糾紛排解

聆訊的原因；

3. 《私人財務審裁協議》應闡明在

私人財務審裁中將會處理甚麼或

哪些與財務糾紛有關的問題。換

句話說，它可以處理財務糾紛中

的所有問題，或將其局限在某些

問題上，例如在配偶的訟案待決

期間提供贍養費或子女臨時贍養

費等問題。此外，它亦可以局限

於僅處理在家庭資產的任何實益

權益中涉及到第三方的初步問

題。此類申請可被視為並無進行

財務糾紛排解聆訊或甚至屬調解

之前的例外情況；

4. 簽署《私人財務審裁協議》後，

各當事方須於 14 天內以同意傳票

方式提出申請，尋求法庭批准委

任獲私人財務審裁相關各方同意

的私人審裁員及開始進行私人財

務審裁。此外，各當事方亦應尋

求法庭批准，將各方之間的全部

或部分法律程序擱置，以候私人

財務審裁得出的結果。此舉可讓

初步問題或臨時贍養費問題透過

私人財務審裁來處理，其他事宜

（例如子女或其他財務資料的透

露）則可於法院訴訟程序中同時

處理，而這將必可加快完成整個

離婚法律程序。尤其是，現時倘

若存在初步問題，立案系統的法

官通常會選擇先解決初步問題，

而這可能需耗時一年或以上時間

才可由各當事方將該等初步問題

確定下來；

5. 當事各方亦會於協議中確認其將

遵循法庭所批准的私人審裁員委

任；

6. 所有當事方均須接受私人審裁員

在私人財務審裁程序中對程序所



作之決定，以及他根據要求對有

關問題所作之裁定，乃屬最終的

裁定，只可根據 PDSL 9 第 14(8)

段的規定，由法庭具凌駕性的酌

情決定權所推翻。此等終極裁定，

可讓各當事方獲得更高程度的確

定性，並讓其得以繼續正常運作，

尤其是在各當事方期望將問題迅

速解決的情況下。然而，私人財

務審裁程序中的終極性承諾，亦

會導致許多人對運用私人財務審

裁卻步，否則，它實屬一項高效

且具成本效益的程序。然而，如

果私人財務審裁需要處理臨時命

令（例如訟案待決期間及臨時贍

養費），各當事方便無需太過關

注這一承諾，因該等臨時命令將

會隨情況變化而更改。實際上，

它可能會更適用於附屬濟助方面

的申索（其乃為「需要」獲得定

期付款情況）。即使不具備上訴

權，各當事方亦不應被阻止就以

上討論的問題致力遵循私人財務

審裁程序。倘若是處理最終附屬

濟助問題，當事方所獲得的結果

將不會遜於其透過仲裁所獲得的

結果；

7. 在將私人審裁員的裁決提供各當

事方之後，各當事方須於收到裁

決之後 14 天內存檔含有裁決條款

的同意傳票，以供法庭批准；

8. 各當事方應承認法庭擁有凌駕性

的酌情決定權，可決定是否（以

及按甚麼條款）作出實行該裁決

的命令，而各當事方亦同意採取

一切必要步驟來配合該等命令的

作出；及

9. 申請附屬濟助的一方須於完成私

人財務審裁程序後 14 天內向法庭

提交私人財務審裁報告（「私人

財務審裁報告」）。倘若雙方在

婚姻或家事法律程序中均提出申

索，則須由呈請人或申請人（視

屬何情況而定）提交私人財務審

裁報告。

私人財務審裁的運用

在英格蘭及威爾士、澳洲、安大略、

加拿大及蘇格蘭，人們可透過仲裁

來處理家庭財務糾紛。英格蘭及威

爾士一個名為「家事法仲裁員協會」

的機構，乃一家於八年前成立的非牟

利公司，為其仲裁員提供規則及培訓

計劃。過去數年，仲裁的使用越見普

及。2016 年 7 月，其已擴展至涉及

子女問題的私人案件。據報導，為解

決家庭財務糾紛而實行的財務計劃，

其「速度、保密性及成本效益」均得

到廣泛認可，並獲法庭在重大判決中

給予支持，以及在各項最高層次的法

外聲明中獲得贊同。

在香港，於 2019 年成立的 Institute of Private Family Adjudicators (Hong Kong)，為審裁員提供規則及培訓計

劃，從而協助推展私人財務審裁的運

作。香港現時共有 24 名律師尋求私

人財務審裁審裁員資格的認可，並在

近期進行培訓及裁決撰寫的考試。該

機構的網址是 www.ipfahk.com，當中

載有若干與私人財務審裁有關的有

用資訊。

私人財務審裁制訂後不久，關於是否

將其推薦給財務糾紛的當事方，執業

者對此有極大保留，而主要的關注點

是 PDSL 9 第 14(6) 段，當中規定無

論是在程序或審裁方面，私人審裁員

的裁定屬最終裁定，只受制於法庭行

使凌駕性酌情權而作出的任何決定。

Sir Bernard Eder 於 2014 年舉行的毛

里求斯國際仲裁會議上稱，倘若各當

事方同意進行仲裁，其乃「購買取得

錯誤答案的權利」，而這意味著對

某項裁決提出質疑的理由非常有限。

Mostyn J 於 DB v DLJ [2016] EWHC 324一案對該項評論表示同意，並就於家

事法庭程序中所作的財務補救命令

提出質疑的傳統理由（即錯誤、欺

詐、不披露及存在接著發生的事件）

提出其看法。根據 PDSL 9 第 20 段，

各當事方應當於審裁員作出裁決後

14 天內申請同意命令。倘並沒有存

檔同意傳票，任何一方可向法庭尋求

指示，而這可能意味著其乃該方為何

不應受審裁員所作裁決約束的一項

提出因由申請。該提出因由之需要，

現於經修訂的 PDSL 9 新版本中具體

述明，而其運用的程序，與 Rose v Rose [2002] EWCA Civ 208 一案所運

用並於 CSFK v HWH [2020] HKLRD 586 一案所考慮的程序類似。

在近期的英國案件 Hayley v Hayley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369 中，

Lady Justice King 作出了以下評論：

「本席認為，要確定法庭應否拒絕根

據裁決條款下達命令，其合理方法是

參照 FPR 2010 的上訴程序及方法。

換句話說，當一方當事人拒絕同意將

仲裁裁決轉換為同意命令時，法庭應

於初始階段與不願接納並須以書面

「提出因由」的一方「檢視」為何不

應根據仲裁裁決下達命令。該方法與

FPR 規則第 30(7) 條中的上訴過濾許

可類似，而當中的審訊須根據 MCA 1973 進行。倘法官認為提出異議一

方確實有可能成功證明有關的仲裁

裁決乃屬錯誤作出，則可為相關案件

排期聆訊。該聆訊（如上訴般）將僅

限於覆核，而不會進行重新審理，但

受制於法官根據經更新的或其他證

據而作出的案件管理指示，以及法庭

根據 FPR 第 30.12(1)(b) 條認為「進行

重新聆訊符合司法公義」的情況。」

自 1991 年以來，澳洲通過對《1975年家事法》的修訂，將仲裁伸延至家

事糾紛，但在頭十年罕有運用。自

2017 年以來，澳洲律師開始發現藉

仲裁解決家事財務糾紛的優點。從澳

洲的經驗，香港家事法律師也許亦應

了解這種另類爭議排解方法的優點，

並利用其幫助期望能迅速解決爭議

的當事人。

在香港，TL v ML 一案提出的需就初

步問題進行聆訊，導致附屬濟助申索

的處理時間大幅延後。在進行初步問

題聆訊之前，須先經過適當的作訴、

披露及將證人陳述書存檔等既定程

序，這通常會耗費 6 至 8 個月或更

長時間，才由家事法官審理有關案

• February 2021


件。同樣，在申請人可能迫切需要獲

得適當財務支持情況下，簡單的訟案

待決期間提供贍養費申請也許須耗

費數月時間才獲得法官審理。各當事

方倘願意以私人財務審裁方式處理，

延遲將可避免或至少可以將其縮短。

私人財務審裁的好處是「速度、保密

性及成本效益」，而有鑒於家事法庭

的工作量繁重，家事法的執業者應關

注私人財務審裁的運用，其可為初步

問題及臨時贍養費等問題提供快速

解決方案。

應當關注的是，英國的子女問題仲

裁計劃成效顯著。基本上，子女事宜

應予優先處理，因為任何延誤將有違

《未成年人監護條例》（第 13 章）

的最佳利益原則。香港理應實行另類

做法，由相類於法官的審裁員迅速審

理子女事宜。涉及子女的案件，有許

多需耗時數月甚或一年時間，才讓法

官有機會處理所涉糾紛，而一項搬遷

申請，會輕易地耗時半年以上才獲得

排期審訊。

結論

大律師公會、律師會家事法委員會及

家庭法律協會已就對該項財務審裁

實務指示的所持立場表達了意見，並

對該項試驗計劃表示支持，使香港有

機會運用這項另類排解爭議方式。

其他排解爭議方式（例如調解及財務

糾紛排解）亦成效顯著。但有些情況

是，實力較強一方不肯妥協，要堅持

至另一方退縮，這時便無法以調解或

財務糾紛排解聆訊處理當事方之間

的分歧。相比之下，審裁員可如家事

法官一般處理糾紛，其所作的裁決，

預期亦會獲得法官認可。

首次私人財務審裁於 2019 年 5 月進

行，而有關裁決由審裁員於 2019 年

7 月作出。首次私人財務審裁的當事

方同意將其糾紛交付審裁，是由於相

關審訊的開展，於等候了一段長時間

後，由於新冠疫情爆發以致其附屬濟

助審訊須延後多月。有關的私人財務

審裁協議於實際的私人財務審裁聆

訊展開之前數月簽署，該宗個案於數

個月內得到解決。假如交由法庭處

理，時間恐怕遠較此為長。此外，家

事法官所需審理的案件數量龐大，人

們不能期望法庭會像付費的私人審

裁員般能迅速作出裁決。私人財務審

裁的另一個重要好處是案情保密，從

而使公眾人物無需將其案件交付法

庭審理，以致日後在司法機構的網站

上被加以報導。

因此，各當事方可就委任審裁員迅速

達成協議，並於短時間內進行聆訊。

私人財務審裁以速度、保密及具成本

效益方式，為當事方提供可解決雙方

爭議的極為有效舉措。當審訊的進行

及離婚法律程序的落實被長時間拖

延，這是一項為當事方提供的替代途

徑。



業界透視

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS

COMPETITION LAW

Uncovering the Enforcement Toolkit of the Hong Kong Competition Commission

In 2020, the Hong Kong Competition Commission (the “Commission”) has had an eventful year trying out many “firsts” from its enforcement toolkit. Important precedents are being set by the Commission and the Competition Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) and this is significant for businesses and the development of local jurisprudence as to the application of the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619) (the “Ordinance”).

• In January 2020, the Commission announced the commencement of enforcement proceedings against Quantr Ltd and its director, which concerned cartel conduct in relation to a bidding exercise for the supply of IT services. These proceedings were the result of the first ever successful leniency application and the first after an infringement notice. The cartel had been brought to the Commission’s attention by Quantr’s co-bidder, who was the first successful leniency applicant under the Commission’s Leniency Policy for Undertakings Engaged in Cartel Conduct. It is also the first time that the Commission made use of an infringement notice. The software supplier, Nintex Proprietary Limited, was not named as a respondent in the proceedings because it made commitments in response to the Commission’s infringement notice under section 67 of the Ordinance. This highlights leniency and commitments as ways to

avoid or have terminated competition investigations and proceedings.

• On 29 April 2020, the Tribunal handed down its first decision on pecuniary penalties in Competition Commission v W Hing Construction Company & Others [2020] HKCT 1 and imposed a total fine of HK$3.97 million on ten contractors for making and giving effect to market sharing and price fixing arrangements. The decision set down a structured and methodological four-step approach for assessing pecuniary penalties, missing from the Ordinance, which is based very closely on EU and UK approaches. Subsequently on 22 June 2020, the Commission published a Policy on Recommended Pecuniary Penalties (“Penalties Policy”) in line with the Tribunal’s decision. This has offered some certainty and transparency regarding the assessment of pecuniary penalties in Tribunal proceedings.

• On 30 October 2020, in Competition Commission v Fungs E&M Engineering Company Limited and Others [2020] HKCT 9, the Tribunal made its first disqualification order against a director finding him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. The case concerned allocation of services and coordinated pricing for renovation services at a public housing estate. The director had not directly known (though he had reasonable grounds to suspect) of the contravention and took no steps to prevent it. The gravity of the case was medium/low and the two-year starting point was reduced by two months because of the admission of liability from the beginning and delay in proceedings in part due to COVID-19.

• In May 2020, the Commission accepted the first commitments under section 60 of the Ordinance by three online travel agents (“OTAs”) (namely, Booking.com, Expedia.com and Trip.com). The commitments aimed to address the Commission’s concerns around clauses in contracts between the OTAs and accommodation providers in Hong Kong that require accommodation providers to always give the OTA the same or better terms as those they offer in other sales channels.

• On 17 July 2020, the Tribunal endorsed for the first time the use of Carecraft procedure in competition law proceedings in Competition Commission v Kam Kwong Engineering Company Limited & Others [2020] HKCT 3. The Carecraft procedure provides the Tribunal with a mechanism to expeditiously dispose of enforcement proceedings against respondents who admit liability. A statement of agreed facts is submitted on the basis of which the Tribunal scrutinises the proposed terms of agreement and makes the order in question.

• On 21 December 2020, the Commission commenced its first case on abuse of substantial market power against Linde HKO Limited and Linde GmbH (collectively “Linde” ), for abusing Linde’s substantial degree of market power in the medical gases supply market in Hong Kong to the detriment of competition in the downstream medical gas pipeline system (“MGPS”) maintenance market. It is alleged that, among other things, between October 2015 and

• February 2021


January 2018, Linde ceased or limited the supply of medical gases to the only other potential MGPS maintenance service provider for public hospitals.

Eyes are now set on how the local competition law regime is going to evolve further. Notably, the trial of the first proceedings in which a competition law defence was raised in civil litigation is scheduled to take place in July to August 2021, at which the Tribunal will hear the allegations concerning price fixing and exchange of price information raised by Meyer Aluminium Limited against its two diesel suppliers. Whilst standalone private actions are not available in Hong Kong, this case will provide a taste as to how competition law issues may be resolved between private parties in the context of a defence.

In view of the increased pace of enforcement by the Commission, it is important for businesses to ensure that they have in place an effective competition compliance programme. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that it was featured in the first infringement notice issued by the Commission and sought as part of the relief requested by the Commission in its first abuse of substantial market power proceedings. Importantly, implementation of a compliance programme is a mitigating factor under the Commission’s Penalties Policy.

– Helen Wang, Consultant, Clifford Chance

競爭法

揭開香港競爭事務委員會的執法工具包

2020 年是香港競爭事務委員會（「競委會」）重要的一年。這一年，競委會從其執法工具包取出很多「第一次」來試用。競委會和競爭事務審裁處（「審裁處」）按照《競爭條例》（第 619 章）（「《條例》」的適用範圍所處理的案件，現正陸續成為重要案例，對於企業及本地法律體系的發展來說，意義重大。

• 2020 年 1 月，競委會宣布向Quantr Ltd 及其董事展開法律程序，案件涉及在供應資訊科技服務的招標中出現的合謀行為。這些是有史以來首宗源於企業成功申請寬待而入稟的個案，亦是首宗在發出違章通知書後入稟的個案。競委會是從 Quantr 以外的另一名投標者得知有關合謀行為，該投標者是第一間根據競委會的《為從事合謀行為之業務實體而設的寬待政策》而成功申請寬待的企業。這亦是競委會第一次使用違章通知書。軟件供應商 Nintex Proprietary Limited在案中免被起訴，因為它根據《條例》第 67 條，承諾遵守競委會所發出的違章通知書的規定。這突顯寬待和承諾是避免因為涉嫌違反競爭守則而受查或終止調查，或是避免被起訴或終止起訴。

• 2020 年 4 月 29 日在 Competition Commission v W Hing Construction Company & Others [2020] HKCT 1案，審裁處頒布其首次作出的罰款裁決，向十間訂立並執行瓜分市場及合謀定價安排的承辦商，罰款合共港幣 397 萬元。是次裁決給罰款的評定制定一套分四個步驟完成的方法，基本上非常接近歐盟和英國所用的那一套。《條例》沒有這方面的規定。競委會其後在 2020年 6 月 22 日發表一份符合審裁處相關裁決的《建議罰款的政策》（「《罰款政策》」。按照建議的政策，就可以較肯定的預計到在審裁處法律程序中評定的罰款，並且清楚明白評定的方法。

• 2020 年 10 月 30 日在 Competition Commission v Fungs E&M Engineering Company Limited and Others [2020] HKCT 9 案，審裁處裁定一名董事不適宜參與某間公司的管理工作，首次向董事發出取消董事資格令。案件涉及在某個公共屋邨的服務分配及裝修服務合謀定價。該董事沒有直接得知違規事件（不過有合理理由去懷疑），沒有採取步驟防止事件發生。該名董事的情況屬於間中級別而偏低的嚴重性，取消資格令的起點時間是兩年，但因為他一開始便承認責任，加上法庭推遲聆訊日期（一部分是由於 2019 冠狀病毒病的疫情），所以將時間縮減兩個月。

• 2020 年 5 月，競委會首次根據《條例》第 60 條接納三間網上旅行社Booking.com、Expedia.com 及 Trip.com 作出的承諾。有關承諾旨在釋除競委會對上述網上旅行社與香港住宿提供者訂立的若干合約條款所存有的疑慮。有關條款訂明香港住宿提供者給予網上旅行社的房間規格，必需等同或優於住宿提供者在其他銷售渠道所提供的規格。

• 2020 年 7 月 17 日在 Competition C o m m i s s i o n v K a m K w o n g Engineering Company Limited & Others [2020] HKCT 3 案，審裁處首次批准在競爭法訴訟中使用Carecraft 案的程序。Carecraft 案的程序給審裁處提供機制，可迅速而有效地處置那些針對承認責任的答辯人所強制執行的法律程序。同意事實書提交之後，審裁處據之仔細檢閱建議的協議條款，然後作出有關命令。

• 2020 年 12 月 21 日，競委會就首宗濫用相當程度市場權勢的案件入稟審裁處，向林德港氧有限公司及 Linde GmbH（統稱「林德」）展開法律程序。林德涉嫌濫用其在香港醫療氣體供應市場所擁有的相當程度市場權勢，損害下游的醫療氣體管道系統 (「氣體管道」)保養市場的競爭。競委會指稱（其中包括）於 2015 年 10 月至 2018年 1 月期間，林德停止或限制供應醫療氣體予林德以外唯一一間為公立醫院的氣體管道提供保養服務的潛在供應商。

現時受關注的是本地的競爭法制度將會怎樣進一步演變。值得注意的是，首宗以競爭法作為抗辯理由的民事訴訟被移交至審裁處，現定於 2021 年7 至 8 月審理。審裁處將會就 Meyer Aluminium Limited 有關兩間柴油供應商合謀定價及交換價格資料的指稱進行聆訊。香港沒有可用的獨立私人訴訟，在私人機構之間因應某個抗辯理由而爭議競爭法的背景下，這宗案件是率先試一試爭議可以怎樣解決。

考慮到競委會加快執法的步伐，企業必須確保本身已經備妥有效的競爭合規計劃。有兩件事突顯了備妥合規計劃的重要性：一、競爭合規計劃出現於競委會首次發出違章通知書之後；

February 2021 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視


二、在首宗涉及濫用相當程度市場權勢的案件中，競委會申請命令，要求答辯人必須實行有效的合規計劃。重要的是，根據競委會的《罰款政策》，實行合規計劃是減輕罰款的因素。

– 高偉紳律師行顧問律師王怡佶

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Raising the Bar on Safety – Consultation Paper on Raising Penalties of Hong Kong’s Occupational Safety and Health Legislation

IntroductionThe Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap. 59) and the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (Cap. 509) are the two main pieces of occupational safety legislation in Hong Kong. Together, both Ordinances prescribe over 600 occupational safety and health (OSH) offences. The legislation has not been amended for the past 20 years and an update, particularly in respect of penalties, is long overdue.

Though industrial accidents in Hong Kong have declined steadily over the years, the number of fatal industrial accidents has been hovering at around 20 cases annually for the past two decades, with no sign of decreasing. What has been a particular concern is that in cases of serious injury about one-third of the defendants are repeat offenders. Part of the reason put forth for this is that the sentences for OSH offences are on the low side, failing to reflect the seriousness of contraventions.

The Labour Department issued a consultation paper in December 2020 on increasing the penalties for OSH offences. In this update, we will summarise the proposed amendments and their potential effects.

The Proposal

Maximum Fine

In its latest consultation paper, the Labour Department proposed amending

employer general duty provisions so that it can prosecute offenders on indictable offences and try them in a higher court. In earlier consultations, it proposed setting the maximum fine at 10% of turnover without a cap. However, industry held strong views that this would be too high and would stifle smaller businesses.

In the revised proposal, the Labour Department proposed capping the maximum fine at HK$50 million and that the Court should take a business’s turnover into account (derived from principal business in Hong Kong) when imposing a penalty. The concept of tying the penalty to revenue in OSH legislation is a new concept.

Re-alignment of Seriousness Categorisation of Various OSH Offences

Currently, OSH offences are generally grouped into three different categories according to the seriousness of the breach. The Labour Department also proposed reassessing the seriousness of all offences and increasing the penalty for each category.

In summary, it proposed that 215 offence provisions be reassessed, with the seriousness of 145 offences raised and 70 lowered. “Very serious offences” are those that are very likely to cause serious consequences such as death or limb amputation and are related to a major deficiency in safety management systems or use of prohibited carcinogens. As to the levels of the fines, the Labour Department proposed threefold increases (see table below). The Department also considered the affordability of fines from employees’ perspective and noted a fine of HK$600,000 is likely to be too substantive for them, thus it proposed raising the maximum fine for provisions concerning employees to HK$150,000 instead.

Current maximum fine Proposed maximum fine

Minor offences HK$10,000 HK$30,000

Serious offences HK$50,000 HK$150,000

Very serious offences HK$200,000 HK$600,000(HK$150,000 for employees provisions)

TakeawayThe Labour Department said it is aiming to submit an amendment bill to the Legislative Council as soon as possible so that the amendment exercise can be completed within the term of the current Government for immediate commencement.

It is clear that an update of the Ordinances is long overdue. Hong Kong is lagging behind other developed countries in relation to the fines and penalties for OSH breaches. As mentioned in our earlier update, there is a trend for the Labour Department to take a tougher stance in order to improve OSH and lower the number of industrial accidents. It is certainly taking the view that the “stick” is better than the “carrot”. Though it is encouraging to see the Department taking the initiative, the correlation between higher penalties and fewer industrial accidents is unproven, so it is open as to whether this will have its intended effect.

Higher penalties are likely to lead to higher business costs and insurance premiums, thus possibly raising market entry barriers and reducing competition. The imposition of higher penalties is also likely to have an adverse effect on smaller businesses. To counter this, the Labour Department is proposing that the Court takes its turnover into account when imposing a penalty on a business. We will have to wait and see if this adversely impacts small businesses.

This article was originally published on Mayer Brown’s website and is reproduced with permission.

– Angela S.Y. Yim, Partner, Mayer Brown

– Regina G.B. Ng, Senior Associate, Mayer Brown

• February 2021


僱傭法

提高違反安全規例的罰則 – 關於提高香港職業安全及健康法例罰則的諮詢文件

引言

《工廠及工業經營條例》（第 59 章）及《職業安全及健康條例》（第 509章）是香港主要的職業安全條例。兩章條例合共訂明逾 600 項違犯職業安全及健康（「職安健」）法例的罪行。法例二十多年來未作修訂，早就應該檢討及更新，尤其是罰款方面。

雖然多年來香港工業意外的宗數穩定下跌，但是過去二十年，致命工業意外一直維持在每年二十宗左右，沒有回落跡象。向來備受關注的是，導致嚴重受傷的個案中，大約三分之一被告人是慣犯。相信部分原因在於違犯職安健法例案件的量刑偏低，未能反映違法情況的嚴重性。

勞工處在 2020 年 12 月發出諮詢文件，就提高違反職安健法例的適用罰款徵詢意見。我們會在本文總結修例建議及修例的潛在影響。

修例建議

最高罰款額

在最新一份諮詢文件中，勞工處建議修訂針對僱主一般責任的條文，讓其可以就可公訴罪行檢控犯罪者，並且案件可在較高級法院審理。在早前的諮詢文件中，勞工處建議最高罰款額為營業額的 10%，款額不設上限。然而，業界強烈認為建議款額過高，而且會扼殺規模較小的公司。

勞工處修改建議，提出最高罰款額上限為港幣 5,000 萬元，法庭判處罰款時，應當考慮公司（來自香港主要業務的）營業額。在職安健法例中，把罰款和收益綑綁是一個新概念。

調整有關職安健的不同違法行為的嚴重性分類

目前，按照罪行的嚴重程度，職安健違法行為一般分為三個不同級別。勞工處亦建議重新評定所有罪行的嚴重程度，提高每個級別的罰款。

總的來說，勞工處建議重新評定 215條罰則，145 項違法行為的嚴重性予

小的公司造成不利影響。有見及此，勞工處現在建議法庭對公司量刑時，先考慮該公司的營業額。修例會否對小公司構成不利影響，我們拭目以待。

本文原載於孖士打律師行網站，現獲准在此複製。

– 孖士打律師行合夥人嚴淑兒

– 孖士打律師行資深律師吳家寶

PRACTICE

The Blackmail Paradox in the Age of the Keyboard Warrior

“Blackmail threats are e-mail from a madman.”

- Michael Bassey Johnson, Master of Maxims

IntroductionThe age of the internet and social media has brought about the evolution of a new class of warriors amongst our society – the keyboard warrior.

Those individuals who find themselves

以提高，70 項的予以降低。「非常嚴重的違法行為」是非常可能造成嚴重後果（例如死亡、或截肢）的罪行，而且涉及安全管理制度存在重大缺欠或使用被禁用致癌物。至於罰則方面，勞工處建議增加兩倍（見下表），另亦從僱員的角度考慮支付罰款的能力，指出對他們來說，罰款港幣 60萬很可能過重，因此建議把涉及僱員的條文所適用的最高罰款額定為港幣15 萬元。

目前的最高罰款額建議的最高罰款額

輕微違法行為港幣1萬元港幣 3 萬元

嚴重違法行為港幣 5 萬元港幣 15 萬元

非常嚴重的違法行為港幣 20 萬元港幣 60 萬元（涉及僱員的罰則為港幣 15 萬元）

要點

勞工處表示，處方旨在盡快向立法會提交修訂草案，立即展開修訂工作，期望可於現屆政府內完成修例。

很明顯，條例早應更新。相對於其他已發展國家，香港適用於職安健違犯行為的罰款額和懲罰較為落後。一如在早前的文章提到，勞工處傾向採取較為強硬的態度，好改善職安健及減少工業意外的宗數。當然，這是認為「棍」比「蘿蔔」好。雖然勞工處主動提出修例一事令人鼓舞，提高判刑與減少工業意外的相互關係未經證實，因此，能否達到預定效果仍是未知之數。

提高判刑相當可能增加經營成本和保險金，因而有可能提高市場准入門檻，減少競爭，亦相當可能對規模較



among this new class of warriors are often described to be more belligerent with an aggressive bravado because, as it turns out, it is far easier to adopt the personality of a 6-foot-8 Olympic wrestler when you are fighting from behind the confines of a keyboard. Instead of liquid courage, the dawn of keyboard courage is upon us.

Yet, it is crucial to remember that acts perpetrated on the internet is just as accountable in real life. In recent years, internet crime such as doxing, criminal intimidation and blackmail has become a greater concern than ever before.

Criminal Intimidation and BlackmailCriminal Intimidation is the use of a threat in order to induce the recipient or any other person to do an act and/or omit an act that he or she is not legally bound to. Whether such a statement will be considered as a threat in the eyes of the law is a question of fact and particular to each incident. Accordingly, the key element in criminal intimidation is whether the threat was issued with an intent to cause alarm. Criminal Intimidation is an offense pursuant to section 24 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200).

Blackmail is the making of any unwarranted demands with menace (e.g. using threat). The elements and definition of blackmail is the making of an unwarranted demand with menaces. Blackmail is an offence under section 23 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210).

The most common example is where a victim is asked to pay a sum of money, failing which, publication of sexually explicit photos will be made.

But not all criminal intimidations/blackmails are as explicit as above. In the scenario below for example, the question arises as to whether the threat of causing potential trouble for the recipient at work (thereby causing alarm to the recipient) made with a view to induce unwarranted acts/omission of which the recipient is not legally bound to do is sufficient to be construed as a form of criminal intimidation under law.

The ScenarioMessage: “Friend A showed me your two court decisions/articles referring to my case [which had undesirable outcome]. I’m sure the client will give you lots of fun stuff to cite/write about by the time we get through the CFA! We will get you to Part 15! Trust all is well at your new firm and say hi to your firm’s partner X. We were associates together back in the day.”

Potential/Intended Interpretation: “Cite the case again and I will make you lose your job at your new firm by leveraging my past relationship with partner X ”

(the “Scenario”)

AnalysisIt should be noted however that a key hurdle for a prosecutor to overcome any such cases is the establishment of causation. For example, if the act in question is merely that of a statement of fact without any hint of consequences (e.g. in an educational setting), then there is no case for criminal intimidation.

“I’m not threatening the king, ser. I’m educating my nephew. Bronn, the next time Ser Meryn speaks, kill him. That was a threat. See the difference?”

- Tyrion Lannister from the Game of Thrones

In the scenario above, the implied consequence when read with the greater context of the entire message can be made out (e.g. threat of workplace harassment is in the same sentence as the unwarranted complaint). In this particular scenario, the sender was clearly attempting to induce the recipient to stop certain action (e.g. writing about cases published by the Judiciary) despite the fact that the recipient was in no way legally bound to do so. Further, the statement can be said to have been made with malice.

Potential Consequences of Internet CrimeBoth law enforcement and the Courts have taken an active stance in tackling cyber bullying related crimes. In the recent case of 香港特別行政區訴陳景

僖DCCC 164/2020 for example, the crime of doxing was prosecuted to the fullest.

Conversely, internet crime such as criminal intimidation and blackmail also carries real world consequence. Blackmail for example carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail.

ConclusionTherefore, whilst keyboard courage (similar to liquid courage) may give you the false sense of insulation, always remember:

1. Do not threat. A threat with unwarranted malice is a crime under the laws of Hong Kong and will carry real life consequences (e.g. jail time);

2. Virtual action matters! Your actions on the internet will carry real life consequence. If you think consequence in person is dangerous, the same applies online; and

3. Stay sober. The combination of liquid courage and that of keyboard courage can be disastrous. The age of internet has made every netizen a potential “drunk-ex” candidate. Such drunk text, whether intended or un-intended can have real world consequences. Alas, it is trite law that drunkenness, whether voluntary or not, is of no defence!

– Joshua Chu, Consultant, ONC Lawyers

– Michael Szeto, Partner, ONC Lawyers

執業

鍵盤戰士時代的勒索悖論

「勒索威脅是來自一名瘋子發出的電子郵件。」

- 格言大師 Michael Bassey Johnson

引言

互聯網及社交媒體時代，在我們的社會中演變出了一類新的戰士 -- 鍵盤戰士。

那些覺得自己在這個新的戰士階層中的人，往往被描述為更好戰，更有侵略性的虛張聲勢，因為，事實證明，

• February 2021


當你在鍵盤的環境下戰鬥時，更容易擁有一個 6 呎 8 吋的奧運摔跤手的個性。與其說是酒精帶來的勇氣，不如說是鍵盤勇氣的曙光來臨。

然而，至關重要的是要記住，在網絡上作出的行為在現實生活中同樣要承擔責任。近年來，網絡犯罪，如起底、刑事恐嚇及勒索已成為比以往任何時候都更令人關注的問題。

刑事恐嚇及勒索

刑事恐嚇是指使用威脅手段，以誘使接受者或任何其他人做出及 / 或不做出他或她在法律上不一定要作出或不作出的行為。這種言論在法律上是否被視為威脅，是一個事實問題，而且是針對每起事件的。因此，刑事恐嚇罪的關鍵因素是威脅是否出於引起驚恐的意圖。根據《刑事罪行條例》（第200 章）第 24 條，刑事恐嚇是一項罪行。

勒索是指以恫嚇（例如使用威脅手段）提出任何不當要求。勒索的要素及定義是以恫嚇方式提出不當要求。根據《盜竊罪條例》（第 210 章）第 23 條，勒索是一項罪行。

最常見的例子是要求受害人支付一筆錢，否則就會公布色情照片。

但並不是所有的刑事恐嚇 / 勒索都像上述那樣明顯。以下述情景為例，問

題在於如果接受者在工作上造成潛在麻煩（因而接受者感到驚恐），以誘使接受者作出法律上沒有規定要做的不當行為／不作為，是否足以構成法律上的刑事恐嚇。

情景

信息：「朋友 A 給我看了你的兩份法院判決書/文章，提到了我的案子[結果不理想 ]。我相信在我們通過終審庭的時候，當事人會給你很多有趣的東西來引用 / 寫出來！我們會讓你到第 15 部分的！相信你在新律師行一切都很好，跟你們律師行的合夥人X 打聲招呼，我們當年是同事。」

潛在 / 意向解讀：「再引用這個案例，我會利用我及 X 合夥人過去的關係，讓你失去在新律師行的工作」

分析

然而，應當指出，檢控官在任何此類案件中要克服的一個關鍵障礙是確定因果關係。例如，如果有關行為只是陳述事實，而沒有暗示後果（例如在教育環境中），那麽就沒有刑事恐嚇的理由。

「我不是在威脅國王，長官。我是在教育我的侄子。Bronn，下次 Meryn爵士說話時，殺了他。那是威脅。看到區別了嗎？」

- 小說 The Game of Thrones 中的Tyrion Lannister

在上述情景下，如果結合整個信息的更大背景來解讀，就可以看出隱含的後果（例如，工作場所騷擾的威脅與不當投訴類同）。在這一特定情景下，發出恐嚇 / 勒索信息者顯然是試圖誘使接收者停止某些行動（例如就司法機關公布的案例進行撰寫），儘管接收者在法律上根本沒有義務這樣做。此外，有關的陳述可說是出於惡意。

互聯網犯罪的潛在後果

執法部門及法院都積極打擊與網絡欺凌有關的罪行。以最近的香港特別行政區訴陳景僖 DCCC 164/2020 一案為例，當局已全力檢控起底的罪行。

反過來說，刑事恐嚇及勒索等網絡犯罪也會帶來現實世界的後果。例如，勒索罪最高可判處 14 年監禁。

結論

因此，雖然鍵盤勇氣（類似於酒精帶來的勇氣）可能會給你帶來虛假的隔絕感，但一定要記住：

1. 不要作出威脅。根據香港法律，不當惡意的威脅是一種犯罪行為，並將帶來現實生活中的後果（如坐牢）。

2. 虛擬的行動具有實質影響力！您在互聯網上的行為將承擔現實生活中的後果。如果你認為人與人之間當面造成的後果是危險的，那麽在網上的後果也是一樣的；及

3. 保持清醒。酒精帶來的勇氣及鍵盤勇氣的結合，可能是災難性的。網絡時代，每個網民都是潛在的「醉酒」文字的作者。這種醉醺醺的文字，無論有意還是無意，都會造成現實的後果。唉，醉酒，無論自願與否，都無法辯解，這是老生常談的法律！

– 柯伍陳律師事務所顧問朱喬華律師

– 柯伍陳律師事務所合夥人司徒肇基律師



PRACTICE

Love, Cybersecurity & Hacked-Robots - Can Robot Manufacturers Be Held Liable for Murder Perpetrated by Hacked Sexbots?

“Mark my words - A.I. is far more dangerous than nukes”

- Elon Musk

IntroductionWhilst the idea of a human apocalypse being brought about by artificial intelligence (“A.I.”) has been in Hollywood films for decades, cybersecurity experts warned that it isn’t just military A.I. that poses a threat to humanity, unassuming sex robots are equally dangerous!

“She understands COVID-19…”

- Brick Dollbanger, Robot Beta Tester

The COVID-19 crisis has seen the leapfrogging of technology across every aspect of humanity. With physical inter-human interactions turning “deadly”, it is no surprise that the sex robot industry has received a boom. Yet, as with all infant technology, cybersecurity experts warned that these new robots can be a grave threat to humanity.

Warning!“Hacking into many modern-day robots, including sexbots, would be a piece of cake compared to more sophisticated gadgets like cellphones and computers…

Hackers can hack into a robot or a robotic device and have full control of the connections, arms, legs and other attached tools like in some cases knives or welding devices…

Once hacked, they could absolutely be used to perform physical actions for an advantageous scenario or to cause damage…”

- Dr Nick Patterson

The recent decision in HKSAR v. Mak Wan-ling [2020] HKCFI 3069 highlighted the increasing number of medical

manslaughter cases in Hong Kong , raising awareness within the medical community about criminal liability in medical negligence. However, such retrospective self-reflection is, for all intents and purposes, too little too late.

The same can be said regarding the tech industry. Hopefully, coders will pay more attention to vulnerabilities on their platform and be mindful that their inventions can cause danger during the development process, rather than a retrospective reflection.

Vulnerabilities in cybersecurity resulting in death have already been documented. On September 11, 2020, a patient died after hackers disabled the computer systems at Düsseldorf University Hospital. What had begun as a routine transfer turned deadly when inter-hospital logistics became crippled by the cybercrime. This attack triggered Germany’s first cybersecurity manslaughter investigation (different from medical manslaughter).

Manslaughter by Cybersecurity NegligenceAs reaffirmed in Mak Wan-ling, the chief elements of manslaughter by gross negligence includes:

1. The defendant owed an existing duty of care to the deceased;

2. The defendant negligently breached that duty of care;

3. It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death;

4. The breach of that duty caused the death; and

5. The circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction.

In the present scenario, physical interaction with a robot may entail certain health risks (e.g. heart attacks, muscle

strains, etc.). Any glitch in a robot’s operating system may cause serious harm to an end user.

Furthermore, any operating system can be compromised. Where the program is interactive, personal data of the end user will be processed. It is therefore crucial for manufacturers to make appropriate safeguards.

As such, risks of using a robot platform is foreseeable and any break in ensuring its security will be negligence. Where the harm is both foreseeable and unmitigated, the manufacturer may be at risk of being grossly negligent and be liable to the consequential harm that a user may suffer.

Pre-Emptive Mitigation Whilst liability from manslaughter by cybersecurity negligence is a danger for tech developers, developers can pre-emptively protect themselves. The most traditional approach is using risk disclaimer. Robot developers can require prospective users confirm their understanding of risks associated with the use of their product before its activation.

That said, the best way to protect oneself will still be to ensure delivery of quality product. For example, in Mak Wan-ling, the patient was duly advised of the risks associated with the procedure. What had ultimately doomed the defendant’s practice was that the quality of care delivered was so sub-standard that any reasonable practitioner would have found offending.

Conversely, developers ought to make certain that their platforms are more protected than devices such as cell phones. Unfortunately, that may not be the case yet with existing sex robot developers.

ConclusionIn an age where Artificial Intelligence (“A.I.”) too have such ability to physically manipulate surroundings, developers should remember:

1. Perfect your product! The premature launch of a product with backdoor may

• February 2021


attract serious liability. Where a life is involved, great care is to be taken.

2. Ensure that the A.I. will do no harm to other sentient beings. The ability to wield tools meant they have great power, and with great power comes great responsibility.

3. Ensure that users are aware of risks of the product! Back to the basics, make sure your product is legally certified before launch. Retrospective reflection will be too late.

– Joshua Chu, Consultant, ONC Lawyers

– Michael Szeto, Partner, ONC Lawyers

執業

愛、網絡安全及遭黑客入侵的機械人 – 遭黑客入侵的性愛機械人犯下謀殺罪，可由機械人製造商負上法律責任嗎？

「記住我的話──人工智能比核武危險得多」

- Elon Musk

引言

荷里活幾十年一直有推出以人工智能引發人類浩劫為題的電影，但網絡安全專家警告，不只軍事智能技術對人類構成威脅，無架子的性愛機械人同樣危險！

「她了解 2019 冠狀病毒病……」

- 機械人測試者 Brick Dollbanger

在 2019 冠狀病毒病大流行的危機中，人類在每一方面實現技術大躍進。隨著人類的實體交流變得「死寂一片」，性愛機械人製造業蓬勃興起是意料中事。可是，一如所有新生技術，網絡安全專家警告，這些新興的機械人可以對人類構成巨大威脅。

警告！

「相比手提電話和電腦等更為精密的小裝置，入侵現代機械人，包括性愛機械人，很多時是小事一樁……

黑客可以入侵機械人或機械裝置，完全控制連接、手腳，以及其他附設工具，或者是刀，或者是焊接設備……

一旦被黑客入侵，它們絕對可以用來執行實際動作，造就有利的情況或造成破壞……」

- Nick Patterson 博士

最近在 HKSAR v. Mak Wan-ling [2020] HKCFI 3069 案作出的裁決突顯香港的醫療誤殺案宗數不斷增加，喚醒醫學界加強認識由醫療疏忽導致的刑事責任。然而，從各方面來說，這樣的回想往事，反思現況，實在是做得太少，也來得太遲。

科技業的情況一樣。但願程式設計師加緊留意其平台易遭攻擊之處，當心其發明可能在開發期間構成危險，而不是只懂回溯反思。

早有文件證明有人由於網絡安全易遭攻擊而死亡。2020 年 9 月 11 日，Düsseldorf 大學醫院的電腦系統遭黑客攻擊，造成一名病人死亡。開始時是按慣常程序運送病人，但因為網絡黑客嚴重破壞醫院的後勤服務，最終演變為致命事件。這一次攻擊事件觸發德國第一次就網絡誤殺進行調查（有別於醫療誤殺）。

源於網絡安全疏忽的誤殺

正如在麥允齡案所重申的，構成嚴重疏忽導致誤殺他人的元素主要包括：

1. 被告人原先已對死者負有謹慎責任；

2. 被告人疏忽，違反了該項謹慎責任；

3. 合理可預見的是，違反該責任明顯會產生嚴重的死亡風險；

4. 違反該責任導致有人死亡；及

5. 被告人違反謹慎責任的程度確實極為不堪，應受指責，因而有充分理由支持一個結論：違反謹慎責任構成嚴重疏忽，必須處以刑事懲罰。

在目前情況下，與機械人的實際互動可以帶來若干健康風險（例如心臟病發、拉傷肌肉）。機械人的運作系統出現任何小故障，都可以對最終用戶造成嚴重傷害。

再者，任何運作系統都有可能被攻

擊。舉凡電腦程式是人機互動，最終用戶的個人資料會被檢查。因此製造商必須設置合適的保護措施。

就此而論，使用機械人平台的風險是可以預見的，以任何形式暫停確保平台安全都屬於疏忽。舉凡損害是可以預見的和可以減輕的，製造商正處於嚴重疏忽的風險之中，可能須就最終用戶最終蒙受的損害負上法律責任。

搶先減輕責任雖然對於網絡疏忽引致的誤殺，技術開發商有負上法律責任之虞，但開發商可以搶先一步保護自己。最傳統的方法是利用風險免責聲明。機械人開發商可以要求準用家在啟動產品之前，先確認他們明白使用產品的相關風險。

不過，話雖如此，確保產品質素優良始終是保護自己的最佳方法。例如在麥允齡案，病人獲適時告知涉案程序的相關風險。被告人的執業手法最終造成不幸，究其原因，在於她的謹慎程度完全不達標，任何明理的從業者都會認為她違反謹慎責任。

相反，開發商應當肯定其平台所得保護，比較手提電話等裝置所得的更大更強。可惜的是，現有的性愛機械人開發商未必肯定得到。

結論

在人工智能同樣有能力實體操控四周事物的時代中，開發商應當記住三件事：

1. 產品盡善盡美！走後門提早推出產品有可能招致嚴重的法律責任。如果涉及人命傷亡，務須小心處理。

2. 確保人工智能不會危害眾生。懂得使用工具意味它們能力強大；能力大，責任也大。

3. 確保用家知道產品的風險！回到基本的事情上，確保產品推出市場之前，已獲證明符合法例規定。回想往事反思現況，為時已晚。

– 柯伍陳律師事務所顧問律師朱喬華

– 柯伍陳律師事務所合夥人司徒肇基



PROFESSION

Update on Ad Hoc Admission of Overseas Barristers (2020-21)

At the time of writing, the Hong Kong Bar Association’s “Report of the Standing Committee on Overseas Admissions 2020” is yet to be published on its website. Once published, it will be interesting to see how many applications there were, pursuant to s. 27(4) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159), for ad hoc admission of overseas barristers in 2020. In 2019, there were seventeen such applications, which is much lower than the average in previous years.

Applications for ad hoc admission normally relate to the right to appear and advise with respect to the trial (substantive hearing) of an action. Given the COVID-19 travel constraints for much of last year, it is quite possible that the number of applications for ad hoc admission in 2020 could be an all-time low since 1997. This is something of a worry, not least given the “sisterhood” between common law jurisdictions and cross-fertilisation between (for example) the English and the Hong Kong Bar. Applicants for ad hoc admission are almost always eminent English Queen’s Counsel (QCs). Examples of an overseas junior barrister being admitted are very rare – the writers can only recall of two such instances and they were exceptional and best explained on their facts.

In January 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down its much-awaited judgment in Re Simpson QC [2021] HKCA 22. Appeals of first instance decisions arising out of s. 27(4) of the Ordinance are rare, especially given that such decisions turn on an exercise of discretion, with the court (usually the Chief Judge sitting at first instance) determining what is in the public interest according to well-established principles.

In Re Simpson QC [2019] HKCFI 2689, the first instance court allowed the

applicant’s ad hoc admission, which was subject to the usual condition that he appear in the substantive proceedings with a local barrister. In the first such application of its kind, the court declined to allow the applicant to appear only with the two solicitor advocates having the conduct of the underlying proceedings without a local barrister.

The applicant appealed and the appeal was supported by the Secretary for Justice (who is the impartial proponent of the public interest in such matters), with the Law Society of Hong Kong intervening and supporting the appeal. Understandably, the Bar Council opposed the removal of the condition and the appeal. The appeal was heard on 30 November 2020.

In a detailed judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal – Re Simpson QC [2021] HKCA 22. Therefore, for now, while the applicant can be admitted to appear ad hoc in the substantive proceedings, he will have to do so together with a local barrister (irrespective of whether he also appears with a solicitor advocate – so-called “mixed doubles”). It will be interesting to see whether any of the interested parties seek permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and, if so, what questions of great general or public importance are stated to arise.

Re Simpson QC is not the only recent important judgment involving an application for ad hoc admission. In Re Perry QC [2021] HKCFI 113, the court allowed the applicant’s application to appear for the prosecution in a high-profile case involving multiple defendants in the District Court. In doing so, the court referred to the following factors in applying the overriding public interest test:

• questions of great general or public importance to the development of local jurisprudence regarding constitutional issues arose – for example, in the context of an offence of allegedly organizing an unauthorized assembly or knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly, competing interests involved protecting freedom

of assembly and the statutory regime for regulating the manner and exercise of that freedom;

• the applicant (Mr. Perry QC – no stranger to Hong Kong) is a leading specialist with regard to the constitutional issues that arose and had substantial international and common law experience that would add a “significant dimension” to the case and the development of local jurisprudence;

• given the importance of the constitutional issues, an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was “very likely” (the so-called “CFA factor”); and

• the professional view of the Director of Public Prosecutions had to be given due weight and there was a public interest in ensuring that the prosecution is conducted by the best legal team available (without jeopardising the development of a strong and independent local bar).

Interestingly, the court appears to have gone out of its way to attach no importance to a so-called “equality of arms” – for example, it did not matter that the defendants in the substantive criminal proceedings were not represented by an overseas barrister. In any event, they were represented by an array of senior and junior talent at the local bar. Indeed, with respect to some apparently ill-informed public criticism concerning the application in Re Perry QC, it is worth noting that the application to advise and appear was in the best traditions of the bar. With that in mind, readers might care to note a press release (“Statement by DoJ on instruction of fiat counsel”) issued by the Department of Justice on 20 January 2021, an extract of which reads as follows:

“Mr Perry, QC, expressed concerns about such pressures and the exemption of quarantine, and indicated that the trial should proceed without him.”

– Antony Sassi, Partner, RPC

– David Smyth, Senior Consultant, RPC

• February 2021


專業導論

專案認許海外大律師的最新情況（2020-21 年）

在撰寫本文時，香港大律師公會的《海外大律師資格認許常委會年報2020》尚未在其網站上公布。一旦公布，我們將很有興趣看看在 2020年根據《法律執業者條例》（第 159章）第 27（4）條提出的專案認許海外大律師的申請有多少。在 2019 年，共有 17 宗這類申請，遠低於往年的平均數。

專案認許申請通常涉及就某項訴訟的審訊（實質聆訊）出庭及提供意見的權利。考慮到去年大部分時間的「2019 冠狀病毒病」旅行限制，2020 年的專案認許申請數量很有可能創下 1997 年以來的歷史新低。這一點令人擔憂，尤其是考慮到普通法司法管轄區之間的「姊妹關係」，以及（例如）英國和香港大律師界之間的相互交流。專案認許申請人幾乎都是著名的英國御用大律師。海外初級大律師獲認許的例子非常罕見 -- 作者只記得有兩個這樣的例子，而且是特殊的，最好根據事實加以解釋。

2021 年 1 月，上訴法院在 Re Simpson QC [2021] HKCA 22 一案中作出了人們期待已久的判決。因《條例》第 27（4）條而對原訟法庭判決提出上訴的情況十分罕見，尤其是當該等判決是有賴於行使酌情權，由法院（通

常是由原訟法庭首席法官）根據既定原則裁定何謂符合公衆利益。

在 Re Simpson QC [2019]HKCFI 2689一案中，原訟法庭允許申請人的專案認許，但受制於通常的條件，即申請人必須與本地大律師一起在實質訴訟中出庭。在首宗此類申請中，法院拒絕允許申請人只與兩名訟辯律師一起出庭，在沒有本地大律師的情況下進行基本程序。

申請人提出上訴，而律政司司長（她在這些事情上是不偏不倚的公衆利益保護者）支持上訴，香港律師會亦介入並支持上訴。可以理解的是，大律師公會反對取消該條件和該上訴。該上訴案於 2020 年 11 月 30 日聆訊。

在詳細的判決書中，上訴法院駁回了上訴 -- Re Simpson QC [2021] HKCA 22。因此，就目前而言，雖然申請人可以獲認許在實質法律程序中以專案形式出庭，但他必須與一名本地大律師一起出庭（無論他是否還與一名訟辯律師一起出庭 -- 所謂「混合雙打」）。我們很想知道，是否有任何有關方面要求獲准向終審法院提出上訴，如果有的話，會出現哪些具有重大普遍意義或公衆意義的問題。

Re Simpson QC 案並不是最近唯一涉及專案認許申請的重要判決。在 Re Perry QC [2021] HKCFI 113 一案中，法院批准了申請人為控方出庭的申請，該案涉及多名被告，是一宗備受矚目

的案件，在區域法院審理。法庭在應用具凌駕性的公衆利益測試準則時，參考了以下因素：

• 出現了對發展有關憲法問題的本地法理學具有重大普遍或公眾重要性的問題，例如，就涉嫌組織未經批准的集會或明知故犯地參與未經批准的集會的罪行而言，在保護集會自由與規範舉止的法定制度及行使該自由方面，存在著相互衝突的利益。

• 申請人（御用大律師 Mr. Perry -- 對香港來說並不陌生）是處理所產生的憲制問題的傑出專家，並具有豐富的國際及普通法經驗，可為該案件和本地法理學的發展增添「重要補充」。

• 鑒於憲制問題的重要性，向終審法院提出上訴的機會「非常大」（即所謂「終審法院因素」）；及

• 刑事檢控專員的專業意見必須得到適當的重視，而確保由最佳的法律團隊進行檢控是符合公眾利益的（而且不會損害本地強大而獨立的大律師業界的發展）。

有趣的是，法院似乎特別不重視所謂的「勢均力敵」-- 例如，在實質性刑事訴訟中，被告人不是由海外大律師代表並不重要。無論如何，他們的代表都是本地大律師公會的資深與初級精英。事實上，對於公眾在 Re Perry QC 一案中對申請的批評，有些人顯然是在不知情的情況下作出的，但值得注意的是，「提供意見」和「出庭」的申請是符合大律師行業的最佳傳統的。有鑒於此，讀者不妨注意一下律政司於 2021 年 1 月 20 日發布的一份新聞稿（「律政司就外判律師的聲明」），其摘要如下：

「Perry 御用大律師對有關壓力及豁免強制檢疫的安排表示關注，並指出審訊在沒有他的情況下應如期進行。」

– RPC 合夥人石俊禮

– RPC 高級顧問施德偉



SECURITIES LAW

ESG for the Legal Profession

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations, in particular the “E” and the “S”, are working their way into the legal profession in ways that go far beyond the traditional CSR efforts and the practices of environmental and human rights lawyers.

Now lawyers from a broad range of practice areas, not limited to investment funds, finance, private wealth, capital markets, litigation and corporate, are developing new literacy around such topics, many relishing the opportunity to support projects that are seen as good for the planet and society.

In addition, firms are being driven to consider their own environmental and social performance and so we see new roles emerging within firms, such as heads of wellness, sustainability and d ivers i ty and inclusion.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes in law firms have traditionally been founded on the delivery of pro bono legal advice and charitable endeavours. While driven by a desire to give back to society they were further re-affirmed by the positive implications that are associated with such actions and behaviours, including profile raising and contributing to firm culture.

However, just as ESG goes beyond philanthropy and has entered the investment space, so too has ESG entered the business of law firms. ESG is an area where lawyers can add value and indeed

clients are increasingly likely to require such services given the momentum around ESG, investor demand and changing regulatory landscape. For example, transactional lawyers now find themselves advising on the structuring and documenting of green bonds, green loans, sustainability-linked loans and bonds, green funds, impact funds, responsible investment funds and so on. It’s not just new products that are on the market but also new forms of regulation impacting the finance industry.

Much of the recent emphasis on the “E” in regulation of the finance sector has been on anti-green washing protection, as well as initiatives directed at climate change.

In Hong Kong, for example, the Securities and Futures Commission proposes to introduce changes to the Fund Manager Code of Conduct to require fund managers to consider climate related risks in their investment and risk management processes. This follows the implementation of the mandatory ESG requirements in the Hong Kong Listing Rules which makes reference to the recommendations made by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.

Another area of development on the international stage has been around the interpretation of fiduciary duty as highlighted in the 2005 Freshfields Report and the 2015 report titled “Fiduciary Duty in the 21st Century” (a co-operation by the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), UNEP FI, UNEP Inquiry and UN Global Compact).

Such developments are reflective of growing support for the view that material ESG factors such as climate change

must be considered and managed by businesses and asset managers. The PRI reports that globally there have been 730 hard and soft-law policy revisions, across 500 policy instruments “which support, encourage or require investors to consider long-term value drivers, including ESG factors”. Lawyers are in prime position to help support clients to respond to governance and regulatory changes and innovate ways of structuring products to meet changing investor and regulatory demands.

But it’s not just revenue drivers; law firms are also under pressure to enhance their own performance when it comes to environmental and social standards.

• February 2021


Further, law firms are not immune from scrutiny when it comes to their roles in negative ESG outcomes, including climate change. Although law firms might be part of the services industry with a lighter environmental footprint than other industries, a law firm’s impact on the environment goes beyond its energy usage and paper waste. It extends to the clients it works with, the example its sets to its employees and the impact of its work within communities and industries.

Reflecting this stakeholder view, signs are emerging of greater interest among law firms to demonstrate enhanced corporate responsibility. In fact there is a small but growing number of firms which have become B Corporations. B Corps are representative of a move towards a more inclusive stakeholder model and reflect a renewed emphasis amongst corporations for not just doing “best in the world” but also “best for the world”.

Just as with CSR, competition is helping to incentivise law firms “to do good” when it comes to the environment, an area not traditionally a focus for law firms beyond those advising on environmental law. As the momentum for ESG has dramatically risen in the last few years, some law firms are trailblazing the road for ESG, realising the benefits it can have on attracting talent and clients in addition to the altruistic rewards of being a force for good.

– Kate Hodson, Partner and Head of ESG Funds, Ogier

證券法

適用於法律專業的環境、社會及管治

現在法律專業也考慮環境、社會及管治（ESG），特別是環境和社會，所盡的努力和做法遠遠超出環保和人權律師慣常花在企業社會責任之上的。

律師現正環繞自己的執業領域增長新知識，發展新能力，他們的執業領域

不一而足，不限於投資基金、金融、私人財富、資本市場、訴訟及企業，很多都盼望有機會支援那些看來可以造福地球和社會的項目。

此外，現時有動力驅使公司考慮本身的環境和社會績效，因此我們見到公司之內出現新的職位，例如專責健康、可持續性及包容性事務的主管。

一直以來，律師事務所的企業社會責任計劃建立在義務提供法律意見和慈善工作之上。回饋社會的希望是一股動力，另一方面，提高知名度和促成律師事務所文化等作為和行為所關聯的積極意義，使該等計劃再被重新確定。

然而，就像 ESG 不只是慈善活動，更是進入了投資空間一樣，ESG 也進入了律師事務所的業務範圍。ESG 是律師可以增值的領域，而且基於 ESG的勢頭、投資者需求及正在改變的監管形勢，客戶確實可能越來越需要這樣的服務。舉例說，交易律師發覺自己現在正就綠色債券、綠色貸款、與可持續發展表現掛鉤貸款和債券、綠色基金、影響基金、負責任投資基金等等，向客戶提供關於結構和正式文件的意見。它不只是市場上的新產品，還是影響金融業的新式規定。

在金融業的監管中，最近在「環境」方面較多強調的，是反對名不副實的環境保護，以及針對氣候變化的倡議。

舉例說，香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會建議更改《基金經理操守準則》，規定基金經理在他們的投資和風險管理過程中，考慮氣候風險。此前，《香港上市規則》的強制性ESG 規定落實施行，有關規定是參考氣候相關財務披露工作小組（Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures）的建議制定的。

2005 年的 Freshfields 報告和 2015 年一份題為「21 世紀的受信責任」的報告（由 Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI)、UNEP FI、UNEP Inquiry 及 UN Global Compact 共同發表）都重點論述受信責任，而另一項在國際舞台上不斷發展的領域，正正就是受信責任。

有意見認為，公司和資產經理必須考慮重要的 ESG 因素，例如氣候變化，而上述發展正好代表這項意見越來越得到支持。PRI 報告指出，全球有730 條硬法和軟法的政策修訂，涉及500 項「支持、鼓勵或規定投資者考慮長遠的增值動力（包括 ESG 因素）」的政策工具。律師可以幫助客戶應對管治和監管上的轉變，同時幫助開創構思產品的方法，滿足不斷變化的投資者需求和監管要求。

不只收入是驅動力；律師事務所亦是在壓力下提升本身的環境和社會績效，以達到規定的標準。

此外，說到在負面的 ESG 結果中，包括氣候變化，所扮演的角色，律師事務所可不是免於審查。雖然跟其他行業相比，律師事務所也許是環保足跡較淺的服務行業，但是一間律師事務所對環境的影響，不只是消耗能源和浪費紙張，還延伸到與之一起工作的客戶及為僱員樹立的榜樣，還有它的工作在社區和各類行業之內的作用。

逐漸有跡象顯示，律師事務所越來越想展現已經加強的企業責任。事實上，已取得 B Corp 認證的律師事務所寥寥可數，但數目正在增加。一個公司取得 B Corp 認證，代表該公司向着更為包容的持份者模式邁進，反映企業所重新重視的，不只是「在全球做到最好」，還要「為全球做到最好」。

就像企業社會責任一樣，競爭有助激勵律師事務所「做好」環境──傳統上，除了那些就環境法提供意見的律師事務所之外，這不是律師事務所的關注重點。由於過去數年 ESG 的勢頭猛漲，有些律師事務所正在為 ESG開疆闢土，除了無私地做好 ESG 工作而得到回報外，也認識到吸納人才和客戶所得到的好處。

– 奧杰合夥人及 ESG 基金總管凱特 ·赫臣



案例撮要

CASES IN BRIEF

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

K K Chan v Hong Kong Police Force

[2020] HKCFI 2882 [2020] HKEC 3663

Anderson Chow J

24, 26 June, 19 November 2020

FactsThese were five applications for judicial review. One issue was common to all the applications. Two additional issues were raised in HCAL 2915/2019 brought by the Hong Kong Journalists Association. One of these additional issues was heard separately and would be dealt with in a separate judgment. The common issue was whether police officers were required to display their unique identification numbers or other distinctive identification numbers or marks when carrying out non-covert duties in relation to recent public order events under the operation known as “Operation TIDERIDER”. As for the additional issue dealt with in the present case, it was whether the Government was under a duty to make available an independent mechanism capable of conducting effective investigation into complaints of ill-treatment by police officers. Principal among the provisions relied upon by the applicants was the prohibition by art.28 of the Basic Law of torture and the prohibition by art.3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (BOR 3).

Held, acceding to HCAL 2671, 2703 and 2915/2019 to the extent of the following holdings, and refusing leave in HCAL 1747 and 1753/2019, that:

1) Identification of police officers could not be merely through the internal processes of the Police Force, for that would leave victims of police ill-treatment entirely or largely at the mercy of the Force’s decision whether to take legal or disciplinary action against officers responsible for such ill-treatment (Ataykaya v Turkey (Application No 50275/08, 22 July 2014), Bouyid v Belgium (2016) 62 EHRR 32, D v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] AC 196 applied). (See para.95.)

2) The Court was fully alive to police officers’ concern over disclosing their identities having regard to the rampant doxxing campaigns mounted against them. As a matter of principle, however, such concern cannot of itself override the duty to maintain an adequate system to investigate suspected cases of breach of BOR 3 (Hristovi v Bulgaria (Application No 42697/05, 11 October 2011), Hentschel and Stark v Germany (Application No 47274/15, 9 November 2017) applied). (See para.98.)

3) Leave must be refused in HCAL 1747/2019 because it relied only on an alleged misinterpretation or misapplication of certain provisions, and no such misinterpretation or misapplication had been proved. (See para.112.)

4) To comply with the procedural duty under BOR 3, investigation must be independent, institutionally and in a practical way, of suspected perpetrators. The Complaints Against Police Office (the CAPO) was not independent of the police, and

the Independent Police Complaints Council (the IPCC) lacked the necessary investigative powers and the power to make binding determinations. The existing two-tier mechanism for handling complaints against the police, with the CAPO carrying out the first tier and the IPCC carrying out the second tier, failed to meet the requirement of independent investigation under the procedural limb of BOR 3 (Ramsahai v Netherlands (2008) 46 EHRR 43, Mikiashvili v Georgia (Application No 18996/06, 9 October 2012), Najafli v Azerbaijan (Application No 2594/07, 2 October 2012), Tunc v Turkey (Application No 24014/05, 14 April 2015), Hentschel and Stark v Germany (Application No 47274/15, 9 November 2017) applied). (See paras.46, 101–103.)

5) The applicants in HCAL 2671, 2703 and 2915/2019 had standing, but the applicants in HCAL 1753/2019 did not. (See paras.120–121.)

6) It was declared in HCAL 2671, 2703 and 2915/2019 that the failure of the Commissioner of Police to establish and maintain an effective system to ensure that every police officer deployed in carrying out non-covert duties in Operation TIDERIDER wore and prominently displayed an identification number or mark which was unique to that officer violated BOR 3. (See para.123.)

7) The order of mandamus sought in HCAL 2703/2019 was refused because it was, in principle a matter for the Commissioner of Police to devise an appropriate system to meet the foregoing declaration. (See para.127.)

• February 2021


8) In HCAL 2915/2019, it was further declared that the Government was under a duty, pursuant to BOR 3, to establish and maintain an independent mechanism capable of conducting effective investigation into complaints of suspected ill-treatment by police officers in contravention of BOR 3, and that the existing mechanism involving CAPO, with oversight by the IPCC, was inadequate to discharge this obligation. (See para.124.)

ApplicationsThese were five applications for judicial review against the Commissioner of Police and Secretary for Justice raising inter alia the issues of whether officers of the Hong Kong Police Force were required to display their unique identification numbers or other distinctive identification numbers or marks when carrying out non-covert duties in relation to recent public order events; and whether the Government was under a duty to make available an independent mechanism capable of conducting effective investigation into complaints of ill-treatment by police officers.

Editorial Note: This judgment, particularly as reflected in the second of the foregoing holdings, illustrates the sort of rival considerations which the courts are required to weigh and balance in situations of this nature.

行政法

陳基裘訴香港政府警務處

[2020] HKCFI 2882 [2020] HKEC 3663

周家明法官主審

2020 年 6 月 24 日、26 日、11 月 19日

案情

這是五項司法覆核申請。有一個問題是所有申請的共同問題。在涉及香港記者協會的 HCAL 2915/2019 號案件中，提出兩個額外問題。其中一個額外問題是單獨審理的，將在另一個判決中處理。共同的問題是，警務人員在最近的「踏浪者」行動中執行與公共秩序事件有關的非秘密任務時，是否需要展示其獨特的身份號碼或其他明顯的身份號碼或標記。至於本案所處理的額外問題，是政府是否有責任提供一個獨立的機制，以便能够有效地調查有關警務人員作出虐待行為的投訴。申訴人所依據的主要條款是《基本法》第二十八條的禁止酷刑，以及《香港人權法案》第三條的禁止酷刑及殘忍、不人道或有辱的待遇或處罰。

裁定，在以下裁定的範圍內同意HCAL 2671、2703 及 2915/2019，而拒絕 HCAL 1747 及 1753/2019 的許可：

1) 查明警察的身份不能僅僅藉著警察部隊的內部程序，因為這將使警察虐待的受害者，完全或主要由警察部隊決定是否對這種虐待行為負責的警察採取法律或紀律行動（引用 Ataykaya v Turkey (Application No 50275/08, 22 July 2014), Bouyid v Belgium (2016) 62 EHRR 32, D v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] AC 196）。（見第 95 段）

2) 法院完全理解警官對披露身份的擔憂，因為針對他們的「起底」運動非常猖獗。然而，作為一個原則問題，這種擔心本身不能凌駕於維持一個適當的系統來調查涉嫌違反《香港人權法案》第 3 條的案件的責任之上（引用 Hristovi v Bulgaria (Application No 42697/05, 11 October 2011), Hentschel and Stark v Germany ( A p p l i c a t i o n N o 4 7 2 7 4 / 1 5 , 9 November 2017）。（見第 98 段）

3) 在 HCAL 1747/2019 案中，必須拒絕許可，因為申請只依據對某些條款的所謂誤解或誤用，而沒有證明這種誤解或誤用。（見第 112段）。

4) 為了遵守《香港人權法案》第 3條規定的程序性責任，調查必須在體制上及實際中獨立於涉嫌犯罪者。「投訴警察課」並非獨立於警方，而「獨立監察警方處理投訴委員會」（「監警會」）亦缺乏所需的調查權力及作出具約束力的裁定。現行處理投訴警察的兩層機制，即第一層由「投訴警察課」負責，第二層由「監警會」負責，未能符合《香港人權法案》第 3 條的獨立調查程序要求（引用 Ramsahai v Netherlands (2008) 46 EHRR 43, Mikiashvili v Georgia (Application No 18996/06, 9 October 2012), Najafli v Azerbaijan (Application No 2594/07, 2 October 2012), Tunc v Turkey (Application No 24014/05, 14 April 2015), Hentschel and Stark v Germany (Application No 47274/15, 9 November 2017)）。（見第 46、101-103 段）

February 2021 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要


5) HCAL 2671、2703 及 2915/2019案中的申請人有資格，但 HCAL 1753/2019 中的申請人沒有資格。（見第 120-121 段）

6) 法院在 HCAL 2671、2703 及2915/2019 案中宣布，警務處處長沒有建立及維持一個有效的制度，以確保在「踏浪者」行動中執行非秘密任務的每一名警員都佩戴並在顯著位置展示該警員獨有的身份號碼或標誌，這違反了《香港人權法案》第 3 條。（見第 123 段）

7) 在 HCAL 2703/2019 案中尋求的「履行義務」令被拒絕，因為原則上，應由警務處處長制定適當的制度以符合上述聲明的要求。（見第 127 段）

8) 在 HCAL 2915/2019 案中，法院進一步宣布，根據《香港人權法案》第 3 條，政府有責任設立及維持一個獨立機制，以有效調查有關警務人員涉嫌虐待與違反《香港人權法案》第 3 條的投訴，而現時由「投訴警察課」參與並受「監警會」監察的機制，不足以履行這項責任。（見第 124 段。）

申請

這五宗針對警務處處長及律政司司長的司法覆核申請，提出的問題包括：香港警務人員在執行與近期公共秩序事件有關的非秘密任務時，是否必須展示其獨特的身份號碼或其他明顯的身份號碼或標記；以及政府是否有責任提供一個獨立的機制，以便能够對有關警務人員虐待行為的投訴進行有效調查。

編者按：這一判決，特別是上述判決

中的第二項，說明法院在這種性質的

情況下需要權衡及平衡的對立因素。

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Secretary for Justice v Persons Unlawfully Persons unlawfully and wilfully conducting themselves in any of the acts prohibited under paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) of the indorsement of claim

[2020] HKCFI 2785 [2020] HKEC 3590

Coleman J in Chambers

13 November 2020

FactsIn light of the increased doxxing activities directed at judges and judicial officers and their family members arising from recent protests and public order events, the Secretary for Justice (SJ) obtained an ex parte injunction against unnamed defendants (Ds) restraining inter alia the use, publication, communication or disclosure to any other person the personal data of and concerning any judicial officer and/or their spouse and family members. This was the inter partes hearing of the application.

Held, continuing the injunction order until trial or further order of the Court, that:

1) There was at least a serious issue to be tried that widespread doxxing activities, including those directed at judges and judicial officers, had created a state of affairs in society endangering the public as a whole, and justifying the SJ’s intervention on behalf of the public. If left unchecked, doxxing might seriously erode public confidence in law and order, and the administration of justice in Hong Kong. Damage caused by unlawful public nuisance arising from doxxing activities was not quantifiable, and could not be adequately remedied by an award of damages (Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273, Wong Yeung Ng v Secretary for Justice [1999] 2 HKLRD 293, Secretary for Justice v Persons Unlawfully and Wilfully Conducting Etc (1957/2019)

[2019] 5 HKLRD 500 applied). (See paras.47–48.)

2) Whilst the injunction may have the effect of restricting certain fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression as guaranteed by art.27 of the Basic Law, the Court had to perform a balancing and weighing of various relevant rights and freedoms, including the rights of doxxed persons and their family members to respect and privacy, as well as the need to maintain public order and confidence in the administration of justice. There was unlikely to be any prejudice suffered by Ds, in that the restrained acts constituted wrongful behaviour, and it was difficult to envisage any scenario where Ds were legally entitled to conduct doxxing activities. On the other hand, there was utility in the injunction, both to serve as a reminder to the public that doxxing activities were unlawful and should be met by sanctions of the Court, and to promote a meaningful drop in the number of doxxing posts. (See paras.49–51.)

3) It was not realistic to expect individual judges or judicial officers who were doxxed to seek recourse by taking legal action in their personal capacity. (See para.52.)

4) (Obiter) Persons from all sectors, with differing political views or none, should place their confidence in the proper workings of the system for the administration of justice which has for so long been rightly prized and praised in Hong Kong. The proper avenue for challenge to court decisions is reviews and appeals. There is also a proper complaint procedure if there is a complaint about a judge’s or judicial officer’s conduct. Judges or judicial officers should make decisions without the interference or influence of any other person or body, and without any other person or body assuming or encroaching on the function of the court. Judges and judicial officers are not engaged in the political process. They do not express political views

• February 2021


or make political decisions. (See paras.46, 54–55.)

Application This was the inter partes hearing of the application by the Secretary for Justice against unnamed defendants for the continuation of the injunction order restraining inter alia the use, publication, communication or disclosure to any other person the personal data of and concerning any judicial officer and/or their spouse and family members.

民事訴訟程序

律政司司長訴非法及故意作出申索的批註第 1(a)、(b) 或 (c) 段所禁止的任何行為的人士

[2020] HKCFI 2785 [2020] HKEC 3590

高浩文法官內庭聆訊

2020 年 11 月 13 日

案情

鑒於近期的抗議活動及公共秩序事件導致針對法官與司法人員及其家屬的「起底」活動增加，律政司司長向未具名的被告人發出單方面禁制令，禁止他們使用、發布、傳達或向任何其他人披露任何司法人員及／或其配偶及家屬的個人資料。這是該申請的與訟各方的聆訊。

判決

裁定在審判或法院進一步命令之前繼續執行禁制令，認為：

1) 至少有一個嚴重的問題需要審理，就是廣泛的「起底」活動，包括那些針對法官及司法人員的「起底」活動，已在社會上造成一種危害整體公眾的情況，而律政司司長有理由代表公眾作出干預。若任由其發展，「起底」行為可能會嚴重削弱公眾對香港治安及司法的信心。「起底」活動引致的非法公眾妨擾所造成的損害無法量化，也無法通過判給損害賠償金來充分補救（引用Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273, Wong Yeung Ng v Secretary for Justice [1999] 2 HKLRD 293, Secretary for Justice v Persons Unlawfully and Wilfully Conducting Etc (1957/2019) [2019] 5 HKLRD 500 ）。（見第 47-48 段）

2) 雖然禁制令可能會限制某些基本權利，包括《基本法》第二十七條所保障的言論自由或表達自由，但法院必須平衡及衡量各項相關權利及自由，包括被「起底」者及其家人的受尊重權利及私隱權，以及維持公共秩序及對司法的信心的需要。被告人不大可能受到任何損害，因為受限制的作為構成了不法行為，而且很難設想在任何情況下，被告人在法律上有權進行「起底」活動。另一方面，禁制令也有其效用，既可

提醒市民「起底」活動是非法的，應受到法院的制裁，也可促進「起底」帖子的數量有重大的下降。（第 49-51 段）

3) 期望該等被「起底」的個別法官或司法人員以個人身份採取法律行動尋求補救是不現實的。（見第 52 段）

4) （附帶意見）各界人士，不論是否有不同的政見，都應對香港長期以來受人推崇及讚賞的司法制度的正常運作有信心。對法庭判決提出質疑的適當途徑是覆核及上訴。如果對法官或司法人員的行為有投訴，也有適當的投訴程序。法官或司法人員在作出判決時，不應受任何其他人或團體的干預或影響，亦不應由任何其他人或團體承擔或侵犯法院的職能。法官及司法人員並不參與政治程序。他們不發表政治觀點或作出政治決定。（見第 46、54-55 段。）

申請這是律政司司長對未具名被告人提出的申請進行的與訟各方聆訊，該申請要求繼續執行禁制令，其中包括禁止使用、公布、傳達或向任何其他人披露任何司法人員及／或其配偶及家人的個人資料。

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Changfeng Shipping Holdings Ltd v Sinoriches Enterprises Co. Ltd.

[2020] HKCFI 2703 [2020] HKEC 3818

Deputy Judge Anthony To in Chambers

1 December 2020

BackgroundThe respondent was a company incorporated in Hong Kong with three directors, one BVI company and two natural persons, namely Ms. Wang and Ms. Yang. The two directors, Ms. Wang and Ms. Yang, appeared to be residents in Dalian, Mainland China (“the Directors”).

While the respondent had an office



address in Hong Kong, its business was mainly carried out in Mainland China. The respondent’s address stated in the charterparty at dispute was in Dalian.

On 31 October 2019, the applicant obtained leave to enforce a London arbitral award for more than USD1 million plus interest and costs against the respondent in connection to a charterparty dispute as judgment in Hong Kong.

The applicant then made an ex parte application for oral examination of the Directors under O.48, r.1, Rules of High Court (Cap.4A) and leave to serve the oral examination order out of Hong Kong on the Directors under O.11, r.9(4).

While the Master granted the oral examination order, leave was refused to serve the said order out of Hong Kong. The applicant then applied for an appeal against the Master’s decision.

Issues Upon appeal, the court considered the following two issues:-

1) whether the court had jurisdiction to make examination orders under O.48 r.1 against officers of a corporate judgment debtor who was resident outside Hong Kong and was not a party to the action from which the debt arose; and

2) if so, how the discretion in granting leave to serve such an order out of the jurisdiction under O.11 r.9(4) was to be exercised.

Decision

Issue (1): Whether O.48 r.1 has extra-territorial effectThe Hong Kong courts have accepted that O.48 has an extra-territorial effect (see Navig8 Chemical Pools Inc v Inder Sharma HCMP 2885/2016, (unreported) 14 February 2017). There was nothing in the wording of O.48 to suggest that it was applicable only to officers within the jurisdiction.

The purpose of O.48 is to allow the judgment creditors to obtain information about a judgment debtor’s finances. This purpose could only be served against a corporate judgment debtor by extending the application of the rule to its officers within, as well as outside, the jurisdiction.

Hong Kong had many foreign or international corporations carrying on business in Hong Kong with officers resident outside Hong Kong. The underlying purpose of the rule and Hong Kong’s background as an international commercial centre were strong enough to displace the presumption against extra-territoriality.

Having regard to the circumstances in Hong Kong and applying the fair, large and liberal construction and

interpretation, the judge was satisfied that the purpose of the rule would be best served if it is construed to have extra-territorial effect and applicable to officers of corporate debtors resident both inside and outside Hong Kong.

Issue (2): Whether service out of jurisdiction should be grantedThere were few authorities on the principles applicable to service out of such examination orders on officers of corporate debtors.

In Masri v Consolidated Contractors Int’l (UK) Ltd and others (No.4) [2010] 1 AC 90,

the House of Lords found that in the case of a corporate judgment debtor, the court did not have the power to compel the attendance of officers of that corporation who were located abroad. Given the equivalent procedure under the English CPR r.71.2 is different from the equivalent pre-CPR provisions applicable to Hong Kong, the judge considered that the result of Masri had no bearing to the present case, but its exposition of the common law was nevertheless relevant.

On the other hand, the Singaporean statutory regime regarding the debtor examination orders and service out was similar to that in Hong Kong. In Burgundy Global Exploration Corp v Transocean Offshore Int’l Ventures Ltd [2014] SGCA 24, the Singapore Court of Appeal distinguished Masri because the regime

under CPR r.71.2 was different from the Singapore regime and held that O.48, r.1 had extra-territorial effect.

The principles on granting leave to serve examination order are (a) whether the foreign officer was so closely connected to the substantive claim that the Singapore court was justified in taking jurisdiction over him; (b) there should be no strict or exhaustive rule as to when leave should be granted but the officer’s knowledge of the finance of the judgment debtor was the basic threshold; and (c) leave should be granted sparingly.

• February 2021


Hong Kong principles The applicable principles to service out of examination orders are summarised at paragraph 35 of the judgment:

1) The court had jurisdiction under O.48 to issue examination order against individual judgment debtors and officers of corporate judgment debtors, and to issue such examination order out of the jurisdiction.

2) The officer ’s knowledge of the finance of the corporate debtor was a prerequisite for leave to serve out.

3) The discretion to order service out may be exercised if there is a close connection between the officer’s conduct in relation to the action from which the judgment debt arose and the subject matter of that action which makes it unjust not to exercise the jurisdiction.

4) A close connection was created by the conduct of the sole or substantial shareholder; the sole director or officer who was the alter ego or controlling mind of the corporate debtor or had instituted, controlled or financed the litigation; and officers who had played a key role in the events giving rise to the judgment creditor’s successful claim should be required to provide such information.

5) Fault, negligence or blameworthiness were not relevant. However, where there were such features in the officer’s conduct, it was more appropriate to exercise the discretion to order service out.

6) The burden of proof of close connection and knowledge was on the applicant. As the existence of a close connection and knowledge were matters solely within the knowledge of the corporate debtor, direct evidence is normally not available to the judgment creditor. In the majority of cases, the court had to draw inference with a sense of realism appropriate to the circumstances.

7) The court would take a broad brush approach and grant leave to serve out

unless there was a serious or obvious flaw in the application. If not satisfied that the officer has knowledge of the finance of the judgment debtor and that the close connection test is met, then the ex parte leave will be set aside.

CommentsThe purpose of O.48 is to enable the judgement creditor to obtain necessary information from the judgment debtor and ascertain the assets and liabilities of the judgment debtor so as to determine what steps to enforce the judgment. It is fair that persons from other parts of China or foreign countries chose to become directors of Hong Kong companies, they should expect to be subject to Hong Kong law and procedure in that regard.

Hong Kong is a physically small but economically important jurisdiction in the world. Given the economic integration of Hong Kong and Mainland China as two jurisdictions in the same country, many Hong Kong companies have directors in Mainland China. As the judge emphasised, an unduly restrictive approach would frustrate the reasonable expectation of the international commercial communities towards Hong Kong as an international commercial centre and damaging to Hong Kong’s image as such.

– Edward Liu, Legal Director, Hill Dickinson

– Maggie Lee, Associate, Hill Dickinson

民事訴訟程序

Changfeng Shipping Holdings Ltd v Sinoriches Enterprises Co. Ltd.

[2020] HKCFI 2703 [2020] HKEC 3818

暫委法官杜溎峰內庭聆訊

2020 年 12 月 1 日

背景資料

答辯人是一家有三名董事的香港註冊公司、一家英屬處女群島公司及兩名

自然人，即 Ms Wang 及 Ms Yang。兩名董事 Ms Wang 及 Ms Yang 似乎是中國大陸大連的居民（下稱「董事」）。

雖然答辯人在香港設有辦事處，但其業務主要在中國內地進行。答辯人在爭議的租船合約中所述的地址是在大連。

2019 年 10 月 31 日，申請人獲得許可，將倫敦仲裁裁決中與租船合約糾紛有關的 100 多萬美元加利息及費用作為在香港判決，對答辯人作出執行。

申請人隨後根據《高等法院規則》（第 4A 章）第 48 號命令第 1 條規則提出單方申請，要求對董事進行口頭訊問，並根據第 11 號命令第 9（4）條規則提出許可將口頭訊問令從香港送達董事。

聆案官雖然批出口頭訊問令，但却拒絕准許在香港以外的地方送達上述命令。申請人其後就聆案官的判決提出上訴。

爭論點在提出上訴時，法院考慮了以下兩爭論點：

1) 法院是否有司法管轄權，根據第48 號命令第 1 條規則，對居於香港以外的法團「判定債務人」的職位擔當人發出訊問令，而該職位擔當人並非引起該筆債項的訴訟的一方；及

2) 若然，如何行使第 11 號命令第 9（4）條規則所賦予的酌情權，准許在司法管轄區以外送達該命令。

判決

爭論點（1）：第 48號命令第 1條規則是否具有域外效力？

香港法院已接受第 48 號命令具有域外效力（見 Navig8 Chemical Pools Inc v Inder Sharma HCMP 2885/2016，（未經彙報）2017 年 2 月 14 日）。第 48號命令的措辭並沒有表明其只適用於司法管轄區內的職位擔當人。

第 48 號命令之目的是讓「判定債權人」取得「判定債務人」的財務資料。只有將該規則的適用範圍擴大至司法



管轄區內及司法管轄區外的職位擔當人的情況，才可針對法團「判定債務人」達到此目的。

香港有很多在香港經營業務的外國或國際法團，其職位擔當人居住在香港境外。該規則之基本目的，以及香港作為國際商業中心的背景，足以排除反對域外效力的推定。

經考慮香港的情況，並應用公平、廣泛及自由的解釋及詮釋，法官信納，如將該規則解釋為具有域外效力，並適用於居於香港及香港以外地方的法團債務人的職位擔當人，將最能達致該規則之目的。

爭論點（2）: 應否准予在司法管轄權以外的地方進行送達

關於適用於向法團債務人的職位擔當人送達此類訊問令的原則，只有少量典據談及。

在 Masri v Consolidated Contractors Int’l (UK) Ltd and others (No.4) [2010] 1 AC 90 一案中，上議院裁定，在法團「判定債務人」的案件中，法院無權强制該法團位於海外的職位擔當人出席。鑒於英國《民事訴訟程序規則》第 71.2 條規則（CPR r.71.2）中的等同程序與適用於香港的《民事訴訟程序規則》之前（pre-CPR）的等同條款不同，法官認為 Masri 的結果與本案無關，但其對普通法的闡述卻是相關的。

另一方面，新加坡關於債務人訊問令及送達的法定制度與香港相似。在 Burgundy Global Exploration Corp v Transocean Offshore Int’l Ventures Ltd [2014] SGCA 24 一案中，新加坡上訴法院對 Masri 案進行了區分，因為《民事訴訟程序規則》第 71.2 條下的制度與新加坡的制度不同，並認為第 48號命令第 1 條規則具有域外效力。

批出許可送達訊問令的原則是：（a）外國職位擔當人是否與實質性申索關係密切，以至於新加坡法院有理由對其行使管轄權；（b）對於何時應批出許可，不應有嚴格或詳盡無遺的規則，但該職位擔當人對「判定債務人」財務的瞭解是基本的門檻；以及（c）應謹慎批出許可。

香港原則判決書第 35 段對送達訊問令的適用原則進行了總結：

1) 根據第 48 號命令，法院有司法管轄權，可針對個別「判定債務人」及法團「判定債務人」的職位擔當人發出訊問令，以及在司法管轄權以外發出該等訊問令。

2) 該職位擔當人對法團債務人的財務情況的瞭解是允許外出送達的前提條件。

3) 如果該職位擔當人就產生「判定債務」的訴訟的行為與該訴訟之標的物有密切聯繫，以致不行使司法管轄權是不公正的，則可行使酌情決定權，命令進行外出送達。

4) 唯一或主要股東的行為產生了密切聯繫；唯一的董事或職位擔當人是法團債務人的「另一自我」或控制頭腦，或曾提出、控制或資助訴訟；及在引致「判定債權人」成功申索的事件中發揮了關鍵作用的職位擔當人，應被要求提供該等資料。

5) 過失、疏忽或應受指責與此無關。然而，如該名職位擔當人的行為有該等特點，則行使酌情權下令進行外出送達是較為恰當的做法。

6) 申請人須就密切聯繫及知情方面負上舉證責任。由於是否存在密切聯繫及知情的情況，完全是法團債務人所知道的事項，「判定債權人」通常無法獲得直接證據。在大多數情況下，法院必須根據實際情況作出相應的推斷。

7) 法院會採取「一刀切」的做法，即除非該申請有嚴重或明顯的缺陷，否則會批出許可進行送達。如果不信納該職位擔當人對「判定債務人」的財務狀況有所瞭解，及符合密切聯繫的測試標準，那麽單方面的許可將被撤銷。

評論

第 48 號命令之目的，是讓「判定債權人」可向「判定債務人」索取所需

資料，並確定「判定債務人」的資產及負債，從而決定採取甚麽步驟强制執行判定。公平地說，來自中國其他地區或外國的人選擇成為香港公司的董事，他們應該期望在這方面受到香港法律及程序的約束。

香港是世界上一個實體上很小但經濟上很重要的司法管轄區。鑒於香港及中國大陸作為同一個國家的兩個司法管轄區，在經濟上已經融合，許多香港公司的董事都在中國大陸。正如法官所强調的那樣，過度限制的做法會阻撓國際商業界對香港作為國際商業中心的合理期望，並損害香港的形象。

– 英國希德律師行法務總監劉洋

– 英國希德律師行律師李敏祺

COMPANY LAW

Re Allied Properties (HK) Ltd

[2020] HKCA 973 [2020] HKEC 3783

Kwan V-P, Yuen and Barma JJA

23, 27 November 2020

FactsC was a listed company incorporated in Hong Kong held by AGL, also a listed company in Hong Kong. A direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AGL (the Offeror) put forward a scheme of arrangement to holders of shares in C other than those held by the Offeror and its concert parties (the Scheme Shareholders), for the purpose of privatising C, which involved inter alia: (a) the cancellation of shares held by the Scheme Shareholders in exchange of payment; and (b) the reduction of capital (the Scheme). C issued an ex parte originating summons for directions to convene a single meeting of the Scheme Shareholders for the purpose of considering and approving the Scheme (the Court Meeting) (the OS). At the directions hearing of the OS, the Judge raised a number of concerns,

• February 2021


particularly regarding the requirement that the effect of the Scheme must be explained fairly and accurately. The Judge adjourned the OS sine die for C to address the concerns raised. C then revised the draft composite document. When the OS was restored, the Judge gave directions to convene the Court Meeting, but expressed that it was not the role of the court at the OS stage to scrutinise the preparation of the draft composite document to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements. At the Court Meeting, more than 99% of the shares held by the Scheme Shareholders present and voting were cast in favour of the Scheme. C subsequently presented a petition for sanction of the Scheme and confirmation of the reduction of capital. The petition was adjourned twice in order for C to adduce further evidence and make submissions to address the Judge’s concerns. In the end, the Judge refused to sanction the Scheme because: (a) she had concerns that the headcount test in s.674(1)(c)(ii) of the Companies Ordinance (Cap.622) (the CO) might not have been met; and (b) she took the view that the Scheme document did not provide sufficient information to the Scheme Shareholders to enable them to

make an informed decision as to how to vote at the Court Meeting. C appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal, sanctioning the Scheme, and confirming the reduction of capital, that:

1) The Court had reservations whether C’s complaints of procedural unfairness were made out. The Judge had on multiple occasions enunciated concerns about the adequacy of the composite documents, albeit she had not made explicit what she regarded as lacking as mentioned in her judgment. It could not be said that that C was not given the opportunity to make proper submissions in this regard. (See paras.24–26.)

2) The headcount test was not applicable in this situation. Where a scheme involved a takeover offer within s.674(5) of the CO, by virtue of s.674(2) the headcount test was replaced by the requirements of a 75% majority in value of the voting rights of the members present and voting and that the votes cast against the scheme did not exceed 10% of the total voting rights attached to all disinterested

shares in the company. The Judge had erred in considering that the Court might not have jurisdiction to sanction the Scheme if the headcount test was not met. On the evidence, the dual requirements under s.674(2) of the CO were met. There was no jurisdictional obstacle in that regard (Re Cheung Kong (Holdings) Ltd [2015] 2 HKLRD 512, Re Enice Holding Co Ltd [2018] 4 HKLRD 736 applied). (See para.27–28.)

3) The Judge was wrong to take the view that adequate explanation had not been given to the Scheme Shareholders. This vitiated the exercise of her discretion in refusing to sanction the Scheme. The Judge made a hypothesis on dividend which ignored and contradicted the composite document, and amounted to substituting the Judge’s own view on dividend policy for C’s dividend policy. (See paras.30, 36.)

4) The statutory requirements for sanction of the Scheme were met. The fairness test was also satisfied. The Scheme was such that an intelligent and honest person, a member of the



class concerned and acting in respect of his interest, might reasonably approve. The privatisation had the overwhelming support of the Scheme Shareholders, who would have considered the information provided in the composite document on the commercial impact of the Scheme. The court should be slow to differ from the majority views, as it normally acted on the principle that businessmen were much better judges of what was to their commercial advantage than the court could be (UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co Ltd & Others v Li Oi Lin & Others (2001) 4 HKCFAR 358, Re Cheung Kong (Holdings) Ltd [2015] 2 HKLRD 512, Re Inmarsat Plc [2019] EWHC 3470 (Ch) applied). (See para.37.)

AppealThis was an appeal brought by the petitioner against the dismissal by Linda Chan J in the Court of First Instance of its petition for sanctioning of a scheme of arrangement approved at a court meeting (see [2020] HKEC 3190).

公司法

關於聯合地產（香港）有限公司一案

[2020] HKCA 973 [2020] HKEC 3783

關淑馨副庭長、袁家寧法官及鮑晏明法官主審

2020 年 11 月 23 日、27 日

案情

C 是一家在香港註冊成立的上市公司，由同樣是香港上市公司的 AGL持有。AGL 的一家直接全資附屬公司（要約人）向除要約人及其協同行動人持有的股份以外的 C 股份持有人（下稱「計劃股東」）提出一項安排計劃，目的是將 C 私有化，該計劃涉及（其中包括）：（a）註銷「計劃股東」所持股份以換取付款；及（b）減少股本（下稱「該計

劃」）。C 公司發出單方面原訴傳票（下稱「 OS」），要求指示召開一次「計劃股東」會議，以考慮及批准該計劃（法庭會議）。在 OS 的指示聆訊中，法官提出了多項關注，特別是關於必須公平和準確地解釋該計劃的影響的規定。法官宣布 OS 無限期休庭，讓 C 處理法院所提出的關注事項。C 隨後修改了綜合文件的草稿。在恢復 OS 後，法官指示召開法庭會議，但表示在 OS 階段，法庭的角色並非審議綜合文件擬稿，以確保其符合法定要求。在法庭會議上，出席會議及投票的「計劃股東」所持有的股份中，超過 99% 贊成該計劃。隨後，C 公司提交了一份請求批准該計劃和確認減資的呈請書。該呈請書曾兩度押後，以便 C 提出進一步證據及陳詞以回應法官的關注。最後，法官拒絕批准該計劃，因為（a）她關注到《公司條例》（第 622 章）第 674（1）（c）（ii）條所訂的人數測試準則可能未獲符合；及（b）她認為該計劃文件沒有向「計劃股東」提供足够的資料，使他們能够就如何在法庭會議上投票作出知情的決定。C 提出上訴。

裁定：上訴得直，批准該計劃，並確認削減資本

1) 法院對 C 的程序不公平投訴是否成立有所保留。儘管法官沒有明確指出她在判決書中提到的她認為不足之處，但她曾多次闡述對綜合文件的充分性的關注。不能說 C 沒有機會在這方面作出適當的陳述。（見第 24-26 段）。

2) 人數測試不適用於這種情況。當某項計劃涉及《公司條例》第 674（5）條所指的收購要約時，憑藉第 674（2）條，人數測試會被以下規定所取代：出席會議及投票的成員所擁有的投票權的 75%（以價值計），以及反對該計劃的票數不超過附於該公司所有無利害關係股份的總投票權的 10%。法官認為如果不符合人數測試，法院可能沒有司法管轄權來批准該計劃，這想法是錯誤的。根據證據，《公司條例》第 674（2）條所訂的雙重規定均已獲符合。在這方面沒有管轄權障礙（引用 Re Cheung Kong (Holdings)

Ltd [2015] 2 HKLRD 512, Re Enice Holding Co Ltd [2018] 4 HKLRD 736）。（見第 27-28 段）

3) 法官認為沒有向「計劃股東」作出充分解釋是錯誤的。這使她在拒絕批准該計劃時所行使的酌情權失效。法官就股息作出的假設是忽略了綜合文件，並與綜合文件相矛盾，這等於以法官自己對股息政策的看法取代了 C 的股息政策。（見第 30、36 段）。

4) 批准該計劃的法定要求已得到符合。該計劃亦符合公平測試的要求。該計劃是一個聰明和誠實的人，即有關類別的成員，及為其利益而行事者，可能會合理地批准的。私有化計劃獲得該「計劃股東」的壓倒性支持，他們會考慮綜合文件中就該計劃的商業影響所提供的資料。法院應不急於採取與大多數人不同的意見，因為法院通常會根據以下原則行事，即商人比法院更能判斷甚麼對他們的商業利益有利（引用 UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co Ltd & Others v Li Oi Lin & Others （2001） 4 HKCFAR 358, Re Cheung Kong (Holdings) Ltd [2015] 2 HKLRD 512, Re Inmarsat Plc [2019] EWHC 3470（Ch））。（見第 37 段）

上訴

這是呈請人就原訟法庭陳靜芬法官駁回其要求批准一項在法庭會議上通過的安排計劃的呈請而提出的上訴。（見 [2020] HKEC 3190）

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

就完整的摘要和判決書，請到 www.westlaw.com.hk 參閱 Westlaw 及《香港

法律彙報與摘錄》。

• February 2021


AU-YEUNG BENNETT CHAK LAM歐陽澤林JUDICIARY

CHAK LONG HIN翟朗軒TAM, PUN & YIPP譚潘葉律師行

CHAN CHUN HO陳俊豪DEACONS的近律師行

CHAN CONNIE陳閣兒PING AN ONECONNECT BANK (HONG KONG) LIMITED

CHAN CHUNG YAN陳頌恩EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND安睿順德倫國際律師事務所

CHAN HOK YUI ARTHUR陳學睿CHAN & CO., VIVIEN陳韻雲律師行

CHAN PUI TUNG陳姵彤

CHAN YAN LOK陳恩樂

CHANG CHING張程ZIMMERN & CO., F.施文律師行

CHAN YEE KIU RACHEL陳伊翹SIDLEY AUSTIN盛德律師事務所

CHAO GA JEUN MICHAEL趙嘉俊MAYER BROWN孖士打律師行

CHEUNG TIN YAN SARINA張天恩WITHERS衛達仕律師事務所

CHEUNG YUEN MEI張婉微CHAN & CO., VIVIEN陳韻雲律師行

會員動向

PROFESSIONAL MOVES

Newly-Admitted Members 新會員

CHIU CHUNG HEI趙頌熙LI & PARTNERS李偉斌律師行

CHIU SIN TO SUSANNA趙善淘REED SMITH RICHARDS BUTLER禮德齊伯禮律師行

February 2021 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向


LAI MING LUONG CHRISTOPHER黎鳴朗

LAW WING YAT ADRIAN羅永逸MAYER BROWN孖士打律師行

LAM HO TING TIFFANY林皓婷ELLALAN張淑姬趙之威律師行

LEE INGRID HAU YAN李巧恩

CHOW HIU CHING鄒曉晴CHARLES RUSSELL SPEECHLYS LLP思雅仕律師行有限法律責任合夥

LAM TO SHA林杜莎LT LAWYERS

LEUNG KA HONG梁家康WILKINSON & GRIST高露雲律師行

HOR TSZ CHING SUNNY賀子晴MAYER BROWN孖士打律師行

JIM BIK SIN詹碧倩LEUNG JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES梁國堅律師行

LAU HON YIU劉漢耀LI & PARTNERS李偉斌律師行

LEUNG KWOK CHEONG梁國鏘LEUNG & CO., H.Y. LLP梁浩然律師事務所有限法律責任合夥

CHU PUI MAN朱珮文ONC LAWYERS柯伍陳律師事務所

HUNG CHUN KIT洪俊傑DEACONS的近律師行

LAM TSZ KIN林子健CHEUNG & CO., D.S.張岱樞律師事務所

LEUNG KIT YING IRENE梁潔盈NIXON PEABODY CWL尼克松‧鄭林胡律師行

LAI KAI PANG ALLEN勵啟鵬DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAU WING HANG CHLOE劉穎珩

LI TSZ YEUNG李梓煬LEUNG & CO., WILLIAM K.W.梁景威律師事務所

• February 2021


LYN KER CHI RACHEL林可淇BRIDGE ROBIN & JOHN LIU喬立本廖依敏律師行

SHAH KAJAL MANUBHAIYEUNG & CO., RUBY楊素華律師行

SOUSA ANTONIO ALFRED蘇煒燊

NG CHI HO GARY伍梓濠MAYER BROWN孖士打律師行

SHIH KAREN PUI WAH史佩樺FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER富而德律師事務所

TAI KA MAN戴嘉敏CHEUNG & CHOY張世文蔡敏律師事務所

NG KIAN YANG黃建MIAO & CO.繆氏律師事務所

SO HIU YU EDITH蘇曉諭REED SMITH RICHARDS BUTLER禮德齊伯禮律師行

TONG JOANNA PUI SHAN唐佩珊SIDLEY AUSTIN盛德律師事務所

MAN WING KAN文頴勤ONC LAWYERS柯伍陳律師事務所

SHI RONGRONG施嶸嶸LINKLATERS年利達律師事務所

SUM HIU-YAN MICHELLE岑曉欣CLIFFORD CHANCE高偉紳律師行

NG DECLAN NED LOK HEY伍樂熙CLIFFORD CHANCE高偉紳律師行

SIN KWOK CHING冼國靖CHOW C.L. & MACKSION CHAN, SOLICITORS周卓立陳啟球陳一理律師事務所

TANG HON KIT鄧漢杰TO & CO., W.K.杜偉強律師事務所

NG TSZ KWAN吳紫焜

SONG MING JIE宋明潔

TSANG YIN KAN KANT曾彥芹SIAO, WEN AND LEUNG蕭溫梁律師行



TSO HIU NOK曹曉諾DEACONS的近律師行

WONG HIU WAI CHARMAINE黃曉蔚SIDLEY AUSTIN盛德律師事務所

YIP SI CHING CHERYL葉思晴MAYER BROWN孖士打律師行

WAN TSZ CHUN温梓俊LI & PARTNERS李偉斌律師行

WONG WING LONG LEO黃穎朗SOCAM DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

WONG CHUN LING黃臻翎CHOW C.L. & MACKSION CHAN, SOLICITORS周卓立陳啟球陳一理律師事務所

YEUNG POK HUNG楊博雄ONC LAWYERS柯伍陳律師事務所

TUNG HO YEE董皓宜LEE WILLIAM AND ASSOCIATES李偉生律師事務所

WONG WAI TAK VICTOR黃偉德DEACONS的近律師行

YU WANG余望IU, LAI & LI姚黎李律師行

WANG XIAO YUEFANGDA PARTNERS方達律師事務所

YAM YAT LONG任溢朗FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER富而德律師事務所

WONG HIN SUN黃顯燊TSANG DEREK LAW OFFICE曾日華律師行

YIP HIU YAU STEPHANIE葉曉悠ELLALAN張淑姬趙之威律師行

AU WAI KI區瑋琪

CHAN CHUEN TAI陳全娣

CHAU CHI WANG KEVIN周子弘

CHOI YAN TING SHIRLEY蔡欣婷REED SMITH RICHARDS BUTLER禮德齊伯禮律師行

CHUI YUEN TUNG隋宛彤

CHUNG LOK HIM JASON鍾樂謙

FUNG SZE TING馮詩婷

HO JUN HANG BENTON何俊亨

HO SIU HO何小荷LI & PARTNERS李偉斌律師行

HO SZE CHAI何思齊CLIFFORD CHANCE高偉紳律師行

HO WING CHONG何穎莊HOLMAN FENWICK WILLAN夏禮文律師行

• February 2021


HO YUEN YING何宛螢KEMP M.B. LLP

KO KA YAU高嘉佑CHAU & CO., K.B.周啟邦律師事務所

KO SZE SZE CISSY高思詩YANG CHAN & JAMISON LLP勤信律師事務所有限法律責任合夥

KWONG PING FAN鄺秉勳WONG & TANG王鄧律師事務所

LAI CALISTA黎曉華LI & PARTNERS李偉斌律師行

LAI MONG HAY黎望曦LI, KWOK & LAW, SOLICITORS & NOTARIES李郭羅律師行

LAM CHAK CHEUNG林澤翔REED SMITH RICHARDS BUTLER禮德齊伯禮律師行

LAM KA YIK林嘉益MAYER BROWN孖士打律師行

LAM TSANG LUNG DAVID林增隆DLA PIPER HONG KONG歐華律師事務所

LAM YUEN YING林宛瑩WONG & CO.黃律師事務所

LAU KA YAN劉嘉欣RAVENSCROFT & SCHMIERER

LEE BIANCA HELEN李曉霖LATHAM & WATKINS LLP瑞生國際律師事務所有限法律責任合夥

LEUNG CHI YING梁智盈MUNROS文禮律師行

LEUNG HIU YAN AURORA梁曉茵WHITE & CASE偉凱律師事務所

LEUNG PAK SHING梁栢誠LEUNG & CO., WINNIE梁鳳慈律師行

LING KA YAN KAREN凌嘉欣

LIU HAOMIAO劉浩淼BOCOM INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED

MA SIU LING馬笑玲LEE & CO., EDDIE李偉明律師行

MO KA PIK毛家碧

SUNG FUNG YEE宋芳懿ZHONGAN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL GROUP LIMITED

TAI CHUN TING DARREN戴俊霆SIDLEY AUSTIN盛德律師事務所

TANG CHRISTOPHER鄧榮光ASHURST HONG KONG亞司特律師事務所

TONG CHUNG NING唐頌甯SWARTZ, BINNERSLEY & ASSOCIATES

TSE KIN KWOK謝健覺

TSE KWOK WAI

TSE LIK HANG謝力行REED SMITH RICHARDS BUTLER禮德齊伯禮律師行

TSE WAI YI謝慧儀CHONG & PARTNERS LLP莊凌雲律師事務所有限法律責任合夥

WAN DARRYL尹澤俊REAP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

WONG MAN YI CHLOE黃曼宜FAIRBAIRN CATLEY LOW & KONG范紀羅江律師行

WONG SZE WING STEPHANIE黃思穎

WONG YIN NAM黃彥嵐LIU, CHAN & LAM廖陳林律師事務所

WONG YIN TUNG ALISON王彥彤

ZHOU QIANWEI周茜薇AIRWALLEX HONG KONG LIMITED

Partnerships and Firms 合夥人及律師行變動Changes received as from 1 December 2020 取自2020年12月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

• BRAUN HEINER HORST ceased to be a partner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer as from 01/01/2021.BRAUN HEINER HORST 自2021年1月1日不再出任富而德律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CARDONNEL GILLES JEROME ceased to be a partner of Howse Williams as from 12/12/2020 and joined King & Wood Mallesons as a consultant as from 06/01/2021.CARDONNEL GILLES JEROME 自2020年12月12日不再出任何韋律師行合夥人一職，並於2021年1月6日加入金杜律師事務所為顧問。



• CHAN CHUN WA ceased to be a partner of S.K. Lam, Alfred Chan & Co. as from 01/01/2021 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Chan commenced practice as the sole practitioner of C.W. Chan & Co. as from 01/01/2021.陳俊華自2021年1月1日不再出任林錫光、陳啟鴻律師行合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。陳律師於2021年1月1日獨資經營陳俊華律師事務所。

• CHAN KAI HUNG ALFRED ceased to be a partner of S.K. Lam, Alfred Chan & Co. as from 01/01/2021 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Chan remains as a consultant of Guantao & Chow Solicitors and Notaries.陳啟鴻自2021年1月1日不再出任林錫光、陳啟鴻律師行合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。陳律師仍繼續擔任觀韜律師事務所(香港)顧問一職。

• CHAN KIT YING CATHERINE joined Jingtian & Gongcheng LLP as a partner as from 01/01/2021.陳潔瑩自2021年1月1日加入競天公誠律師事務所有限法律責任合夥為合夥人。

• CHAN TING KWAN became a partner of Leung & Lau, Solicitors LLP as from 01/01/2021.陳廷鈞自2021年1月1日成為梁寶儀劉正豪律師行有限法律責任合夥合夥人。

• CHAN WAI CHUNG WILLIAM became a partner of Mayer Brown as from 01/01/2021.陳瑋宗自2021年1月1日成為孖士打律師行合夥人。

• CHANG KWUN LONG became a partner of Addleshaw Goddard (Hong Kong) LLP as from 15/12/2020.鄭君朗自2020年12月15日成為安勝恪道(香港)有限法律責任合夥律師行合夥人。

• CHENG NUO became a partner of Anthony Siu & Co. as from 07/01/2021.承諾自2021年1月7日成為蕭一峰律師行合夥人。

• CHIANG CHI WAI JASON became a partner of Jingtian & Gongcheng LLP as from 01/01/2021.姜之維自2021年1月1日成為競天公誠律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人。

• CHOW CHING YI became a partner of Anthony Siu & Co. as from 07/01/2021.周靖兒自2021年1月7日成為蕭一峰律師行合夥人。

• CHU DAVID CHARLES ceased to be a partner of Proskauer Rose as from 01/01/2021 and joined Bird & Bird as a partner on the same day.朱卓偉自2021年1月1日不再出任普洛思律師事務所合夥人一職，並於同日加入鴻鵠律師事務所為合夥人。

• COWIE ANTONY EDWARD JOHN became a partner of Hill Dickinson Hong Kong as from 15/12/2020.COWIE ANTONY EDWARD JOHN 自2020年12月15日成為Hill Dickinson Hong Kong合夥人。

• DEARLE MARCUS DAVID CHADWICK ceased to be a partner of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP as from 01/01/2021.DEARLE MARCUS DAVID CHADWICK 自2021年1月1日不再出任博凱立有限法律責任合夥合夥人一職。

• FAIRCLOUGH MATTHEW WILLIAM ceased to be a partner of Clifford Chance as from 01/01/2021FAIRCLOUGH MATTHEW WILLIAM 自2021年1月1日不再出任高偉紳律師行合夥人一職。

• HAU WUN FAI ceased to be a partner of Hau, Lau, Li & Yeung as from 01/01/2021 and remains as a consultant of the firm.侯運輝自2021年1月1日不再出任侯劉李楊律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• HO KA CHUN ceased to be a partner of Nixon Peabody CWL as from 01/01/2021 and remains as a consultant of the firm.何嘉珍自2021年1月1日不再出任尼克松‧鄭林胡律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• HO KAI KWONG WILLIAM ceased to be a partner of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP as from 01/01/2021 and joined Watson Farley & Williams LLP as a consultant on the same day.何啟光自2021年1月1日不再出任博凱立有限法律責任合夥合夥人一職，並於同日加入華盛國際律師事務所 (有限法律責任合夥)為顧問。

• HONG KEVIN KAM WAI became a partner of Norton Rose Fulbright Hong Kong as from 01/01/2021.康錦煒自2021年1月1日成為諾頓羅氏香港合夥人。

• February 2021


• HUSSAIN NISHRIN AZIZ became a partner of Mayer Brown as from 01/01/2021.HUSSAIN NISHRIN AZIZ 自2021年1月1日成為孖士打律師行合夥人。

• JOHNSON EDWARD RICHARD ANDREW ceased to be a partner of Clifford Chance as from 01/01/2021.莊毅信自2021年1月1日不再出任高偉紳律師行合夥人一職。

• KWAN CHIU YIN became a partner of Anthony Siu & Co. as from 07/01/2021.關超然自2021年1月7日成為蕭一峰律師行合夥人。

• LAI WING HONG became a partner of Arthur K.H. Chan & Co. as from 01/01/2021.黎永康自2021年1月1日成為陳鈞洪律師行合夥人。

• LAM SEK KONG ceased to be a partner of S.K. Lam, Alfred Chan & Co. as from 01/01/2021 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Lam remains as a partner of Guantao & Chow Solicitors and Notaries.林錫光自2021年1月1日不再出任林錫光、陳啟鴻律師行合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。林律師仍繼續擔任觀韜律師事務所(香港)合夥人一職。

• LAM SHUET CHING GLORIA ceased to be a partner of Sidley Austin as from 01/01/2021 and joined David Lo & Partners as a consultant as from 04/01/2021.林雪貞自2021年1月1日不再出任盛德律師事務所合夥人一職，並於2021年1月4日加入羅國貴律師事務所為顧問。

• LANGE II JOHN EDWARD ceased to be a partner of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP as from 01/01/2021 and remains as a consultant of the firm.朗杰自2021年1月1日不再出任寶維斯有限法律責任合夥律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• LI HO MAN joined H.Y. Leung & Co. LLP as a partner as from 04/01/2021.李浩民自2021年1月4日加入梁浩然律師事務所有限法律責任合夥為合夥人。

• LOK PO CHUEN ceased to be a partner of Tsui & Lok, Solicitors as from 01/01/2021 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Lok joined Hon & Co. as a consultant as from 01/01/2021.駱寶泉自2021年1月1日不再出任徐駱律師行合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。駱律師於2021年1月1日加入韓潤燊律師樓為顧問。

• LOO CHEN LING became a partner of Deacons as from 01/01/2021.呂珍玲自2021年1月1日成為的近律師行合夥人。

• LUDWICK DAVID MICHAEL ceased to be a partner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer as from 01/01/2021.LUDWICK DAVID MICHAEL 自2021年1月1日不再出任富而德律師事務所合夥人一職。

• MA TSUN NING JUSTIN became a partner of Jingtian & Gongcheng LLP as from 15/12/2020.馬雋寧自2020年12月15日成為競天公誠律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人。

• MARIANI STEFANO became a partner of Deacons as from 01/01/2021.麥朗自2021年1月1日成為的近律師行合夥人。

• McBRIDE JANE ELIZABETH ceased to be a partner of Deacons as from 01/01/2021.McBRIDE JANE ELIZABETH 自2021年1月1日不再出任的近律師行合夥人一職。

• NG WING HUNG ceased to be a partner of Wong, Fung & Co. as from 24/12/2020 due to the intervention in the practice of the firm by the Law Society on the same day.伍永雄自2020年12月24日不再出任黃馮律師行合夥人一職，因該行於同日被律師會介入。

• SANDSTAD BENJAMIN JOHN ceased to be a partner of Mayer Brown as from 01/01/2021.SANDSTAD BENJAMIN JOHN 自2021年1月1日不再出任孖士打律師行合夥人一職。

• SHAM SHUN ON DONALD became a partner of Reed Smith Richards Butler as from 01/01/2021.沈信安自2021年1月1日成為禮德齊伯禮律師行合夥人。

• SHE MING became a partner of Dennis Fong & Co. as from 21/12/2020.佘銘自2020年12月21日成為方緯谷律師事務所合夥人。

• SIU TSUI SHAN BARBARA became a partner of Anthony Siu & Co. as from 07/01/2021.蕭翠珊自2021年1月7日成為蕭一峰律師行合夥人。



• SUEN HOI TING VALERIE ROSE became a partner of Ellalan as from 01/01/2021.孫凱庭自2021年1月1日成為張淑姬趙之威律師行合夥人。

• SWAIN ANTHONY DAVID joined Lewis Silkin as a partner as from 04/01/2021.施健恆自2021年1月4日加入世勤律師事務所為合夥人。

• TAM YIK FEI became a partner of Reed Smith Richards Butler as from 01/01/2021.譚亦非自2021年1月1日成為禮德齊伯禮律師行合夥人。

• TAN VENANTIUS ceased to be a partner of Morrison & Foerster as from 01/01/2021 and remains as a consultant of the firm.TAN VENANTIUS 自2021年1月1日不再出任美富律師事務所合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• TANG CHRISTOPHER joined Ashurst Hong Kong as a partner as from 01/01/2021.鄧榮光自2021年1月1日加入亞司特律師事務所為合夥人。

• TONG SIU YIN ceased to be a partner of Arthur K.H. Chan & Co. as from 01/01/2021 and remains as a consultant of the firm.湯少賢自2021年1月1日不再出任陳鈞洪律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• TSUI WAI KI ceased to be a partner of Tsui & Lok, Solicitors as from 01/01/2021 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Tsui joined Chow, Griffiths & Chan as a consultant as from 01/01/2021.徐偉奇自2021年1月1日不再出任徐駱律師行合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。徐律師於2021年1月1日加入鄒祈陳律師事務所為顧問。

• WAI TSZ HUNG ceased to be a partner of Titus as from 22/12/2020.衞紫熊自2020年12月22日不再出任戴圖斯律師行合夥人一職。

• WEI CHUN QUN ceased to be a partner of Sullivan & Cromwell (Hong Kong) LLP as from 01/01/2021 and remains as a consultant of the firm.魏群自2021年1月1日不再出任蘇利文‧克倫威爾律師事務所(香港)有限法律責任合夥合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• WELCH OLIVER DAVID became a partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher as from 01/01/2021.WELCH OLIVER DAVID 自2021年1月1日成為吉布森律師事務所合夥人。

• WILSON NICHOLAS MARK became a partner of Norton Rose Fulbright Hong Kong as from 01/01/2021.WILSON NICHOLAS MARK 自2021年1月1日成為諾頓羅氏香港合夥人。

• WONG HIU CHONG became a partner of Vidler & Co. as from 01/01/2021.黃曉莊自2021年1月1日成為韋智達律師行合夥人。

• WONG KENNEDY YING HO ceased to be a partner of Philip K.H. Wong, Kennedy Y.H. Wong & Co. as from 01/01/2021.黃英豪自2021年1月1日不再出任黃乾亨黃英豪律師事務所合夥人一職。

• WU CHARLES HAOSI became a partner of Miao & Co. as from 04/01/2021.WU CHARLES HAOSI 自2021年1月4日成為繆氏律師事務所合夥人。

• WU SHENG ceased to be a partner of Mayer Brown as from 01/01/2021.吳胜自2021年1月1日不再出任孖士打律師行合夥人一職。

• YEUNG HOK MIN THOMAS ceased to be a partner of Lily Fenn & Partners as from 13/12/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm.楊學勉自2020年12月13日不再出任范家碧律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• YIN SZE KIT GARY ceased to be a partner of Jingtian & Gongcheng LLP as from 12/01/2021 and joined Simmons & Simmons as a partner on the same day.饒詩傑自2021年1月12日不再出任競天公誠律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人一職，並於同日加入西盟斯律師行為合夥人。

• YUEN KA FAI ceased to be a partner of Clifford Chance as from 29/12/2020.阮家輝自2020年12月29日不再出任高偉紳律師行合夥人一職。

• YUEN KWONG KEUNG ceased to be a partner of Wong, Fung & Co. as from 24/12/2020 due to the intervention in the practice of the firm by the Law Society on the same day.阮國強自2020年12月24日不再出任黃馮律師行合夥人一職，因該行於同日被律師會介入。

• February 2021


Picture yourself onstage, in front of an audience waiting to hear you interpret the lyrics of the song that you are about to sing.

Then picture yourself a few hours later in a conference room working with clients to solve their intellectual property needs.

May Chan, special counsel at Spruson & Ferguson, successfully juggles her passion for singing alongside a successful career as an IP lawyer.

Born into a musical family, including a mother who was a music teacher and cousins who have won CASH (Composers and Authors Society of HK) awards for their music on top of releasing a CD, and family gatherings that involve making music, it is not surprising that Chan is also musically inclined.

Chan began her solo singing career over ten years ago, and most recently gave a concert in November last year. In addition to performing in concerts both big and small, Chan also sings in the choruses of operatic productions put on by Opera Hong Kong and Musica Viva.

These involve tours allowing her to have a better understanding of the international classical music scene, with rehearsals also a good opportunity to learn from international opera singers. “I don’t have to pay to hear them sing the most famous opera arias and I always get the best seat in the house, which is literally the stage,” she said.

Out of her numerous performances, a mezzo-soprano operatic debut and a performance with the University of Hong Kong (HKU)’s law alumni association

stand out to Chan.

The operatic debut was the role of Prince Orlovsky in the Opera Society of Hong Kong’s 2018 production of Johann Strauss II’s Die Fledermaus. The performance, which was held in Hong Kong’s City Hall, marked an important milestone in Chan’s singing career.

The performance with the HKU Law Alumni Association, also in 2018, involved a big choir of at least forty people and an orchestra, mostly if not all, from the legal profession. Chan belted out Adele’s ‘Rolling in the Deep’ for her latest performance with the Association, having performed solos three or four times with them in the past.

Another performance that stands out in Chan’s memory is her London debut,

By Thomson Reuters

IP Lawyer May Chan Sings Through Life

Performing Adele’s “Rolling in the Deep” with the University of Hong Kong’s Law Alumni Association in 20182018 年與香港大學法律畢業生會合作演出 Adele 的“Rolling in the Deep”

February 2021 • LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情


which took place at the Guild Church of St Dunstan-in-the-West in February 2020. The free performance also involved a clarinetist and pianist from Chan’s circle of musician friends.

Chan admits that she does not practice that often, “maybe once a week on top of weekday rehearsals with various music groups.” Her neighbors “put up with my at-home singing practice, or ‘controlled screaming’ as it has been described by a musically capable friend.” They have even attended some of her concerts. “I have not done any work in particular to promote singing in Hong Kong, but I suppose that I inspire people through sharing my passion for singing via posts on my personal social media accounts,” she added.

Chan also took singing lessons from voice teachers and music coaches, both in Hong Kong and in London. To further her craft, she earned a Bachelor of Music degree with First Class Honours from Kingston University London in 2016, as well as diplomas in singing from the Licentiate of the Royal Schools of Music and the Licentiate of Trinity College.

In spite of her accomplishments, Chan believes that “everyone can sing” and suggests that aspiring singers start by joining a choir. “It’s a lot of fun yet challenging at the same time. You make many friends, maybe even your spouse, and other lifelong friends,” she said.

With lyrics playing a vital role in a song, Chan has also been studying diction to better understand not just the pronunciation, but also the stress in the syllables, grammar, and nuances in the lyrics in order to render the rendition of an art song more convincingly.

The French that she picked up during her teen years helps Chan “get by” when singing French melodies by composers such as Gabriel Fauré and Francis Poulenc. Lessons at the Goethe Institut throughout the past few years have also helped Chan master songs in German, the dominant language in Western classical music. “I love singing the lieder of composers such as Franz Schubert,

Robert Schumann, Johannes Brahms and Hugo Wolf,” she said.

It is important to Chan that she understands what she is singing and conveys that meaning to the audience. Language skills are also important for lawyers, and alongside comprehension and analytical skills, are transferable to musicians and singers. Other skills that are transferable include working under pressure and the art of getting along with an ensemble. Many lawyers, as well as doctors, do music on the side, she noted.

Another activity that is surprisingly popular with lawyers is ballet. Chan also takes adult beginners ballet classes one to two times a week to improve her posture, adding elegance and confidence to her posture and movements onstage. She knows of seven lawyer ballerinas, including herself.

Chan was introduced to Korean operatic tenor Alfred Kim’s music during a trip to Korea a few years ago and fell in love with it immediately. Other genres of music that make it to her playlist include K-pop and rock. She also enjoys singing karaoke, or ‘sing k’ as it is known in Hong Kong, with her musical family and friends.

One of Chan’s two mottos is “play seriously”, which fits her description of herself as ‘slightly’ gifted, very outgoing, and very extroverted. She is an entertainer with the ESFP, or extraverted, observant, feeling and prospecting, personality type on the Myers Brigg test. She also scores a 6, or loyalist/7, or enthusiast, on the Enneagram personality test.

The protests that took place in Hong Kong in the second half of 2019, and the COVID-19 pandemic, have severely limited Chan’s avenues to sing live as Hong Kong is currently battling a fourth wave of the virus, and some of her friends have taken their performances online to livestreaming

platforms.

The second of Chan’s two mottos is “opportunities are only for those who are prepared”, and she is preparing herself to be ready to go when performance venues can open again.

Although this motto gives her an incentive to work, Chan recently had to hit pause on her singing lessons with a lady in her 80s who studied at the Shenyang Conservatory of Music. Although the teacher is based in Hong Kong, “singing lessons over an online medium are difficult vis-à-vis lessons done in person,” Chan said.

Locally educated at the University of Hong Kong, Chan obtained both a Bachelor of Laws and a Postgraduate Certificate in Laws from the institution. She was then admitted as a solicitor of the High Court of Hong Kong and as a Legal Practitioner in Australia in the states of New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania. In addition, Chan is also on the Roll of Solicitors in the U.K. and is a Notary Public.

“IP found me,” Chan says, who worked for Wilkinson & Grist, working with fashion brands and other brands before making a switch from contentious to non-contentious IP. At Spruson & Ferguson, she is currently involved in trademark

Lady in white: May Chan performs in one of many recitals白衣淑女 : 陳德美在眾多獨唱會中的一場表演

• February 2021


知識產權律師陳德美的演唱人生

prosecution, opposition and invalidation proceedings in China, Hong Kong, Macau and other Asian regions including Taiwan, Japan and Korea.

With days involving over 100 deadlines running simultaneously, a lot of firm management and looking after her client’s portfolio, Chan has learnt the art of spacing out and prioritizing her work. “There is urgency to get the work done, but not at the fire-engine level, which gives me more time for singing rehearsals,” she said.

In order to strike a balance between work and play, Chan “works hard but plays harder.” Although her passion necessitates the occasional days off work, most rehearsals take place in the

evenings after working hours.

The opportunity to perform has clashed with work obligations in the past. Chan wistfully recalled one occasion where an opportunity to perform in Hong Kong clashed with an annual work conference in the U.S. that she was obligated to attend. “There was no way that I could make all the rehearsals and be ready to perform on time,” she said.

A member of the Hong Kong Law Society, Chan has participated in some extracurricular activities offered in the past such as using the band room where members could jam to music. She was keen to join the tennis lessons on offer but could not find the time.

On a professional front, Chan participated in providing pro-bono legal advice a few years ago and took continuing professional development courses when they were offered by the society. “HKLS is a good platform for fellow practitioners to meet,” she said.

In keeping with her two mottos, Chan continues to seek new adventures and challenges. She does not rule out the possibility of learning Cantonese opera.

However, music will always hold a special place in Chan’s heart. “Singing makes me happy, which is apparently backed by science although I can’t give you a citation! I can easily go on a natural high after just a little singing,” she said.

文：湯森路透

試想像自己在舞台上，台下的

聽眾等著你開口唱歌，演釋

歌詞。然後，想像幾個小時

後在會議室與客戶開會，解決他們的

知識產權需求。

思浦盛知識產權有限公司特別顧問

陳德美成功兼顧唱歌的興趣和知識

產權律師的事業。

陳律師出生於音樂世家，母親是音樂

老師，表親曾發行 CD，還贏過「香

港作曲家及作詞家協會」獎項，他們

會在家庭聚會中創作音樂，難怪陳律

師如此熱愛音樂。

陳律師在十年前開始個人演唱，最近

一次是在去年 11 月舉行的音樂會。

除了在各音樂會演出外，她還替香港

歌劇院和 Musica Viva 歌劇作品的合

唱團合唱。

這些演出使她對國際古典音樂界有

更深的了解，綵排也是向國際歌劇歌

手學習的好機會。她說：「我可免費

聽他們演唱最著名的歌劇，而且總

是得到最好的位置，那就是在舞台

上。」

在她的眾多表演中，令她印象最深刻

的是首次演出女高音歌劇和香港大

學法律學院校友會的表演。

她首次演出歌劇是 2018 年在香

港歌劇社的 Johann Strauss II's Die Fledermaus 中扮演 Prince Orlovsky。表演在香港大會堂舉行，標誌著她歌

唱事業的重要里程碑。

香港大學法律學院校友會的演出同

樣在 2018 年，涉及 40 多人的大型

合唱團和樂團，其中大多數人來自法

律界。陳律師最近一次演唱了 Adele的 Rolling in the Deep，過去亦曾與他

們表演過三、四次獨唱。

另一場令她印象深刻的表演，是於

2020 年 2 月首次在倫敦演唱，陳律

師與單簧管和鋼琴演奏家朋友，在

Guild Church of St Dunstan-in-the-West免費表演。

陳律師承認，她並不經常練歌，「除

了與各樂團綵排，大概每週練歌一

次」。她的鄰居「忍受我在家練歌，

或者像熟悉音樂的朋友所說，進行

『控制的尖叫』」。他們甚至出席

了她的一些音樂會。她補充說：「在

推廣唱歌方面，我沒有做任何特別的

工作，在個人社交媒體上發帖分享我

February 2021 • LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情


對唱歌的熱愛，大概能吸引人們的興

趣。」

陳律師曾跟隨香港和倫敦的聲樂老

師學習唱歌。為了進一步提升技巧，

她於 2016 年獲得倫敦京士頓大學一

級榮譽音樂學士學位，並獲得皇家音

樂學院和聖三一學院的演唱文憑。

她相信「人人均可以唱歌」，並建議

有志者可以從參加合唱團開始。她

說：「合唱團很好玩，又充滿挑戰性，

可以結交很多朋友，甚至找到終身伴

侶和一世的好友。」

歌詞對歌曲起著關鍵作用，所以陳律

師也一直研究語調，以便能更好地理

解發音、重音節、語法和歌詞的細微

差別，從而使歌曲更具表現力。

十幾歲時曾學習法語，對她唱

Gabriel Fauré 和 Francis Poulenc 等作

曲家的旋律有所幫助。過去幾年，修

讀歌德學院的課程，也幫助陳律師

掌握德語歌曲，德語是西方古典音

樂的主要語言。她說：「我喜歡唱

Franz Schubert、Robert Schumann、Johannes Brahms 和 Hugo Wolf 等作

曲家的作品。」

理解自己唱甚麼，向聽眾傳達

內涵，對陳律師而言很重要。

語言技巧對律師也很重要，它

與理解和分析能力，作為音樂

家和歌手亦可受用。其他兩

者皆適用的技巧包括應付工

作壓力和團體工作。她指出，

許多律師和醫生都在工餘時

間玩音樂。

另一項受律師歡迎的活動是

芭蕾舞。陳律師每週會上一至

兩堂成人芭蕾舞初班，以改善

體態，在舞台上的姿態動作

增添優雅和自信。包括自己在

內，她認識七個跳芭蕾舞的律

師。

幾年前，在一次韓國之旅中，

陳律師認識到韓國歌劇男高音

Alfred Kim 的音樂，並立即愛

上了它。她的播放列表的其他音樂流

派還包括 K-pop 和搖滾。她亦喜歡和

家人和朋友一起唱卡拉 OK。

陳律師的兩個座右銘之一是「認真玩

樂」，這符合她對自己的描述，即

「有一點」天賦、非常外向，亦非常

內向。她是 Myers Brigg 測試的外向、

感覺、情感、理解的表演者人格。在

Enneagram 個性測試中，她的得分也

達到 6 分 ( 或忠誠主義者 / 7 分 ) 或

愛好者。

2019 年下半年在香港發生的抗議活

動，以及疫情目前在香港進入第四

波，嚴重限制了陳律師的現場演唱機

會，她有朋友把表演帶到直播平台。

陳律師的第二個座右銘是「機會只留

給有準備的人」，她正在裝備自己，

為現場演出再次開放作好準備。

儘管這個座右銘激勵她工作，但陳律

師最近不得不暫停唱歌課，老師是一

位 80 幾歲、曾就讀沈陽音樂學院的

老太太。陳律師說，雖然老師住在香

港，但「網上上課比親自授課難」。

陳律師在香港大學修讀，並獲得港大

法學學士學位和法學研究生證書。其

後，她獲委任為香港高等法院律師，

並獲新南威爾士、南澳洲、塔斯曼尼

亞的澳洲律師資格。此外，她亦獲列

入英國律師名冊，並且擔任公證人。

她說：「知識產權找到了我。」她曾

在 Wilkinson & Grist 工作，與時尚品

牌和其他品牌合作，然後從有爭議性

知識產權轉向非爭議性的知識產權

問題。在思浦盛知識產權有限公司，

她目前負責中國、香港、澳門和其他

亞洲地區 ( 包括台灣、日本和韓國 )

的商標起訴、異議和無效訴訟。

由於要處理眾多事務、公司管理和客

戶組合，陳律師學會了分配時間和先

後次序。她說：「工作有迫切需要完

成，但不是十萬火急，我能騰出更多

時間綵排。」

為了在工作和娛樂之間取得平衡，陳

律師「努力工作，但更努力玩樂」。

雖然她的愛好令她偶爾要休假，但大

多數綵排都是在下班後晚上進行。

以往曾出現表演機會與工作撞期的

情況。她回想起有一次在香港演出的

機會與在美國舉行的年度工作會議

撞期。她說：「我不可能參加所有綵

排和及時準備好演出。」

陳律師是香港律師會的會員，過去曾

參加律師會的活動，例如使用音樂

室，讓會員一起玩音樂。她想參加律

師會的網球班，無奈抽不出時間。

在專業方面，陳律師幾年前參與公益

法律諮詢，一有機會便參加律師會提

供的專業發展課程。她說：「律師會

是從業者互相認識的好平台。」

遵照她的兩個座右銘，陳律師繼續尋

求新的冒險和挑戰。她不排除學習粵

劇的可能性。

然而，音樂將永遠在她心中佔有特殊

地位。她說：「唱歌令使我開心，這

時有科學根據的，雖然我無法說得出

來！只需唱一下歌，我就會自然快樂

起來。」

May Chan in full singing mode during the same recital

陳德美在同一場獨唱會中以全演唱模式演唱

• February 2021


法學院新聞

CAMPUS VOICES

終審法院首席法官馬道立御任後出任香港大學法律學院名譽教授香港大學法律學院深感榮幸，邀得終審法院首席法官馬道

立於卸任後出任名譽教授，任期由 2020 年 1 月 12 日起生效。

隨著馬法官卸任，法律界及學術界正回顧其任內各項成就，

同時各界亦不忘他對法律教育的承擔。早在 2000 年加入香

港司法機構之先，當時仍是大律師的馬法官，自 1987 年起

已在港大法律學院法律專業學系擔任名譽講師，三十多年

來不遺餘力地與院內師生分享專業知識和經驗。而為表揚

其對香港及法治的重大貢獻，香港大學於 2019 年向馬法官

頒授名譽法學博士學位。

馬道立首席法官一直支持港大及法律學院的工作，特別於

學院金禧院慶期間，為揭幕禮及周年晚宴擔任嘉賓及致辭。

法律學院院長傅華伶高度讚揚馬法官的多年貢獻。學院亦

深感榮幸，期待與學生同領教益。

The Hon Chief Justice Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Appointed as Honorary Professor of the HKU LawThe Faculty is proud to announce the appointment of The Hon Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao Li, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, as Honorary Professor of the Faculty. His appointment commences on 12 Jan 2021.

While the legal profession and academia have been paying tribute to the legacy of Chief Justice Ma as he is stepping down, we should also remember the special commitment of the Chief Justice to legal education. Long before joining the bench in 2000, Chief Justice Ma, a then successful barrister, served as an Honorary Lecturer in the Department of Professional Legal Education of the Faculty of Law from 1987 - generously sharing his expertise and experience with students and faculty members for over three decades. In recognition of his contributions to Hong Kong and the rule of law, the University conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws honoris causa in 2019.

The Chief Justice has been supportive of the University and the Faculty, especially the Faculty’s Golden Jubilee Celebration, where he spoke so well as the Guest of Honour at the Kick-Off Ceremony and the Gala Dinner.

The Faculty is honoured to have Chief Justice Ma as an Honorary Professor. Professor Hualing Fu, Dean of Law commended the Chief Justice highly for his long-term contributions. We look forward to his deeply informed sharing which will inspire and enlighten future lawyers.

Chief Justice Ma and law students at Gala Dinner celebrating the 50th Anniversary of HKU Law.馬道立首席法官與法律學生於港大法律學院金禧院慶晚宴留影。

February 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞


香港大學法律學院恭賀張舉能校友獲委任為首位本地培訓之終審法院首席法官香港大學法律學院恭賀張舉能校友，獲委任為香港特別行政區第三任終審法院首席法官，任期由 2021 年 1 月 11 日開始。

張法官在香港出生和接受教育。他在香港大學攻讀法律，分別於 1983 年及 1984 年取得法學士學位和法學專業證書，

其後成為成功的大律師。他於 2001 年加入司法機構，多年來深受法律界人士敬重。

張法官為首位本地培訓之終審法院首席法官，實為學院及本地法律教育之里程碑。

港大及法律學院再度恭賀張法官，謹祝他一切順利。

Seven academics across different academic backgrounds from The University of Hong Kong were awarded under the inaugural Research Fellow Scheme (RFS) and Senior Research Fellow Scheme (SRFS) of the Research Grants Council (RGC), for their distinguished research achievements and significant contributions to the higher education sector. The schemes aim to provide sustained support and relief from teaching and administrative duties to exceptionally outstanding researchers at University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded universities in Hong Kong. The Faculty congratulates Professor Douglas Arner on his conferment as one of the four RGC inaugural Senior Research Fellows.

法律學院嘉里基金教授（法學）Douglas Arner 獲頒研資局首屆高級研究學者香港大學有七位來自不同學術領域的學者，在研資局首屆高級研究學者計劃和研

究學者計劃中獲獎，其中四位獲頒研資局高級研究學者，三位獲頒研究學者獎。

兩個計劃旨在為卓越的副教授級和教授級學者提供教學及行政職務方面的持續支

援，每年各頒發 10 個獲獎名額。計劃涵蓋所有學科。學院恭賀獲頒高級研究學者的

Douglas Arner 教授。

HKU Law Welcomes the First Homegrown Chief Justice of The HKSAR – Andrew Cheung The Faculty is delighted and honoured to welcome its alumnus Andrew Cheung Kui Nung, as the third Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of the HKSAR (with effect from 11 January 2021).

Born and educated in Hong Kong, Chief Justice Cheung read law at The University of Hong Kong, obtaining a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1983 and a Postgraduate Certificate in Laws in 1984. He was a highly successful barrister in private practice. Since he joined the bench in 2001, he has commanded wide respect from the legal community.

The Cheung Court is a milestone in the history of both the Faculty and local legal education as Chief Justice Cheung is the first locally trained Chief Justice.

The University and the Faculty applaud the appointment of Chief Justice Cheung and wish him every success.

Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, the then Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, giving the Common Law Lecture in 2019.終審法院首席法官張舉能 ( 時任常任法官 ) 於 2019年主講普通法講座。

Kerry Holdings Professor in Law Douglas Arner Conferred as RGC Inaugural Senior Research Fellow

• February 2021


Professor Douglas Wayne ARNER, Kerry Holdings Professor in Law and Director, Asian Institute of International Financial Law, Faculty of Law

Project title: Digital Finance, Financial Inclusion and Sustainability: Building Better Financial Systems

Professor Arner is the Kerry Holdings Professor in Law and Director and co-founder of the Asian Institute of International Financial Law at the University of Hong Kong. Professor Arner has published 18 books and more than 200 articles, chapters and reports on international financial law and regulation, including recently Reconceptualising Global Finance and its Regulation (Cambridge 2016) and The RegTech Book (Wiley 2019). He is one of the top 1% of all authors on SSRN, where his work has been downloaded more than 100,000 times. From 2012-2018, Professor Arner coordinated an RGC Theme-based Research Scheme project on Hong Kong’s role and future as an international financial centre. He leads Introduction to FinTech – launched with edX in May 2018 and now with over 80,000 learners spanning every country in the world. Professor Arner has advised on financial sector development projects around the world, as an advisor to, among others, the UN, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, APEC, Alliance for Financial Inclusion, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He has lectured and co-organised conferences and events across Asia-Pacific, Europe, North America and Africa, and has been a visiting professor at Duke, Harvard, McGill, Melbourne, NUS, UNSW, and Zurich, among others.

法律學院嘉里基金教授（法學）及香港大學亞洲國際金

融法研究院主任教授 Douglas Arner教授

研究項目：Digital Finance, Financial Inclusion and Sustainability: Building Better Financial Systems

Douglas Arner 教授是港大法律學院嘉里基金教授（法

學）和香港大學亞洲國際金融法研究院主任及共同創辦

人。Arner 教授一共出版了 18 本書及發表了 200 多篇關

於國際金融法和法規的文章、篇章和報告。其近期著

作為 2016 年的“Reconceptualising Global Finance and its Regulation” 及 2019 年的“The RegTech Book”。Arner教授是社會科學研究網（SSRN）排名首 1% 的作者之

一，而他的研究在該網站被下載超過 10 萬次。在 2012年至 2018 年期間，Arner 教授統籌了一項香港研究資助

局主題研究計劃，探討香港作為國際金融中心的角色

和未來。他更領導開辦了 Introduction to FinTech 網上課

程，課程由 2018 年 5 月開辦至今，目前有超過 80,000名來自世界各地的學習者。Arner 教授為多個金融領域

的發展項目提供過專業意見，並於世界銀行、亞洲開發

銀行、亞太經濟合作組織、金融普惠聯盟和歐洲復興開

發銀行擔任顧問。他致力講學，聯合開辦了研討會和講

座，並參與世界各地的金融改革項目。他亦於杜克大

學、哈佛大學、麥基爾大學、墨爾本大學、新加坡國立

大學、新南威爾士大學和蘇黎世大學等擔任客座教授。

HKU Master of Laws Application for Entry in 2021-2022HKU Master of Laws (LLM) programmes are now accepting applications for admission in 2021-2022. Whether you are interested in the cutting-edge legal issues, or researching on an emerging area of interest, HKU has programmes to meet your needs. Please visit https://llm.law.hku.hk/ and https://aal.hku.hk/tpg/ for details and revisit the individual information sessions. Application will close at HKT 12:00 noon, Friday, 1 March 2021.

• LLM

• LLM in Arbitration and Dispute Resolution

• LLM in Chinese Law

• LLM in Compliance and Regulation

• LLM in Corporate and Financial Law

• LLM in Human Rights

• LLM in Technology and Intellectual Property Law

• LLM in Medical Ethics and Law



香港大學法學碩士課程（2021-2022 年度入學）現正招生香港大學法律學院提供一系列法學碩

士課程，主修範圍包括仲裁及排解爭

端法、公司法與金融法、中國法、合

規和監管、人權法、醫學倫理與法

律、科技及知識產權法。課程網羅最

新的法律議題及新興的研究範圍，理

論及實踐並重。2021-2022 年度法學

碩士課程現正招生，截止報名日期為

2021 年 3 月 1 日中午 12 時，請瀏覽

https://llm.law.hku.hk/ 及 https://aal.hku.hk/tpg/及重温各課程簡介講座。

CCTL Comparative Constitutional Law Research Forum - New Book Series

The Comparative Constitutional Law Research Forum of CUHK LAW’s Centre for Comparative and Transnational Law (CCTL) engages with global scholarship on comparative constitutional law. Members of the cluster group will be producing a new book series with Hart (Bloomsbury) on Asian Comparative Constitutional Law. The series will comprise four volumes, including:

• Asian Comparative Constitutional Law Volume 1- Constitution-Making (expected 2022) edited by Professors Ngoc Son BUI and Mara MALAGODI.

• Asian Comparative Constitutional Law Volume 2- Constitutional Amendments (expected 2023) edited by Professors Ngoc Son BUI and Mara MALAGODI.

CCTL 比較憲法研究論壇 —— 新書系列

中大法律學院比較法與跨國法研究中心（CCTL）

的比較憲法研究論壇專責有關比較憲法的全球學

術研究。該小組成員將與 Hart（Bloomsbury）出

版社合作出版一系列有關亞洲比較憲法的新書，

新書系列共有四卷，包括：

• 《亞洲比較憲法第一卷：憲法制定》（預計

2022 年出版），Ngoc Son BUI 教授及 Mara MALAGODI 教授合編。

• 《亞洲比較憲法第二卷：憲法修正》（預計

2023 年出版），Ngoc Son BUI 教授及 Mara MALAGODI 教授合編。

CUHK LAW Centre for Comparative and Transnational Law (CCTL)中大法律學院比較法與跨國法研究中心（CCTL）

• February 2021


• Asian Comparative Constitutional Law Volume 3- Constitutional Structure (expected 2024) edited by Professors Ngoc Son BUI, Mara MALAGODI and Christopher ROBERTS.

• Asian Comparative Constitutional Law Volume 4- Constitutional Rights (expected 2025) edited by Professors Rehan ABEYRATNE, Ngoc Son BUI and Mara MALAGODI.

• 《亞洲比較憲法第三卷：憲法結構》（預計 2024年出版），Ngoc Son BUI 教授、Mara MALAGODI教授及 Christopher ROBERTS 教授合編。

• 《亞洲比較憲法第四卷：憲法權利》（預計 2025年出版），Rehan ABEYRATNE 教授、Ngoc Son BUI 教授及 Mara MALAGODI 教授合編。

CCTL Obligations Lab Asia – Conference on “Pacta Sunt Servanda in Changing Times”

The concept pacta sunt servanda (=agreements are to be kept) is regarded as the basis of all modern contract law regimes. And yet, the well-known differences between the civil law and the common law approach, as well as demands in recent years for relief of contract parties in times of crisis, call the fundamentals of pacta sunt servanda into question. In addition, as a concept developed in the West, it is time to assess how pacta sunt servanda is understood in other parts of the world.

To explore related issues with a focus on private law the CCTL Obligations Lab Asia at CUHK LAW will hold an online conference on “Pacta Sunt Servanda in Changing Times” on 25 June 2021.

The Honorable Mr. Geoffrey MA Tao-li, GBM, former Chief Justice of the Hong Kong SAR, will be the keynote speaker of the conference.

CCTL 亞洲義務實驗室 ——「時代變遷中的有約必守原則」學術會議

「Pacta sunt servanda」（有約必守原則）此概念被視為

當今所有合約法制度的基礎。然而，民事法與普通法方

向之間眾所周知的差異，以及近幾年在危機時期要求解

除合約方的做法，都使有約必守的基本原則受到質疑。

此外，作為西方國家建立的概念，現在是時候評估世界

其他地方對有約必守原則的理解。

為了探討相關議題，尤其私法方面，中大法律學院比較

法與跨國法研究中心的亞洲義務實驗室將於 2021 年 6月 25 日召開網上會議，主題是「時代變遷中的有約必

守原則」。

香港終審法院前首席法官馬道立先生 GMB 將擔任會議

的演講嘉賓。

Call for Papers (Abstract Submission Deadline: 15 March 2021)

CUHK LAW now invites proposals for papers to be presented at the conference on any aspect of pacta sunt servanda (PSS), including:

• Historical features of PSS

• PSS from a comparative perspective

• PSS and AI

• PSS in times of crisis

• PSS and international contract regimes

• Area-specific limits on PSS (consumer protection law, labor law, banking and finance law, etc.)

• PSS in Asian jurisdictions

• PSS in private and public international law

Paper proposals on the status of PSS in Asian jurisdictions and paper proposals which challenge traditional PSS positions are especially welcome.

For details, please visit the conference website: www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/conf/2021/pacta_sunt_servanda



會議徵文（截止日期：2021 年 3 月 15 日）

學院現邀請有意在會議發表論文的人士提交案文提要，內容可包括：

• 有約必守原則的歷史特徵

• 從比較角度看有約必守原則

• 有約必守原則與人工智能

• 在危機時期的有約必守原則

• 有約必守原則和國際合約制度

• 有約必守原則的特定區域限制（消費者保護法、勞動法、銀行法和金融法等）

• 亞洲地區的有約必守原則

• 國際私法和公法中的有約必守原則

會議尤其歡迎有關有約必守原則在亞洲地區的地位，以及挑戰

傳統有約必守原則立場的論文提案。

詳情請瀏覽會議網站：www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/conf/2021/pacta_

sunt_servanda

CUHK LAW Professor Mara Malagodi Selected as Global Columnist of ICONnect Blog for 2021CUHK LAW Professor Mara MALAGODI has been selected as Global Columnist of the prestigious International Journal of Constitutional Law (ICONnect) Blog for 2021.

ICONnect is a highly influential online forum for global developments and debates within the field of comparative constitutional law. It provides a diverse set of voices for readers, representing a range of regional and substantive areas of focus.

Read Professor Malagodi’s first column for the Blog, “International Assistance to Constitution Making between Principle and Expediency”, at https://bit.ly/2XVUva2.

中大法律學院 Mara Malagodi教授獲選為 ICONnect Blog 2021 年全球專欄作家中大法律學院 Mara MALAGODI 教授獲享負盛名的國際憲

法法學期刊《International Journal of Constitutional Law》

（ICONnect）選為其 ICONnect 博客的 2021 年全球專欄作

家。

ICONnect 是個非常具影響力的網上論壇，專研比較憲法的

全球發展和討論，就不同地區和社會關注的重大領域，為

讀者帶來不同的聲音。

參看 Mara Malagodi 教授於該博客的第一篇專欄文章「憲

法制定的國際援助：在原則與權宜之間」：https://bit.ly/2XVUva2

• February 2021


6th Year Greater China Legal History Seminar Series 2020-21六周年大中華區法律史研討會系列 2020-21

CUHK LAW’s Greater China Legal History Seminar Series serves as a forum to discuss the historical development of a great variety of legal issues of interest in the Greater China region. The 6th year series has so far hosted four seminars, covering topics in administrative law, conservative state theory and tax

law with the latest seminar held on 22 January 2021 on the topic “Toppling Statues and Changing Names – Does the Law Protect Embarrassing or Awkward Heritage in Hong Kong?”, attracting over 460 registrations.

Watch all the videos of the Greater China Legal History seminars held in the past at www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/app/greater-china.

[Upcoming] “The History of Central Banking in Hong Kong, Mainland China and Singapore” (26 February 2021)

Central banking plays a central part in a modern economy. Central banking institutions are typically entrusted with the making and/or implementation of monetary policy that seeks to strike a delicate balance between sometimes competing objectives, such as price stability (“healthy” inflation), employment (reasonably low unemployment), and economic growth (in particular sustainable growth). They also play an important role in ensuring the stability of the financial infrastructure and system in an economy. In some jurisdictions, central banking institutions are also tasked with supervising commercial banks and other financial institutions. The Global Financial Crisis in 2008-9 and the still ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have thrust central banking into the spotlight, as their operations bear prominently on financial markets and social welfare and must therefore be subject to public accountability.

The next online Greater China Legal History Seminar “The History of Central Banking in Hong Kong, Mainland China and Singapore” to be held on 26 February 2021 offers a look into the historical trajectories of central banking in three of the major Asian economies: Hong Kong, Mainland China and Singapore. The speakers, Ms. Lillian CHEUNG (Hong Kong Monetary Authority), Professor Chao XI (CUHK LAW), and Professor Christian HOFMANN (National University of Singapore) will share their insights into how central banking has evolved in these three economies in their own unique historical, economic, social and political settings. The

【下一場研討會】「香港、中國內地和新加坡的中央銀行歷史」（2021 年 2 月 26 日）

中央銀行在現代經濟中起著核心作用。中央

銀行機構通常負責制定及／或實施貨幣政

策，並在間中互相競爭的目標之間尋求微妙

的平衡，例如價格穩定（「健康」的通貨膨

脹）、就業（合理的低失業率）和經濟增長

（特別是可持續增長）。它們在確保經濟體

系中金融基礎設施和系統的穩定性方面亦發

揮著重要作用。在某些司法管轄區，中央銀

行機構還負責監督商業銀行和其他金融機構。

2008-9 年的全球金融危機和仍在大流行的新

冠肺炎疫情使中央銀行成為人們關注的焦點，

因其運作主要取決於金融市場和社會福利，

因此必須接受公眾問責。

下一場大中華區法律史研討會「香港，中國

內地和新加坡的中央銀行歷史」，將於 2021年 2 月 26 日在網上舉行。研討會將討論亞洲

三個主要經濟體的中央銀行歷史軌跡，包括

香港、中國內地和新加坡。主講人張麗玲女

士（香港金融管理局）、習超教授（中大法

中大法律學院「大中華區法律史研討會系列」

提供平台討論大中華區各項社會關注的法律

議題。六周年系列現已舉行四場研討會，主題

涵蓋行政法、保守國家理論和稅法等，最新一

場研討會於 2021 年 1 月 22 日舉行，主題是「推

倒雕塑和改名換姓——香港的法律保護那些

敏感的歷史遺跡嗎？」，吸引逾 460 人報名

參加。

重溫過往舉行的所有大中華區法律史研討會

影片：www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/app/greater-china



seminar therefore provides a historical lens through which the relevance and challenges of central banking in the three economies are better understood.

For details and registration, please visit https://bit.ly/3nXImff.

律學院）和 Christian HOFMANN 教授（新加坡國立大學）

將就中央銀行在這三個經濟體的歷史、經濟、社會和政

治背景的演變分享他們的見解。因此，研討會將從歷史

視角，更好地了解此三地中央銀行的相關性及挑戰。

詳情及報名，請瀏覽：https://bit.ly/3nXImff

Date

日期

Upcoming Greater China Legal History Seminars 2020-21 大中華區法律史研討會 2020-21 活動預告

Upcoming Seminars: 研討會預告：

26 February 2021The History of Central Banking in Hong Kong, Mainland China and Singapore 香港、中國內地和新加坡的中央銀行歷史

19 March 2021From Waqf, Ancestor Worship to the Rise of the Global Trust: A History of the Use of the Trust as a Vehicle for Wealth Transfer in Singapore 從宗教公產、祖先崇拜到全球信託的興起：使用信託作為新加坡財富轉移工具的歷史

Past Seminars: 研討會回顧：

18 September 2020

Feeding the Emperor – Administrative Law in Tang Dynasty China皇帝用膳 ——中國唐代的行政法

[Watch video: https://bit.ly/3oNwWvS]

9 October 2020

Carl Schmitt and the Development of Conservative State Theory in ChinaCarl Schmitt 和中國保守國家理論的發展

[Watch video: https://bit.ly/3nGP3Cj]

27 November 2020

The History of Hong Kong’s Tax Law System香港稅法制度的歷史

[Watch video: https://bit.ly/38EmAsx]

22 January 2021

Toppling Statues and Changing Names – Does the Law Protect Embarrassing or Awkward Heritage in Hong Kong?推倒雕塑和改名換姓——香港的法律保護那些敏感的歷史遺跡嗎？

[Watch video: https://bit.ly/3oVVAe1]

• February 2021


Other Seminars其他研討會

Public Seminar: “Judicial Review in Planning Law in Hong Kong”

CUHK LAW successfully organised an online Public Seminar “Judicial Review in Planning Law in Hong Kong” on 11 January 2021 by Mr. Benjamin Yu, SC with over 420 participants. The seminar focused on how the Hong Kong Courts apply public law principles and the Basic Law to ensure that planning in Hong Kong is carried out in accordance with the law, both substantively and procedurally.

公開研討會：「香港規劃法司法覆核」

中大法律學院於 2021 年 1 月 11 日成功舉辦「香港規劃法司法覆核」網

上研討會，主講人是余若海資深大律師，吸引逾 420 人出席。研討會重

點討論香港法院如何運用公法原則和《基本法》，確保香港的規劃依法

進行，包括實質上和程序上。

Mr. Benjamin Yu, SC (middle) with CUHK LAW Dean Professor Lutz-Christian Wolff (left) and CUHK LAW students.余若海資深大律師 ( 中 ) 與中大法律學院院長鄔楓教授 ( 左 ) 和中大法律學院學生合照。

Public seminar “Judicial Review in Planning Law in Hong Kong” delivered by Mr. Benjamin Yu, SC at his Chamber.余若海資深大律師在其律師樓透過網上主講「香港規劃法司法覆核」研討會。

Property Law Seminar: “The End to Testamentary Freedom”

CUHK LAW hosted the online Property Law Seminar “The End to Testamentary Freedom” by Dr. Richard HEDLUND of Lincoln Law School on 13 January 2021. With over 320 registrations, this seminar examined the parliamentary proceedings in the UK Parliament from 1928 and 1938 that led to the enactment of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938, looking at the arguments presented by the proponents and opponents of the rule. The seminar placed the 1938 Act in the political, cultural, social, and economic context of the times, from the Enlightenment philosophers who promoted individualism, to the great social reforms of the Victorians, and women’s suffrage and the reassessment of marriage as an equal partnership in the 20th century.

財產法研討會：「遺囑自由的終結」

中大法律學院於 2021 年 1 月 13 日舉行「遺囑自由的終結」財產法

網上研討會，主講人是英國林肯大學 Richard Hedlund 博士，吸引

逾 320 人報名參加。該研討會通過檢視支持者和反對者提出的論

點，探討 1928 年和 1938 年開始在英國國會中促成制定 1938 年《繼

Dr. Richard HEDLUND from Lincoln Law School英國林肯大學 Richard Hedlund 博士。.



Recent PublicationsProfessor Lutz-Christian WOLFF, CUHK LAW Dean, has published a new book “The Art of Law Teaching” (Springer, Singapore, 2021). The book explains different facets of law teaching on the basis of over 25 years of experience as a law teacher in different jurisdictions. Details are available at https://bit.ly/3nFGg3t.

• “The Long Arm of State Aid Law: Crushing Corporate Tax Avoidance” in Fordham International Law Journal by Professor Sandra MARCO COLINO. Full article: https://bit.ly/2LmD2Fc 〈The Long Arm of State Aid Law: Crushing Corporate Tax Avoidance〉，《Fordham International Law Journal》，Sandra MARCO COLINO 教授著。全文：https://bit.ly/2LmD2Fc

• “The Monetization of Investment Claims Promises and Pitfalls of Third-Party Funding in Investor-State Arbitration” in Delaware Journal of Corporate Law co-authored by PhD student Can EKEN. Full article: https://bit.ly/3qfZmPp〈The Monetization of Investment Claims Promises and Pitfalls of Third-Party Funding in Investor-State Arbitration〉，《Delaware Journal of Corporate Law》，PhD 學生易知恩先生合著。全文：https://bit.ly/3qfZmPp

• “Pecuniary Penalties for Anti-Competitive Conduct: Absolutely Deterrent?” in Hong Kong Law Journal (2020) Vol. 50 co-authored by LLB graduate and PCLL student Joshua YEUNG. Full abstract: https://bit.ly/2LOuLtu〈Pecuniary Penalties for Anti-Competitive Conduct: Absolutely Deterrent?〉，《香港法律學刊》（2020年第 50 卷），LLB 畢業生及 PCLL 學生楊璟麟先生合著。摘要：https://bit.ly/2LOuLtu

近期出版中大法律學院院長鄔楓教授的新書《法律教學的藝術》（Springer ，新加坡，2021 年）已經出版。該書以作者 25 年

來在不同司法管轄區教授法律的經驗為基礎，解釋法律教學的不同方面。詳情請瀏覽：https://bit.ly/3nFGg3t

學院將於 2021 年 3 月 17 日下午 6 時舉行新書發佈會活動，屆時一眾專家將討論新冠肺炎後法律教育的未來。詳情及

報名，請瀏覽：https://bit.ly/2LWAgq8

承（家庭條款）法令》的議會程序。研討會從提

倡個人主義的啟蒙哲學家到維多利亞時代的社會

大改革，以及 20 世紀婦女的選舉權和重新評估

婚姻作為平等的伙伴關係，將 1938 年法令置於

當時的政治、文化、社會和經濟的背景進行討

論。

In addition, the following CUHK LAW members have their recent articles published: 此外，中大法律學院成員最近亦出版了以下文章：

A Book Launch event will be held on 17 March 2021, 6pm with leading experts to discuss the future of legal education post COVID-19. For details and registration, please visit https://bit.ly/2LWAgq8.

• February 2021


Happy Chinese New Year 2021!Kung Hei Fat Choi! CUHK LAW wishes everyone a healthy, happy and prosperous Year of the Ox!

2021 新春快樂！恭喜發財！中大法律學院祝賀所有朋友牛年快樂，身體

健康，萬事如意！

City University School of Law Students Shared Love and Warmth With Children Witnesses of Domestic Violence and Children From Low-income Families During the Christmas Season – “See You Zoom See You Soon” Online English Storytelling Classes and Christmas PartySince 2015, CityU law students and alumni have been participating in a number of service projects for children and teenager witnesses of domestic violence living at Serene Court, a women’s shelter for domestic violence victims, of the Christian Family Services Centre (“CFSC”). Such projects included School of Law students and alumni acting as mentors and accompanying these children to purchase books at the Hong Kong Book Fair, a mentoring scheme for secondary school students and Christmas parties. These activities have benefited more than 200 children and teenagers, allowing them to feel the love and concerns from the volunteers while living in the shadows of domestic violence.

城大法律學院學生於聖誕假期間予目睹家暴兒童及低收入家庭兒童分享愛與關懷「See You Zoom See You Soon」線上英語故事班及聖誕聯歡會基督教家庭服務中心轄下的恬寧居婦女庇護中心乃是一個專為

受家暴影響婦女而設的庇護中心。自 2015 年起，城大法律學

院學生及校友已積極參與為現居或曾居於恬寧居的兒童及青

少年舉辦的不同義工服務，這包括城大法律系學生及校友當導

師陪伴學童於書展選購課外書、中學生師友計劃及聖誕聯歡會

等。這些活動讓超過 200 位兒童及青少年受惠，讓他們在家庭

暴力的陰霾下，能夠從義工身上感受到關愛。

An online English storytelling session with 2 law students as teachers and children from Tin Shui Wai.2 位法律學生作為線上英語故事班導師，教導一群居住在天水圍的兒童。



An online Christmas party for children in Tin Shui Wai.為居住在天水圍的兒童舉辦的線上聖誕聯歡會。

In the past year, the Covid-19 epidemic has not diminished the enthusiasm of CityU law students for public service. In September 2020, a number of law students attended a webinar jointly organized by the CityU School of Law Students’ Professional Development and Public Service Programme (“the Public Service Programme”) and the Children Family Services Division of CFSC to understand the needs of children witnesses of domestic violence as well as underprivileged and ethnic minority children. After this seminar, children from four families received online private tutoring from the law students for three months. This enabled the children to receive adequate learning support despite their lack of resources.

During the past Christmas and New Year break, the Public Service Programme joined hands with Serene Court and Tin Shui Wai Community Centre of CFSC again to serve the children in need in an activity entitled “See You Zoom See You Soon.” In this activity, 23 CityU law students provided a total of 12 online English storytelling sessions to some children witnesses of domestic violence staying or used to stay at Serene Court and children from low-income families living in Tin Shui Wai. 43 children participated in this activity. In each session, two volunteers read English story books around the themes of Christmas and good morals to a small group of children. Volunteers did not simply tell the stories but also encourage the children to reflect upon and discuss in English their thoughts on the contents and morals in these stories. Some of the stories were specially chosen in light of the needs of the participants. For example, most children affected by domestic violence lack confidence in their interactions with others. By discussing the book “If You Give A Moose A Muffin”, volunteers highlighted the importance of establishing trust in human relationships. They also shared their own experience in developing trusts in their friends thus providing a role model for these children.

在過去一年，城市大學法律系學生參與

服務的熱情並沒有受到疫情影響而減

退。在 2020 年 9 月，一群法律系學生

參與了由城大法律學院學生專業發展及

公共服務課程（「公共服務課程」）及

基督教家庭服務中心兒童及家庭服務部

舉辦的一個網上研討會，了解目睹家暴

兒童、低收入家庭兒童及少數族裔兒童

之需要。及後更有四個家庭之兒童獲得

義工提供為期三個月的線上私人補習，

讓兒童在匱乏的資源下仍能獲得適切的

學習援助。

公共服務課程在剛過去的聖誕節再度與

基督教家庭服務中心的恬寧居及天水

圍社區服務處合辦一個名為「See You Zoom See You Soon」的活動服務有需要

的兒童。是次活動有 23 位城大法律系學

生參加。他們於聖誕及新年假期間提供

了合共 12 堂的線上英語故事班予 43 位

現居或曾居於恬寧居的目睹家暴兒童及

居住於天水圍之低收入家庭兒童。每堂

故事班均有兩位義工跟小朋友讀有關聖

誕節及德育為主題的英語故事書。除了

講故事之外，義工們還特意鼓勵兒童反

思及用英語討論他們對這些故事內容的

看法及從中學到的道理。其中有些故事

是特別根據參與兒童的需要而選擇的，

例如，受家暴影響的兒童往往會在與人

的交往中缺乏信心。透過討論「If You Give a Moose A Muffin」這本故事書，義

工帶出人與人相處時要建立信任的重要

性，義工們亦在討論中分享自己與朋友

間互相信任的經驗，成為兒童的榜樣。

We have received very positive comments from both the children participants and volunteers. According to the children’s feedback questionnaire received by the Tin Shui Wai Community Centre, 100% of the participants agreed that this activity had helped them learn new English words and increased their interest in English. All of them were satisfied with this event and the performance by the volunteers. According to the feedback from the law student volunteers, most of them indicated that they felt happy in the service process and found this experience very meaningful as they could help children in need and bring them joy. They were grateful for the opportunity to participate in this activity and had learnt how to interact with children and be more patient. In particular, one law student wrote that through participating in this activity, “I was able to understand more about the less privileged.” Another wrote “I got to understand more about the children's situation, thus making me appreciate the things that I have right now.”

Besides the storytelling sessions, on Christmas Eve, Mrs. Fung, Adjunct Professor and founder of the Public Service Programme and volunteers also helped in an online Christmas party for the children in Tin Shui Wai. Activities in this party included singing of Christmas songs, story-telling and an art and craft session where each child made a Christmas tree. Hand-made Christmas cards and presents were also prepared and given to the children at Serene Court and in Tin Shui Wai. Hopefully all the time spent by the law students with the children together with the Christmas cards and presents could bring warmth to these children amidst the cold weather during this joyful Christmas season even though we all had to stay at home!

• February 2021


Children in Tin Shui Wai received presents prepared for them with love from the volunteers.居住在天水圍的兒童收到義工用心親手準備的聖誕禮物。

On 30th November 2020, The University of Law hosted a talk, as part of the Speaker Series, which was presented by Sharon Ser and Rita Ku of Withersworldwide.

Sharon is a Partner in the divorce and family team. She has been in Hong Kong for over 30 years and has worked on some of the most interesting family cases in the region. She focuses mainly on family matters and international divorce cases involving jurisdiction arguments and financial issues and it is some of these cases that were discussed during the talk.

Rita has practiced in Hong Kong for over 15 years, with many of her cases being very high profile and cross border cases, particularly with the PRC, such as ML v YJ [2010] HKEC 1924, which went to the Court of Final Appeal. This case changed the law in Hong Kong in respect of a party’s ability to apply for financial provision following a foreign decree.

Both lawyers shared what motivated them to enter the legal profession, the challenges they’ve faced, the interesting legal issues of jurisdiction, financial provision and recognizing contribution that is not financial, how children and parents from unmarried relationships fare in HK and many more family law issues facing their clients and the courts.

2020 年 11 月 30 日，英國法律大學 (ULaw) 的講座系列

舉辧了新一場演講，講者是來自 Withersworldwide 的

Sharon Ser 和 Rita Ku。

Sharon 是離婚和家事團隊的合夥人，在本港已經居住了

逾 30 年，曾承接過本地一些非常值得討論的家庭案件。

她的工作範疇主要涉及家庭事務和國際離婚個案，包括

管轄權爭議和財政問題，今次演講亦借用了其中一部分

案件作為討論例子。

至於 Rita 則在香港執業了超過 15 年，曾經承接過很多

備受外界關注的個案，其中有些更是與中國有關的跨境

案件，包括需要提交至終審法院審理的 ML v YJ [2010] HKEC 1924。這宗案件改變了在香港法律下，當事方可

否根據外國法令申請財政撥備的能力。

演講期間，兩位律師均分享了推動他們投身法律專業界

別的原因、過程中面對過的挑戰、管轄權、財政撥備和

非財政認可捐獻在法律上的有趣事項、香港未婚父母和

子女的遭遇，以及更多有關他們客戶和法院所面對的家

事法問題。

參與是次活動的兒童及義工均給予這次活動非常正面的回應。根據天水圍社

區服務處所收回的兒童回應表，所有參加的兒童同意活動可以讓他們認識到

新的英文生字及提升學習英語的興趣，他們都很滿意是次活動及義工的表

現。而根據法學院學生義工的回應表，大部份義工都形容參與是次服務很開

心，而且覺得是次活動非常有意義，因為他們能夠幫助有需要的兒童並為他

們帶來歡樂，他們感恩有機會參與其中，並從中學會如何與兒童相處及訓練

耐性。其中有一位法律學生指出：「我透過是次活動能了解更多弱勢社群的

情況及需要。」而另一位學生表示：「我對於這些兒童的處境有更多的了解，

從而使我懂得欣賞及珍惜我目前所擁有的東西。」

除了線上英語故事班外，公共服務課程創辦人兼客座教授馮女士及義工也幫

忙與天水圍社區服務處為居住在天水圍的兒童舉辦了一個線上聖誕聯歡會，

當中活動包括唱聖誕歌、講故事及製作聖誕樹的環節。他們更為居住於恬寧

居及天水圍的兒童親手準備了聖誕卡及禮物。希望這群小朋友收到這些聖誕

卡及禮物後，就算在寒冷的天氣下都能夠在家中享受一個愉快的聖誕節吧！



They shared how they entered the profession and how they entered into family law specifically, with some wonderful anecdotes which brought the talk to life as well as giving the participants a good insight into the role and importance of a family lawyer.

They both spoke about a number of cases which changed the law in Hong Kong. Sharon touched on White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, which had a major impact on the rights of spouses. and discussed further the case of LKW v DD (2010) which changed the law in HK, giving equal rights to both spouses. Throughout this case the HK court threw out the principle of “reasonable requirements” and instead used the new approach, as adopted through White v White of “equality of division”

Rita then talked about ML v YJ [2010] HKEC 1924 , which went to the Court of Final Appeal. This was a ground-breaking case, that changed the law in Hong Kong, in respect of a party’s ability to apply for financial provision, following a foreign decree.

They went on to discuss further cases giving greater insights into their work as a family lawyer and discussed some other fascinating cases, the last being a very recent decision which provided that a mistress of a deceased person could be entitled to a claim on the deceased’s estate to pay for legal fees when disputing their claims on an inheritance.

They also discussed the changes in the past year due to COVID-19 and how it has impacted the practice and the way lawyers conduct hearings and work on a daily basis. At the end they also gave some very helpful tips to the participants on the key elements on being a good family lawyer.

The talk was captivating and very enjoyable. Look out for the next in the speaker series in February 2021.

此外，兩位亦憶述了自己如何踏足相關專業，以及為何

專注於與家事法相關的工作。演說期間所加插的一些生

動軼事令演講更添趣味，同時觀眾亦對家庭律師的角色

和重要性有更深入的了解。

Sharon 和 Rita 分別提及了幾宗改變了香港法律的案件。

其中 Sharon 所分享的 White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 一

案，對配偶權利產生了巨大的影響；至於另一宗案件

LKW v DD (2010)，則賦予了夫妻雙方平等的權利，為香

港法律帶來了轉變。在整宗案件裡，香港法院捨棄了

「合理要求」的原則，取而代之運用了在 White v White一案中所採納的「平等劃分」這個新的方針來審理。

接著，Rita 討論到提交至終審法院審理的 ML v YJ [2010] HKEC 1924一案。這是一宗改變了香港法律的嶄新案件，

案中審理了當事方是否可根據外國法令來申請財政撥

備。

兩位講者隨後透過更多其他案件，分享了他們擔任家庭

律師的經驗，並且討論了一些其他值得探討的個案。其

中在最後提及的一宗近期案件裡，法庭判定死者的情婦

有權認領死者的遺產，以在爭論繼承權的認領問題時支

付法律費用。

最後，兩位律師亦討論到新冠肺炎對上一年產生了什麼

轉變，以及對律師執業、進行聆訊和日常工作帶來了什

麼衝擊。另外，他們亦就如何能成為一位出色的家庭律

師，為觀眾提供了一些相當實用的心得。

這次精彩的演講在愉快的氣氛下結束。請大家密切留意

將於 2021 年 2 月舉辦的下一場講座系列節目。

• February 2021


‘Multi-disciplinary’ is increasingly the word on many people’s lips as we see businesses looking for ‘one stop shops’ to improve efficiencies. And during this pandemic we’ve seen companies turning to their lawyers for advice on how to navigate these unchartered waters and improve efficiencies. This has given many lawyers new responsibilities – advising not just on the letter of the law, but also giving advice on strategic matters and COVID-19 regulations. The Financial Times’ Asia-Pacific Innovative Lawyers recent report pointed to many lawyers in the region becoming ‘trusted advisers and problem solvers’ at this time of the pandemic.

Evolution of this sort makes the in-house role particularly exciting and very important. And while we are seeing businesses recognise the vital role GCs and their team play in the wider company, this switch in perception does not necessarily mean smooth sailing for lawyers– in fact, we often see the opposite. Rather than seeing legal budgets increased due to this bigger, more holistic role within the business, we’re increasingly seeing these teams having to do more with less.

How to Deliver More with Less?Increasingly, we’re seeing lawyers turning to a few different solutions to ease the pressure on them and ensure they’re well supported to deliver the holistic advice needed.

Firstly, unsurprisingly, technology is being utilised by lawyers more and more to help fill gaps and complete jobs more efficiently and effectively.

Often the in-house legal team would be left behind when a business invested in its technology infrastructure, with the assumption being that the finance or

HR team would benefit more acutely from better technology. Those days are over. Now we are seeing innovations like artificial intelligence shake-up the legal profession to a significant degree and the efficiencies this sort of technology can offer is important. Investing in this technology can free-up time for a GC and their team by offloading some of the more routine but time-consuming legal work to tech.

However, there is so much legaltech available, it can be a challenge to find the right option to solve every eventuality. Often it is left up to the lawyers themselves to make these decisions, but of course, busy lawyers are not often the best placed to keep up with all legaltech developments so consultancy around best solutions should be encouraged.

Another point to consider is ensuring once the technology is brought in, how to properly utilise it and understand the return on investment in detail. Often ensuring best practice to roll out new solutions needs to be properly project managed, which leads on to my next point.

We’re increasingly seeing legal project managers hired to apply the principles, processes and practices of project management to the delivery of legal services to ensure the successful delivery of in-house legal team’s projects.

The legal project manager is a fairly new role to the legal industry in Hong Kong, and indeed in-house legal teams around the world. Whilst project managers have been the norm across many business departments for a number of years, it’s a new but growing trend to see legal teams utilising these professionals.

Whilst by their very nature lots of lawyers

are highly trained project managers, we’re seeing new challenges and tighter financial and time pressures than ever before. Where once the legal department only advised on legal risk, it is now expected to be profitable too, supporting the business to deliver its strategic objectives. The pressure of the pandemic has compounded issues felt already by very stretched in-house teams and with new issues to contend with, such as renegotiating existing contracts with struggling suppliers and making sure the business is complying with the latest pandemic regulations on a local and global level, the in-house legal team in many companies has been overloaded, under- resourced and they are now at a tipping point.

This is where a legal project manager can help to ensure the right resources are distributed, expectations are managed and the end goal is reached in the most efficient manner. These specialists can also be a point of contact between the department and the business, ultimately freeing up the lawyers to do the legal work and develop those important creative and innovative solutions that could help the business be more profitable.

Across Asia and specifically in Hong Kong, we’re also seeing more and more in-house teams looking to utilise legal consultants. A shrunken budget also means an in-house team has to do more work with less people. Working with legal consultants can be a good way to increase the team’s capacity without having to ask for an increased budget to cover ongoing staff costs. A legal consultant can be brought in to cover particularly busy times of year for example, and by working with a provider like Pinsent Masons Vario, GCs also don’t have to devote time to ensuring they hire a quality candidate as this work is done by the provider.

Lawyers Have To Be Multi-Disciplinary Professionals – But How?By Dee Tamlin, Head of Legal Project Management at Pinsent Masons Vario

February 2021 • PRACTICE MANAGEMENT 實務管理


在我們看到企業正在尋找「一站式

服務」來提高效率時，「綜合專業」

越來越成為很多人口中的詞彙。而在

這個疫情期間，我們看到企業向他們

的律師尋求建議，以瞭解如何在這未

知的領域前行並提高效率。這給許多

律師帶來了新的責任 -- 不僅在法律

條文上提供建議，還在策略事項及

「2019 冠狀病毒病」法規上提供建

議。《金融時報》的《亞太創新律師》

最近的報告指出，在這個疫情期間，

本地區的許多律師成為「值得信賴的

顧問及問題解決者」。

這種演變使企業內部律師的角色變

得特別令人興奮和非常重要。雖然我

們看到企業認識到企業內部總法律

顧問及其團隊在整個公司中所扮演

的重要角色，但這種觀念的轉變並不

意味著律師們一帆風順 -- 事實上，

我們經常看到相反的情況。我們沒有

看到法律的財政預算因為這種更大、

更全面的業務角色而增加，而是越來

越多地看到這些團隊不得不用更少

的資源做更多的事情。

如何用更少的資源提供更多的服

務？

越來越多的律師開始採用一些不同

的解決方案，以減輕他們的壓力，並

確保他們有足够的支援來提供企業

所需的全面建議。

首先，毫不奇怪，科技正被越來越多

的律師所採用，以幫助填補空白，更

有效地完成工作。

通常情況下，當企業投資於其科技基

礎設施時，內部法律團隊會被拋在後

作者：Pinsent Masons Vario 客戶及法律項目管理主管

面，並假設財務或人力資源團隊會從

更好的科技中受益更多。那些日子已

經過去了。現在，我們看到像人工智

能這樣的創新科技在很大程度上改

變了法律行業，這種科技所能提供的

效率非常重要。投資這項技術可以將

一些更常規但耗時的法律工作交給

科技，從而為企業內部總法律顧問及

其團隊騰出時間。

然而，有這麽多的法律科技，要找到

正確的選項來解決每一個可能的情

況可以存在一定難度。通常情況下，

這是留給律師自己做出這些決定；但

當然，繁忙的律師往往不是跟上所有

法律科技發展的最佳人選，所以應該

鼓勵人們就一些最佳解決方案進行

諮詢。

另一點需要考慮的是確保一旦引入

科技，應如何正確利用它，並詳細瞭

解其投資回報。通常情況下，若要確

保以最佳做法推出新的解決方案，是

需要適當的項目管理，這導致我的以

下論點。

我們越來越多地看到法律項目經理

受聘用，將項目管理的原則、流程及

實務做法應用於法律服務，以確保企

業內部法律團隊項目的成功交付。

對於香港的法律行業，乃至全球的企

業內部法律團隊來說，法律項目經理

是一個相當新的角色。雖然項目經理

已經多年來是許多業務部門的標準，

但我們看到法律團隊利用這些專業

人士是一個新的、越來越明顯的趨

勢。

雖然從本質上說，很多律師都是訓練

有素的項目經理，但我們看到了新的

挑戰，以及比以往任何時候都更緊張

的財務和時間壓力。過去，法律部門

只是在法律風險方面提供建議，而現

在，法律部門也要盈利，支援企業實

現其戰略目標。疫情的壓力使企業內

部法律團隊已經感受到的問題變得

更加複雜，而且還要應對新的問題，

例如與苦苦掙扎的供應商重新談判

現有的合約，並確保企業在當地和全

球範圍內遵守最新的疫情法規，許多

公司的內部法律團隊已經超負荷工

作，資源不足，他們現在正處於一個

臨界點。

這時，法律項目經理正好可以幫助確

保正確的資源分配、管理預期，並以

最有效的方式達到最終目標。這些專

家也可以成為該部門和企業之間的

聯絡點，最終讓律師騰出時間來做法

律工作，並開發那些重要的創意性和

創新性的解決方案，這樣做可以幫助

企業獲得更多的利潤。

在整個亞洲，特別是在香港，我們也

看到越來越多的企業內部律師團隊

正在尋求利用外部法律顧問。財政

預算的縮減也意味著企業內部律師

團隊必須用更少的人做更多的工作。

與外部法律顧問合作是一個很好的

方式來增加團隊的能力，而不必要

求增加預算來支付持續的員工成本。

例如，在一年中特別繁忙的時候，可

以請一位外部法律顧問，通過與像

Pinsent Masons Vario 這樣的供應商合

作，企業內部總法律顧問也不必花時

間來確保他們僱用一個高質量的候

選人，因為這項工作是由供應商完成

的。

律師必須成為綜合專業的專業人員 —— 但如何成為？

• February 2021

TRUSTED LEGAL ADVISER

YOUR

conyers.com | cn.conyers.com

Legal Advice

Corporate & Trust Services

Global Experience

Local Knowledge

Proven Results

20 YEARS IN SINGAPORE | IN ASIA SINCE 1985

2021_01_HK_LAWYER_AD_FINAL.indd 12021_01_HK_LAWYER_AD_FINAL.indd 1 1/25/2021 1:41:30 PM1/25/2021 1:41:30 PM

Geoffrey Ma 馬道立先生

Documents

Transcript of Geoffrey Ma 馬道立先生