Gregory SoGBS JP - Hong Kong Lawyer

h k

- l a

w y

e r

. org

March 2017 二零一七年三月

HK$280

香港

律師

HO

NG

KON

G LAW

YERM

ar

ch 20

17

Cover Story

封面專題

Gregory So GBS JP

蘇錦樑 GBS JP

Face to Face with

專訪

Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development

商務及經濟發展局局長

ON CHINA 中國實務

Outbound Chinese Investment into the EU: What You Need to Know about Regulatory Roadblocks中國投資於歐盟：當中所存在的監管障礙

Court of Appeal Concludes that Certain Features in the Judgment Summons Procedure are Not Consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance上訴法庭裁定判決傳票程序的某些特性抵觸香港人權法案條例

FAMILY LAW 家庭法

HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing: CFA Finds “No Wrong Turning” 香港特別行政區訴陳錦成：終審法院裁定「沒有行了錯誤的一着」

CRIMINAL 刑事法

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

HONG KONG LAWYERwww.hk-lawyer.org

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

www.hk-lawyer.org

Editorial Board 編輯委員會

Chairman 主席

Huen Wong 王桂壎

Jenkin SF Chan 陳少勳

Peter CH Chan 陳志軒

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

Elliot Fung 馮以德

Steven B Gallagher Warren P Ganesh 莊偉倫

Minkang Gu 顧敏康

Julienne Jen 任文慧

Dave Lau 劉子勁

Byron Leung 梁東華 George YC Mok 莫玄熾 Michelle Tsang 曾憲薇

Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟

Tony Yen 嚴元浩

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

President 會長

Thomas ST So 蘇紹聰

Vice Presidents 副會長 Melissa K Pang 彭韻僖

Amirali B Nasir 黎雅明

Council Members 理事會成員

Stephen WS Hung 熊運信

Junius KY Ho 何君堯

Huen Wong 王桂壎

Peter CL Lo 羅志力

Michael J Lintern-Smith 史密夫

Billy WY Ma 馬華潤

Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華

Brian W Gilchrist 喬柏仁

Denis G Brock 白樂德

Nick Chan 陳曉峰

Bonita BY Chan 陳寶儀

Mark Daly 帝理邁

CM Chan 陳澤銘

Serina KS Chan 陳潔心

Warren P Ganesh Simon SC Lai 黎壽昌

Roden ML Tong 湯文龍

Secretary General 秘書長

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

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

Annual Subscription 全年訂閱: HK$3,360

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

Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Limited16/F, Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong KongTel: +852 2847 2088www.thomsonreuters.com

ISSN 1025-9554

4 EDITOR’S NOTE

6 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

8 CONTRIBUTORS

10 FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE

12 FROM THE SECRETARIAT

14 COVER STORY Face to Face with

Gregory So GBS JP Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development

22 LAW SOCIETY NEWS

34 CRIMINAL HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing: CFA Finds “No Wrong Turning”

40 FAMILY LAW Court of Appeal Concludes that Certain Features in the Judgment Summons Procedure are Not Consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance

編者的話

會長的話

投稿者

理事會議題

律師會秘書處資訊

封面專題專訪

蘇錦樑 GBS JP商務及經濟發展局局長

律師會新聞

刑事法香港特別行政區訴陳錦成：

終審法院裁定「沒有行了錯誤的一着」

家庭法上訴法庭裁定判決傳票程序的某些特性抵觸香港人權法案條例

14 COVER STORY

40 FAMILY LAW

34 CRIMINAL

Inside your March issue 三月期刊內容

March2017二零一七年三月

HK$280

Editor 編輯 Cynthia G Claytor

[email protected]

Tel: +852 2841 5775

Managing Editor 執行主編 Ranajit Dam 鄧文杰

[email protected]

Tel: +65 6870 3393

Design and Production 設計及制作 Samson Pang 彭振生

[email protected]

Translation team 翻譯組

InfoPower

Tang 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:

Account Manager 客戶經理

Henry Cheng 鄭裕康

[email protected]

Tel: +852 2847 2016

For subscriptions contact:

Traffic Administrator 統籌

Gloria Ng 吳傲宜

[email protected]

Tel: +852 2843 6415

Head of Legal Media business, ANA

Amantha Chia 謝京庭

[email protected]

Tel: +65 6870 3917

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.

中國實務中國投資於歐盟：

當中所存在的監管障礙

業界透視

案例撮要

執業管理中小型律師事務所如何管理其業務

會員動向

法學院新聞

法律知識測驗

律師閒情締造多元共融的工作環境

46 ON CHINA Outbound Chinese Investment into the EU: What You Need to Know about Regulatory Roadblocks

52 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS

62 CASES IN BRIEF

72 PRACTICE MANAGEMENT How to Manage Business as a Small to Medium-Sized Firm

78 PROFESSIONAL MOVES

84 CAMPUS VOICES

88 LEGAL TRIVIA QUIZ

90 LAWYERS AT LEISURE Making the Case for Diversity & Inclusion

90 LAWYERS AT LEISURE

46 ON CHINA

72 PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

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

The joint enterprise doctrine was established by the Privy Council in 1985 in the Hong Kong case of Chan Wing Siu [1985] 1 AC 168. In that case, Mr. Chan was part of a gang who went into a house to commit robbery. During the robbery, his fellow gang member stabbed the victim to death. While it was clear that Mr. Chan did not kill the victim himself, the Privy Council upheld his conviction for murder, holding that for an accomplice to be guilty of murder, the prosecution need only establish that he could foresee what resulted as a possible consequence of the common design being carried out.

While this has been the common law position in both Hong Kong and England & Wales for over three decades, the UK Supreme Court recently abolished the doctrine in Jogee ([2016] UKSC 8), holding Chan Wing Siu took a wrong turning and that the introduction of the doctrine was based on an incomplete and erroneous reading of the case law, coupled with generalised and questionable policy arguments. When invited to follow the UKSC’s Jogee decision in Chan Kam Shing, FACC 5/2016, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal declined, holding Chan Wing Siu had not taken any “wrong turning”. To understand the CFA’s holding in Chan Kam Shing, take a look at the Criminal Law feature (p. 34).

Elsewhere in the March issue, the Family Law piece (p. 40) examines the recent YBL v LWC, CACV 244/2015 decision, in which the Court of Appeal comprehensively reviewed the judgment summons procedure under r. 87 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules (Cap. 179A), holding that certain features of the procedure were incompatible with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383); this article concludes by highlighting a number of important changes to the judgment summons procedure that will flow from this decision. Also included is the On China feature (p. 46), which provides an overview of existing regulatory structures in the EU and US that may be implicated by Chinese outbound investment. The authors of this piece offer useful tips on how to minimise deal-related regulatory risks, which seem particularly relevant given the growing demand of Chinese outbound investment in the EU in recent years.

Also, for readers leading small to medium-sized firms, the Practice Management section (p. 72), which is the first installment of a two-part series, may be a piece worth reading. This installment highlights a series of strategic and operational considerations for small and medium-sized firm leaders and how these are changing with intensifying competition in Hong Kong. The second installment will explore what law firm leaders need to do, including moving from cash flow management to revenue generation as an outgrowth of this and a structural shift in organisational mindset.

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2017

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

「共同計劃原則」是由樞密院於一九八五年就香港Chan

Wing Siu [1985] 1 AC 168號案件確立。在這宗案件中，

陳先生是一個闖入房子進行搶劫的匪幫的其中一人。在搶

劫期間，他的同夥把受害人刺傷致死。即使顯然陳先生本

人並沒有殺害受害人，但樞密院維持他對謀殺罪的定罪，

認為要把同謀犯定謀殺罪，控方只需確定他可以預見實行

共同計劃時可能產生的後果。

雖然這已是香港和英格蘭及威爾斯三十多年來的普通法原

則，但英國最高法院最近在Jogee([2016] UKSC 8)一案

取消了這項原則，認為在Chan Wing Siu案中走了錯誤的

一着，而引用的原則是基於對判例法的不完全和錯誤的

解讀，再加上廣義和可疑的策略論點。當被要求在Chan

Kam Shing FACC 5/2016一案要遵循英國最高法院有

關Jogee的判決時，香港終審法院拒絕了，並認為Chan

Wing Siu沒有採取任何“錯誤一着”。為了了解終審法院

在Chan Kam Shing一案的裁決，請看「刑事法」專欄(第

37頁)。

在3月號的其他地方，「家庭法」文章(第43頁)檢視了最

近的YBL v LWC，CACV 244/2015判決，其中上訴法庭

全面審視了根據《婚姻訴訟規則》(第179A 章)第87條的

「判決傳票程序」，並裁定該程序中的某些特性，與《香

港人權法案條例》(第383章)有所抵觸。本文最後強調了

這個重要的上訴法院裁決後來引發對「判決傳票程序」的

一些重要修改。此外還包括「中國實務」專欄(第49頁)，

其中概述了中國對外投資可能涉及的歐盟和美國現有的監

管架構。本文作者提供了有關如何最大限度地減少交易相

關監管風險的有用提示，鑑於近年來中國對歐盟投資的需

求不斷增長，這些風險似乎尤為相關。

此外，對於領導中小型公司的讀者來說，「執業管理」文

章(第75頁)是一個有兩部分的系列的第一部分，是值得閱

讀的文章。本期這一部分重點介紹了中小型公司領導人需

要考慮的一系列戰略和操作，以及這些因素在香港競爭加

劇的情況下如何變化。第二部分將探討律師事務所領導人

需要做什麼，包括從現金流管理轉向創收作為這方面的自

然發展，以及組織思維的結構性轉變。

Join us for this flagship event to meet with over 700 local and overseas leaders, and jointly explore the opportunities arising from the Belt and Road Initiatives!

Venue: Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre

Enquiry: Tel: (852) 2846 0593, Ms Ella Chan Email: [email protected]

12 May 2017

Mark your diary!The Belt and Road

www.hklawsoc-beltandroad.com

:

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

Generosity: Pro Bono and Community ServicesAt the 2017 Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year on 9 January, I took the opportunity to reiterate the importance of generosity to a true legal professional to engage in pro bono and community service work. I urge support on three fronts – from law firms, from all other relevant institutions including the Government, the Judiciary, NGOs and charitable organisations, as well as from individual practitioners.

Many law firms have already been actively promoting a corporate culture that encourages their lawyers to do pro bono work. The initiatives vary with different firms and generally include the following:

• settingupadedicatedinternalcommittee to focus efforts;

• developingaworkingrelationshipwith public interest institutes to understand their needs;

• servingonboardsofdirectorsofcommunity organisations;

• identifyingsuitableprobonoandcommunity service opportunities;

• ensuringthequalityofprobonowork is no less than any other paid work (ie, same level of professional support in terms of staff and supervision and same appraisal process);

• allocatingdesignatedfunds(eg,a fixed proportion of the annual surplus, for advancing pro bono causes);

• allowingstafftimeofftoparticipatein charitable activities;

• matchinghoursofvoluntaryworkdone for a charity by staff with donations by the firm.

Hopefully, an overview of some of these initiatives will help inspire those firms that are considering a move in this direction to develop an approach that suits their own set up.

At the regulatory level, it is interesting to note that a number of jurisdictions have implemented measures to raise awareness of or even to mandate pro bono contribution by members of the legal profession. In 2012, the New York State Court of Appeals adopted a new rule requiring applicants for admission to the New York State Bar to perform 50 hours of pro bono services. Other state bars including California, Montana, Connecticut and New Jersey are considering a similar pre-admission pro bono requirement.

In Singapore, the Legal Profession (Mandatory Reporting of Specified Pro Bono Services) Rules 2015 (“Reporting Rules”) came into effect in March 2015. The Reporting Rules serve to raise awareness of the role of lawyers in their contribution to pro bono work in society. Upon an application for a practising certificate, every Singapore advocate and solicitor is required to report the time spent on pro bono work in the preceding year. As it is only a reporting obligation, lawyers will not be subject to sanctions or adverse consequences for a report of zero pro bono hours.

We are not advocating any kind of mandatory obligations in relation to pro bono work, but it is worth noting that the pro bono culture is strengthening its shape in different parts of the world in various forms.

At the individual level, we do not yet have comprehensive statistics to compare the

commitment of lawyers in Hong Kong to pro bono work with lawyers in other jurisdictions. We sent a questionnaire on pro bono work to all members, along with the application forms for the 2017 practising certificate. We have received a 17 percent response rate so far. Out of the responses received, the majority spent between 5 to 20 hours of pro bono work in 2016.

Mandatory reporting of pro bono work has been implemented in a number of states in the US. According to the published reports of some of these states, the average hours of pro bono work per attorney were impressive. For example, for the period 2009 to 2012, the average hours of pro bono work per attorney per year (including both active and inactive attorneys) ranged from 32 to 69 in Hawaii, 24 to 27 in Illinois, 31 to 34 in Maryland and 44 to 50 in Nevada. If we can achieve an average of 30 hours of pro bono work per solicitor every year (ie, 2 to 3 hours every month), based on about 9,000 practising certificate holders as of the end of 2016, we will already be able to offer 270,000 hours of pro bono work as a profession!

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2017

March 2017 • PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

Thomas so, PresidenT

慷慨行善：公益及社會服務

在1月9日的2017法律年度開幕典禮上，

我重申真正的法律專業人士應彰顯慷慨美

德，參與義務公益服務。我促請三方面作

出支持－律師行；包括政府、司法機構、

非政府機構、慈善組織等相關機構及個別

執業者。

許多律師行已經積極推動鼓勵律師從事公

益工作的企業文化，舉措各異，一般而言

包括以下內容：

• 設立專責內部委員會，集中力量；

• 與公共利益機構建立工作關係，以了解

他們的需要；

• 擔任社區組織董事會成員；

• 尋找合適的公益和社區服務機會；

• 確保公益工作的質量不低於任何其他有

償工作(即在工作人員和監督的專業支

援水平一致，相同的評估過程);

• 分配特定資金(如年度盈餘的固定比例

用於促進公益事業);

• 允許員工休假參加慈善活動；

• 工作人員為慈善做志願工作的時間，律

師行捐贈同等善款。

綜觀以上措施，希望有助激勵那些正在考

慮採取此方向的律師行，建立適合它們的

方式。

在監管層面，值得留意，一些司法管轄區

已經採取措施，提高法律專業人員對公益

貢獻的認識，甚至要求他們必須作出公益

貢獻。2012年，紐約州上訴法院通過了一

項新規則，要求申請人必須提供50小時公

益服務，才能取得紐約州律師執業資格。

其他州份的律師會，包括加州、蒙大拿

州、康涅狄格州和新澤西州，亦正在考慮

加入類似要求。

在新加坡，《2015年法律專業(特定公益服

務強制報告)規則》(《報告規則》)於2015

年3月生效。《報告規則》旨在提高律師

對公益工作對社會的貢獻之認識。在申請

執業證書時，每位新加坡律師都必須報告

前一年的公益工作時數。由於這只是一項

報告義務，即使律師報告沒有提供公益服

務，亦不會受到制裁或面對不良後果。

There are many avenues through which legal practitioners can give back to community. The Law Society has been organising different pro bono and community activities offering a wide range of choices for members to suit their interests and availability. Apart from the provision of free legal assistance to the public through the Law Society’s Free Legal Helpline and Free Legal Advice Consultation Service, members may also help enhance the legal knowledge of the public through other Law Society activities like giving school talks and seminars for NGOs, writing newspaper articles, facilitating group discussions of students in our annual Teen Talk event or giving community presentations on law related topics during the Law Society’s Law Week. Further, family activities like visits to the homes for the elderly and teaching English to underprivileged children are also available for members who wish to share the experience of serving the community with their families. These Law Society activities are organised throughout the year and publicised in our weekly Circulars. Your comments on how we can align these activities with your needs in relation to pro bono and community service work are most welcome.

蘇紹聰會長

我們並不主張實施任何強制性義務工作的

要求，但值得注意，公益文化正以各種形

式在世界各地增強。

在個人層面，我們尚未有全面的統計數

字，以比較香港律師對其他司法管轄區律

師的公益工作承擔。發出 2017年執業證書

申請表時，我們向所有會員隨附了關於公

益工作的調查問卷。到目前為止，回覆率

達17%。在收到的答覆中，大多數在2016

年提供了5至20小時的公益工作。

美國的一些州份已經實施了公益工作的強

制性報告。其中一些州份公佈的報告顯

示，每個律師的公益工作平均時數驕人。

例如，2009年至2012年期間，每年每名律

師的公益工作平均時數(包括在職律師和非

在職律師)在夏威夷為32至69小時，伊利諾

伊州為24至27小時，馬里蘭州為31至34

小時，內華達州為44至50小時。如果我們

每位律師每年做的公益工作時數平均能達

到30小時(即每月2至3小時)，以截至2016

年年底約9,000名執業證書持有人計算，我

們的專業將能夠提供270,000小時的公益服

務！

法律從業人員可以通過許多途徑回饋社

區。律師會舉辦不同的公益和社區活動，

為會員提供廣泛的選擇，以配合他們的興

趣和時間。除了透過律師會的免費法律援

助熱線和免費法律諮詢服務，為市民提供

免費法律協助外，會員亦可透過其他律師

會的活動增進市民的法律知識，例如學校

講座及非政府機構研討會、報章投稿、在

年度活動，「青Teen講場」協助學生作

小組討論，或在律師會法律周期間就法律

相關主題發言。此外，家庭活動，如訪問

老人院及教授貧困兒童英語，也可供希望

與家人分享社區服務經驗的成員參加。律

師會全年舉辦這些活動，並在每週通告中

公佈。就我們如何將這些活動與公益和社

區工作的需求聯繫起來，歡迎各位給予意

見。

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

莊邁豪

布高江律師行律師顧問兼香港大學法律學院副教授

新西蘭人Michael Jackson於1984年遷至

香港，在香港大學法律學院任職，現今

擔任副教授職位。Jackson先生撰寫了

一些法律出版物，包括廣受好評的教科

書“Criminal Law in Hong Kong”，並在

布高江律師行任職顧問近30年，專攻刑

法和程序、網絡犯罪、私穩和資料保護

法。他曾擔任香港法律改革委員會欺詐小

組委員會及香港律師會刑事法例及程序委

員會的成員，並多次出席立法會事務委員

會提交意見書。

秦子謙

杜偉強律師事務所高級律師

秦子謙於2008年加入杜偉強律師事務所

的訴訟與爭議解決部門。秦先生主要從事

民事和商業訴訟，在涉及股東和合夥關係

糾紛，商業欺詐，商業跨境訴訟和破產事

務等方面擁有豐富的經驗。秦先生亦定期

就廣泛的訴訟事宜，特別是關於馬雷瓦強

制令，向上市公司、主要會計師事務所、

主要發展商、本地及海外銀行及金融機

構、國際及本地公司提供意見。

Héctor Armengod瑞生國際律師事務所合夥人

Héctor Armengod是瑞生國際律師事務所在布

魯塞爾辦事處的合夥人，也是該公司全球反壟

斷與競爭業務的成員。他的業務主要關注歐盟

和西班牙的競爭法。特別是，Armengod先生

代表客戶參與歐盟委員會和西班牙競爭管理機

構有關合併控製的程序，並在全球多個司法管

轄區就協調合併控製呈交存案。他還在歐洲委

員會卡特爾和歐盟運作條約102條的調查中作

為客戶的代表律師。Armengod先生在包括製

藥，醫療器械，資訊科技，汽車和零售在內的

各個行業擁有豐富的經驗。

Héctor ArmengodLatham & Watkins, Partner Héctor Armengod is a partner in the Brussels office of Latham & Watkins and a member of the firm’s global Antitrust & Competition Practice. He focuses his practice on EU and Spanish competition law. In particular, Mr. Armengod represents clients in merger control proceedings before the European Commission and the Spanish competition authority and coordinates merger control filings in multiple jurisdictions globally. He also represents clients in major European Commission cartel and Art. 102 TFEU investigations. Mr. Armengod has extensive experience in various sectors including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, IT, automotive and retail.

Kenny ChunW. K. To & Co., Senior AssociateKenny Chun joined W. K. To & Co.’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department in 2008. Mr. Chun specialises in civil and commercial litigation and has extensive experience on matters relating to shareholder and partnership disputes, commercial fraud, commercial cross-border litigation and insolvency matters. Mr. Chun also regularly advises listed companies, leading accounting firms, major developers, local and overseas banks and financial institutions, international and local corporations on a wide range of litigation matters, in particular relating to mareva injunctions.

Michael JacksonConsultant, Boase Cohen & Collins and Associate Professor, University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law New Zealander Michael Jackson relocated to Hong Kong in 1984 to take up a position with the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, where he remains to this day as Associate Professor. Mr. Jackson has authored a number of legal publications including the acclaimed textbook Criminal Law in Hong Kong, and has been consulting for Boase Cohen and Collins for nearly 30 years, specialising in criminal law and procedure, cybercrime, and privacy and data protection law. He has served as a member of the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission’s Subcommittee on Fraud and the Law Society of Hong Kong’s Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure, and has appeared on a number of occasions before Legislative Council panels to present submissions.

CONTRIBUTORS投稿者

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2017

March 2017 •CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

Alan Hodgart

Hodgart Associates Ltd 董事總經理

Hodgart先生作為全球多個專業服務機構的資深

策略變更顧問，其客戶群包括：許多國家中的大

型專業服務機構(涉及各個主要專業範疇)，以及

範圍廣泛的小型至中端市場企業，而法律市場是

一個格外受關注的範疇。Hodgart先生為全球各

地區(包括亞太區)的客戶提供服務。

Hodgart先生亦不時發表文章，論述各專業服務

機構所面對的管理問題。他的兩本最近期著作分

別為：Organizational Culture in Law Firms (Ark,

2012)；及Strategies and Practice in Law firm

Mergers (Legalease, 2005) 。

在擔任現時的顧問工作以前，Mr. Hodgart是一

位出色的單車職業運動員。

Les Carnegie

瑞生國際律師事務所合夥人

Les Carnegie是華盛頓特區辦公室的合夥

人，也是出口管制，經濟制裁與海關業務

部門的合夥人。他在美國外國投資委員會

(CFIUS)有豐富代表客戶的經驗。Carnegie

先生就國際貿易中出現的國家安全問題向

美國和非美國客戶提供諮詢意見，包括美

國經濟制裁，出口管制以及CFIUS對在美國

的境外投資的國家安全審查。Carnegie先

生曾為外國政府買家，私募股權投資者以

及各種行業的公共和私營公司提供諮詢，

就具有挑戰性的CFIUS審查決議進行談判。

Rob Ashing

Hodgart Associates Ltd 董事

Ashing先生在法律服務行業服務了超過15

年，曾擔任專業服務機構的外部策略顧

問，以及若干大型國際律師事務所的內部

顧問。此外，Ashing先生曾經在英、美及非

洲居住和工作。在他於2016年加盟Hodgart

Associates之前，他曾經在亞太地區工作了9

年，其中4年是在香港。

Ashing先生為全球各地的客戶提供顧問服

務，協助它們制訂增長策略，並提供所需的

支援。他本人尤其專長於業務和組織發展。

此外，Ashing先生曾經是Just ice Centre

Hong Kong董事會的其中一名成員。

Alan Hodgart Hodgart Associates Ltd, Managing DirectorMr. Hodgart is recognised as a leading strategic change consultant to professional service firms globally. His client base includes leading firms in all major professions and a wide range of smaller to mid-market firms in many countries. The legal market is a particular area of focus. He works with clients throughout the world, including in the Asia Pacific.

Mr. Hodgart has written extensively on management issues facing professional firms. His two most recent books are Organizational Culture in Law Firms (Ark, 2012) and Strategies and Practice in Law firm Mergers (Legalease, 2005).

Prior to his career as a consultant, he had a successful career as a professional cyclist.

Les CarnegieLatham & Watkins, Partner Les Carnegie is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office and co-head of the Export Controls, Economic Sanctions & Customs Practice. He has extensive experience representing clients before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). Mr. Carnegie advises US and non-US clients on issues of national security arising in international trade, including US economic sanctions, export controls, and national security reviews of foreign investments in the United States by CFIUS. Mr. Carnegie has counseled foreign government-owned buyers, private equity investors, and public and private companies in a variety of industries on negotiating resolutions of challenging CFIUS reviews.

Rob AshingHodgart Associates Ltd, Director

Mr. Ashing has worked in legal services for over 15 years both as an external strategy consultant to professional services firms and in-house for a number of large international law firms. He has lived and worked in the UK, US and Africa. Prior to rejoining Hodgart Associates in 2016, Mr. Ashing spent nine years in the Asia Pacific, including four years in Hong Kong.

Mr. Ashing works with clients globally to help develop and support their growth strategies. He has particular expertise in business and organisational development.

Previously, he served on the Board of Justice Centre Hong Kong.

www.hk-lawyer.org 9

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE理事會議題

法律改革委員會《涉及兒童及精神缺損人士的性罪行》諮詢文件

法改會於2006年4月獲委托檢討現行刑事法律下的性罪

行。性罪行檢討小組委員會於2006年7月組成，由鄧樂

勤資深大律師擔任主席。小組委員會於2008年6月(設

立性罪犯名冊)、2010年12月(廢除14歲以下男童無性

交能力的普通法推定)及2012年9月(強姦及其他未經同

意下進行的性罪行)分別就其研究項目的上述不同部分

發表了諮詢文件。

2016年11月，小組委員會發表了另一份諮詢文件：

《涉及兒童及精神缺損人士的性罪行》。這是小組委員

會在其研究範圍內發表的第4份諮詢文件。

法律改革委員會在諮詢文件內提出41項建議，其中所

涵蓋的性罪行大多牽涉到《保護原則》，亦即是刑事法

應保護某幾類易受傷害的人，使其免遭性侵犯或剝削。

這些易受傷害的人包括兒童、精神缺損人士，以及對處

於受信任地位的人信任的少年人。

諮詢文件的主要建議如下：

(i) 同意年齡在香港應劃一定為16歲，並應不論性別

和性傾向而適用；

(ii) 涉及兒童及少年人的罪行應無分性別，並應分為兩

類罪行，其中一類涉及13歲以下兒童，另一類則

涉及16歲以下兒童，這些罪行可由成年人或兒童

干犯；

(iii) 就涉及年滿13歲但未滿16歲的兒童的罪行是否應

屬絕對法律責任罪行的問題，應交由香港社會考

慮；

(iv) 年滿13歲但未滿16歲的人之間經同意下進行涉及

性的行為應繼續訂為刑事罪行，但認同控方有檢控

酌情權；

(v) 新訂一系列涉及兒童的罪行，這些罪行無分性別，

並可為兒童提供更廣泛的保護；

Law Reform Commission Report on Sexual Offences Involving Children and Persons with Mental Impairment The Law Reform Commission (“LRC”) in April 2006 was asked to review the existing sexual offences under the criminal law. A sub-committee, chaired by Mr. Peter Duncan SC, was formed in June 2006. The Sub-committee published consultation papers in July 2008 (on establishment of a sex offenders register), December 2010 (on abolition of the common law presumption that a boy under 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse) and September 2012 (on rape and other non-consensual sexual offences).

In November 2016, the Sub-committee published another consultation paper. This latest paper is on sexual offences involving children and persons with mental impairment (the “Consultation Paper”), and is the fourth consultation paper issued under the terms of reference of the Sub-committee.

In the Consultation Paper, the LRC made a total of 41 recommendations. The sexual offences covered therein are largely concerned with the “Protective Principle” (ie, criminal law should give protection to certain categories of vulnerable persons against sexual abuse or exploitation). These vulnerable persons include children, persons with mental impairment, and young persons over whom others hold a position of trust.

The main recommendations contained in the Consultation Paper are:

(i) there should be a uniform age of consent in Hong Kong of 16 years of age, which should be applicable irrespective of gender and sexual orientation;

(ii) offences involving children and young persons should be gender-neutral with two separate types of offences, one involving children under 13 and the other involving children under 16, and capable of being committed by either an adult or a child;

(iii) the question of whether offences involving children aged between 13 and 16 should be of absolute liability should be a matter for consideration by the Hong Kong community;

(iv) consensual sexual activity between persons who are aged between 13 and 16 should remain to be criminalised while recognising the existence of prosecutorial discretion;

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2017

March 2017 • FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

(v) the creation of a range of new offences involving children which are gender-neutral, and which provide wider protection to children;

(vi) the creation of a new offence of sexual grooming to protect children against pedophiles who might groom them by communicating with them on a mobile phone or on the internet to gain their trust and confidence with the intention of sexually abusing them;

(vii) the creation of a range of new offences involving persons with mental impairment which would be gender-neutral and provide improved protection; and

(viii) the question of whether there be legislation to deal with conduct involving abuse of a position of trust in respect of young persons aged 16 or above but under 18 should be a matter for consideration by the Hong Kong community.

The Law Society has reviewed the Consultation Paper with the assistance of its Criminal Law and Procedure Committee. The Law Society had no hesitation to support the Protective Principle. It also agreed that those persons with mental impairments were vulnerable and should also be protected against possible sexual exploitation. At the same time, however, it pointed out certain issues which it considered should merit careful legal analysis. The detailed views of the Law Society on the Consultation Paper, together with its comments on the individual recommendations of the LRC, can be found at: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20170118.pdf.

(vi) 新訂一項為性目的誘識兒童的罪行以保護兒

童，防止戀童癖者藉流動電話或互聯網與兒童

通訊來進行誘識，以取得他們的信任和信心，

意圖對他們作出性侵犯；

(vii) 新訂一系列涉及精神缺損人士的罪行，這些罪

行無分性別，並可提供更佳的保護；及

(viii) 應否訂立法例處理涉及就年滿16歲但未滿18歲

的少年人濫用受信任地位的行為，這個問題應

交由香港社會考慮。

律師會在刑事法律及程序委員會的協助下，檢

視了該諮詢文件。律師會毫不猶豫地支持保護

原則，而且同意精神缺損者易受傷害，應同

樣受到保護以免受可能的性剝削。然而，律

師會亦指出了值得謹慎進行法律分析的一些問

題。律師會對諮詢文件的詳細意見，以及對

法律改革委員會個別建議的意見，請瀏覽：

http ://www.hk lawsoc .o rg .hk/pub_e/news/

submissions/20170118.pdf 。

PANEL OF ARBITRATORS OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

The Law Society will establish the Panel of Arbitrators of The Law Society of Hong Kong (“Panel”). The Panel will be served as the sole database for promotion of Solicitor-Arbitrators’ services in Hong Kong and overseas jurisdictions.

Detailed information on the admission requirements and the relevant ethical code are available via Circular 17-76(PA). For application and enquiries, please contact the Law Society at 2846 0584; or by email at [email protected].

www.hk-lawyer.org 11

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

First Anniversary: Limited Liability PartnershipsOne year has elapsed since the introduction of Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLPs”) for law firms in Hong Kong last March. There are currently 22 law firms practising as LLPs pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. Eleven are Hong Kong law firms and 11 are registered foreign law firms, representing respectively 1.2 percent and 13.5 percent of the total number of Hong Kong firms and foreign firms. The uptake is modest but progressing steadily with five “conversions” to LLPs in the first month of implementation and then one to two new notifications nearly every subsequent month.

Once a firm has made its decision to operate as an LLP, the procedure to put the decision into effect is relatively simple:

• designatethepartnershipasanLLPbyawrittenagreementbetweenthepartners;

• ensurethattherequisitetop-upinsurancecoverofatleastHK$10millionper claim above the statutory professional indemnity level with no aggregate limit is in place;

• NotifytheLawSocietysevendayspriortothefirm’scommencementasan LLP in a prescribed form;

• ensurethenameofthefirmwillinclude“LimitedLiabilityPartnership”,“LLP” or “L.L.P.” and if it has a Chinese name, “有限法律責任合夥”; and the new name will be displayed clearly in all the firm’s stationery and websites;

• submitacommencementnotificationtotheLawSocietytogetherwitha declaration in relation to the compliance with the statutory top-up insurance requirement within 14 days of commencement as an LLP;

• obtainaconfirmationfromtheLawSocietyonthefilingofthecommencement notification;

• submitanapplicationforarevisedbusinessregistrationcertificatefromthe Business Registration Office within seven days of the date of the Law Society confirmation;

• submittherevisedbusinessregistrationcertificatetotheLawSocietyassupporting evidence of the change of the name of the firm;

• sendanotificationtotheexistingclientsofthefirmwithin30daysofit becoming an LLP (“existing client” is defined in the Ordinance as a person who is a client of the firm at the time the firm becomes an LLP); and

• notifyclientsoftheoverallsupervisingpartner(s)fortheirparticularmatter within 21 days of acceptance of instructions and keep them so informed throughout.

壹周年：有限法律責任合夥香港在2016年3月1日引入適用於律師行的有限法律

責任合夥，時至今日已經滿了一年。目前有22間按照

《法律執業者條例》以有限法律責任合夥模式經營的

律師行。11間是香港律師行，11間是註冊外地律師

行，分別佔香港律師行總數及外地律師行總數1.2%及

13.5%。數目不算多，但增幅穩定，實施第一個月，

有五間「轉」為有限法律責任合夥，之後差不多每個

月都有一至兩間以新合夥模式經營的通知。

律師行一旦決定以有限法律責任合夥模式經營，只需

要進行相當簡單的程序就可以將決定付諸實現：

• 合夥人以書面協議指明合夥關係為有限法律責任合

夥；

• 確保除了法定的專業彌償額外，亦備有法例規定的

不少於每項彌償1,000萬港元的加額保險(總額不設

上限)；

• 律師行以有限法律責任合夥模式開業前最少七天，

以指定表格通知律師會；

• 確保律師行名稱包含 L i m i t e d L i a b i l i t y

Partnership、LLP或L.L.P.，如有中文名稱，則名稱

包含「有限法律責任合夥」，並且律師行所有文案

和網站俱清楚顯示新名稱；

• 以有限法律責任合夥模式開業後14天內，向律師會

提交開業通知，並附上保證遵守法定加額保險規定

的聲明；

• 向律師會索取確認收到開業通知的確認函；

• 在律師會確認函日期七天內提交申請表，向商業登

記署申請經修訂的商業登記證；

• 向律師會提交經修訂的商業登記證，作為律師行已

經改名的證據；

• 在律師行成為有限法律責任合夥後30天內，向現有

當事人發出通知書(「現有當事人」在《條例》定義

為在該律師行成為有限法律責任合夥時屬其當事人

的人)；

• 在接受延聘處理某事宜的21天內，將至少一位該事

宜的整體監督合夥人的身分，告知當事人，並在處

理該事宜的整段期間，保持令該當事人知悉至少一

位該事宜的整體監督合夥人的身分。

FROM THE SECRETARIAT律師會秘書處資訊


• March 2017

March 2017 • FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

Monthly Statistics on the Profession (updated as of 31 January 2017):

業界每月統計資料(截至2017年1月31日)：

Members (with or without practising certificate) 10,360

Members with practising certificate 8,931 (out of whom, 6,828 (76%) are in private practice)

Trainee Solicitors 1,049

Registered foreign lawyers 1,347 (from 32 jurisdictions)

Hong Kong law firms 871 (48% are sole proprietorships and 41% are firms with 2 to 5 partners, 10 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Registered foreign law firms 81 (11 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Civil Celebrants 2,076

Reverse Mortgage Counsellors 445

Solicitor Advocates 48 (43 in civil proceedings, 5 in criminal proceedings)

Student Members 71

Registered Associations between Hong Kong law firms and 36 registered foreign law firms (including Mainland law firms)

會員(持有或不持有執業證書) 10,360

持有執業證書的會員 8,931 (當中有6,828位 (76%) 是私人執業)

實習律師 1,049

註冊外地律師 1,347 (來自32個司法管轄區)

香港律師行 871 (獨資經營佔48%，2至5名合夥人的律師行佔41%，10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 81 (11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 2,076

安老按揭輔導法律顧問 445

訟辯律師 48 (民事程序：43位，刑事程序：5位)

學生會員 71

香港律師行與外地律師行 36(包括內地律師行)在香港聯營

The detailed explanatory notes on the application procedures and prescribed forms are contained in an Information Package publicly accessible on the Law Society website.

During the past year, the enquiries that we handled mostly related to the administrative steps to become an LLP which could involve how to complete the relevant forms, how to apply for a business registration certificate and where to obtain the necessary top-up insurance. In an earlier briefing session on LLPs, representatives from Aon had been invited to explain the top-up insurance requirements and for those who are interested, the materials are publicly accessible on the website of the Academy of Law.

Another aspect that has come up in the enquiries that we have received relate to the continuity of indemnity cover upon a conversion from a general partnership to an LLP. Section 7AP of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance provides that the fact that a partnership becomes an LLP does not cause the partnership to be dissolved or to cease continuing in existence as a partnership and it does not affect any of the rights and liabilities of the partnership that have been acquired, accrued or incurred before the partnership becomes a LLP. Accordingly, there is no issue of continuity of professional indemnity cover as both the general partnership and the LLP are required to maintain the primary indemnity cover pursuant to the statutory professional indemnity scheme. The top-up insurance required for LLPs will be additional cover for any claims made after the firm commences practice as an LLP.

As expected, after a firm has become an LLP, there generally follows an increase to its partnership size. We hope that the protection afforded to innocent partners of LLPs will enable those who wish to expand their practice to collaborate with diversified talents more readily.

According to the January 2017 statistics published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England & Wales, 15 percent of the solicitors’ practices are LLPs, but LLPs have been in place there for 16 years since 2001. In Hong Kong, an uptake of about 2 percent in total on our first anniversary of the implementation of LLPs is, by comparison, a good start and we look forward to seeing more firms taking advantage of this additional mode of operation in due course.

律師會網站備有詳細解釋申請程序並載有指定表格的資

料手冊，供公眾人士查閱。

過去一年，本會處理的查詢大多與成為有限法律責任合

夥所要進行的行政步驟有關，有的是查詢如何填寫相關

表格、如何申請商業登記證，以及去哪裡投購所需的加

額保險。在較早前舉行的有限法律責任合夥簡介會上，

怡安代表獲邀解釋加額保險規定，對此規定有興趣的人

士，可到訪法律專業學會網站查閱公開資料。

在本會收到的查詢之中，另有一些是關於彌償保障在普

通合夥轉為有限法律責任合夥之後的延續問題。《法律

執業者條例》第7AP條規定，合夥成為有限法律責任合

夥一事，並不導致該合夥解散；或不再以合夥形式持續

存在；及在該合夥的任何權利及法律責任是在該合夥成

為有限法律責任合夥前取得、產生或引致的情況下，不

影響該等權利或法律責任。因此，現在沒有專業彌償保

額延續性的問題，因為普通合夥和有限法律責任合夥都

必須依據法定的專業彌償計劃，投購基本彌償保障。規

定有限法律責任合夥備有的加額保險，是額外保障在律

師行以有限法律責任合夥模式開業後提出的申索。

一如預期，律師行成為有限法律責任合夥之後，合夥規

模通常是隨之擴大。本會希望給有限法律責任合夥的

無辜合夥人提供的保障，能使那些有意擴展業務的合夥

人，更容易與具備不同專長的人才合作。

按照英格蘭及威爾斯事務律師監管局發布的2017年1

月份統計資料，事務律師行有15%是有限法律責任合

夥，不過那裡自2001年起已經有有限法律責任合夥，

時至今日已經16年了。香港實施有限法律責任合夥踏

入一周年，現在成為有限法律責任合夥的律師行佔律

師行總數大約2%，相比之下，這是個很好的開始，本

會期望隨後見到更多律師行利用這種新增的經營模式。



• March 2017

Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development

By Cynthia G. Claytor

Gregory So GBS JP

Face to Face with

Mr. So, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, speaks about his career and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau’s priorities for 2017, identifying opportunities for solicitors across the regional landscape.

1 The CEDB is responsible for various policy matters including Hong Kong’s external commercial relations, inward investment promotion, intellectual property protection, industry and business support, tourism, consumer protection, competition, telecommunications, broadcasting, film-related issues and creative industries, among others. In addition to the above policy responsibilities, the CEDB also oversees the operation of eight executive arms, namely the Invest Hong Kong, Intellectual Property Department, Trade and Industry Department, Hong Kong Observatory, Post Office, Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration, Radio Television Hong Kong, Office of the Communications Authority, and the overseas Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices.

Doom and gloom haunt the economic news like a spectre these days,

and it seems as though each new week summons another fearsome shade. From the sharp deceleration of global trade to underperforming advanced markets, the armies of trade protectionism have been awakened, and are marching to the beat of de-globalisation. Arrayed against them, the world’s policymakers can do little more than wring their hands, and console each other that times are undeniably tough and many challenges lie ahead.

While acknowledging that Hong Kong’s economic outlook will be fraught with uncertainties arising from the current geo-political environment in the year to come, Mr. So, Secretary of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (“CEDB”)1, continues to fix his gaze upward – focusing on progress and collaboration and embracing his work and Hong Kong’s future with hope. From opportunities in intellectual property (“IP“) trading and tourism to those that will flow from the Belt and Road

initiative, it appears that Hong Kong’s policy bureau chief will spare no effort in finding new ways and fashioning innovative policies to grow Hong Kong’s economy. Much work remains to be done, but his approach suggests that he is channelling the Lion Rock spirit as he sets to work each day.

Selected to ServeWhen asked what prompted his move from the private to the public sector, Mr. So explained that it was unintentional and actually came about as a result of his involvement with the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (or the DAB).

While Mr. So is currently at the forefront of politics in Hong Kong, he revealed that he wasn’t always politically-minded. “Growing up in Hong Kong during the colonial era, no one really talked about politics or encouraged political debate in school. It wasn’t until I moved to Canada and joined a major solicitor’s firm that I developed an interest,” he recalls. It was the firm’s collegial culture and his

colleagues’ penchant to share their political views and debate policies that piqued his interest.

Mr. So remained politically engaged when he returned to Hong Kong in the 1990s, indicating that in the latter years of his practice he was motivated to use his spare time to help the DAB with policy research. “My sole interest in joining the DAB was to assist with research; I had no interest or intention at the time of joining the government. But that’s life. It takes you in unexpected directions,” he said. Eventually, he was nominated to chair the DAB’s policy committee. From there he became a Central Committee member, then a Standing Committee member and then the DAB’s Vice Chairman.

“To make a long story short,” he quipped, “my transition to the public sector was the by-product of being tasked with nominating people to join the government. After submitting my list to the DAB leadership, someone asked whether I could also be placed on the list. After giving it some thought, I felt that

March 2017 • COVER STORY 封面專題

www.hk-lawyer.org 15www.hk-lawyer.org 15


• March 2017

I could, but I never believed I would be selected. But, as you know, that is what happened.”

After 20 years of practice and stepping down from his role with the DAB, Mr. So took up the post of Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development in 2008. In 2011, he moved into his current role as Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development.

Competition OrdinanceWhile Mr. So has generally been quite hands off when it comes to drafting laws, he was very involved with the drafting of the Competition Ordinance from start to finish. He considers his work on this front to be a major milestone in his career. “We started by going to district council meetings and to business chambers to lobby for their support. What we found was that many business owners were afraid of inadvertently falling into a trap. To get the business sector on board, we had to compromise on some issues and assure them that the Competition Commission would handle cases with due process and care, but it was an uphill battle from the start.”

In spite of the struggle, he spoke positively of his experience, highlighting how much he had learned over his four-year involvement. One key take-away was that meaningful change takes time. “By looking at other jurisdictions and at some of the cases they have prosecuted, we saw that there are no quick fixes. Conducting an investigation and putting a case together is a lengthy process. It takes years and massive amounts of resources. However, I’ve always been of the opinion that the best way to ensure compliance is through public education,” he said. To him, this is the whole aim: to achieve a fair, level playing field through compliance, as opposed to relying on blunt-force litigation.

When asked about the law’s effectiveness, he said it is too soon to tell. “The competition law will be an evolving piece of legislation. It will need to be reviewed from time to time to assess whether the provisions are effective and

whether adjustments need to be made.”

Bureau’s 2017 PrioritiesAs the CEDB’s portfolio is quite broad, Mr. So provided a high-level overview of their 2017 priorities: from tourism to IP trading to the Belt and Road initiative, the CEDB’s roster is full.

Tourism

The first area up for discussion was Hong Kong’s tourism industry, which makes up five percent of the city’s gross domestic product (“GDP”). As a pillar industry, it also drives growth in other related sectors, including the retail, hotel and catering industries and contributes significantly to Hong Kong’s economy. While the number of visitor arrivals has more than doubled over the last decade, the tourism sector has faced a number of hardships in recent years due to the slowdown of the global economy, depreciated currencies and relaxed visa requirements for Mainland visitors in neighbouring countries. The situation has become more stable, but the outlook for the coming year remains challenging.

Despite the lacklustre forecast, Mr. So remains optimistic about a number of initiatives the Government is supporting to enhance Hong Kong’s tourism appeal, including light shows, home-grown mega events and small-and-medium sized Meetings, Incentive Travels, Conventions and Exhibitions (“MICE”) events, among others. “My priority this year is to add on to the tapestry of Hong Kong’s tourist attractions and to create a more unique cultural experience for visitors,” he said.

As regards progress on the mega events front, Hong Kong has recently hosted the FIA Formula-E Hong Kong ePrix, the “Light Rose Garden-Hong Kong” art installation at Tamar Park and the Sun Hung Kai Properties Hong Kong Cyclothon, which hopefully can be expanded to the Pearl River Delta. With the current initiatives set in place, Mr. So is confident that Hong Kong can be turned into a mega event capital of Asia.

IP Trading

Another key area of focus is IP trading and harnessing Hong Kong’s potential to attract more business. Pointing to the City’s status as a major trading hub and as a global “super-connector” to the Mainland, Mr. So said he was “very bullish” on Hong Kong’s potential in this regard.

Over the years, Hong Kong has accumulated much experience in cross-border IP transactions, and has become a regional marketplace and service centre for activities ranging from copyright trading, licensing and franchising to design services and technology transfer. It is also a boon that Mainland IP is rapidly expanding, he explained.

But for Hong Kong to fully capitalise on its collective professional experience and service centres, it must establish a robust IP protection regime, which the IP Trading Working Group has noted is “a prerequisite to any aspiration or credible bid to promote IP trading in the competitive environment of the global economy.”

In an effort to enhance Hong Kong’s IP protection regime, the Government has introduced amendments to the current patent legislation to reform and update Hong Kong’s patent system. Hong Kong will have its own independent patent system that enables applicants to file applications for standard patents directly in Hong Kong, without obtaining a patent in a designated patent office outside of Hong Kong first. The current “re-registration” system will continue to run in parallel, and applicants can still re-register standard patents that were granted by the State Intellectual Property Office of China, the European Patent Office and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office. The Government is forging ahead with preparations to implement the new patent system in 2019. The Government has also pledged to keep other components of Hong Kong’s IP regime (copyright, trade marks, registered design, etc) under constant review to ensure the system follows international



norms and is conducive to IP trading. Just this February, the Government kick-started the legislative process to prepare for the implementation of the international trade mark registration and management system under the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks in Hong Kong in 2019. While much work remains to be done, Mr. So believes a key to Hong Kong being able to maintain stable economic growth lies in its ability to transform into an IP trading hub.

Crossover Initiatives

The CEDB also actively supports cross-sectoral collaboration (or crossover) initiatives, with the aim of encouraging collaboration across industries, including the manufacturing, design, film, electronic games, comics and animation and garment industries. It is hoped that by creating links between different creative and innovative sectors, local businesses will develop more insights as to how new elements can be added to their existing products and services. We hope to encourage cross-industry synergies that will allow local businesses to enhance their brand competitiveness, Mr. So explained.

One of the ways in which the CEDB

supports these initiatives is by arranging meetings amongst members of different industries. Mr. So joked that he has become a professional “matchmaker” of sorts by helping people come together on and offline. For him, the idea of promoting crossover initiatives sprung from his negotiations with Disney in Los Angeles – Disney was interested in expanding in Hong Kong through a series of IP licensing arrangements. “I walked away from those meetings thinking that Hong Kong has the right resources and ingredients to pursue similar opportunities. When I returned, I began exploring opportunities on this front.”

To highlight progress in this space, Mr. So recounted a recent crossover initiative success story involving MOZACCO, whose sports gear debuted at the Standard Charter Hong Kong Marathon 2017. It is the first Crossover Co-create Brand of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries and its debut at the Standard Charter races demonstrated the Co-create Brand’s vibrancy and positive energy, while also promoting healthy life-style habits, he explained. MOZACCO’S work even got him out to run the 10 km after a six-year hiatus, which he happily reported finishing at a faster pace than he completed his last race.

Mr. So spares no effort in promoting crossover initiatives because he believes

it is the trend of development. It can enable Hong Kong to capitalise on its advantages and pool its strengths to support the development of Hong Kong brands, he explained. It also has the potential to help develop Hong Kong as an IP trading hub, as cross-industry collaboration involves IP rights management.

Invest Hong Kong

Another focal point of the CEDB’s efforts is supporting Hong Kong’s start-up scene through Invest Hong Kong. Mr. So believes that Hong Kong has a good environment to enable a whole new generation of disruptors to create, test, show and launch their new businesses.

A recent positive development in this area is the Hong Kong and Shenzhen governments’ signing of a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly develop the Hong Kong/Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park in the Lok Ma Chau Loop. This will be the largest innovation and technology platform that the Hong Kong Government has ever established and will hopefully make Hong Kong’s start-up scene even more attractive.

Belt and Road Initiative

Finally, Mr. So turned to Hong Kong’s efforts to support the Belt and Road initiative, a significant development


• March 2017


strategy launched by the Chinese government to promote economic cooperation and further market integration among countries along the Belt and Road routes. Specifically, the initiative plans to connect 65 counties in Asia, Africa and Europe to strengthen collaboration in five areas – infrastructure, trade, policy, finance and people.

Mr. So explained that Hong Kong can play an important role in the Mainland’s implementation of the Belt and Road initiative by facilitating infrastructure investment and financing in the region. The Government plans to continue working with key stakeholders to promote and develop Hong Kong as an infrastructure and financing centre, as well as take advantage of other opportunities such as professional services, which have also been identified as key areas for growth and investment, in Chinese and third markets along the routes.

Global OutlookAs Mr. So recently attended an informal ministerial gathering on World Trade Organization issues, hosted by the Swiss government in January, he discussed the global outlook for trade and the rise of protectionist sentiments, which has cast uncertainties over the global economic and trade outlook.

As Hong Kong is an open economy built on trade and services, it will inevitably be affected if the trend of protectionism intensifies to an extent that hampers global trade performance. Mr. So indicated that the Government

will continue to monitor policy developments of various economies on the front of trade protectionism and mitigate or protect the economy from its effects.

One of the ways the Government seeks to create stability is by having legal certainty vis-à-vis its trade with other economies. In addition to entering into Free Trade Agreements (“FTAs”) and regional economic co-operation arrangements, Hong Kong continues to look to new opportunities for its economic development. So far, Hong Kong has concluded FTAs with Mainland China, New Zealand, the Member States of the European Free Trade Association (ie, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) and Chile, and is currently conducting FTA negotiations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (“ASEAN”), Maldives, Georgia and Macau.

As a member economy of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”), Hong Kong continues to work with other member economies to study issues related to the realisation of the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (“FTAAP”), which could accelerate regional economic integration and drive long-term economic development. In a recent press release, Mr. So noted that Hong Kong plans to continue to work closely with APEC member economies and participate actively in the relevant work plans of APEC in hopes of facilitating the early realisation of the FTAAP.

He also noted that Hong Kong has been closely monitoring the development of regional FTAs, including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

(“RCEP”) which is one of the potential pathways to realise the FTAAP. The RCEP is currently the largest FTA negotiation in the Pan-Asia region. The combined GDP of the 16 RCEP participating economies, which are also important trading partners of Hong Kong,

represents nearly one-third of the world’s GDP. As such, Mr. So indicated that the Government will continue exchanging views with its trading partners on the development of RCEP and other regional FTAs.

Message for SolicitorsHaving heard reports from fellow practitioners of how competitive Hong Kong’s legal market is and remains, Mr. So encourages solicitors to explore opportunities that present themselves across the regional landscape through the Belt and Road initiative. “I truly believe that the Belt and Road initiative will be the next big source of workflow and opportunities for at least the next two decades.”

To assist Hong Kong’s professional services sector explore opportunities in foreign markets, the CEDB has developed and launched a new funding scheme called the Professional Services Advancement Support Scheme, or “PASS” for short. The HK$200 million Scheme provides funding support for non-profit making projects organised by local professional bodies amongst others, and aims to encourage the professional services sector’s pro-active outreaching promotion efforts and improvement in service offerings. Mr. So strongly encourages legal professional bodies to apply for funding. More background information about PASS is available at www.pass.gov.hk.

As for ideas on sourcing new business, Mr. So suggests solicitors look at providing services to start-ups and those supporting them. He also recommends looking for opportunities to assist those in the crossover space. “These are all developing business areas that will require legal support. Following the value where it is being developed is a great way to build a lucrative practice. I have always been a firm believer in competing in areas where there is a lot of head room for everyone. I think the ones I have mentioned are good spaces to watch,” he said. n



商務及經濟發展局局長蘇錦樑先生談及他的事業、商務及經濟發展局2017年的工作

重點，道出律師行業在區內的機遇。

專訪

蘇錦樑 GBS JP

作者 Cynthia G. Claytor

商務及經濟發展局局長

最近負面經濟新聞像陰霾不散，似乎

每星期都有令人憂慮的消息傳出。

全球貿易放緩，發達市場表現經濟不佳，

貿易保護主義大軍甦醒，逐步走向脫離全

球化。面對凡此種種，全球的政策制定者

除了握緊拳頭，在挑戰重重的艱難時期互

相安慰外，可做的不多。

商務及經濟發展局1局長蘇錦樑先生雖說未

來一年的環境複雜多變，令香港的經濟前

景彌漫不明朗因素，但他仍然保持樂觀，

專注於促進合作，對工作和香港的未來充

滿希望。從知識產權貿易和旅遊業，到「

一帶一路」將帶來的機遇，香港的政策局

局長將不遺餘力地尋找新出路、制定新政

策，以促進香港經濟增長。任重而道遠，

但他會以獅子山精神來開始每天的工作。

選中服務社會

甚麼促使他從私營機構投身公共部門？蘇

先生說是無心插柳，一切由他加入香港民

主建港協進聯盟(民建聯)而起。

雖然蘇先生目前站在香港政治的前緣，但

他透露，以往對政治並不怎麼感興趣。他

回憶道：「殖民地時代在香港長大，絕少

人談論政治或鼓勵在學校論政。直至移民

加拿大，加入一間大型律師行，才對政治

產生了興趣。」該律師行的合作文化，加

上同事愛好交流政見、辯論政策，引起了

他的興趣。

蘇先生於90年代回流香港，執業後期利用

工餘時間協助民建聯進行政策研究工作。

他說：「我加入民建聯的唯一興趣是協助

研究。當時我沒有興趣，亦沒有打算加

入政府，但人生就是意料之外。」後

來，他獲提名擔任民建聯政策委員會主

席，由此加入中央委員會，然後成為常

務委員會委員，再出任民建聯副主席。

他說：「長話短說，我過渡至公共部

門，是被任命提名人選加入政府的副產

品。我把名單交給民建聯領導層後，有

人問我是否也可列入名單之內。我想想

覺得也可以，但不覺得會被選中，結果

事情就這樣發生了。」

執業20年後，辭去民建聯的職位，蘇

先生於2008年出任商務及經濟發展局

副局長，並於2011年獲委任為商務及

經濟發展局局長至今。

1 商務及經濟發展局負責的政策範疇，包括香港對外商貿關係、促進外來投資、保護知識產權、為工商業提供支援、旅遊、保障消費者權益、促進競爭、通訊、廣播、電影和創意產業等。除上述的政策事宜外，商務及經濟發展局並同時負責監督轄下八個行政機關的運作，包括投資推廣署、知識產權署、工業貿易署、香港天文台、香港郵政、電影、報刊及物品管理辦事處、香港電台、通訊事務管理局辦公室及駐海外的香港經濟貿易辦事處。


• March 2017

競爭條例

法律起草工作方面，雖然蘇先生通常採

取不干預的方式，但在草擬《競爭條

例》時，他積極參與整個過程。他視這

方面的工作為事業上的重要里程碑。「

一開始我們便遊說區議會和商會支持。

我們發現許多企業東主擔心法例會令

他們無意中跌入陷阱。為了獲得商界支

持，我們必須在一些問題上妥協，向他

們保證競爭事務委員會將以適當的程序

處理個案，但從一開始已是一場苦戰。」

儘管得來不易，但他對這個經驗表示肯

定，強調在四年的參與中獲益良多。其

中學到的一個重點，是有意義的變革需

要時間。他說：「綜觀其他司法管轄區

和起訴案例，我們看到沒有靈丹妙藥。

進行調查、歸納個案是個漫長的過程，

需時經年，耗用大量資源。然而，我一

直認為確保合規的最佳方法是公眾教

育。」對他而言，這就是目標所在：通

過合規實現公平競爭環境，而非依賴迫

令訴訟。

被問及《競爭條例》的效力時，他說現

在言之尚早。「競爭法將是一項不斷演

進的法律，需要不時檢討，評估有關條

文是否有效，是否需要作出調整。」

商務及經濟發展局2017年工作重點

商務及經濟發展局的工作範圍甚廣，蘇

先生概述了該局2017年的工作重點：從

旅遊業到知識產權貿易到「一帶一路」

，任務繁重。

旅遊業

第一個討論的領域是香港的旅遊業。旅

遊業佔香港本地生產總值5%。作為香港

的支柱產業，旅遊業也推動其他相關行

業的增長，包括零售、酒店和飲食業，

對香港經濟貢獻重大。雖然過去10年訪

港旅客人數增加了一倍多，但由於全球

經濟放緩、貨幣貶值，以及鄰近國家對

內地旅客放寬簽證規定，香港旅遊業近

年面對多方面的困難。雖然情況已經穩

定下來，但來年仍然充滿挑戰。

儘管預測並非一片光明，但蘇先生對政

府提升旅遊業吸引力的多項措施仍然樂

觀，包括燈光匯演、本地大型活動、中

小型會議、獎勵旅遊、會議及展覽(MICE)

等。他說：「今年的工作重點是增加香

港的旅遊景點，為旅客創造更獨特的文

化體驗。」

至於大型活動，香港最近主辦了國際汽

聯香港電訊電動方程式賽車、在添馬公

園舉辦了「玫瑰燈海園—香港站」藝術

裝置，以及新鴻基地產香港單車節，希

望可以擴展至珠三角地區。以目前的措

施，蘇先生相信香港可成為亞洲盛事之

都。

知識產權貿易

另一個重點領域是知識產權貿易，利用

香港的潛力吸引更多商機。蘇先生指

出，香港是主要貿易樞紐、全球與內地

的「超級聯繫者」，他非常看好香港在

這方面的潛力。

多年來，香港在跨境知識產權交易方面

積累了豐富經驗，已成為版權貿易、牌

照和特許經營，以至設計服務和技術轉

讓的區域市場和服務中心。中國知識產

權市場正迅速擴大，也是一個佳音。

要充分利用集體專業經驗和服務中心，

香港必須建立一個健全的知識產權保護

制度。知識產權貿易工作小組表示，「

這是在全球經濟的競爭環境下，能銳意

推動知識產權貿易而有望成功的先決條

件。」

為加強香港的知識產權保護制度，政府

對現行的專利法例作出修訂，以改革和

更新香港的專利制度。香港將擁有獨立

的專利制度，申請人可在香港直接提交

標準專利申請，而無須先在其中一個本

港以外的指定專利當局獲得批予專利。

現行的「再註冊」制度會繼續並行，申

請人仍可就已獲國家知識產權局、歐洲

專利局和聯合王國專利局批予的標準專

利再註冊。政府正致力準備最早於二○

一九年實施新專利制度。政府亦承諾會

不斷檢討香港知識產權制度的其他組成

部分(版權、商標、註冊外觀設計等)，

以確保該制度遵守國際規範，有利於知

識產權貿易。政府剛於二月展開立法程

序，以準備最早於二○一九年在香港實

施世界知識產權組織《商標國際註冊馬

德里協定有關議定書》的國際商標註冊

和管理制度。

儘管尚有很多工作，但蘇先生認為，香

港保持穩定經濟增長的關鍵，在於能否

轉型為知識產權交易中心。

聯乘協作

商務及經濟發展局還積極支持跨界別(或

聯乘)協作，旨在鼓勵各行業互相合作，

包括製造業、設計、電影、電子遊戲、

動漫及服裝業，希望透過不同創意創新

界別之間建立聯繫，令本地企業發掘如

何在現有產品和服務中加入新元素。蘇

先生解釋：「我們希望鼓勵跨行業協同

效應，令本地企業提升其品牌競爭力。」

商務及經濟發展局支持這些舉措的方法

之一，是安排不同行業的業者舉行會

議。蘇先生笑說，他已成為一個專業「

媒人」，幫助人們在線上、線下走在一

起。他說促進跨界別協作的意念，由他

在洛杉磯與迪士尼談判開始。迪士尼有

意通過知識產權許可安排，擴展在香港

的業務。「會後我在想，香港有適當的

資源和元素開發類似的商機。返港後，

我就開始探索這方面的機遇。」

蘇先生以最近MOZACCO聯乘的成功經

驗，闡述這方面的成就。MOZACCO是香

港工業總會首個香港聯乘品牌，在渣打

香港馬拉松2017首度亮相，展示這個共

同創造的品牌充滿活力和正能量，也希

望藉此推動健康的生活方式。為支持MO-

ZACCO，蘇先生久休6年復出，參與10

公里競賽，並以較上次快的時間完成。

蘇先生不遺餘力地推動聯乘協作，因為

他認為這是發展趨勢，能令香港發揮優

勢，集中力量支持香港品牌發展，亦

有潛力協助香港發展為知識產權貿易中



心，因為跨產業合作涉及知識產權管理。

投資推廣署

商務及經濟發展局的另一個工作重點，是

透過投資推廣署支持香港的初創企業。蘇

先生相信，香港擁有良好的環境，供新一

代初創企業創造、測試、展示和發行他們

的新業務。

這方面最近取得積極進展。香港政府與深

圳政府簽署了合作備忘錄，在落馬洲河套

區共同發展「港深創新及科技園」。這將

是香港政府建立的最大創新科技平台，希

望藉此令香港的初創企業環境更具吸引

力。

一帶一路

最後，蘇先生談及香港支持「一帶一路」

的工作。「一帶一路」是中央政府發起的

一項重要發展戰略，旨在促進沿線經濟合

作，進一步推動市場一體化。具體來說，

「一帶一路」計劃連接亞洲、非洲及歐洲

65個國家，以加強在基礎建設、貿易、

政策、金融和人員五個領域的合作。

蘇先生解釋，內地實施「一帶一路」，香

港可透過協助區內基建投資和融資，從中

發揮重要作用。政府計劃繼續與主要持份

者合作，推動發展香港作為基建和融資中

心，並把握專業服務等領域的機遇。這些

領域已被認定為中國及沿線第三市場的關

鍵增長和投資領域。

環球展望

蘇先生於1月份出席了由瑞士政府主持的

世界貿易組織(世貿)非正式部長部會議。

會上他討論了全球貿易前景和保護主義情

緒的崛起，後者為全球經貿前景帶來了不

明朗因素。

香港作為一個以貿易和服務為本的開放型

經濟，若保護主義趨勢加劇，以至妨礙全

球貿易表現，香港將無可避免地受到影

響。蘇先生表示，政府會繼續密切注視各

經濟體在貿易保護主義方面的政策動向，

以減輕或保障本港的經濟免受影響。

政府創造穩定環境的方法之一，是與其

他經濟體進行貿易時，提供明確的法律

依據。除了訂立自由貿易協定及區域經

濟合作安排外，亦繼續為經濟發展尋找

新機遇。至今，香港已與中國內地、紐

西蘭、歐洲自由貿易聯盟成員國(即冰

島、列支敦士登、挪威和瑞士)及智利締

結自由貿易協定，目前正與東南亞國家

協會、馬爾代夫、格魯吉亞和澳門進行

自由貿易協定談判。

作為亞太經濟合作組織(亞太經合組織)

成員，香港繼續與其他成員國合作，研

究實現亞太自由貿易區相關事宜，藉以

加速區域經濟一體化，推動長期經濟發

展。在最近的新聞稿中，蘇先生指出，

香港計劃與亞太經合組織成員經濟體緊

密合作，積極參與亞太經合組織開展的

相關工作計劃，從而推進亞太自貿區的

早日實現。

他又指，香港們一直密切關注區域性自

貿協定的發展，其中包括作為實現亞太

自貿區其中一個路徑的區域全面經濟夥

伴協定(協定)。協定是當前泛亞洲地區規

模最大的自貿協定談判，參與談判的16

個成員的本地生產總值接近全球三分之

一，亦是香港的重要貿易夥伴。香港會

繼續在不同場合及平台與貿易夥伴就區

域自貿協定的發展交流意見。

寄語律師

蘇先生不時從法律從業同仁口中得悉香

港法律市場一直保持競爭力，

他鼓勵律師探索「一帶一

路」為區域帶來的機遇。

「我衷心相信，『一帶

一路』將是未來20年工

作和機遇的下一個重要來

源。」

為協助香港的專業服務業

探索外國市場的商機，商

務及經濟發展局推出

名為「專業

服務協進支

援計劃」(PASS)的資助計劃。為數二億

元的支援計劃資助推行包括由專業團體

主導的非牟利項目，以期加強本港專業

服務行業與境外市場相類行業的交流和

合作，提升服務。蘇先生十分鼓勵法律

專業團體申請資助。

至於開發新業務的構想，蘇先生建議律

師考慮為初創企業和它們的支持者提供

服務。他又建議在協助聯乘協作方面

尋找商機。「這些都是發展中的商業領

域，需要法律支援。放眼發展中的領域

是建立可觀業務的好方法。我一直堅信

應該在有充裕空間的範疇競爭，我提到

的領域值得探索。」 n

LAW SOCIETY NEWS律師會新聞

Young Solicitors’ Group: Survey on Young Members’ Needs and Preferences in 2016The Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) highly values our members’ feedbacks and opinions as they are essential to the continuous improvement of our work. We launched the “Survey on Young Members’ Needs and Preferences” in May 2016, which was also made available through the Law Society’s mobile app from November until the end of December 2016. We received a total of 94 responses from our members. Some key feedback is summarised below:

Activities / services* our members would like YSG to organise / provide會員希望年青律師組舉辦／提供的活動／服務 *

82%

64%

43%

77%

55%57%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

* Each member can tick more than one option. 每位會員可以選多於一個選項。

Programmes / platforms to further career and share life experiences分享及推進事業發展及人生經驗的活動／平台

Professional development programmes專業發展活動

Personal development programmes個人發展活動

Activities that enhance communications and exchanges among senior and junior members促進資深與年青會員之間溝通交流的活動

Social services and pro bono initiatives社會服務和公益活動

Joint professional networking events跨專業界別人際交流活動

Other activities其他活動

年青會員的需求和偏好調查2016

年青律師組非常重視會員的反饋和意見，這些意見對我

們不斷改善工作至關重要。我們於2016年5月進行了

「年青會員的需求和偏好調查」，並於2016年11月在

律師會的應用程式平台推出，讓會員可在2016年12月

底前提供寶貴意見。我們共收到94份回覆，其中一些關

鍵反饋總結如下：


• March 2017

The Hong Kong Academy of LawThe Hong Kong Academy of Law (“Academy”) organised 8 seminars in January.

A seminar entitled “Taxation of Costs” was held on 16 January. It provided participants with a general overview of the procedure on costs and the law. 287 participants attended the seminar.

The speakers of the seminar were Mr. Sean Frost, Sole Proprietor of Sean Frost & Co. (Hong Kong) and Mr. Alfonso Fung, Sole Proprietor of Alfonso Fung & Co.

香港法律專業學會

香港法律專業學會於2017年1

月舉辦了合共8場專題講座。

1月16日舉行的「訟費的評定」

專題講座，向與會者概述了與

訟費相關的程序和法律。287位

人士出席了該專題講座。

Sean Frost & Co. (Hong Kong)

的Sean Frost先生及Alfonso

Fung & Co.的Alfonso Fung

先生擔任該專題講座的講者。

According to the survey results, the top four areas that young members would like to see activities organised for them and some brilliant suggestions for each of the areas are summarised as follows:

• programmes/platformstofurthercareerandsharelifeexperiences(82 percent of respondents), such as sharing sessions;

• activitiesthatenhancecommunicationsandexchangesamongsenior and junior members (77 percent of respondents), such as study tours, meet-and-greet events;

• professionaldevelopmentprogrammes(64 percentofrespondents),such as sharing practical tips on court practice and court etiquette; sharing how to change practice areas including moving to in-house practice; guided tours to quasi-legal organisations such as the Intellectual Property Department and the Independent Commission Against Corruption; and other practice and industry development related sharing sessions; and

• jointprofessionalnetworkingevents(57percentofrespondents),such as a joint professional art appreciation event and a joint professional concert.

The survey results have been invaluable in assisting us to formulate the YSG activities in 2017, including various new initiatives, such as: (1) the Macau study trip to encourage the understanding of the difference in common law and civil law systems, and offering networking opportunities with Macau counterparties; (2) a social awareness outreach & training programme on equal opportunities issues, to introduce anti-discrimination law related practice to our members; (3) an additional event for CONNECTED mentorship programme to foster sharing of career and life experiences, as well as exchanges among senior and junior members; (4) supporting organisation of additional joint professional activities, to facilitate members’ exchange with other professionals; and (5) YSG Explore HK Series to encourage exchange among senior and junior members through fun and exciting activities. We will continue to take into account members’ feedback and suggestions in planning for our future initiatives.

In addition, we will explore the use of more social media to reach out to members in response to members’ feedback, in that 86 percent of the respondents are in favour of communicating via emails and 35 percent are in favour of using other social media such as Facebook.

In appreciation of our members’ support and to encourage their use of Law Society’s mobile app, as announced at the launch of the online survey at the Welcome Drinks for Trainee Solicitors in November 2016, 10 members who completed the online survey prior to the deadline on 31 December 2016 were presented with YSG souvenirs.

YSG events would not be as successful without our members’ support and suggestions. We look forward to seeing you in our 2017 activities and we welcome your suggestions at all times! Please keep an eye on the weekly circulars for details of our events and/or contact us via our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/young.solicitorsgroup).

Serina ChanCouncil Member and Chairperson, Young Solicitors’ Group

Felix YuenCommittee Member, Young Solicitors’ Group

根據調查結果，年青成員最希望籌辦活動的4個領域，以

及對每個領域的一些寶貴建議總結如下：

• 分享及推進事業發展及人生經驗的活動／平台(82%

受訪者)，例如分享會；

• 促進資深與年青會員之間溝通交流的活動(77%受訪

者)，例如學習團、見面會；

• 專業發展活動(64%受訪者)，例如有關法庭實踐和法

庭禮儀的實用提示分享；改變執業領域分享，包括

轉任企業律師；輔助性法律組織，如知識產權署和

廉政公署導賞參觀；和其他執業和行業發展相關的

分享會；及

• 跨專業界別人際交流活動(57%受訪者)，例如跨專業

界別藝術欣賞活動和跨專業界別音樂會。

調查結果對我們非常寶貴，有助我們制定年青律師組

2017年的活動，包括：(1)澳門學習之旅，以增進會員

對普通法和大陸法系統差異的了解，並提供機會與澳門

同業交流；(2)關於平等機會議題的社會意識宣傳和培訓

計劃，向會員介紹反歧視法相關實踐；(3)額外一次「法

友聯盟」活動，以增進事業發展和人生經驗分享，並促

進資深和年青會員之間的交流；(4)擔任更多跨專業界別

活動的支持組織，以促進成員與其他專業人士的交流；

及(5)舉辦年青律師組探索香港系列，通過有趣精彩活

動，鼓勵資深和年青會員進行交流。在策劃未來的計劃

時，年青律師組會繼續參考會員的意見和建議。

此如，我們將研究如何更廣泛使用社交媒體來回應會員

的意見，86％的受訪者贊成通過電子郵件溝通，35％贊

成使用其他社交媒體，例如Facebook。

為答謝會員的支持，並鼓勵他們使用律師會的應用程

式，正和於2016年11月舉行的實習律師歡迎酒會上所

公佈，年青律師組會從2016年12月31日前提交回覆者

當中隨機抽出10位幸運兒，贈送年青律師組精美禮物乙

份。

年青律師組的活動得以成功，有賴會員的支持和建議。

我們期待在2017年的活動中見到各位，隨時歡迎各位

提供建議！請密切留意每周通告，關注我們的活動詳情

及／或透過Facebook聯繫我們(https://www.facebook.

com/young.solicitorsgroup)。

陳潔心律師理事會成員兼年青律師組主席

阮沛恒律師年青律師組委員會成員


March 2017 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

TWGHs Volunteer Services Programme Co-organised by Law Week Organising Committee and YSGSince the launch of the Law Week in 1991, new initiatives have been introduced to meet the needs of different social segments throughout the years. For over a decade, the Young Solicitors Group (“YSG”) has been collaborating with the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (“TWGHs”) in providing volunteer services to young children of under-resourced families. As a new initiative to stage its 25th Anniversary, the Law Week Organising Committee and the YSG co-organised a volunteer services programme to promote legal education and interest in the use of English to primary school students.

On 3 December 2016, over 20 Law Society volunteers travelled to Tuen Mun and were greeted by an enthusiastic group of around 40 primary school students at TWGHs Tuen Mun Integrated Services Centre. Immediate Past President Stephen Hung explained the role of lawyers as well as highlighted the legal rights and duties of citizens in the society. Council member and YSG Chairlady Serina Chan then led an interactive ice-breaking session and briefly introduced the key concepts of freedom and human rights.

Each volunteer then paired up with around two children to read and share the book entitled “We are all born free”. The book includes a selection of articles in plain English from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Universal Declaration”) with beautiful illustrations, and introduces the core values of natural justice and equality, procedural fairness of the judicial system, fundamental human rights as well as anti-discrimination protection.

To enable the students to have a better understanding of the Universal Declaration, they were divided into small groups and each group staged a role play based on an article selected from the Universal Declaration under the guidance of the volunteers. The best performing group and the group which best demonstrated the underlying meaning of the selected article were awarded winners of the contest.

As in past years, with the overwhelming support from Law Society members, the volunteer vacancies were filled up shortly after the recruitment had started. It is most encouraging to receive positive feedback from TWGHs and to work with the children during the programme. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with TWGHs providing more opportunities for interested members to take part in these meaningful programmes.

George K.H. ChanCommittee Member, Young Solicitors’ Group

The energetic Law Week volunteers, together with Immediate Past President Stephen Hung, Law Week OC and YSG members.活力充沛的法律周義工、前會長熊運信律師、法律周籌委會成員及年青律師組成員。

法律周籌委會與年青律師組合辦東華三院義工服務計劃自1991年推出以來，法律周不斷引入新元素，以滿足社會各階層的不同需求。年

青律師組與東華三院合作，為貧困家庭兒童提供義工服務十多年。適逢法律周25

周年，法律周籌備委員會和年青律師組聯合舉辦了義工服務計劃，向小學生推廣

法律教育和使用英語的興趣。

2016年12月3日，超過20位律師會義工前往屯門，並在東華三院屯門綜合服務中

心接受約40位小學生熱烈歡迎。前會長熊運信律師解釋律師的工作，強調公民在

社會中的法律權利和義務。稍後，理事會成員兼年青律師組主席陳潔心律師帶領

進行熱身環節，並簡單介紹了自由和人權的基本概念。

每位義工與大約兩個小朋友配成一組，一起閱讀書籍《We are all born free》及分

享閱讀內容。這本書用簡單的英文，表達《世界人權宣言》內的文章，配合精美

插圖，介紹了正義和平等的核心價值觀、司法系統的程序公平性、基本人權，以

及反歧視保護。

為了令學生們更深入理解《世界人權宣言》，他們被分成小組，每組在義工的指導

下根據從《世界人權宣言》中選出的一篇文章進行角色扮演。當中表現最好的一組

和最貼切地展示所選文章基本含義的

一組，均會成為比賽的得獎者。

一如以往，在律師會會員大力支

持下，義工空缺在招募開始後不久

便告屆滿。活動獲東華三院好評並

看見孩子們快樂的面孔，令人十分

鼓舞。我們期待繼續與東華三院合

作，為會員提供更多參與富有意義

活動的機會。

陳嘉豪律師

年青律師組委員會成員

Happy faces of the children after listening to the sharing by Law Society volunteers on the book “We are all born free”.小朋友聽畢律師會義工分享《We are all born free》的故事後流露出愉快的面孔。


• March 2017

The winning team together with the Law Society volunteers and the adjudicator, Immediate Past President Stephen Hung.獲獎隊伍與律師會義工及評判，前會長熊運信律師。



Law Week 2016The first Law Week in 1991 evinced the aspiration of the Law Society to enhance the community’s legal knowledge and to promote available legal services in the community. New features are introduced from time-to-time to gauge the needs of different social segments.

This year, Law Week made use of popular media channels, including TV, radio and social media, to share legal knowledge with the general public. The President and Council members were invited to participate in the legal features broadcast on ViuTV and Commercial Radio. The President chatted with five children in one TV episode, discussing topics that ranged from pursing a legal career, to solicitors’ ethics and the legal aid system. Both programmes were well received.

Apart from the media broadcasts, Law Week held two legal community talks at Chiang Chen Studio Theatre on 8 and 20 December, attracting over 120 and 150 attendances respectively.

As in previous years, the opening of Law Week was held on the same day as Teen Talk on 17 December. We were honoured to have the Hon. C. Y. Leung, the Chief Executive of HKSAR; the Hon. Geoffrey Ma, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal; the Hon. Rimsky Yuen SC, the Secretary for Justice of HKSAR; Mr. Dennis Kwok, Legislative Council Member (Legal Functional Constituency); Mr.Thomas Edward Kwong, Director of Legal Aid; and Ms. Winnie Tam SC, then-Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, joining our President Thomas So and Ms. Ann Yeung, Chairlady of Law Week 2016 Organising Committee, to kick-off the opening ceremony.

Officiating guests, Council members, Standing Committee on External Affairs members, distinguished guests, Law Week and Teen Talk Organising Committee members and over 800 students participated in the event.主禮嘉賓、理事會成員、對外事務常務委員會成員、嘉賓、法律周和「青Teen講場」籌委會成員和800多名學生參與是次活動。

The huge success of Law Week 2016 was attributable to the tireless effort of the Organising Committee and the staunch support of the Council and the event’s officiating guests. The Law Society is also grateful for the sponsorship from the Legal Aid Department.

法律周2016律師會於1991年開始舉辦法律周，旨在向市民推廣法律知識和法律服務。法律周

不時加入新元素，務求令社會各界受惠。

今年，法律周透過大眾媒體，包括電視、電台和社交網站，與公眾分享法律知識。

會長和理事會成員獲邀出席ViuTV和商業電台的法律節目。會長在其中一集電視節

目中與五個小朋友聊天，討論以律師為職業、律師專業操守和法律援助制度等話

題。兩個節目均廣受歡迎。

除了電視和電台節目外，法律周於12月8日及20日在蔣震劇院舉辦了兩場法律社區

講座，分別吸引了逾120人及150人出席。

一如既往，法律周開幕典禮與「青Teen講場」於12月17日同日舉行。我們有幸邀

得香港特別行政區行政長官梁振英先生、終審法院首席法官馬道立先生、律政司司

長袁國強資深大律師、立法會議員郭榮鏗大律師(法律界功能界別)、法律援助署署

長鄺寶昌先生、時任大律師公會主席譚允芝資深大律師，以及律師會會長蘇紹聰律

師和法律周2016籌備委員會主席楊慕嫦律師主持開幕儀式。

法律周2016得以圓滿成功，實有賴籌委會的不懈努力，以及理事會和一眾主禮嘉

賓的鼎力支持。律師會亦感謝法律援助署贊助是次活動。

The Chief Executive of HKSAR, the Hon. C. Y. Leung (Centre); the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, the Hon. Geoffrey Ma; Secretary for Justice, Rimsky Yuen SC; Director of Legal Aid, Thomas Edward Kwong; President of the Law Society, Thomas So; then-Chairman of Hong Kong Bar Association, Winnie Tam SC; Council members, distinguished guests and Law Week Organising Committee members shared the joy of celebrating Law Week’s 25th anniversary. 香港特別行政區行政長官梁振英先生(中)、終審法院首席法官馬道立先生、律政司司長袁國強資深大律師、法律援助署署長鄺寶昌先生、律師會會長蘇紹聰律師、時任大律師公會主席譚允芝資深大律師，理事會成員、嘉賓和法律周籌委會成員一同慶祝法律周25周年。


• March 2017

Ceremonial Opening of the 2017 Legal Year in Hong KongThe 2017 Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year was held on 9 January. Eminent bar leaders from abroad gathered in Hong Kong to experience and witness this solemn ceremony. The Law Society was honoured to have been invited by the Judiciary to organise a hospitality programme for the overseas guests. This year, we welcomed 76 delegates from 14 jurisdictions.

The day started with a visit to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. The Hon. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma welcomed the 41 head delegates. Registrar Kwang provided our guests with a historical overview of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Building, which was followed by a guided tour.

One highlight of the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year’s programme was the Presidents’ Roundtable, which was co-chaired by Mr.Thomas So, President of the Law Society, and Ms. Winnie Tam SC, then-Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association (“HKBA”). The theme of this year was “Connectivity: Role of Professional Organisations in Promoting Connectivity for Members’ Benefit”. Fifty-one representatives from over 36 bar

associations and law societies participated, sharing insights on how members of the legal profession around the world could connect through professional organisations and through harmonisation of laws. This was followed by a luncheon jointly hosted by the Law Society and HKBA.

In the afternoon, the delegates visited the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”). The visit was led by Council Members, Ms. Bonita Chan, Mr. Simon Lai and Mr. Roden Tong. Mr. Stefan Gannon, General Counsel of the HKMA, gave a presentation on the topic of Hong Kong as an International Financial Centre followed by a tour round the HKMA Information Centre.

At the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year, the Chief Justice, the Secretary for Justice, the President of the Law Society and the then-Chairman of HKBA all delivered enlightening speeches. The speech by the President of the Law Society was posted on the Law Society website. Nine Korean law students and young lawyers who were in Hong Kong for an internship programme were also

invited to attend the annual event.

The day concluded with a dinner reception jointly hosted by the Law Society and HKBA with, the Chief Justice and the Secretary for Justice as our honourable guests.

Exchanges with overseas delegates continued on the following days. Representatives of the Law Society had meetings with representatives of the International Association of Young Lawyers, the Tokyo Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia. The Law Society also signed Memoranda of Understanding with the Bar Association of India and the Mongolian Bar Association on 9 and 10 January respectively.

Ceremonial Opening of Legal Year 20172017年法律年度開啟典禮

From left: President Thomas So; the Secretary for Justice Mr. Rimsky Yuen SC; the Hon. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma; and Ms. Winnie Tam SC, then-Chairman of HKBA proposing a toast with the guests at the dinner reception.左起：會長蘇紹聰律師、律政司司長袁國強資深大律師、終審法院首席法官馬道

立及時任大律師公會主席譚允芝資深大律師在晚宴上向一眾嘉賓祝酒。



2017年香港法律年度開啟典禮2017年法律年度開啟典禮於1月9日隆重

舉行。來自世界各地法律界代表雲集香

港，見證此莊嚴的盛典。律師會有幸獲邀

協助司法機構接待來自14個司法管轄區的

76位嘉賓。

當天早上，代表團參觀香港終審法院，首

席法官馬道立歡迎41位嘉賓。並由司法常

務官鄺卓宏先生介紹香港終審法院大樓的

歷史，及帶領隊伍參觀。

法律年度開啟典禮的亮點之一是會長圓桌

會議，由律師會會長蘇紹聰律師與時任

大律師公會主席譚允芝資深大律師一同主

持，今年的主題為：「連通性：專業組織

在促進連通性上，為會員謀求福祉的過程

中所發揮的角色」。來自36個律師協會

的51位代表參加了會議，探討如何透過

各地法律的專業組織和融合不同司法區的

法律，以及如何加強會員之間的連繫等課

More than 41 chief delegates attended the Presidents’ Roundtable. 逾41位代表團團長出席會長圓桌會議。

President Thomas So spoke at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2017. 會長蘇紹聰律師在2017年法律年度開啟典禮上致辭。

Mr. Stefan Gannon, General Counsel of the HKMA, greeted the delegates at the HKMA. 金管局首席法律顧問簡賢亮先生歡迎一眾與會代表到訪金管局。

Delegates enjoying the dinner co-hosted by the Law Society and HKBA. 一眾與會代表出席由律師會與大律師公會合辦的晚宴。

題，作深入討論。隨後，代表出席了由律師會與大律師公會合辦的午宴。

代表在當天下午由理事會成員陳寶儀律師、黎壽昌律師及湯文龍律師帶領下，到訪香港

金融管理局("金管局")，並獲金管局首席法律顧問簡賢亮先生接待，並就香港國際金融中

心為主題發表演說，隨後代表參觀了金管局資訊中心。

在法律年度開啟典禮上，終審法院首席法官、律政司司長、律師會會長及時任大律師公

會主席均發表發人深省的演說。律師會會長的講辭已上載至律師會網站。9名來港參加實

習計劃的韓國法律學生及年輕律師亦出席了本港法律界的年度盛事。

最後，一眾代表出席了由律師會與大律師公會合辦的晚宴，終審法院首席法官及律政司

司長亦為座上嘉賓。

2017年法律年度開啟典禮翌日，交流活動繼續進行。律師會代表與The International

Association of Young Lawyers，東京弁護士會及The Law Council of Australia會

面。律師會亦於1月9日及10日分別與The Bar Association of India及Mongolian Bar

Association簽訂諒解備忘錄。


• March 2017

YSG’s Macau Study TripThe Young Solicitors Group (“YSG”) together with the Macau Lawyers Association (“MLA”) and Young Barristers’ Committee (“YBC”) of the Hong Kong Bar Association successfully co-organised a Macau Study Trip entitled “After Brexit: Capitalising on Market Opportunities of Hong Kong and Macau Lawyers in Portuguese-Speaking Countries / Territories” on 14 January which was attended by 30 Law Society, 16 YBC and 15 MLA members.

The one-day study trip began with a seminar on Post-Brexit market developments and Brexit's impact on legal practice given by Dr. Vicente Manuel, Deputy Secretary General of the Forum for Economic and Trade Co-operation between China and the Portuguese-speaking Countries (Macau); Dr. José Luis de Sales Marques, President of the Institute of European Studies of Macau; and Dra. Maria João Bonifácio, Trade & Investment Commissioner of the Portuguese Trade and Investment Agency, Counselor for Economic and Commercial Affairs for the Consulate General of Portugal in Macao and Hong Kong.

Following the seminar was a panel discussion at which Dra. Joana Alves Cardoso, registered lawyer with MLA; Mr. Fred Kan, Former Council Member and Macau Sub-Group Chairman, Member of the Greater China Legal Affairs Committee; Ms. Serina Chan, Council Member and Chairlady of YSG; and Mr. Hugh Kam, Vice-Chairman of YBC shared their views and insights on Post-Brexit market opportunities and cooperation between Macau and Hong Kong lawyers.

The intellectually stimulating seminar was followed by a networking luncheon for our fellow young members to mingle with their professional overseas counterparts, as well as exchange insights on the practice of common law and civil law systems. In the afternoon, members were taken to a number of remarkable sites, where they visited hidden gems along the narrow winding streets of Macau, including the Museum of the Macau Holy House of Mercy,

Dom Pedro V Theatre, and The Taipa Houses Museum.

This event was a great start to the New Year. We look forward to hosting more events in the near future for our young members to enhance their global awareness, as well as establishing a networking platform to foster closer relationships with our overseas counterparts.

Louise K. F. WongCommittee Member, YSG

Speakers, representatives and young members of the MLA, YBC and YSG at the networking luncheon.講者與澳門律師公會、年青律師組及新晉大律師委員會代表和年青會員出席交流午宴。

年青律師組澳門學習之旅年青律師組與澳門律師公會及香港大律師公會新晉

大律師委員會於1月14日合辦了以「英國脫歐之後：

香港及澳門律師在葡語系國家／地區的市場機遇」

為題的澳門學習之旅，分別有30位香港律師會會

員、16位香港大律師公會會員及15位澳門律師公會

會員出席。

學習之旅為期一天，以「英國脫歐後的市場發展及其

對法律執業的影響」專題研討會揭開序幕，由中國－

葡語國家經貿合作論壇(澳門)副秘書長韋尚德先生、

澳門歐洲研究學會主席麥健智先生及葡萄牙駐澳門及

香港總領事館商務參贊布思麗女士擔任主講嘉賓。

研討會後進行小組討論，由澳門律師公會註冊律師賈

欣娜女士、香港律師會前理事會成員及澳門專責小組

主席暨大中華法律事務委員會簡家驄律師、理事會成

員兼年青律師組主席陳潔心律師及新晉大律師委員會

副主席金晉亭大律師，就英國脫歐後的市場機遇及港

澳律師的合作分享見解。

研討會上大家互相交流、激發思考。會後參加者享用

午宴，讓年青會員與外地專業同仁聯誼，交流普通法

及大陸法系執業的見解。當日下午，會員參觀多個澳

門名勝景點，在蜿蜒的街道上尋幽探寶，包括參觀澳

門仁慈堂、崗頂劇院及龍環葡韻住宅式博物館。

這次活動標誌著新一年的一個好開始。我們期待為年

青會員舉辦更多活動，以加強他們的全球意識，為他

們建立一個網絡平台，促進他們與海外同業建立更密

切的關係。

黃金霏律師年青律師組委員會成員

Distinguished speakers sharing their insights on Post-Brexit market development and its impact on legal practice.講者分享他們對英國脫歐後的市場發展及其對法律執業的影響的見解。

Exploring the cultural and historical sites of Macau.探索澳門文化歷史名勝。



遠足隊及長跑隊2017年新年快樂！

2017年元旦，約12名遠足隊及長跑隊成員結伴遊新界東北迎新年。

雖然部分會員或許通宵達旦慶祝除夕，但在新一年，大自然和好天氣呼喚著戶外

活動愛好者，他們期待打破每日的常規，燃燒節日吃下去的多餘脂肪。

冒險之旅在雞谷樹下(粉嶺附近)開始，在大尾篤(大埔附近)結束。會員徙步或慢跑

八仙嶺和橫嶺郊野公園的崎嶇山路，同時欣賞壯麗的景色和藍天。

對於遠足者來說，今次郊遊提供了一個鍛煉體能的機會，以活出更健康的生活方

式作為新年祈願。對於酷愛運動的會員，遠離喧囂的路跑，到偏遠的山丘，是不

錯的轉變。

儘管兩組人起步時間、步伐和路線不一，沿途總會遇見。雖然短暫的偶遇並不完

全出乎意料，但對於遠足者和跑手來說，也帶來愉快和振奮的驚喜。他們沿路互

相問候，互相鼓勵。

參加者沉醉在郊外的美景，在充滿挑戰性的山路上游歷了數小時，最終到達大尾

篤結束旅程，然後結伴到附近一家餐廳

小聚。總括而言，這次活動深受會員好

評，是強身健體，提高耐力的好方法！

其中一名隊友在指定時間內完成跑山路

程，在終點區獲頒「超級跑手」，讓新

一年有個好開始！

非常感謝各位會員的大力支持和參與。

特別鳴謝鄧滿喜律師、鄧樹彪先生、前

會長兼遠足隊隊長葉成慶律師及遠足隊

召集人鍾慧賢律師的指導和籌備。

李遠傳律師長跑隊隊長

A Super Happy New Year 2017 for Hikers and Runners!On New Year’s Day 2017, about a dozen members of the Hiking Team and Distance Running Team participated in a joint team outing in the north east New Territories to welcome the New Year in style.

Though it might have been a late night for some members celebrating New Year’s Eve, Mother Nature and the fine morning weather of the brand new year beckoned outdoor enthusiasts, who looked forward to enjoying a break from daily routines and burning off any festive excesses.

The adventure started and ended at Kai Kuk Shue Ha (near Fanling) and Tai Mei Tuk (near Tai Po), respectively. Members trekked or jogged the rugged country park trails in Pat Sin Leng and Wang Leng whilst enjoying the stunning mountain scenery and the blue skies.

For the hikers, the outing offered a refreshing workout and a chance to make a New Year’s resolution for a healthier lifestyle. For athletic minded members, the remote hills were a nice change of pace from the typical hustle and bustle of road running.

Despite the staggered start times, differing paces and non-identical routes of the two groups, members’ paths crossed along the way. While the brief encounter was not entirely unexpected, it was a pleasant and uplifting surprise for both the hikers and runners. Members exchanged warm greetings and encouraged each other along.

After participants had immersed themselves in the beautiful countryside and navigated the challenging terrain for several hours, they ended their journey at Tai Mei Tuk, gathering together for refreshments at a nearby cafe. All in all, the event was well received by members. It was a fantastic way to boost fitness and resilience!

The “super runner” trophy was bestowed at the finishing area upon one of our members who completed the trail run within the specified time. It marked a super start to the New Year!

Many thanks are due to fellow members for your wonderful support and participation. We are especially grateful to Mr. Andy Tang, Mr. William Tang, Past President and Hiking Captain Mr. Simon Ip, Hiking Convenor Ms. Wai Yin Chung for the expert guidance and planning.

Lee Yuen Chuen Captain, Distance Running Team

Hikers enjoyed the scenic view along their journey from Kai Kuk Shue Ha to Pat Sin Leng. 遠足者從雞谷樹下到八仙嶺，沿途欣賞美景。

Runners took part in a trail run event, completing the course within the specified time.跑手參加了跑山活動，在指定時間內完成路程。


• March 2017

Teen Talk 2016: “Deconstructing Cyber Crime”“Teen Talk” is one of the flagship events of the Law Society, focusing on serving young people and the broader community. The event set a new record with a total of 937 students from over 94 schools from 18 districts. This year also marks the first time that international schools have taken part in the event.

Teen Talk 2016 was held over three days, with round one, the “Moot Court Competition”, completed over two weekends in early November. Students gathered at the High Court and the University of Hong Kong to share personal views on social topics and engage in friendly debates. Teams were given either the role of defense or prosecution, presenting their case in front of real life judges and senior practitioners. Judges were impressed by the presentations, as well as the students’ analytical skills and ability to formulate arguments within 30 minutes preparation time with the coaching of prosecutors from the Department of Justice and Law Society members.

Encouraged by positive responses from the schools, the second round of Teen Talk 2016 was held at the Nursery Park in West Kowloon Cultural District on 17 December. The whole day event included discussions with guests to comprehensively explore legal issues on

cybercrime and the Legal Knowledge Orienteering Race where lawyers and students collaborated to complete various tasks to learn legal knowledge in a creative way.

The Organising Committee (“OC”) would like to give special thanks to the Hon. Geoffrey Ma, Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; the Hon. Rimsky Yuen SC, Secretary for Justice; and Mr. Chung Siu-yeung, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), who officiated this year’s kick-off ceremony. Dr. Frank Law, Superintendent of Police, Cyber Security Division, Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau, President Thomas So, Past President and Council Member Junius Ho and Council Member and OC Chairman Nick Chan provided an informative talk on legal and cyber crime matters, enhancing students’ awareness on this issue.

Group photo of the Hon. Geoffrey Ma, the Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, Mr. Rimsky Yuen SC, Secretary for Justice (front row, center) with Law Society Council members, Teen Talk OC members and students’ representatives.香港終審法院首席法官馬道立先生、律政司司長袁國強資深大律師(前排中間)與律師會理事會成員、「青Teen講場」籌委會成員及學生代表合照。

Over 500 students participated in the “Legal Knowledge Orienteering Race” under the guidance of Law Society members.超過500名學生在律師會會員的指導下參與「法律知識野外

定向」。

94 school teams competed in “Moot Court Competition”, the first round event of Teen Talk 2016, over two weekends in early November 2016.94支學校隊伍參與在11月初兩個週末舉行的「青Teen講場2016」首

輪活動「模擬法庭比賽」。

The OC would also like to express their heartfelt thanks to over 100 Law Society member facilitators who volunteered to participate in the programme to pass legal knowledge to the younger generation. Same as in previous years, Teen Talk received funding support from the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education to cover part of the expenses incurred.

Without the dedicated effort of the OC chaired by Mr. Nick Chan and vice-chaired by Ms. Nadine Lai and Mr. Roden Tong, all members, students, schools, volunteers and the Law Society Secretariat, Teen Talk 2016 would not have been so successful.

Please visit and “Like” the Law Society Teen Talk Facebook fan page (https://www.facebook.com/teentalkhk) to download your photos!

Legal Symposium in TaiwanTo celebrate the 72nd Taiwan Judicial Festival, the Judicial Yuan of Taiwan, the Ministry of Justice and the Taiwan Bar Association jointly held a symposium on 11 January which attracted about 250 attendees. Immediate Past President Stephen Hung was invited to speak in one of the seminars titled “Freedom of Speech in ongoing Trial and Investigation Cases”. Mr. Hung shared how Hong Kong balances freedom of the press and ensures fair trial procedures, by citing relevant legislation and cases. Mr. Henry Wai, Vice-Chairperson of the Greater China Legal Affairs Committee, and Mr. Lawrence Yeung, Member of the Committee, also joined the event.

台灣法律研討會

為慶祝第72屆台灣司法節，台灣司法院、法務部以及中華民國律師公會全國聯合會於1月

11日共同舉辦學術研討會，吸引約250人參加。香港律師會前會長暨理事熊運信律師應邀

參與其中一個題為「言論自由與進行中的司法案件」的研討會，分享香港如何平衡新聞自

由和保障公平的審訊程序，包括相關的法規和案例。另外，律師會大中華法律事務委員會

副主席韋業顯律師和委員楊先恆律師亦應邀參與活動。



“Moot Court Competition” provided a platform to promote teamwork and for students to engage in critical thinking, sharing and learning from diverse perspectives.「模擬法庭比賽」提供了一個促進團隊合作、鼓勵學生從不同角度批判思考、分享和學習的平台。

Mr. Stephen Hung, Council Member and former President of the Law Society (front row second left) with the organisers and guests.香港律師會前會長暨理事熊運信律師(前排左二)與主辦單位代表及分享嘉賓合照。

青Teen講場2016：「拆解網上罪行」

「青Teen講場」是律師會的旗艦活動之

一，以服務年青人及社群。今屆「青Teen

講場」獲得來自全港18區超過94間學校合

共937位學生參與。今年亦首次有國際學

校參與活動。

「青Teen講場2016」分3天舉行，首輪活

動—「模擬法庭比賽」在11月初分別於兩

個週末在高等法院及香港大學舉行。學生

們就社會議題交流意見並進行辯論。各隊

伍被分配擔任辯方或控方的角色，在法官

和資深律師面前，辯論案件。法官對學生

的雄辯、分析能力以及在律政司檢察官和

律師會成員的指導下於30分鐘內建立論證

的能力，深表讚賞。

「青Teen講場2016」第二輪活動於12月

17日在西九龍文化區苗圃公園舉行。活

動內容包括分組討論，與嘉賓們探討網絡

罪行的議題，及「法律知識野外定向」活

動，律師和學生合作完成各項任務，以具

創意的方式學習法律知識。

籌委會謹此感謝香港終審法院首席法官馬

道立先生、律政司司長袁國強資深大律師

及警務處助理處長(刑事)鍾兆揚先生主持

開幕儀式。並感謝網絡安全及科技罪案調

查科警司羅越榮博士擔任嘉賓講者、與會

長蘇紹聰律師、前會長兼理事會成員何君

堯律師、理事會成員兼籌委會主席陳曉峰

律師，討論網上罪行及相關法律知識，提

高學生們對此議題的認識。

籌委會亦要向過百名律師義工表示衷心感

謝，透過此活動，將法律知識傳授給年輕

一代。並謹此感謝公民教育委員會資助此

活動。

「青Teen講場2016」得以圓滿成功，實有

賴籌委會主席陳曉峰律師、副主席黎蒑律

師及湯文龍律師、會員、學生、學校、義

工及律師會秘書處的努力。

請瀏覽及「讚好」律師會「青Teen講場」

Facebook專頁(https://www.facebook.

com/teentalkhk) 及下載相片！

0

5

25

75

95

100


• March 2017

Capturing the MomentIn our profession, there are always two sides to a story; the key is the ability to see it.

What better way to capture the beautiful side of things than with a camera!

The Photography Interest Group was set up in 2016 and it has been a success so far! We have organised three activities, starting with a kick-off event in Tai O, where members took photos of Hong Kong’s rustic island life, capturing a kaleidoscope of images of the small fishing village.

Our second event was a guided tour at the Asia Society of the exhibit Picturing Asia: Double Take: The Photography of Brian Brake and Steve McCurry. On this insightful tour, we learnt about the history and documentary photography styles of these two famous photographers, who, over the years, filled the covers and pages of Life Magazine and National Geographic Magazine with renowned photos, such as the Monsoon Girl and Afghan Girl, respectively.

We ended the year with a Christmas cruise on the Aqua Luna Hong Kong Junk in a joint event organised with the Cookery, Food and Wine Appreciation Interest Group. Although it was a cold winter’s night, our hearts were filled with warmth as we gathered with friends and shared joy and laughter at sea whilst mesmerised by the sparkling Christmas decorations and Hong Kong’s light show. For members who are new to Hong Kong, this was the perfect way to admire the creativity of the masterminds behind Hong Kong’s amazing and famous Christmas lights. There was also plenty of good food and wine involved at this self-funded event, as we concluded the night with a feast at an award-winning restaurant!

For 2017, we have already set in motion some activities, the first of which is a five-session photography course in spring for members on the use of DSLR cameras for portrait photography.

Sign up for the Photography Interest Group to stay tuned for the upcoming activities!

Hin Han ShumConvenor, Photography Interest Group

The four photos in this article were taken by Ms Hin Han Shum (middle)本文四張相片由岑顯恆律師(中)拍攝

Basking in the sun艷陽高照

On guard戒備狀態

Salted fish咸魚

Dragon gate龍門

捕捉最美一刻在我們的職業中，一個故事總是有兩

面，成功的關鍵是擁有看到這

兩面的能力。

捕捉美麗的一面，有

什麼比用相機更

好！

攝影小組於2016

年成立，至今成

功舉辦了三項活

動。首項活動為

到大澳拍攝香港

鄉村島嶼生活的

照片，捕捉小漁

村的各式影像。

之後，我們安排了一個導賞團，帶會員參觀亞洲協會籌

辦的「Picturing Asia: Double Take: The Photography of

Brian Brake and Steve McCurry」展覽。透過是次活動，

我們了解到這兩位著名攝影師的歷史和紀錄攝影風格，多

年來，他們拍攝的著名照片，如「季風女孩」和「阿富汗

女孩」，分別登上了《生活雜誌》和《國家地理雜誌》。

2016年最後一項活動是與烹飪、美酒佳餚鑑賞小組聯合

舉辦的「張保仔」帆船聖誕船河。雖然那天晚上天氣寒

冷，但與好友相聚，在海上分享喜悅和歡笑，同時被閃閃

發光的聖誕裝飾和燈飾迷住，令我們的心充滿了溫暖。對

於一班不熟悉香港的會員來說，這是欣賞香港著名的聖誕

燈飾及其創意意念的最好方法。是晚自費活動還有很多美

酒佳餚，我們在屢獲殊榮的餐廳享用盛宴作結！

2017年已到，我們已開始舉辦活動，頭炮為一連五堂的

春季攝影課程，教導成員使用單反相機拍攝肖像。

歡迎大家加入攝影小組，留意最新活動！

岑顯恆律師攝影小組召集人

0

5

25

75

95

100


• March 2017

HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing:CFA Finds “No Wrong Turning”

By Michael Jackson, Consultant Boase Cohen & Collins Associate Professor University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law

March 2017 • CRIMINAL 刑事法


Late in 2016, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) in HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing, FACC

5/2016 confirmed that joint enterprise liability remains part of Hong Kong criminal law. In so ruling, the CFA upheld the 1985 decision of the Privy Council (on appeal from Hong Kong) in R v Chan Wing Siu [1985] AC 168 (PC), in which Sir Robin Cooke formulated a broader basis for the imposition of secondary liability on the parties to a joint criminal enterprise than had previously been clearly established (the “wide principle”).

CFA Rejects JogeeIn re-affirming Chan Wing Siu and the wide principle, the CFA declined to follow the lead of the UK Supreme Court in R v Jogee, R v Ruddock [2016] 2 WLR 681 (“Jogee”) earlier in 2016. In Jogee, the UK Supreme Court (“UKSC”) had somewhat surprisingly concluded, more than 20 years after the wide principle was unequivocally adopted in the criminal law of the UK, that Chan Wing Siu had “taken a wrong turning at law”. The UKSC concluded that the wide principle involved a misunderstanding of the prior case law dealing with the liability of participants in a common criminal purpose. “Foresight” of what the parties to a common purpose might do beyond their agreed purpose while carrying out that purpose had been wrongly elevated into a principle of secondary liability, rather than serving at best as an evidential foundation for liability. Having identified this “wrong turning”, the UKSC in Jogee unblinkingly abolished joint enterprise liability as a separate basis of secondary party liability. Rather, the UKSC held that the liability of participants in a common purpose must instead be established using traditional accessory principles of liability, based on assisting or encouraging, with intention (or at least conditional intent) to assist or encourage the commission of the relevant offence and knowledge of all essential matters relating to that offence. Foresight in a joint judgment is only relevant as evidence of intention and not as a basis for establishing complicity.

In Chan Kam Shing, the CFA unambiguously rejected the UKSC’s conclusion in Jogee, concluding that Chan Wing Siu had not taken any “wrong turning”.

However, the CFA was not the first superior court to reject Jogee. Four months earlier, the High Court of Australia similarly declined to

follow Jogee in Miller v R [2016] HCA 30 for similar reasons.

Expansion of Joint Enterprise LiabilityPrior to Chan Wing Siu, the liability of participants in a joint enterprise was commonly based on Lord Parker CJ’s formulation of principle in Anderson & Morris [1966] 2 QB 110, para. 118 in 1966, that “where two persons embark on a joint enterprise, each is liable for the acts done in pursuance of that joint enterprise, … [including] liability for unusual consequences if they arise from the execution of the agreed joint enterprise.” The “agreed” joint enterprise included such offences as had been “tacitly agreed”, but the wide principle of liability for offences which had been contemplated or foreseen as a possible incident of executing the joint enterprise clearly extended Lord Parker’s principle and exposed those who participated or continued to participate in a joint criminal enterprise with such contemplation to a wider potential liability.

The distinction between these two forms of joint enterprise liability is explicitly articulated by Ribeiro PJ in Chan Kam Shing. Further, he terms liability for offence(s) which parties to a joint enterprise set out or intended to commit pursuant to their agreed common purpose, whether expressly or tacitly agreed, as a “basic joint enterprise”. However, he states, Chan Wing Siu’s wide principle enables the conviction of the participants in a basic joint enterprise for such further offences as were contemplated or foreseen by them as possible incidents of carrying out the common purpose, but not otherwise “intended” as such. In Chan Kam Shing, Ribeiro PJ refers to this latter category as “extended joint enterprise”. He also emphasises how it provides an effective means of addressing the situational uncertainties which regularly arise when criminals operate in gangs and which may otherwise present difficulties in effectively prosecuting those participants, especially using traditional accessory principles.

The commonly stated justification for extending liability in this way builds on this concern about the unpredictability and momentum of group criminal activity and to give effective protection to the public against criminals operating in gangs (see R v Powell, R v English [1999] 1 AC 1 (“Powell, English”)).


• March 2017

It Must Have Been One of ThemIn Chan Kam Shing, Ribeiro PJ identifies a further category of uncertainties which can arise in prosecuting group criminality which he refers to as “evidential uncertainties”. A clear example of this is the potential inability of prosecutors dealing with group criminal activity, especially fatal group attacks, to identify the principal. According to traditional accessory principles, liability of the accessories is derivative from that of the principal, who must therefore be identified. If he or she cannot be identified, then all must be acquitted. Joint enterprise liability overcomes this by permitting a prosecutor to prove that the conduct giving rise to the offence in question (eg, the fatal blow giving rise to liability for murder), took place pursuant to a joint enterprise, and must have been performed by one of the parties to that joint enterprise (ie, could not have been done by anyone else). Once this combination is proved, then the prosecutor’s case against each of the alleged parties rests on proof of their liability as a secondary party based on joint enterprise liability. If the offence was what the parties set out to commit, each is liable because they agreed or intended to commit that offence; but otherwise, liability rests on proof that the offence charged was at least “contemplated as a possible incident” (ie, extended joint enterprise). As such, this supports the view that joint enterprise liability, unlike traditional accessory liability, should be regarded as a distinct basis of liability, not derivative from that of the principal, and indeed, this viewpoint is strongly affirmed in Chan Kam Shing.

A Wrong TurningGiven the obvious and profound advantage enjoyed by a prosecutor via joint enterprise liability, why then did the UKSC in Jogee take such an adverse view of the doctrine, leading it ultimately to take the arguably unwelcome step of abolishing it?

One undoubted reason for doing so, as noted recently by Clare Montgomery QC

in her inaugural lecture for the University of Hong Kong and Boase Cohen & Collins Lecture Series in Criminal Law, was an adverse political environment for the operation of joint enterprise liability in the UK. Unlike Hong Kong, where most group attacks resulting in homicide involve organised crime gangs, joint enterprise liability in the UK was said to have condemned increasing numbers of young men, especially black-British youths, to longer minimum terms of life imprisonment upon conviction for murder, largely due to little more than their “association” with those who became involved in violent attacks. Attempts to find a legislative solution to this over-reach had signally failed, and the task of rectifying common law’s creation eventually fell back onto the UKSC.

But more fundamentally, aside from these wider political concerns, the UKSC in Jogee chose to take objection to the very nature of the wide principle of liability.

Mindful of the advantages of joint enterprise liability, the UKSC had attempted to reassure prosecutors that all was not lost.

But neither these criticisms nor the proposed solutions found traction with the CFA. Ribeiro PJ, agreeing with the majority in Miller, rejected the Jogee decision for three reasons (para. 62).

First, he disagreed with the UKSC’s view of the secondary party’s culpability. Rather, he viewed joint enterprise liability as distinct from that of traditional accessories, stating the “liability of a party to a joint criminal enterprise is not derivative but arises independently by virtue of his or her participation in the joint criminal enterprise.” Second, he found “confining the secondary party’s liability to liability under the traditional accessorial liability rules and abolishing the joint criminal enterprise doctrine … creates a serious gap in the law of complicity in crime.” Third, he found Jogee’s introduction of the concept of “conditional intent” could give rise to significant conceptual and practical problems.

Fundamental DifferenceOne of the less welcome features of the law relating to joint enterprise liability, as it had evolved in the UK, was the adoption of the notion of “fundamental difference” to deal with differences which may occur in the manner in which a contemplated offence is actually carried out. This notion was first introduced in R v English, and purported to recognise one restriction, at least, on the operation of the wide principle, as adopted in Powell, English. As formulated in R v English, differences in a homicide case in the dangerousness or lethality of the means used to kill the deceased during an “extended” joint enterprise potentially operated to limit the liability of those parties to the joint enterprise who could not be proved to have contemplated the use of weapons at all, or the use of weapons of such dangerousness or lethality.

This restriction had always been a feature of joint enterprise liability. In Anderson & Morris, Morris was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter when Anderson suddenly, and unexpectedly according to Morris, used a knife to fatally stab the victim.

This possibility was similarly recognised by Sir Robin Cooke in Chan Wing Siu, observing that parties to a joint enterprise would escape liability (i) if they had never contemplated the offence committed by the principal as a possible incident of carrying out the joint enterprise or (ii) if they had contemplated such an offence but dismissed it as “too remote”. But, if the party accused knew that lethal weapons, such as a knife or a loaded gun were to be carried on a criminal expedition, the defence should succeed only very rarely.

“Fundamental difference”, as formulated in R v English, in effect undermined this, by dictating that a jury could only acquit a party to a joint enterprise if an alleged difference related to the dangerousness or lethality of the means used to kill. This limitation was made explicit in R v Rahman [2009] 1 AC 129.

Regrettably, defining fundamental



香港特別行政區訴陳錦成：終審法院裁定「沒有行了錯誤的一着」

作者莊邁豪律師顧問布高江律師行副教授香港大學法律學院

difference in this way became an endless source of uncertainty and resulted in numerous appeals based on attempts to distinguish the lethality or dangerousness of various weapons or means of killing. The New Zealand Supreme Court declined to adopt this notion of fundamental difference into New Zealand law, noting the risk of legal principles that depend on a comparison of the dangerousness of weapons could encourage attempts to make unmeritorious (and perhaps faintly ludicrous) distinctions (see R v Edmonds [2011] NZSC 159).

Little mention was made of fundamental difference in Chan Kam Shing, and it is to be hoped that its abolition, along with joint enterprise liability, in Jogee provides a suitable opportunity to rid Hong Kong law of this notion.

Application of the Principles in Chan Kam ShingOne of the features of Chan’s appeal is that it was dismissed on the evidence on the basis that it was not actually an instance of extended joint enterprise liability. Rather, as explained by Ribeiro PJ, Chan was liable both on a “basic” joint enterprise basis, and on traditional accessory liability principles.

Where does this leave the law?Returning to Ms. Montgomery QC’s views, it seems reasonably clear that “the law in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong is now settled”, save for residual problems relating to fundamental difference and withdrawal which remain to be solved. By contrast, as Ms. Montgomery QC succinctly stated: “the law in the United Kingdom and the Caribbean appears less certain.” More regrettably, Jogee, and its proposed solution to the problem of guilt by association which afflicted the joint enterprise doctrine in the UK, has, in her view, created as many legal problems as it solves. Jogee has prevented the continuing use of the doctrine but has provided no relief for those who have been disproportionately affected by it. n

2016年下旬，終審法院在香港特別行

政區訴陳錦成案(FACC 5/2016)確

認，共同計劃法律責任依然是香港刑事法

的一部分。終審法院就在這案維持樞密院

1985年在陳榮兆案(來自香港的上訴案R

v Chan Wing Siu [1985] AC 168 (PC)

的判決有效。Robin Cooke爵士在判決中

確切地闡述向共同犯罪計劃各方施加次位

參與者法律責任的基礎，與以往已經確立

的比較，他的基礎更為廣濶(「廣泛的原

則」)。

終審法院不接納Jogee案

終審法院再次申明陳榮兆案和廣泛的原

則，拒絕跟隨英國最高法院2016年初在

R v Jogee, R v Ruddock [2016] 2 WLR

681(「Jogee案」)的帶領。英國刑事法

20多年前以經明確採用廣泛的原則，英

國最高法院(「最高法院」)卻在Jogee案

斷定陳榮兆案「在法律上行了錯誤的一

着」，真有點出人意外。最高法院斷定，

廣泛的原則涉及一種對以前案例法的誤

解，錯誤解讀了處理有共同犯罪目的的參

與者法律責任的案例。至於預見有共同目

的的各方在執行該目的時，有可能作出超

越他們經同意的目的之事，這種「預見」

被錯誤奉為次位參與者法律責任的原則，

而不是好好地被用作為法律責任在證據方

面的基礎。最高法院認為這是「錯誤的一

着」，在Jogee案毅然廢除共同犯罪計劃

法律責任，不以此作為次位參與者法律責

任的個別基礎。最高法院裁定，用來確立

有共同目的的參與者的法律責任的，一定

不是共同犯罪計劃法律責任，而是傳統的

從犯法律責任原則，即基於參與者協助或

鼓勵的行為，並懷有協助或鼓勵干犯相關


• March 2017

罪行的意圖(或至少是有條件的意圖)，以

及知悉所有與該罪行有關的關鍵事情，確

立參與者有罪。聯合判詞中的「預見」僅

在證明意圖上具重要性，但不能作為證明

同謀關係的依據。

在陳錦成案，終審法院法官一致拒絕接

納最高法院在Jogee案的結論，斷定樞密

院沒有在陳榮兆案「行了錯誤的一着」。

然而，終審法院不是率先不接受Jogee案

的高級法院。四個月前，澳洲高等法院同

樣在Miller v R [2016] HCA 30拒絕遵從

Jogee案的判決，所持理由相近。

擴大共同犯罪計劃法律責任

在陳榮兆案之前，共同犯罪計劃參與者

的法律責任通常以首席法官Parker勳爵

1996年在Anderson & Morris [1966] 2

QB 110確切闡述的原則為基礎，即「當

兩個人展開一項共同計劃時，每人均須

就其在執行該項共同計劃期間所作之行為

負責，……[包括]在執行經同意的共同計

劃期間出現的不尋常後果的法律責任。」

(第118段)。「經同意的」共同計劃包括

那些曾經「默示地同意」的罪行，但就罪

行施加法律責任的廣泛的原則，即就預期

或預見在執行共同計劃期間所可能發生

之事施加法律責任的原則，明顯是擴大

Parker勳爵的原則，令這樣預期而又參與

或繼續參與共同犯罪計劃的人，在更大程

度上承擔潛在的法律責任。

常任法官李義在陳錦成案精細地說明兩種

共同計劃法律責任形式的分別。對於共同

計劃各方打算或意圖依據他們經同意的(

不論是明示還是默示同意)共同目的干犯

罪行，常任法官李義亦把參與者就該罪行

承擔的法律責任稱為基本共同犯罪計劃的

法律責任。不過他指出，陳榮兆案的廣泛

的原則令基本共同犯罪計劃參與者因為其

他罪行被定罪，理由是這些罪行是他們預

期或預見執行共同目的時所可能發生的，

而不是因為他們「有意圖」干犯這些罪

行。在陳錦成案，常任法官李義稱後一類

為「經擴大共同犯罪計劃」。他亦強調指

出這個類別怎樣提供有效方法應付情況方

面的不確定性，這些不確定性通常在一黨

人犯罪時出現，並在有效地檢控那些參與

者的時候(特別是用傳統的從犯原則的時

候)有可能產生其他問題。

一班人進行犯罪活動是不可預見的，而且

犯罪規模可大可小，而通常用來支持這樣

擴大法律責任的理由是建基於這些問題

之上，有效保護公眾免受幫會罪行的影響

(見R v Powell、R v English [1999] 1 AC

1(「Powell、English案」))。

必定是其中一項

在陳錦成案，常任法官李義識別多一類在

檢控集體罪行時出現的不確定性，他稱之

為「證據方面的不確定性」。明顯的例子

是處理集體刑事活動的檢控員，特別是處

理釀成命案的集體打鬥的檢控員，有可能

無法識別主犯。按照傳統的從犯原則，從

犯的法律責任是從主犯的法律責任衍生而

來，因此一定要識別出誰是主犯。如果他

或她識別不到主犯，所有人都應該獲判無

罪釋放。共同犯罪計劃法律責任克服了這

個難題，因為它容許檢控員證明有關行為

構成案中依據共同犯罪計劃而發生的罪行

(例如致命一擊產生謀殺的法律責任)，並

且定必由共同犯罪計劃中其中一方作出(

即不可以是由其他人作出)。在共同犯罪

計劃法律責任的基礎上，一旦上述兩項俱

獲證明，檢控員針對各被控人士的案情就

取決於他們作為次位參與者的法律責任的

證明。要是該罪行是各方打算干犯的，各

方均須承擔責任，因為他們協議或意圖干

犯該罪行；但除此之外，法律責任會取決

於被控罪行最低限度是「預期……可能會

發生之事」(即是經擴大共同犯罪計劃)的

證明。就此而論，這就支持了一個觀點：

共同犯罪計劃法律責任與傳統的從犯法律

責任並不一樣，應被視為明確的法律責任

基礎；這種法律責任不是從主犯的法律責

任衍生而來的；事實上，這個觀點在陳錦

成案中得到強而有力的肯定。

錯誤的一着

共同犯罪計劃法律責任明顯給檢控員帶

來極大好處，既然這樣，為甚麼最高法

院在Jogee案反其道而行，最終走出可能

不受歡迎的一步，帶頭廢除共同犯罪計

劃的法則呢？

正如英國御用大律師萬江儀最近在「港

大―布高江律師行刑事法講座系列」首

場講座上所言，毫無疑問，這是因為英

國政治環境惡劣，不適合共同犯罪計劃

法律責任的施行。香港大多數釀成命案

的集體打鬥都是有組織幫會罪行，英國

的情況與香港的不一樣，在英國，共同

犯罪計劃法律責任被指加長了更多謀殺

罪成被判處終生監禁的年青人(尤其是英

籍黑人青年)的最低服刑期，究其原因，

大部分就只不過是因為他們與那些介入

暴力打鬥的人「有關連」。很明顯，透

過立法解決這種走過了頭的情況並不可

行，最終還是依靠英國最高法院做糾正

普通法產物的工作。

不過更重要的是，除了這些更廣濶的政

治問題之外，最高法院在Jogee案選擇不

接受法律責任廣泛原則的基本特質。

記着，共同犯罪計劃法律責任是有好處

的，最高法院有嘗試向檢控員保證明它

仍有用武之地。

但是沒有任何批評或建議的解決方法得

到終審法院的認同。常任法官李義認同

Miller案的大多數判決，拒絕接受Jogee

案的判決，理由有三(第62段)。

首先，他不認同最高法院關於次位參與

者的罪責的看法。相反，他認為共同犯

罪計劃法律責任有別於傳統的從犯法律

責任，指出「同犯罪計劃中的一方的法

律責任並非派生責任，而是憑藉其參與

該共同犯罪計劃而獨立產生的責任。」

其次，他認為「將次位參與者的法律責

任局限於傳統的從犯法律責任規則下的

法律責任以及取消共同犯罪計劃法則，

將令關於同謀關係的法律出現嚴重缺



口。」第三，他認為Jogee案提出「有條

件的意圖」概念，在概念上及實際上均產

生重大難題。

基本分別

關於共同犯罪計劃法律責任的法律有好幾

處特點，其中一項較不受人歡迎，就像在

英國發展的情況一樣。這項特點採用了「

基本分別」的概念，循這概念處理實際進

行預期的罪行所用的方式所可能出現的

分別。這個概念首見於R v English案，大

意是確認廣泛原則在運作上至少有一個限

制，Powell、English案也採納這個概念。

正如在R v English案所確切地闡述，在「

經擴大」的共同犯罪計劃進行期間殺人，

而殺死死者所用的工具的危險性和殺傷力

在殺人案件中是有分別的，那麼，要是證

明不到共同犯罪計劃中某一方絕對有預期

會有人使用武器，或者使用如此危險或高

殺傷力的武器，這個分別就有可能限制共

同犯罪計劃中該一方的法律責任。

這個限制過去一直是共同犯罪計劃法

律責任的特點。在Anderson & Morris

案，Anderson是突然用刀戳死受害人，

按照Morris的說法，Anderson殺人是始料

不及的，Morris因而被裁定謀殺和誤殺罪

名不成立。

這個可能性同樣在陳榮兆案得到Robin

Cooke爵士的確認，他觀察到共同計劃各

方(i)只要是從來沒有預期主犯所干犯的罪

行是在執行共同犯罪計劃期間所可能發生

之事，或(ii)只要他們有預期這種罪行，但

因為「極不可能發生」而不予理會，共

同犯罪計劃各方會得以逃避法律責任。不

過，如果被控一方知道有人攜帶具有殺傷

力的武器(譬如說，刀或上了子彈的槍)犯

案，辯方勝訴的機會是微乎其微。

在R v English案確切地闡述的「基本分

別」事實上破壞了這個可能，因為它使得

陪審團只在殺人工具被指稱在危險性或殺

傷力方面有分別的情況下，才可以判一方

無罪。這個限制在R v Rahman [2009] 1

AC 129有明確闡述。

遺憾的是，這樣給基本分別下定義成為不

確定性永無休止的源由，導致許許多多的

上訴，而這些上訴都是試圖區別各種殺人

武器或工具的殺傷力和危險性。新西蘭最

高法院拒絕把這個基本方別的概念納入

新西蘭法律之中，指出依靠武器危險性的

比較結果的法律原則是有風險的，有可能

鼓勵嘗試作出沒有意義的(及可能有點荒

唐可笑的)區別(見R v Edmonds [2011]

NZSC 159)。

陳錦成案只略略提到基本分別，但願

Jogee案廢除基本分別(也廢除共同犯罪

計劃法律責任)能為香港法律造就擺脫這

個概念的合適時機。

陳錦成案各項原則的應用

陳氏的上訴有幾個特點，其中之一是這宗

上訴是基於有關證據被駁回的，所持理據

是它事實上不是經擴大共同犯罪計劃法

律責任的情況。相反，正如常任法官李義

所解釋，必須陳氏承擔責任的依據是「

基本」共同計劃和傳統的從犯法律責任原

則。

現在的法律是甚麼情況？

說回英國御用大律師萬江儀的觀點。撇開

與基本分別和退出有關的剩餘問題不提

(這些問題仍然有待日後解決)，現時合理

地清楚可見的似乎是「澳洲、新西蘭和香

港的法律現時已有既定原則」。英國和加

勒比的情況正好相反，正如英國御用大律

師萬江儀所言：「看來英國和加勒比的法

律更不明確。」更遺憾的是，Jogee案解

決罪惡關聯問題的建議方法折騰了英國的

共同犯罪計劃法則，她認為Jogee案和案

中建議的方法是功過參半，既解決了法律

問題，但同時又創造了法律問題。Jogee

案禁止繼續使用共同犯罪計劃法則，但沒

有給那些不相稱地被法則影響的人提供任

何濟助。 n

By Kenny Chun, Senior Associate W.K. To & Co.


• March 2017

Court of Appeal Concludes that Certain Features in the Judgment Summons Procedure are Not Consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance

March 2017 • FAMILY LAW 家庭法


In matrimonial proceedings, it is quite common that the Family Court orders a

husband to pay interim maintenance to his wife and/or children, pending the final determination of the divorce petition. This is what is known as a “maintenance pending suit”. If the husband refuses or fails to make payment, whether pursuant to a maintenance pending suit or a maintenance order, the wife can take out a judgment summons seeking an order for the husband to attend Court for oral examination (ie, to answer the questions from the judgment creditor (ie, the wife) and the court in relation to his failure to make payments) and be committed to prison for up to three months.

On 30 December 2016, the Court of Appeal handed down its Judgment (“Judgment”) in the case of YBL v LWC, CACV 244/2015 (“YBL v LWC”). In its Judgment, the Court of Appeal comprehensively reviewed the judgment summons procedure under r. 87 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules (Cap. 179A) and held that certain features of the procedure were incompatible with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) (the “Ordinance”).

The FactsIn YBL v LWC, the husband being the Respondent was ordered to pay interim maintenance to his children in the sum ofHK$20,000permonth(“MPSOrder”).The order was made on 21 June 2013. He stopped making payments in September 2013. He applied for an order to set aside the maintenance pending suit. His application was dismissed on 4 March 2014.

On 13 August 2014, the wife issued a judgment summons, which the Court heard on 26 October 2015. After hearing the husband’s evidence on oath, the Court made, amongst others, a committal order, against the husband, committing him to prison for a term of three months on account of his contempt of the MPS Order.

On 29 October 2015, the husband applied to the Court of Appeal for bail pending appeal. On 11 November 2015, the Court of Appeal granted him cash

bailinthesumofHK$200,000.Intheend, the Court of Appeal allowed the husband’s appeal.

Incompatibility with the OrdinanceIn its comprehensive Judgment, the Court of Appeal reviewed the judgment summons procedure in light of the Hong Kong human rights landscape under Arts. 10 and 11 of the Ordinance. The following factors and human rights considerations were taken into account:

• presumptionofinnocence;

• therighttobeinformedofthenatureand the cause of the charge;

• therighttobepresentandbelegallyrepresented;

• theneedforsegregationoftheexamination process and the committal process;

• non-compellabilityandtherightagainst self-incrimination; and

• theuseofaffidavitandhearsayevidence for the purpose of a judgment summons.

The Court of Appeal concluded that various features under the judgment summons procedure were not compatible with the Ordinance on a variety of grounds (see para. 98).

Compression of Two Processes Unfair

First, the Court concluded that having the committal process heard at the same time as the examination process is unfair and incompatible with the right to a fair trial. One would recall that the husband in YBL v LWC gave evidence on oath before the Court on 26 October 2015 and the Court committed him to prison on the same day.

The Court explained that the purpose of an examination process is to facilitate a judgment creditor to obtain further information on the means of the judgment debtor and that the judgment creditor must take the information obtained through the process of examination to formulate his/her case against the judgment debtor at the time of default. This should be part of the judgment creditor’s case against

the judgment debtor and until such information is available, the judgment debtor cannot properly prepare his defence.

Seen in this light, the court held that the compression of the two processes into one undermines the guarantees in Art. 11 of the Ordinance. At the start of the examination process, neither the judgment creditor nor the judgment debtor knows an essential element of the charge, viz the financial means of the judgment debtor at the time of default. As such, the Court found that it cannot be fair to require him to answer the charge during the same compressed proceedings.

The court also noted the risk of the judge overlooking the point that the burden and standard of proof are different in the two processes.

Right to be Informed Compromised

Second, the Court found that under the judgment summons procedure, there is no safeguard in terms of the judgment debtor, who is subject to the potential risk of being committed to prison, being informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him. This is best exemplified by the fact that the husband in YBL v LWC was imprisoned right after he gave evidence on oath on 26 October 2015.

In its Judgment, the Court referred to an explanation provided by Nowak in UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2d Ed) (p. 331) that the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge under Art. 11(2)(a) of the Ordinance “cover[s] ‘not only the exact legal description of the offence but also the facts underlying it’. … [as such,] the information must be sufficient to allow preparation of a defence.” The court also noted that the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee had interpreted the right under Art. 14(3)(a), the equivalent of Art. 11(2)(a) of the Ordinance, as the right to be informed of both the law and the alleged facts on which the charge is based (see para. 38).

In this case, the Court held that the information in the judgment summons


• March 2017

was inadequate in light of the relevant standards.

Violation of Presumption of Innocence

Third, the Court examined the reference in r. 87(5)(c) and Form 23 (ie, the prescribed form of judgment summons under the Matrimonial Causes Rules (Cap. 179A)) which requires the judgment debtor to show cause (ie, to explain why he should not be committed to prison for his default). The Court found the provision to reverse the burden of proof and the infringe presumption of innocence under Art. 11(1) of the Ordinance.

In considering the right under Art. 11(1), the Court noted that there is already a body of case law in Hong Kong holding that in the context of a judgment summons the burden of proof is on the judgment creditor and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon examining r. 87(5)(c) and Form 23, where there are references to the judgment debtor being summoned to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for his default, the Court found that their wording could be misleading (see para. 37). The Court also noted the risks of lapses on the part of Family Court judges when they do not have the benefit of assistance of legal representations for the parties.

The Court explained that it is wrong in principle to require the judgment debtor to show cause in the context of a committal application in light of Art. 11(1) and recommended those words be taken out from r. 87(5)(c) and Form 23 (see para. 37).

Right of a Person to be Tried in His Presence Infringed

Fourth, the Court considered automatic committal under r. 87(5)(c) (ie, if the judgment debtor fails to appear in Court despite being ordered he will be automatically committed to prison), finding it infringed the right of a person to be tried in his presence under Art. 11(2)(d) of the Ordinance.

The first part of r. 87(5)(c) empowers the court to commit a person who failed to

attend the Court after an order had been made against him under r. 87(5)(b) for attendance at a specified day and time. It was submitted that this infringed the right of a person to be tried in his presence under Art. 11(2)(d) of the Ordinance.

The Court referred to G v S (2001) 4 HKCFAR 419, in which Nazareth NPJ commented on an order made after the hearing of a judgment summons that provided for warrant of committal to be issued upon an affidavit of non-compliance being filed:

“It cannot be right that a judgment debtor in default should be simply deprived of his liberty and subjected to a term of imprisonment in that way. There might by that time be good reason why he should not be imprisoned. … The proper course would be at least for a Judge of the Family Court to assess the propriety of and to sanction the warrant…”

The Court found the same could be said with regard to the automatic committal of a judgment debtor on account of his absence. “There could be good reasons for his absence, e.g., he had not received notice of the appointment or he is met with sudden illness or other unforeseen circumstances. This is particularly so when an order under [r.] 87(5)(b) is also made in the absence of the judgment debtor. Hence, it could well be the case that the court has never heard from the judgment debtor in relation to the judgment summons when he is automatically committed under the first part of [r.] 87(5)(c)” (see para. 51).

While the Court acknowledged that the repeated absence of a judgment debtor is adequate justification for the court to issue a warrant for his arrest and have him brought before the court as soon as practicable after arrest, it found that such circumstances cannot justify automatic committal. It also acknowledged that if the court is satisfied that the judgment debtor failed to attend the hearing without good cause, the court can conclude that the judgment debtor has waived his right to be present at trial and

proceed to hear evidence of the judgment creditor and determine whether a case for committal is established beyond reasonable doubt. In those instances, the Court found that if the court is so satisfied, it can make an order for committal in the judgment debtor’s absence (see para. 52).

Ongoing Arrears Unacceptable for Committal Process

Fifth, the Court considered the practice of expanding the scope of a judgment summons by including ongoing arrears in the amount in default (as opposed to the arrears up to the date of the judgment summons), holding that while this practice may be adopted for the examination process, it was unacceptable to adopt it for the committal process.

The Court began by noting that this practice is apparently adopted to dispense with multiple judgment summonses being issued for ongoing arrears. If an order of committal is made, the payment of this amount is set as the sum the judgment debtor must pay to have a committal suspended. Noting the utility of the practice in terms of the new order for payment in the examination process, the Court concluded that as a matter of principle, there is a serious problem if this is adopted as well for the committal process. The Court explained:

“The practice means that throughout the committal process, the charge is evolving. To establish a case of default up to the date of the judgment summons, the judgment creditor needs to establish the means of the judgment debtor during the defaulting period. However, if further arrears were added in the course of the committal proceedings, it effectively means that the judgment creditor can commit the judgment debtor on his means after the judgment summons. Thus, the charge is being constantly expanded and the judgment creditor can succeed even though he fails to establish the means of the judgment debtor for the pre-judgment summons period so long as he manages to establish the latter’s means for the post-judgment summons period” (see para. 58).

在婚姻法律程序中，一種頗為常見

的情況是，家事法庭會命令丈夫

向其妻子及/或子女支付中期贍養費，以

聽候法庭頒發與離婚呈請有關的最終裁

決，而這即是所謂的「訟案待決期間提供

贍養費」。倘若丈夫拒絕或未能支付有關

款項，那麼無論是根據「訟案待決期間提

供贍養費」還是根據贍養令，妻子都可

以取得判決傳票，要求法庭下令丈夫出庭

接受口頭訊問(即是就其未能支付有關款

項，回答判定債權人(亦即他的妻子)及法

庭所提出的問題)，並有可能會被交付監

獄羈押，為期不超過三個月。

上訴法庭在2016年12月30日，就YBL

v LWC, CACV 244/2015一案 (以下簡

稱“YBL v LWC”)下達其判決(以下簡稱

「判決」)。在該項判決中，上訴法庭廣

泛地審視了《

婚姻訴訟規則》(第179A

章)第87條下的判決傳票程序，並裁定該

程序中的某些特性，與《香港人權法案

條例》(第383章)(下稱《條例》)有所抵

觸。

案情

在YBL v LWC一案中，法庭命令作為該

案答辯人的丈夫，每月須向其子女支付

港幣20,000元作為中期贍養費(下稱「訟

案待決期間提供贍養費命令」)。法庭於

2013年6月21日下達該命令，而該名丈

夫於2013年9月停止支付有關款項。他

提出申請，要求法庭頒令將該「訟案待決

期間提供贍養費」撤銷，但法庭於2014

年3月4日駁回他的申請。

案中的妻子於2014年8月13日發出一份

判決傳票，而法庭於2015年10月26日就

有關傳票進行聆訊。在聆訊了該名丈夫經

宣誓而作的證供後，法庭以他藐視該「訟

案待決期間提供贍養費命令」為由，向他

下達(除其他以外)交付羈押令，並將其交

付監獄羈押三個月。

2015年10月29日，該名丈夫向上訴法庭

提出保釋要求，以等待上訴結果。上訴法

庭於2015年11月11日批准他以現金港幣

200,000萬元保釋外出，而最後，上訴法

庭裁定他上訴得直。

By 秦子謙高級律師杜偉强律師事務所



上訴法庭裁定判決傳票程序的某些特性抵觸香港人權法案條例

As such, the court found this practice in breach of Art. 11(2)(a) and (b) of the Ordinance.

The Way ForwardThe Court of Appeal gave remedial interpretation to the relevant rule in order to make it compatible with the Ordinance. Under such remedial interpretation, there will be, amongst others, the following important changes to the judgment summons procedure:

• theexaminationprocesswillbesegregated from the committal application. Practically, it would mean that the judgment debtor would first have to attend court for oral examination and after that the judgment creditor, if so advised, would need to take out another application for committing the judgment debtor to prison;

• thewords“and also to show cause why you should not be committed to prison for such default” (which contravenes the presumption of innocence) would be removed from the prescribed form for the judgment summons; and

• whentakingoutaCommittalSummons (ie, seeking for an order to commit the judgment debtor to prison), copies of the Statement and the Supporting Affidavit together with exhibits are required to be served on the judgment debtor.

The Court of Appeal also urged the judge in charge of the Family Law List in the High Court and the judges in the Family Court to give the matter immediate attention and to issue practice directions setting out the procedures for the judgment summons regime having regard to Arts. 10 and 11 of the Ordinance. It also urged the Family Court to consider publishing leaflets and standard forms to assist and guide litigants in person in applying and defending judgment summons (see para. 113).

In the end, the husband’s appeal in YBL v LWC was allowed but the subject judgment summons was remitted back to the Family Court for determination before another judge having regard to the principles and procedures in the Judgment. n

與《條例》有所抵獨

上訴法庭在其內容廣泛的判決中，根據

《條例》第10條及第11條涉及香港人權

保障的條文，審視了該判決傳票程序，並

探究了以下各項因素和人權問題：

• 無罪推定原則；

• 獲告知控罪的性質及因由的權利；

• 到庭受審及獲得律師作為代表的權

利；

• 將訊問程序及交付羈押程序分隔的需

要；

• 不得被強制作證及享有免使自己入罪

的權利；及

• 就判決傳票之目的，使用誓章和傳聞

證據。

上訴法庭裁定，判決傳票程序中的若干規

定，在某些方面與《條例》有所抵觸(參

見第98段)。

將兩項程序合併並不公平

首先，上訴法庭裁定交付羈押程序的聆

訊，與訊問程序在同一時間進行，這做法

有欠公允，且與享有公平審訊的權利不

符。正如在YBL v LWC一案中的丈夫所

遭遇的情況般，他於2015年10月26日在

法庭席前經宣誓後作供；但同一天，法庭

將他交付監獄羈押。

法庭解釋稱，訊問程序的目的，是為了讓

判定債權人能夠取得判定債務人在經濟能

力方面的進一步資料，而判定債權人要取

得該等資料，便必須通過訊問程序，並須

根據所取得的資料來構建其理據，以針對

違責的判定債務人。這應當構成判定債權

人向判定債務人所提出之理據的一部分，

而在該等資料獲得提供以前，判定債務人

無法妥為編撰他的抗辯理由。

根據這一點，上訴法庭裁定將兩項程序合

而為一，乃損害了《條例》第11條所作

出的保障。在訊問程序開始時，判定債權

人及判定債務人均並不知悉該控罪的一項

必不可少元素－就是判定債務人在違責之

時的經濟能力。因此，上訴法庭裁定，要

求答辯人在同一項合併的法律程序中，就

該等向他提出的指控作出回答，這做法並

不公平。

此外，上訴法庭也指出當中存在的一項風

險，就是法官忽略了在該兩項程序中，舉

證責任與舉證標準有所不同。

損害獲告知的權利

第二點是，上訴法庭裁定在該判決傳票程

序並沒有提供任何保障措施，讓面對可能

被交付監獄羈押之風險的判定債務人，得

以就他所面對的指控，獲得告知該指控的

性質和因由。最佳的例證，就是在YBL v

LWC一案中，該名丈夫於2015年10月26

日經宣誓作供後，即被法庭下令囚禁。

上訴法庭在其判決中，提述了法官

Nowak在 UN Convention on Civil and

Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2d

Ed) (p. 331)一案中所提供的解釋。該解

釋稱，根據《條例》第11(2)(a)條的規

定，獲告知有關指控的性質及因由的權

利，「不僅包含有關控罪在法律上的準確

陳述，也包含該控罪的相關事實」。 …

[因此，]該等資料必須充分，從而讓被告

人得以編撰其抗辯理由。」上訴法庭亦

指出，聯合國人權委員會已對第 14(3)(a)

條(相當於《條例》第11(2)(a)條)下的權

利作出了解釋；也就是說，被告人享有獲

得告知與其控罪相關的法律及所指稱的事

實之權利(參見第38段)。

上訴法庭在本案中裁定，根據各項相關準

則，該判決傳票中所載的資料並不充分。

違反無罪推定原則

第三，上訴法庭審視了第87(5)(c)條規則

及第23號表格(即是《婚姻訴訟規則》(第

179A章)所指定的判決傳票表格)所載的

內容，當中規定判定債務人須提出因由(

即是解釋為何他不應因其違責而被交付監

獄羈押)。上訴法庭認為，該項規定實際

上是將舉證責任顛倒，並違反了《條例》

第11(1)條的無罪推定原則。

在審視第11(1)條下的權利時，上訴法庭

指出，香港已有一系列的判例，規定在關

於判決傳票的情況中，舉證責任需要由判

定債權人承擔，而舉證標準則為毫無合理

疑點。上訴法庭在審視了第 87(5)(c)條規

則及第23號表格後(當中提述被傳召的判

定債務人，須就為何他不應因其違責而被

交付監獄羈押提出因由)，裁定當中的措

辭存在誤導成份(參見第37段)。上訴法庭

亦指出，如果家事法庭的法官未能讓訴訟

方獲得律師提供幫助，當中的處理方法恐

怕會存在失誤。

上訴法庭解釋稱，從第11(1)條的規定來

看，在交付羈押的申請中，如果規定判

定債務人需要提出因由，這是在原則上

犯錯，因此建議將該等字句，從第 87(5)

(c)條規則及第23號表格中刪除(參見第37

段)。

侵犯出席審訊的權利

第四，上訴法庭審視了第87(5)(c)條規則

下的自動交付羈押規定(即是說，假如判

定債務人被命令出庭，但最後卻沒有，則

他將會自動被交付監獄羈押)，並裁定它

違反了《條例》第11(2)(d)條的規定，即

是任何人有權出席對他的審訊。

第87(5)(c)條規則第一部分賦予法庭權

力，任何人假如被命令須在指定的日期

和時間出庭，但後來卻沒有，則根據第

87(5)(b)條規則，法庭有權將他交付羈

押。我們認為，這項規定與在《條例》第

11(2)(d)條下，任何人有權出席對他的審

訊之規定有所抵觸。

上訴法庭亦提述了G v S (2001) 4 HKC-

FAR 419一案。在當中，終審法院非常

任法官黎守律於聆訊了一項判決傳票後，

乃就所下達的一項命令作出評論：當訴訟

人就另一方沒有遵從規定而提交有關誓章

後，法庭下命令對該方發出交付羈押令：

「該名違責的判定債務人倘若因此被

剝奪自由和被監禁了一段時間，這一

做法實是有欠正確。該判定債務人當

時可能有適當理由說明為何他不應被

監禁。…因此，適當的做法至少應該

是，家事法庭法官在頒發該命令前，

先行就其適當性作出評估…」

上訴法庭認為，同樣情況亦適用於判定債

務人因沒有出庭而被自動交付羈押的情


• March 2017

況。「判定債務人也許是基於合理的理

由而未能出庭，例如：他沒有收到有關通

知；他突然患上了急病；又或是，基於一

些他無法預見的情況。假如判定債務人因

未能出庭而需要同時面對根據第87(5)(b)

條規則所頒發的命令，則更加需要在這方

面作出考慮。因此，很有可能出現的情況

是，判定債務人在根據第87(5)(c)條規則

的第一部分被自動交付羈押之前，法庭根

本從來沒有就該判決傳票，聽取法定債務

人所作的解釋(參見第51段)。

上訴法庭承認，倘若判定債務人一次又一

次地不出庭，法庭便有充分理由向他發出

拘捕令，並在將他拘捕後，於可行的情況

下盡快將他帶上法庭。然而，上訴法庭亦

認為，該等情況不足以成為將他自動交付

羈押的理由。此外，上訴法庭同意，如果

法庭信納判定債務人是在沒有合理因由的

情況下不出庭，那麼法庭可以認定判定債

務人是放棄了其出席審訊的權利，並可逕

自聽取判定債權人的證供，及裁定交付羈

押的理由是否可在毫無合理疑點下成立。

在該等情況中，上訴法庭認為如果法庭信

納，它可以在判定債務人缺席的情況下，

頒發交付羈押命令(參見第52段)。

持續拖欠在交付羈押程序中不可接受

第五，法庭審視了將持續拖欠的違責金額

包括在內(而並非僅將所拖欠的金額，計

算至判決傳票發出的日期為止)，從而將

判決傳票的範圍擴大的做法，並裁定這一

做法雖然可適用於訊問程序，但若要在交

付羈押程序中實行，卻是不能被接受。

上訴法庭在開始時指出，實行這一做法，

似是為了避免因為判定債務人的持續拖

欠，而需要為此發出多份判決傳票。法庭

若作出了交付羈押令，則判定債務人所支

付的該筆款項，便是相當於他為了暫緩

被交付羈押而須支付的款項。雖然上訴法

庭了解到該做法所具的效用(即是關於在

訊問過程中，須就有關付款頒發新命令方

面)，但它認為就原則而言，如果在交付

羈押程序中也實行如此做法，這將會構成

嚴重的問題：

「此做法等於是說，在整個交付羈押

程序中，所提出的控罪是在不斷地改

變。判定債權人若要證明在直至判決

傳票發出的日期為止的判定債務人違

責情況，便需要證明判定債務人在整

個違責期間的經濟能力。然而，如果

在整個交付羈押的法律程序中，也將

判定債務人進一步拖欠的金額包括在

內，這便實際意味著，判定債權人

可以根據判定債務人在判決傳票發出

之後的經濟能力而將其交付羈押。因

此，有關的控罪是在不斷地膨脹擴

大，而只要判定債權人能夠證明判定

債務人在判決傳票發出之後的經濟能

力，他便可以取得勝訴，儘管他未能

證明判定債務人在判決傳票發出之前

的經濟能力」(參見第58段)。

有鑒於此，上訴法庭裁定上述做法實屬

違反了《條例》第 11(2)(a) 及 (b)條。

後續措施

上訴法庭對相關規則作出了補救性的解

釋，從而使其符合《條例》的規定。根

據該補救性的解釋，判決傳票程序須(除

其他以外)作出如下重大修訂：

• 訊問程序與交付羈押申請需要分開處

理。在實際操作上，這意謂判定債務

人必須先出庭接受口頭訊問；之後，

判定債權人(若其獲得提供如此意見)

如欲使判定債務人被交付監獄羈押，

便需要另行提出申請。

•將「並提出因由，說明為何你不應因

拖欠該款項而被交付監獄」等字句，

從指定的判決傳票表格中刪除(因其違

反無罪推定原則)；及

• 在取得一份交付羈押傳票(即是要求

法庭頒令，將判定債務人交付監獄羈

押)時，需要將陳述書及作為支持的

誓章，並連同證物一併送達判定債務

人。

上訴法庭也要求管理高等法院家事法審訊

表的法官，以及家事法庭的法官一同採取

即時行動來處理有關事宜，並根據《條

例》第10條及第11條的規定，發出實務

指引，述明判決傳票機制的相關程序。此

外，上訴法庭也要求家事法庭考慮印製小

冊子及標準表格，就判決傳票的申請和抗

辯，為沒有律師作為其代表的訴訟人提供

協助和指引(參見第113段)。

YBL v LWC一案中的丈夫最終上訴得直，

但作為該案標的之判決傳票須發回家事法

庭，並由另一位法官根據上訴法庭在其判

決中所述的原則和程序來作出裁定。 n




• March 2017

Outbound Chinese Investment into the EU: What You Need to Know about Regulatory Roadblocks

By Héctor Armengod, Partner Latham & Watkins Les Carnegie, Partner Latham & Watkins

March 2017 • ON CHINA 中國實務


Chinese outbound investment in the EU has been growing steadily,

hitting a record €20 billion in 2015 and remaining strong in 2016. While most European economic actors perceive this trend as positive, there are some indications that regulators and policy makers are paying particular attention to EU M&A transactions by Chinese investors. Understanding existing regulatory structures – some of which may be implicated by Chinese outbound investment in non-intuitive ways – is necessary to effectively structure transactions in a manner that minimises deal-related regulatory risk.

Foreign Ownership RestrictionsRestrictions on foreign ownership in sensitive sectors are common in Europe. While some of the limitations are predictable (since they relate to sectors that are sensitive (eg, defence)), other limitations may be less intuitive. Below, we set out the main characteristics of foreign investment regimes in major European jurisdictions and also explain how, in some cases, investments in those jurisdictions could attract scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (“CFIUS”) – particularly given the more aggressive approach recently taken by CFIUS.

France

Foreign investments in strategic sectors in France require prior authorisation by the French Finance Ministry. Strategic sectors include defence, information technology, energy, transport, water, public health and telecommunications but also more unusual sectors such as private security services and the gambling industry.

For non-EU investors, the prior authorisation regime applies where a foreign investor (1) acquires control of or acquires a stake of 33.33 percent of the share capital of a French target, or (2) acquires all or part of a French business. The Finance Ministry has two months to complete its review and the transaction will be deemed as authorised if the Finance Ministry does not respond within this period.

If a transaction in a strategic sector is

completed without the prior authorisation of the Finance Ministry it will be considered void. Criminal sanctions may also apply for non-compliance with the authorisation regime.

Germany

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (“BMWi”) may restrict or even prohibit investments by foreign companies in sensitive industries, namely in defence and encryption technology. Similar rules also apply to the acquisition of a company that operates a high-grade earth remote sensing system. Relevant investments must be notified to the BMWi and are suspended until the BMWi grants its approval. If the BMWi does not initiate a formal review within one month from notification, approval is deemed to be granted.

German laws also provide for a general foreign investment review. If a non-EU investor acquires 25 percent or more of the voting rights of a domestic company and the acquisition could threaten German public order or security, the investment could be restricted or blocked. These types of transactions do not need to be notified, but the BMWi may conduct an ex officio review within three months of the acquisition. The BMWi then has two months to review the transaction from the time that it has received all relevant information. Non-EU investors can request a certificate of non-objection from BMWi prior to closing to avoid uncertainty, although the BMWi’s certificate can be withdrawn if new information comes to light.

This happened recently when the Chinese Fujian Grand Chip Investment Fund tried to acquire German semiconductor equipment producer Aixtron. Fujian Grand Chip had obtained a certificate of non-objection from the BMWi, only to see it withdrawn, because of new information that Aixtron had know-how in security-related technologies (that was particularly relevant for the defence sector). While in general, German policies and laws continue to welcome and encourage foreign investment, the

Aixtron case demonstrates that certain foreign investments are attracting increased attention from the BMWi. In the case of Aixtron, Fujian Grand Chip Investment Fund withdrew its takeover offer following President Obama’s decision in December 2016 to block the US portion of the deal.

Finally, specific restrictions apply to both national and foreign investors regarding acquisitions of targets operating in certain regulated industries, such as financial services, insurance or media.

Italy

Under Italy’s foreign investment control regime, the Italian government has certain “golden” powers to veto or impose conditions on the purchase of interests by non-EU investors in certain Italian companies. The restriction relates to acquisitions of stakes in Italian companies that own strategic assets (eg, relating to telecommunications, energy, defence, aerospace and certain infrastructure).

Relevant transactions must be notified to the Italian government and cannot be completed pending the government’s review. Once a notification has been made, the government has 15 working days to review the transaction and raise any objections. This period may be extended if the government requests additional information. If the government does not exercise its powers during the review period, the proposed transaction can be completed.

In addition to foreign investment control, Italian law also limits the acquisition of equity stakes by foreign investors in supervised entities (eg, banks, payment institutions).

Spain

Acquisitions of Spanish companies by non-EU investors are generally unrestricted and, other than the exceptions described below, typically require only a post-closing declaration to the Spanish Ministry of Economy.

Pre-closing authorisation is required for investments in the Spanish defence sector. These investments require prior notification to the Ministry of Defence and


• March 2017

authorisation by the Council of Ministers, unless the investments represent an acquisition of a stake of less than 5 percent in a publicly-listed company (provided the investor does not acquire management rights).

A pre-closing declaration is required for investments originating in tax havens or for some investments in real estate destined for diplomatic or consular offices. Finally, certain sector-specific restrictions also apply to foreign investments in regulated sectors, such as telecommunications, radio and television, energy and financial services.

United Kingdom

Generally, the UK government does not restrict foreign ownership of businesses in the UK, although there are special rules relating to ownership in certain industries such as airlines and financial services.

Deal-making in the UK is generally free from political interference and government intervention has been limited. The government does have the power to regulate and potentially block acquisitions through a public interest review of transactions in strategic sectors (such as energy, media and defence) or in order to preserve the stability of the financial system. While the new Prime Minister, Theresa May, has signalled a more interventionist approach in takeovers of strategically important UK businesses by foreign acquirers, details remain unclear. However, it will be important to consider the implications of the potential new regime: foreign acquirers are acting mindfully of the potential new regime and undertaking informal discussions with the UK government in appropriate cases.

United States

Chinese investors in EU businesses must also consider the application of US foreign investment rules in cases where the EU target has operations in the US. For example, it is not uncommon for CFIUS – a committee of government agencies charged with reviewing certain transactions that may threaten US national security – to review transactions involving non-US buyers and sellers.

Indeed, CFIUS has broad jurisdiction and may review any transaction whereby a non-US entity may obtain control of a “US business” – where that term is specifically defined to include the US operations of a foreign parent.

If CFIUS has concerns about a deal, it may ask the parties to agree to mitigation measures, such as post-closing operational restrictions, and in rare cases may recommend that the US President block or suspend the US portion of an otherwise offshore acquisition. Notably, CFIUS concerns have effectively scuttled several recent deals involving non-US parties, using relatively minor US operations of the target as a basis for jurisdiction.

For example, and as discussed above, President Obama recently decided to block the US portion of the acquisition of Aixtron by the Chinese Fujian Grand Chip Investment Fund. CFIUS had jurisdiction based on Aixtron’s US assets. CFIUS recommended that the US President block the US portion of the transaction because of concerns about the military applications of the technology Fujian would have obtained. Although decisions to block transactions are very uncommon (ie, this was only the third transaction ever blocked by a US President) this recent case illustrates CFIUS’s ability to cast a wide net, especially with respect to investments by Chinese buyers, which are increasingly subject to scrutiny.

The Aixtron case demonstrates why parties to deals involving Chinese investment in the EU should consider whether the target has assets or operations in the US and, if so, the nature of those operations. This analysis should inform the parties’ evaluation of deal risk and decisions with respect to allocation of that risk. This analysis should also inform expectations with respect to transaction timelines, which turns in part on whether the parties decide to proactively notify CFIUS of their transactions. Although filing a CFIUS notice is voluntary in the first instance, doing so is often prudent, particularly if the target’s business involves sensitive industries (eg, defence, energy assets, ports, airports,

telecommunication systems). If CFIUS clears a transaction before closing, the transaction typically remains cleared forever. By contrast, in the absence of a clearance, CFIUS may initiate a review (and, in rare cases, force a divestiture) at any time – even years after closing.

Merger Control ReviewSeparate from foreign investment regimes, investments in European assets or businesses can trigger merger control reviews in a number of jurisdictions. In the EU, the merger review can be conducted either at EU level (by the Commission) or at Member State level (by national competition regulators). The purpose of merger control in Europe is to prohibit or impose conditions on transactions that would otherwise significantly impede competition.

Which regulator will review a transaction will generally depend on the buyer and target revenues. If the revenues are above the EU thresholds, then the Commission will conduct the merger review; otherwise national competition authorities will look at the transaction (assuming national review thresholds are met). When the Commission has jurisdiction to review a transaction, national competition authorities do not conduct a review: this “one-stop-shop” system is beneficial to companies since it reduces costs and red tape.

Particular attention is warranted where transactions involve Chinese state-owned enterprises (“SOEs”). These transactions can trigger EU merger control, even if the SOE in question has very limited activities in Europe. This is because the Commission has, recently, found that the turnover of a broader set of SOEs should be taken into account when considering whether a transaction qualifies for review under EU merger rules. In its EdF/China General Nuclear Power Corporation (“CGN”) decision, the Commission considered the revenues of CGN’s owner, the Central Chinese Assets Supervision and Administrative Commission (“SASAC”), for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, because CGN did not enjoy autonomy from SASAC in


This article was prepared with the valuable assistance of the following Latham lawyers: Harald Selzner (Partner, Düsseldorf); Stefano Sciolla (Partner, Milan and Rome); Pierre-Louis Clero (Partner, Paris); Richard Butterwick (Partner, London); Martin Saywell (Partner, London); Jana Dammann (Counsel, Hamburg); Zachary Eddington (Associate, Washington DC) and Sophia Stephanou (Knowledge Management Lawyer, Brussels).


中國投資於歐盟：當中所存在的監管障礙

作者 Héctor Armengod 合夥人瑞生國際律師事務所 Les Carnegie 合夥人瑞生國際律師事務所

its decision-making. The Commission’s approach in EdF/CGN decision means that the antitrust implications of SOE investments must be assessed carefully to avoid unexpected delays from regulatory concerns.

Mandatory and Suspensory Notification

When an acquisition meets the EU thresholds, notification is mandatory and the transaction cannot close before clearance. Failing to notify a reviewable transaction or implementing the transaction before clearance can attract significant fines in Europe (up to 10 percent of the aggregate turnover).

Timetable

The Commission has 25 working days from the formal submission of the notification to conclude its Phase I investigation (or 35 working days if the parties offer remedies). The Commission may open a Phase II review if it is concerned about the effects of the transaction on competition. A Phase II review lasts 90 working days (although this is often extended). At the end of a Phase II review, the merger is either approved, approved with remedies or prohibited.

ConclusionForeign investment and merger control reviews are “standard procedure” for many outbound Chinese investors. While for many types of investments these reviews are straightforward or even unnecessary, in certain instances obtaining regulatory approvals can be a complex exercise. Creating a plan at the early stages of investment is necessary to assist Chinese investors to effectively navigate the regulatory maze and avoid unexpected delays. n

中國企業在歐盟的投資正穩步增

長，2015年的投資金額，創下了

200億歐元的新紀錄，而2016年依然保持

強勁的勢頭。儘管大多數的歐洲經濟主體

認為，這一趨勢是正面和積極的，但也有

跡象顯示，歐洲的監管部門和決策者正在

十分關注中國投資者在歐洲所進行的企業

併購活動。因此，投資者如要有效地構建

其交易，從而將監管風險減至最低，便必

須充分明瞭現行的外國監管架構如何運作

(其當中的一些措施，會是暗地裡針對中國

的海外投資)。

外國所有權的限制

外來投資者於敏感範疇所作的投資備受限

制，這情況在歐洲並不罕見。雖然所實施

的限制，當中有一些是我們可以預料得到(

因其涉及諸如國防等敏感領域)，但其他的

一些限制卻是令人難以理解。本文將會論

述歐洲一些主要司法管轄區的外來投資制

度所蘊含的主要特徵，並闡釋為何在某些

情況下，在該等司法管轄區進行投資，會

招致「美國外國投資委員會」(“CFIUS”)

的審查(而該委員會近年在取態上，是更為

積極地介入)。

法國

外商投資於法國一些具戰略意義的範疇，

必須先獲得法國財政部的核准。所指的具

戰略意義範疇，包括：國防、信息科技、

能源、運輸、供水、公共衛生和電信等。

然而，私人保安服務和博彩業這些較不尋

常的行業也有包括在內。

對於投資於歐盟的外國投資者來說，該事

先核准制度適用於以下情況：外國投資者

(1)取得其在法國的投資標的之控制權，

或取得其33.33%的股權；或是(2)收購了

一個法國企業的全部或部分業務。法國財

政部須在兩個月內完成其相關審查工作，

倘若在此期間它並沒有作出任何回應，投

資者可視該項交易已獲得其核准。

任何交易如果是屬於具戰略意義的範疇，

而它是在沒有獲得法國財政部事先核准的

情況下完成，則此等交易將會視為無效。

投資者如果違反該核准機制的規定，可能

會面臨刑事懲處。

德國

德國的「聯邦經濟事務與能源部」(下

稱“BMWi”)有權限制，甚至禁止外國企


• March 2017

業投資於敏感行業(例如：國防和加密技

術產業)，而類似規定，亦適用於收購運

作「高等級地球遙感系統」的企業。投資

者必須就其相關投資向BMWi作出通報，

而在得到BMWi給予核准之前，該等投資

必須暫緩進行。倘若BMWi於接獲有關通

知後一個月內，並未展開任何正式審查，

投資者可視其投資已獲得該部門的核准。

此外，德國法例也就一般性的外國投資審

查作出了規定。任何非歐盟國家投資者倘

若取得當地企業百分之二十五或以上的表

決權，而此等表決權的取得，可能會危及

德國的社會秩序與安全，則該等投資可

能會受到限制或阻攔。此類交易並不需要

給予有關部門通知，但BMWi可以在投資

者取得上述表決權後的三個月內主動展開

審查，並於取得所有相關資料後的兩個月

內，完成審核有關交易。非歐盟國家的投

資者可以在有關交易完成前，要求BMWi

向其開出不反對證明書，以免當中存在任

何不明確地方。然而，假如日後出現了新

的情況，而BMWi亦獲得提供額外信息，

BMWi有權將該份證明書撤回。

這情況在最近便確曾發生。事緣中國

的「福建宏芯投資基金」(Fujian Grand

Chip Investment Fund，下稱「宏芯基

金」)有意收購德國的半導體設備生產商

Aixtron。「宏芯基金」後來獲得BMWi開

出不反對證明書，但BMWi之後獲得提供

額外信息，顯示Aixtron擁有保安方面的

技術(特別是與國防工業有關)，德國政府

遂將該份證明書撤回。在一般情況下，德

國的政策和法律均歡迎與鼓勵外來投資，

但Aixtron一案卻顯示，BMWi會比較關注

某些外來投資。在Aixtron一案中，美國

總統奧巴馬於2016年12月作出決定，阻

止Aixtron也將該宗交易所涉及的美國業

務部分出售給「宏芯基金」，而「宏芯基

金」最後撤回其收購要約。

總括而言，不論是當地還是外國投資者，

倘若它們有意收購在一些受監管行業

(例如：金融服務、保險、媒體)經營的企

業，便須遵從其特定收購限制。

意大利

在意大利所實施的外國投資監管制度下，

非歐盟國家的投資者若有意收購當地某些

企業的權益，意大利政府擁有「特殊」權

力否決有關收購，或對其施加若干條件限

制。該等限制所關乎的，是投資者意欲收

購擁有戰略性資產(例如與電信、能源、

國防、航天或某些基礎設施有關)的意大

利企業。

投資者必須就有關交易向意大利政府作

出通報，並且不得在意大利政府完成相

關審查之前進行有關交易。意大利政府

在接獲有關通知後，必須在15個工作日

內對有關交易進行審查和提出異議(如

有)。倘若它需要交易方提供進一步的資

料，則有關的期限可以延長。倘若它沒

有在審查期內行使其權力，交易方可逕

自完成擬議的交易。

除了對外來投資作出監控外，外國投資

者如欲收購一些必須接受監督的機構(例

如：銀行、支付機構等)，意大利的法律

也對相關的股權收購作出了一定限制。

西班牙

一般而言，非歐盟國家的投資者欲收購西

班牙企業，通常沒有遭受甚麼限制，而是

只需要向西班牙經濟部提交一份交易完成

後的申報書，但下述情況則屬例外。

投資者如欲投資於西班牙的國防工業，必

須事先獲得西班牙政府的核准。在完成有

關交易前，投資者必須先給予西班牙國防

部通知，並獲得「部長理事會」的核准，

除非該等投資只涉及收購一家上市公司中

不足百分之五的股權(但前提是投資者不

會取得該公司的管理權)。

如果投資的資金是來自避稅港，而某些擬

進行的房地產投資，是作為外交或領事館

辦事處的用途，則此等交易均需要在其完

成之前作出申報。最後，外國投資者如投

資於一些受監管的範疇(例如：電信、廣

播和電視、能源、金融服務等行業)，它

們亦必須受限於某些針對特定範疇的規

定。

英國

一般而言，英國政府對外商投資於英國

企業，並沒有作出甚麼特殊限制(但對航

空、金融服務等行業的所有權，則另有其

他特別規定)。

投資者在英國進行投資，一般不受任何政

治干預，而政府介入的程度亦很有限。倘

若有關交易涉及具戰略意義的範疇(例如

能源、媒體、國防等)，英國政府有權對

有關交易進行公共利益審查，又或是為了

維持金融體系穩定的緣故，對相關投資

作出規管或阻止有關收購的進行。英國

新任首相文翠珊(Theresa May)雖然曾經

表示，英國對於擬收購當地具重要戰略意

義的企業的外國投資，將會採取更積極干

預的政策，惟相關細節目前仍未公布。然

而，投資者現時便應當開始關注，英國在

未來可能採取的新措施，對其投資計劃將

會產生甚麼影響。外國投資者現時都十分

關注英國未來在這方面的取態，並尋求在

適當情況下，透過非正式渠道與英國政府

就這一議題進行磋商。

美國

擬在歐盟進行投資的中國投資者必須注

意，其計劃收購的歐盟資產倘若包含在美

國的業務，它便有可能會同時受美國的外

國投資規則所規管。例如，「美國外國投

資委員會」(簡稱CFIUS，它是美國政府

機構轄下的一個委員會，專門負責審查該

些可能對美國國家安全構成威脅的交易)

將不時審查與非美國買家和賣家有關的交

易，並享有廣泛的權力，可對非美國機構

欲透過其取得對「美國業務」之控制權的

交易進行審查；而所謂的「美國業務」，

則被明確界定為包括外國母公司在美國經

營的業務。

倘若CFIUS對某項交易的進行有所顧慮，

它有權要求交易方採取某些緩解措施(例

如要求它們在完成相關交易後，遵守若干

營運限制)，甚至可以建議美國總統就某

項離岸併購交易中的美國業務部分，阻止

或暫緩投資者對其進行收購(儘管這一做

法並不普遍)。值得注意的是：CFIUS在

近期曾經以投資標的中較為次要的美國業

務部分，作為其行使管轄權的依據，從而

反對有關交易的進行，導致數項涉及非美

國投資者參與的交易胎死腹中。

正如上文所述，美國總統奧巴馬在不久前

曾經決定阻撓「宏芯基金」收購Aixtron

的美國業務部分。在當時，CFIUS是以


REUTERS/Aly Song


本文是在瑞生國際律師事務所以下數位律師所提供的寶貴協助下而得以完成：Harald Se l zne r (合夥人，杜塞爾多夫)；S t e f a n o S c i o l l a (合夥人，米蘭及羅馬)；Pie r re -Lou i s C le ro(合夥人，巴黎)；RichardButterwick(合夥人，倫敦)；Martin Saywell(合夥人，倫敦)；Jana Dammann (法律顧問，漢堡)；Zachary Eddington(助理律師，華盛頓哥倫比亞特區)；及Sophia Stephanou (知識管理律師，布魯塞爾)。

Aixtron所擁有的美國資產，作為其行使

管轄權的依據。事緣CFIUS關注到，「宏

芯基金」有可能會將所取得的技術運用於

軍事上，因而建議奧巴馬總統阻止「宏芯

基金」收購該項交易中所涉及的美國業務

部分。雖然美國阻止收購交易的進行，是

十分罕見的做法(包括這次在內，美國總

統只曾三次阻止業務收購的進行)，但這

一近期個案亦顯示， CFIUS的影響力無遠

弗屆－特別是對中國的對外投資(中國的

對外投資正面對日益嚴格的審查)。

Aixtron一案亦說明，交易方在歐盟國家

進行涉及中國投資的交易，必須考慮有關

的投資標的，是否擁有任何在美國的資產

或業務；若然，該等資產或業務的性質為

何。此等分析可促使交易方對有關交易的

風險進行評估，並就如何進行風險分配作

出相關決策。此外，它亦有助交易方預計

有關交易的進度，促使其考慮是否決定就

所進行的交易，主動向CFIUS作出通報。

儘管向CFIUS作出通報的決定是由交易方

主動作出，但它亦往往是一項經審慎考慮

後而作出的舉措，特別是當有關的投資標

的之業務涉及敏感行業時(例如：國防、

能源資產、港口、機場、電信系統等)。

在相關交易完成前，如果獲得CFIUS給予

許可，這在一般情況下，該宗交易將會永

久獲批。相反，倘若有關交易並沒有獲得

給予許可，則CFIUS可以在任何時間－甚

至在該交易完成後數年－啟動相關審查

(並且有可能強制性地將其剝離，儘管此

等情況份屬罕見)。

企業合併管制審查

除了實施外來投資制度外，投資於歐洲的

資產或業務，亦有可能會引發當地若干司

法管轄區進行企業合併管制審查。在歐

盟，企業合併審查可以是在歐盟層面(歐

盟委員會)，又或是於歐盟成員國的層面

(國家競爭監管機構)進行。歐洲實行的企

業合併管制，目的是禁止進行任何嚴重妨

礙競爭的交易，又或是對此等交易施加限

制條件。

至於應由哪一個監管機構負責審查有關交

易，通常是取決於買方和收購標的所獲

得的收入。該等收入如果高於歐盟的門

檻，則將會由歐盟委員會來進行企業合

併審查；否則，便將會由國家競爭管理部

門來對有關的收購進行審查(假定其能達

到國家審查的門檻)。倘若歐盟委員會擁

有審查某項交易的管轄權，則國家競爭管

理部門將不會介入該等審查。由於這「一

站式」機制能有助降低成本和減省一些繁

文縟節，因此對企業而言是有所裨益的。

投資者所進行的投資，倘若涉及中國國

有企業(下稱「國有企業」)，那麼便需要

加倍留心。即使該等中國國有企業在歐

洲只進行有限範圍的活動，但它們仍有

可能會引發歐盟對相關交易實施企業合

併管制。在近期，歐盟委員會裁定，在

研判某一項交易是否應當根據歐盟的企

業合併規定接受審查時，必須對範圍更

廣的國有企業的營業額作出審視。歐盟

委員會在其於EdF/China General Nuclear

Power Corporation(下稱“CGN”)一案

的裁決中，由於他們需要對司法管轄權的

問題作出裁定，因此也對CGN的擁有人

「國務院國有資產監督管理委員會」(下

稱“SASAC”)的收入作出了審視(原因是

CGN在其自身的決策過程中，並不享有

獨立於SASAC的自主權)。歐盟委員會在

EdF / CGN一案中的取態，意味著投資者

必須就國有企業的投資與反壟斷之間的含

義，作出審慎的評估，以免因當地所實行

的監管措施而造成無法預計的延誤。

強制性和暫時中止通知

當一項投資收購達到歐盟的門檻後，交易

方便必須向有關部門作出通報，而在未獲

得相關核准前，交易方不得完成有關交

易。在歐洲進行投資的投資者，倘若未能

就可予審查的交易向有關部門作出通報，

或是在獲得相關核准前進行有關交易，

它們有可能會被當局施以巨額罰款的懲處

(金額可達總營業額的百分之十)。

時間表

從交易方正式提交通知的日期起計算，歐

盟委員會須在25個工作日內完成第一階

段的審查(倘若交易方提供補救措施，則

延長至35個工作日)。歐盟委員會如顧及

有關交易對競爭可能造成的影響，他們乃

可展開第二階段的審查，限期為90個工

作日(但經常會獲得延長)。當第二階段的

審查完結後，歐盟委員會便可以對有關的

企業併購給予核准；在其作出若干補救後

給予核准；又或是拒絕給予核准。

結論

對許多中國境外投資者來說，外來投資與

企業合併管制審查等舉措，均屬於「標準

程序」。儘管對許多各類投資所作的審查

只是相當簡略，甚至是沒有必要，但在某

些情況下要取得當地監管部門的批核，過

程有時也會相當繁複。因此，為了協助中

國投資者有效遵從各項監管規定，從而避

免出現無法預計的延誤，在投資初期及早

制訂有關計劃，實屬至關重要的舉措。 n

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS業界透視ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING

Some Lessons from SFC’s Further Guidance to the MarketsThe Securities and Futures Commission’s recent circular to licensed corporations and associated entities on anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism (“AMLCFT” or “AMLCTF”) comes at an opportune time with the AMLCTF practices of certain designated non-financial businesses and professions (“DNFBPs”) also in the news, following a related government consultation. At the time of writing, the formal phase of that consultation is due to conclude in early March 2017 (see Industry Insights, February 2017, “AML: DNFBPs”).

The SFC circular “Compliance with AMLCFT Requirements” follows its review of the practices of more than 290 licensed entities in 2016. That review identified more than 200 incidents of non-compliance with (among other things) the SFC’s Guideline on AMLCTF and Code of Conduct.

As with most industry standards, the general principles that underpin the SFC’s guidelines are rooted in the Financial Action Task Force’s key “40 Recommendations” (on the international standards for combating AMLCFT).

The SFC circular specifically gives examples of the different types of irregularities discovered as a result of its findings (Appendix 1 and 2 of the circular). These irregularities, together with the examples of good practice set out at Appendix 3, demonstrate two themes. First, deficiencies in licensed entities’ AMLCTF procedures are often a result of omissions (“failing to …”); these omissions are, in turn, often caused by a lack of proper resources. Second,

good practices are led by a senior management team*.

While the SFC’s circular and guidelines are industry specific, the general principles relating to client due diligence and record-keeping are useful reminders for DNFBPs in Hong Kong (be they, among others, lawyers, accountants or estate agents).

With this in mind, the responsible partner(s) and/or AML compliance and reporting officer(s) within a law firm and a foreign law firm would do well to review the contents of the profession’s Practice Direction P (AMLCTF) and, in particular, its mandatory aspects. Practice P is the legal profession’s relevant regulatory standard and provides the most comprehensive guidance of all DNFBPs in Hong Kong*. Members in practice (and in-house lawyers with a current practising certificate) would also be well advised to attend the Academy of Law’s annual “Anti-Money Laundering Seminar for Lawyers” (run in conjunction with the Police, the Narcotics Division and the DOJ in October) and/or an accredited AML risk management education course (if they have not already done so).

In light of the government’s consultation document on “Enhancing AML Regulation of DNFBPs” it is likely that more attention will focus on the provisions of Practice Direction P; particularly, in the run-up to the FATF’s next mutual evaluation of Hong Kong (thought to be in the last quarter of 2018, for reporting in the summer of 2019).

- Jason Carmichael and Warren Ganesh, Smyth & Co in association with RPC

* See Industry Insights, April 2015: “Internal Controls – No Passing the Buck or Turning a Blind-Eye”.

打擊清洗黑錢

從證監會給市場的進一步指引學點功課

證券及期貨事務監察委員會最近向持牌法

團及有聯繫實體發出通函，通函內容與打

擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集有關，適逢某

些指定非金融企業及行業打擊洗錢及恐怖

分子資金籌集的作業方式亦上了新聞，通

函來得正是時候。此前，政府已發出相關

諮詢文件，我們執筆撰文時，諮詢期已進

入最後階段，將在2017年3月初正式結束

(見2017年2月《業界透視》「打擊清洗黑

錢：指定非金融企業及行業」)。

證監會發出「遵從打擊洗錢／恐怖分子

資金籌集規定」通函，此前，證監會在

2016年審查超過290家持牌機構的作業方

式，發現有超過200宗不遵從(其中包括)

證監會《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌

集指引》及《操守準則》的事件。

與大多數業界標準一樣，支持證監會指引

的一般原則植根於財務行動特別組織主要

的(與打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集適用的

國際標準有關的)「40項建議」之上。

證監會在通函列舉例子，具體說明審查結

果發現的各種違規情況(通函附錄1及2)。

這些違規情況與附錄3載列的良好作業方

式的例子表達兩大主題：一，持牌機構的

打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集程序有不足

之處，不足之處通常是不作為(「沒有……

」)導致的；這些不作為則通常是由於欠缺

合適資源所致。二，良好作業方式是由高

級管理團隊帶領進行的*。

雖然證監會通函和指引適用於特定行業，

但對香港的指定非金融企業及行業(無論是

律師、會計師、地產代理，抑或是其他人

士)來說，有關客戶盡職審查及備存紀錄的

一般原則相當有用，是很好的提醒。


• March 2017

March 2017 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

律師行及外地律師行盡責的合夥人及

／或打擊洗錢的遵規及報告人員只要

緊記這點，就會好好溫習專業人員的

Practice Direction P(打擊洗錢及恐怖分

子資金籌集)，特別是強制性規定方面的指

示。Practice P是法律專業人員的規管標

準，並為香港所有指定非金融企業及行業

提供非常全面的指引*。此外，執業律師

(及現時持有執業證書的企業律師)最好出

席法律專業學會(10月聯同警方、禁毒處

和律政司合辦)的週年「打擊清洗黑錢講

座」，以及／或報讀(如果還未報讀的話)

已獲認可的打擊洗錢風險管理教育課程。

鑒於政府已經發出「加強規管指定非金

融企業及行業」諮詢文件，將來更受關

注的重點有可能是Practice Direction P的

規定；特別是香港即將接受特別組織安排

的下一輪相互評估(料想在2018年尾季進

行，2019年夏季發表報告)。

- Jason Carmichael及莊偉倫，

Smyth & Co與RPC聯營

* 見2015年4月《業界透視》：「內部監控 —

勿推諉責任或視而不見」。

DATA PRIVACY

Preparing to Comply with The EU General Data Protection RegulationThe new European General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) will come into force throughout the European Union on 25 May 2018. The GDPR will replace existing data protection laws throughout Europe and introduce significant changes and additional requirements that will have a wide ranging impact on businesses around the world, irrespective of where they operate.

The GDPR: The Changes that Will Affect your Business

The key changes and additional requirements introduced by the GDPR are:

1. European data protection law will now apply worldwide. Both EU-established organisations and

organisations that are located outside the EU that process EU personal data or monitor individuals within the EU, will now have to comply with European data protection law.

2. Tougher sanctions for non-compliance. The maximum fine for a breach will be substantially increased to 4 percent of an enterprise’s worldwide turnover or €20 million per infringement, whichever is higher.

3. A new data breach notification obligation. Organisations will now have to notify the relevant European data protection authority of a breach without undue delay and where feasible within 72 hours. A notification must also be made to the individuals affected without undue delay where there is a high risk to the individuals concerned.

4. New data privacy governance, data mapping and impact assessment requirements. Organisations will now need to appoint a data protection officer (“DPO”) to implement and monitor compliance with the GDPR. Organisations will now also be required to map their processing of personal data and undertake privacy impact assessments for higher risk processing.

5. A requirement to implement “privacy by design”. Businesses must now take a proactive approach to ensure that an appropriate standard of data protection is the default position taken when personal data is being processed.

6. Strengthening of individuals’ rights to personal data. Individuals will have the right to have their personal data removed from systems or online content

(the “right to be forgotten”), the right to avoid automated data profiling (where this would produce a legal effect), and the right to be given, or specify a recipient for, an accessible copy of their personal data (the “right to data portability“).

7. Enhanced requirements for the supply chain. Businesses must ensure that third-party data processors implement GDPR-compliant security measures. These service providers will now be held accountable for their own level of appropriate security, must document their processing and must obtain prior consent to employ sub-processors. Organisations may need to amend their contracts with these parties to address these issues.

Preparing for the GDPR: The 10 Steps Your Business Should Take to Get Ready to Comply

1. Inform your leadership and formulate a plan. Senior management should be made aware of the GDPR and how it will affect your business. Senior management should designate the individuals who will formulate a GDPR compliance and will educate others on its operational impact.

2. Appoint a DPO. Determine whether it is required under the GDPR or otherwise desirable to appoint a DPO to implement and monitor your GDPR compliance plan. This person should act as the head of your data protection governance structure and report directly to leadership.

3. Map your personal data. A detailed investigation should be conducted into and a record created of the personal data your business is collecting, the purposes


for which it is being processed, how it was obtained and who it is being shared with.

4. Examine the impact. The information gathered from the personal data mapping exercise should be used to assess which of your business activities must comply with the GDPR.

5. Address the risks. Privacy impact assessments should be conducted to identify and minimise the risks associated with your processing of personal data, particularly where there are high risks to the rights of the individuals concerned.

6. Review the grounds under which personal data is being processed. The basis for collecting and processing personal data should be reviewed in light of the GDPR, particularly where “consent” and “legitimate interests” (which are more difficult to demonstrate under the GDPR) are being relied upon.

7. Update your data governance. Policies, procedures and governance controls should be updated to detail how your organisation will comply with the GDPR. Employees should receive regular training on this.

8. Implement new compliance systems. Plans must be put in place to comply with the new GDPR requirements and the additional rights that individuals can exercise in relation to their personal data.

9. Review your supply chain contracts. Contracts with third parties with whom personal data is shared should be reviewed and, where necessary, renegotiated to ensure appropriate supervision over personal data processing and compliance with the GDPR.

10. Assess your international transfers. Review your current mechanisms for cross-border transfers of personal data within your organisation or to third parties and assess whether updates are needed to comply with the GDPR.

- Charles-Albert Helleputte, Partner, and Oliver Yaros, Partner, Mayer Brown International LLP

個人資料私隱

準備遵守歐盟《一般資料保護規例》

新的歐洲《一般資料保護規例》

(“GDPR”)將於2018年5月25日在整個

歐盟生效。GDPR將取代整個歐洲的現有

資料保護法，並引入重大變化及額外要

求，將對世界各地的企業，無論他們在何

處經營，均有廣泛影響。

GDPR：該轉變將影響你們的業務

GDPR引入的關鍵變化及額外要求是：

1. 歐洲資料保護法現將在全球範圍內適

用。在歐盟成立的機構和位於歐盟境外

但要處理歐盟內的個人資料或監察歐盟內

個人的機構，現在必須遵守歐洲資料保護

法。

2. 對不遵守規例的更嚴厲制裁。違反規例

的最高罰款額將大幅增加到企業全球營業

額的4％，或每次侵權2000萬歐元，以較

高者為準。

3. 新設的資料洩露通知義務。機構現在

必須在沒有不當拖延及在可行的情況下於

72小時內把洩露事件通知相關的歐洲資料

保護機構。在有關個人面臨高風險的情況

下，還必須向受影響的個人發出通知，亦

不得無故拖延。

4. 新的對私隱資料管治、資料按排及影響

的評估要求。機構現在需要任命一名資料

保護職員(“DPO”)來實施和監測GDPR的

遵守情況。現在還要求機構籌劃安排其個

人資料處理程序，並對更高風險的處理進

行私隱影響評估。

5. 要求實施“經設計的私隱保護”。企業

現在必須採取積極主動的方法，以確保在

處理個人資料時，其適當的資料保護標準

是處於預設的水平。

6. 加強個人對其個人資料的權利。個人有

權將其個人資料從系統或網上內容中刪除

(“被遺忘的權利”)、避免自動資料分析

的權利(這將產生法律效力)以及被給予或

指定接收人以收取其個人資料的可接觸副

本的權利(“資料的可轉移性權利”)。

7. 增強對供應鏈的要求。企業必須確保第

三方資料處理器實行符合GDPR的安全措

施。此等服務提供商將對自己的適當安全

級別負責，必須記錄其處理個案並且必須

事先獲得同意才能使用子處理器。機構可

能需要修改與此等當事方的合約以解決此

等問題。

為應對GDPR做好準備：你們的企業應

該採取的十個以備遵守的步驟

1. 通知你們的領導層並制定計劃。高級管

理層應該了解GDPR以及該規例將如何影

響你們的業務。高級管理層應指定負責制

定符合GDPR要求的人員，並教育其他人

了解其對業務的影響。

2. 指定資料保護職員。確定是否需要根

據GDPR或其他可取方式指定一個資料保

護職員來實施和監測你們的GDPR合規計

劃。此人應擔當你們的資料保護管治架構

的主管，並直接向領導層報告。

3. 籌劃安排你們的個人資料。應對你們的

企業所收集的個人資料、其處理目的、獲

取方式以及分享對象進行詳細調查並創建

記錄。

4. 檢視影響。從個人資料籌劃安排工作收

集的信息應用於評估哪些業務活動必須符

合GDPR要求。

5. 解決風險。應該進行私隱影響評估，

特別是在有關個人權利面臨高風險的情況

下，以確定和盡量減少與你們處理個人資

料相關的風險。

6. 檢討處理個人資料的理據。收集和處理

個人資料的基礎應根據GDPR進行審視，

特別是在依賴“同意”和“合法利益”(若

根據GDPR則更難以證明)的情況下。

7. 更新資料管治。應更新政策、程序和管

治控制，以詳細說明你們的機構將如何遵

守GDPR。員工應定期接受培訓。

8. 實施新的合規系統。必須制定計劃，以

符合新的GDPR要求和個人可以對其個人

資料行使的額外權利。

9. 檢討你們的供應鏈合約。與第三方共享

個人資料的合約應進行審查，並在必要時

重新談判，以確保對個人資料的處理有適


• March 2017


當監督和遵守GDPR的要求。

10. 評估資料的國際轉移。檢視目前你們

的機構有關跨境轉移個人資料或把個人資

料轉移至第三方的機制，並評估是否需要

更新機制以符合GDPR要求。

- Charles-Albert Helleputte合夥人與Oliver Yaros 合夥人，孖士打律師行

GC AGENDA

MOJ and Others Call for Strengthening Foreign-Related Legal Services IndustryOn 9 January 2017, the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Commerce and the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council jointly issued the Opinions on the Development of Foreign-related Legal Services.

The opinions aim to:

• Establishasystemfordevelopingan internationally competitive legal services industry by 2020, expand the number of foreign-related legal practitioners, and increase the quality of services they provide.

• ComplementChina’snationaleconomic development strategies (such as “One Belt, One Road”) by developing legal services expertise in major infrastructure projects, international trade in goods and services, and innovative technologies and emerging industries.

• MeettheneedsofChina’sgoingglobal strategy regarding Chinese enterprises’ and citizens’ outbound investments by improving legal skills in foreign investment risk mitigation, foreign intellectual property rights protection and foreign dispute resolution.

• PromoteChina’sforeignaffairsefforts through treaty negotiation, international trade dispute resolution, and the development of foreign economic and cultural cooperation.

• Combattransnationalcrime,drugsand money laundering and strengthen multilateral anti-corruption efforts.

The opinions lay out the following steps for achieving these goals:

• Establishaninformationexchangeplatform for foreign-related legal service institutions and foreign-related enterprises and promote foreign-related legal services.

• Cultivateanumberofforeign-relatedlegal service agencies with strong international competitiveness and encourage domestic law firms to expand into foreign markets.

• Trainforeign-relatedlegalservicestalent to provide high quality commercial and public affairs legal services.

• Encouragelegalservicesindustryassociations to self-discipline members and improve service standards and professional ethics in the foreign-related legal services field.

• Encourageandstandardisebusinessalliances between Chinese law firms

and foreign law firms.

• Establishaninter-departmentalcoordination mechanism to study and solve problems in the foreign-related legal services field.

• RevisetheAdministrativeRegulationsfor Foreign Law firms’ Representative Organisations in China 2001.

Market Reaction

Thomas Man, Professor from Practice, Peking University School of Transnational Law, Shenzhen

“As Chinese businesses and individuals expand their global portfolios they are increasingly in need of quality international legal assistance, including regulatory and transactional advice and defence in some criminal cases. In addition, China’s global trade and investment initiatives, as well as its desire to combat transnational crime and corruption, have increased the government’s risk profile and its interest in improving the competitiveness of its legal counsel in the global arena.”

Action Items

No specific action is required as a result of the opinions. Counsel for foreign legal service institutions and foreign law firms may want to follow this development and see if there is any favourable policy available to them for providing foreign-related legal services to Chinese enterprises and individuals or any opportunity in forming business alliances with Chinese law firms.

- Practical Law China

法律顧問備忘錄

司法部聯同三部門呼籲加強發展涉外法律服務業

2017年1月9日，司法部、外交部、商務

部、國務院法制辦公室聯合發布《關於發

展涉外法律服務業的意見》。

《意見》旨在：

• 到2020年，設立一套適用於發展具國

際競爭力的法律服務業制度；擴大涉

外法律服務隊伍；提升涉外法律服務


隊伍的服務質素。

• 培養專才在基礎設施重大工程、國際

貨物貿易、創新技術及新興產業提供

法律服務，藉以推進中國國家經濟發

展戰略(例如「一帶一路」)。

• 改進海外投資風險防範、涉外知識產

權的保護及涉外爭議解決等方面的法

律專門技能，以迎合中國正在推行的

中國企業「走出去」政策和公民境外

投資政策的需要。

• 透過商議條約、解決國際貿易爭議及

發展對外經濟合作、文化交流，推動

中國對外事務工作。

• 打擊跨國犯罪、毒品、洗錢，加強多

邊反腐敗的力度。

《意見》列出以下達成上述目的的步驟：

• 為涉外法律服務機構和涉外企業搭建

信息交流平台，並向外推介涉外法律

服務。

• 培養一批具有較強國際競爭力的涉外

法律服務機構，鼓勵國內律師事務所

擴展外國市場。

• 培養提供高質素商務及公眾事務法律

服務的涉外法律服務人才。

• 鼓勵法律服務業協會充分發揮行業自

律精神，完善涉外法律服務工作標準

和職業道德準則。

• 鼓勵並規範中國律師事務所與外國律

師事務所以業務聯盟等方式開展業務

合作。

• 建立部門與部門之間的協調機制，以

研究解決涉外法律服務工作的難題。

• 修訂2001年《外國律師事務所駐華代

表機構管理條例》。

市場回應

滿運龍實務教授，深圳市北京大學國際

法學院

「隨著中國企業及個人俱擴展全球業務或

投資組合，他們越來越需要具質素的跨國

法律協助，包括提供監管和交易意見，以

及協助在某些刑事訴訟答辯。此外，中國

的全球貿易及投資舉措，以及打擊跨國刑

事罪及貪腐情況的期望，都增強政府承擔

風險的能力，也令政府更有興趣提高其法

律顧問在全球舞台的競爭力。」

跟進事項

現時不用為《意見》作出任何具體行動。

為外國法律服務機構和外國律師事務所工

作的法律顧問，可能有跟進這方面發展的

意思，看看有沒有任何可供運用，並有利

他們向中國企業和個人提供涉外法律服務

的政策，或有沒有以業務聯盟方式與中國

律師事務所合作的機會。


GC AGENDA

SPC Issues 15th Batch of Guiding CasesOn 3 January 2017, the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) issued its 15th batch of guiding cases.

Guiding cases are not binding as legal precedents, but they are considered to have very strong persuasive value and judges in China are required to consider and refer to relevant guiding cases in their rulings on similar issues.

This new batch of guiding cases addresses, among others, the following issues:

• Food safety. Even if an additive is not in the non-food substance blacklist or the health food additive blacklist, the additive can be recognised as a “toxic or harmful non-food raw material” under Art. 144 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China 1997 (No. 70).

• Failure to enforce a court ruling. The criminal liability of refusing to carry out a people’s court ruling commences from the effective date of the court ruling (No. 71).

• Conversion of loan contracts. The principal and interest under a previous loan agreement may be converted into the paid purchase price in a real estate sale and purchase contract subsequently signed by the parties (No. 72).

• Priority rights in bankruptcy. The priority rights of a contractor run from the termination date of a construction contract if the contract is deemed to be terminated pursuant to Art. 18 of the Bankruptcy Law of the People’s Republic of China 2006 (No. 73).

• Insurer’s subrogation right. An insurer has a subrogation right against a third party who damaged the property insured due to breach of contract (No. 74).

• Standing of whistleblowers. A whistleblower has standing as a plaintiff where the whistleblower reports an actionable infringement of its rights or interests to an administrative agency and has a legal stake in the outcome of the matter reported (No. 77).

Market Reaction

Dr. Mei Gechlik, Founder and Director of Stanford Law School’s China Guiding Cases Project (“CGCP”)

“The release of the 15th batch of guiding cases brought the total number to 77, of which four were released in 2011 (only in the fourth quarter), eight in 2012, 10 in 2013, 22 in 2014, 12 in 2015 and 21 in 2016. The revival of the upward trend in guiding cases confirms what the CGCP has learned from our recent meeting with the SPC: guiding cases will be released in greater number and frequency going forward. Of the newest batch, No. 70 is of special significance for helping to clarify the crime of producing and selling toxic and harmful foods. This is obviously a topic of ‘widespread concern to society’, a criterion for selecting guiding cases.”

Action Items

Given the increasing number of guiding cases and impact on China’s judicial practice, counsel for companies and individuals involved in litigation in China should become familiar with the guiding cases generally, and ensure that trial counsel reviews the full list of guiding cases and studies the content to determine if any may apply.



• March 2017


法律顧問備忘錄

最高院發布第15批指導性案例

2017年1月3日，最高人民法院(「最高

院」)發布第15批指導性案例。

指導性案例不像法律先例一樣具有約束

力，但被視為具有極強的說服性價值，中

國法官就同類案件作出裁定時，必須考慮

並參考相關的指導性案例。

這批新的指導性案例處理(其中包括)下列

問題：

• 食品安全。即使添加的物質不在非食

用物質的黑名單上，也不在保健食品

添加物質的黑名單上，亦可以被認定

為《中華人民共和國刑法》第一百四

十四條規定的「有毒、有害的非食品

原料」(指導案例70號)。

• 不執行法院判決。拒絕執行人民法院

的裁決，刑事責任從法院判決發生法

律效力之時起算(指導案例71號)。

• 轉變借款合同關係。先前借款協議的

本金及利息可以轉化為協議雙方當事

人其後簽訂的房產買賣合同的已付購

房款(指導案例72號)。

• 破產案的優先受償權。符合2006年

《中華人民共和國破產法》第十八條

規定的情形，建設工程施工合同視為

解除的，承包人行使優先受償權的期

限應自合同解除之日起計算(指導案例

73號)。

• 保險人的代位求償權。第三者由於違

約而損害受保財產的，保險人有權向

其行使代位求償權(指導案例74號)。

• 舉報人的資格。凡舉報人就其權利或

權益受侵犯向行政機關進行舉報，而

該侵犯行為依法可提起訴訟，並且舉

報人在被舉報事情的結果在法律上具

有利害關係的，舉報人具備原告主體

資格(指導案例77號)。

市場回應

熊美英博士，創辦人兼總監，史丹福法

學院中國指導性案例項目

「第15批指導性案例發布之後，指導性

案例共有77宗，其中4宗在2011年(都在

第四季度)發布，8宗在2012年，10宗在

2013年，22宗在2014年，12宗在2015

年，21宗在2016年。指導性案例增速上

升的趨勢，肯定了中國指導性案例項目

(China Guiding Cases Project)從我們最近

與最高院會面所知悉的：最高院發布指導

性案例的數目將會增加，次數也會增多。

在最新一批案例之中，第77號特別重要，

因為它有助闡明生產銷售有毒有害食品

的罪行。很明顯這是『社會廣泛關注』

(widespread concern to society)的課題，

而受到『社會廣泛關注』是挑選指導性案

例的標準。」

跟進事項

考慮到指導性案例數目不斷增加，以及對

中國司法常規的影響，中國境內被捲入訴

訟案的公司或人士的法律顧問，應當廣泛

研習指導性案例，確保原審大律師複查鑽

研該77宗指導性案例，以決定當中可有案

例適用。


LITIGATION FUNDING

Some “Winds of Change”?As reported in Industry Insights in June 2016, in Persona Digital Telephony & Anor v The Minister for Public Enterprise & Ors [2016] IEHC 187, the Irish High Court confirmed that the offences and torts of maintenance and champerty survive under Irish law, so as to prohibit third party funding of litigation in the absence of a legitimate interest in the litigation. Therefore, there are similarities with the common law there and in jurisdictions such as (for example) Hong Kong and Singapore.

The case is headed for the Irish Supreme Court. The Irish Supreme Court has agreed with the applicants (the appellants) that the issues raised involve matters of public importance and that there are exceptional circumstances justifying a direct “leapfrog” appeal ([2016] IESCDET 106).

At issue in the final appeal is whether the Irish High Court was correct in refusing to order a declaration that the applicants (the plaintiffs) would not be engaging in an abuse of process and/or not contravening rules on maintenance and champerty if they entered into a litigation funding arrangement with Harbour Fund III, L.P.

Some commentators have suggested that the appeal has a decent chance of success, given the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of the importance of the issues raised in the context of the principle of access to justice. That said, the Irish High Court’s judgment in Persona Digital Telephony emphatically upheld the general prohibition against third party funding and did so after having been referred to the case law of other common law jurisdictions. Given similar common law principles in Hong Kong the outcome in the case should be of significant interest.

In the meantime, jurisdictions such as England & Wales and Australia have well-developed litigation funding markets. As for New Zealand, the courts


there appear to take a pragmatic view of third party funding.

In Hong Kong, going forwards, it looks increasingly likely that if there is to be an expansion of the miscellaneous and limited exceptions to maintenance and champerty, say, in the next few years or so, it will come in the form of an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal as opposed to legislative reform.

For now, the debate about legislative reform for third party funding in Hong Kong is focused on arbitrations (and mediations) governed by the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) – for which readers are referred to the Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016, introduced into the Legislative Council on 11 January 2017 and based on the Law Reform Commission Sub-Committee’s Report on Third Party Funding for Arbitration (in October 2016).

In the current local circumstances of Hong Kong, this is probably as much as can be expected in 2017.

- Gary Yin, Partner, Smyth & Co in association with RPC

訴訟出資

吹起一陣「改革之風」？

正如 2 0 1 6 年 6 月《業界透視》所報

道，愛爾蘭高等法院(「高等法院」)在

Persona Digital Telephony & Anor v

The Minister for Public Enterprise &

Ors [2016] IEHC 187確認，為了便於禁

止在訴訟中不享有合法權益的第三方資助

訴訟，助訟及包攬訴訟的罪行和侵權行為

存留在愛爾蘭法律之下。愛爾蘭的普通法

因而與(例如)香港和新加坡等司法管轄區

的普通法有相似之處。

案件即將在愛爾蘭最高法院(「最高法

院」)審理。最高法院認同眾申請人(眾上

訴人)所指，提出的爭論涉及對公眾具有

重大意義的問題，並且這案屬例外情況，

直接上訴至最高法院(“leapfrog” appeal)

([2016] IESCDET 106)有理可據。

眾申請人(眾原告人)要求高等法院發出宣

告令，宣告雖然眾申請人與Harbour Fund

III, L.P.訂立訴訟資助安排，但他們不是濫

用法律程序及／或違反有關助訟及包攬訴

訟的規定。高等法院拒絕要求。訴訟各方

在終極上訴爭論，高等法院拒絕發出命令

是否正確。

鑒於最高法院承認，以尋求公義原則為背

景所提出的論點具有重大意義，有些評論

員認為上訴有相當的勝算機會。不過，高

等法院在Persona Digital Telephony案的判

決中，明顯支持在一般情況下禁止由第三

方資助訴訟，並在參考過其他普通法司法

管轄區的案例法之後，禁止案中第三方這

樣做。由於香港有相似的普通法原則，這

案的結果應該引起很多人的興趣。

與此同時，英格蘭和威爾斯、澳洲等司法

管轄區已經有發展完善的訴訟資助市場。

至於新西蘭，當地法庭似乎從實事求事的

角度看待第三方資助。

展望將來，要是(比方說在未來幾年或更長

時間裏)香港助訟及包攬訴訟各種各樣有限

的例外情況有所增加，看來越來越有可能

是以上訴至終審法院的形式而不是以改革

法例的形式增加。

香港立法改革第三方資助引起各方爭論，

現時來說，爭論重點是受到《仲裁條例》

(第609章)管限的仲裁(及調解)――讀者

不妨參閱《2016年仲裁及調解法例(第三

者資助)(修訂)條例草案》；這份草案在

2017年1月11日提交立法會，草案內容

是以法律改革委員會小組委員會(2016年

10月)的《第三方資助仲裁》報告書為基

礎。

在目前香港的本地情況之中，這也許是

2017年最能夠期望達成的事。

- 饒詩傑合夥人， Smyth & Co與RPC聯營

PRC

China Data Protection UpdateIn the rapidly evolving data protection environment in China, there has been some helpful (but unfortunately still limited) clarification around two areas of uncertainty.

New Cybersecurity Strategy Gives First Guidance on Application of PRC Cybersecurity Law

Following the recent enactment of the PRC Cybersecurity Law (“Cybersecurity Law”), China’s Internet regulator published the country’s first National Cyberspace Security Strategy (“Strategy”) on 27 December 2016. The Strategy offers few fresh initiatives but summarises goals within the Cybersecurity Law and other recent regulations. In particular, the Strategy emphasises the strategic need to safeguard key information infrastructure operators (“KIIOs”).

A KIIO is defined in the Strategy as an operator of “information facilities that have an immediate bearing on national security, the national economy or people’s livelihoods such that, in the event of a data leakage, damage, or loss of functionality, national security and public interest would be jeopardized”. This aligns with the definition in the Cybersecurity Law, and indicates the potential impact of a security breach is a key factor in determining who will be considered a KIIO.

Further, while the Cybersecurity Law listed “public communications and information service, energy, transportation, hydropower, finance, public service, e-government and other critical information infrastructure”, the Strategy clarifies this by:

• listing“basictelecommunicationsnetworks that provide public communications, radio and television transmission and other such services” to expand on the definition of “public


• March 2017


communications” operators;

• notingthatimportantinformationsystems in sectors and State bodies in the additional fields of “education”, “scientific research”, “industry and manufacturing”, “medicine and health” and “social security” will also be caught; and

• identifyingthat“importantInternetapplication systems” will also be deemed to be KIIOs. Unofficial reports suggest that this is intended to catch popular apps such as Taobao and WeChat, which have millions of daily users potentially affected by a security breach.

Unfortunately it remains unclear whether all organisations within these specified industries will automatically be KIIOs if they operate networks (and potentially even just a website) in China. Further, other key uncertainties under the Cybersecurity Law (including the definition of “network operator” and “important business data”) remain.

Draft Regulations Protecting Minors Online

The State Council has published for public consultation draft Regulations on the Protection of the Use of Internet by Minors (the “Draft Regulations”). “Minors” means Chinese citizens under the age of eighteen. In particular, the Draft Regulations propose additional data protection obligations, with which “network information service providers” (which appears to catch anyone operating websites or processing online data in China) would need to comply.

Some of the key provisions include:

• Proactivelyreviewingsites/platformsand, if any content is deemed unsuitable for minors, placing prominent warnings before displaying the content. The authorities are encouraged to offer further guidance on how to manage such content.

• Whencollectingandusingminors’personal information (ie, information, whether recorded electronically or

through other means, that when alone or taken together with other information is sufficient to identify a minor’s identity online), clear data protection notices should be given and the minor’s or their parent/guardian’s consent obtained. This would require “specific privacy policies”, although it is unclear whether this would need to be separate to the general website privacy policy.

• Onlinesearchfunctionsmustnotdisplay search results that comprise minors’ personal information; and there would be rights to request deletion or blocking of minor’s personal information available online.

So what does this mean in practice?

While some significant uncertainties remain, the Chinese authorities are helpfully seeking to provide some more practical guidance and to highlight some more concrete steps that organisations need to take when updating their China data protection compliance programmes in anticipation of the Cybersecurity Law coming into force on 1 June 2017. Organisations operating networks and/or doing business online in China should take note and update their policies and practices accordingly, and continue to monitor developments as further guidance is published over the coming weeks and months.

- Carolyn Bigg, Of Counsel, DLA Piper Hong Kong

中國內地

中國數據保護新資訊

中國急速發展的數據保護環境出現了一些

有用(但可惜始終有限)的指引，環繞兩個

不明確的範疇闡明詳情。

中國《網絡安全法》應用指引首見於新

制定的網絡安全戰略

新制定的《中華人民共和國網絡安全

法》(「《網絡安全法》」)獲得通過後，

中國互聯網監管機構於2016年12月27

日發布國家首份《國家網絡空間安全戰

略》(「《戰略》」)。《戰略》總結《網

絡安全法》及其他最近規例範圍內的目

標之外，也建議了幾項全新措施。《戰

略》特別強調，現時有需要在戰略上保

護關鍵信息基礎設施運營者。

關鍵信息基礎設施運營者在《戰略》被定

義為「關係國家安全、國計民生，一旦數

據洩露、遭到破壞或者喪失功能可能嚴重

危害國家安全、公共利益的信息設施」的

運營者。這符合《網絡安全法》的定義，

顯示當要決定誰人被視為關鍵信息基礎設

施運營者的時候，網絡安全遭到破壞而潛

在的影響是主要的考慮因素。

此外，《網絡安全法》列出「公共通信和

信息服務、能源、交通、水利、金融、公

共服務、電子政務等重要行業和領域」的

同時，《戰略》亦詳細說明這些行業和領

域：

• 列出「提供公共通信、廣播電視傳輸

等服務的基礎信息網絡」，擴濶「公


共通信」運營者的定義；

• 指出「教育」、「科研」、「工業制

造」、「醫療衞生」、「社會保障」

等領域和國家機關的重要信息系統亦

屬於關鍵信息基礎設施；及

• 指出「重要互聯網應用系統」亦被視

為關鍵信息基礎設施運營者。非官方

報告認為，這是想把廣受歡迎的應用

系統包括在內，例如淘寶和微訊；這

些應用系統每日有數以百萬計用戶有

可能受到安全漏洞的影響。

可惜有一點仍然未解釋清楚，就是這些指

定行業機構要是都在中國經營網絡業務(甚

至有可能只是運作一個網站)，是否就會自

動成為關鍵信息基礎設施運營者。此外，

《網絡安全法》還有其他關係重大但仍未

明確的地方(包括「網絡運營者」和「重要

商業數據」的定義)。

未成年人網絡保護條例草案

國務院已經發布《未成年人網絡保護條例(

草案徵求意見稿)》(「《條例草案》」)。

「未成年人」指十八歲以下中國公民。尤

其是，《條例草案》建議更多數據保護責

任，都是「網絡信息服務提供者」(看來任

何在中國運作網站或處理在線數據的也包

括在內)有需要遵守的責任。

其中主要的規定包括：

• 積極審查網站／平台，如有任何被視

為不適宜未成年人接觸的內容，展示

內容之前，先以顯著方式作出警示。

鼓勵各部門就如何管理上述內容提供

進一步指引。

• 收集、使用未成年人個人信息(即是以

電子或者其他方式記錄的能夠單獨或

與其他信息結合識別未成年人身份的

各種信息)的時候，在醒目位置標注警

示標識，並徵得未成年人或其父母／

監護人的同意。這個規定有需要用上

「明確的私隱政策」，雖然現時未清

楚所需要的會否有別於一般的網站私

隱政策。

• 網上搜尋功能展示的搜尋結果絕不可

以包含未成年人的個人信息；未成年

人或其父母／監護人有權要求刪除或

屏蔽網上該未成年人的個人信息。

那麼，有甚麼實際意思呢？

雖然《網絡安全法》仍有一些未確定的地

方，但預見此法於2017年6月1日施行的

機構都在更新它們在中國的數據保護合規

計劃，此時，中國各部門也正設法向各機

構提供多一點有用的實用指引，強調多一

點有需要採取的有用步驟。在中國營運網

絡及／或經營在線業務的機構，應當留

意並相應地更新其政策和作業方式；由於

進一步指引將在未來數週以至數個月內公

布，因此亦應繼續密切注意相關發展。

- Carolyn Bigg資深顧問，

歐華律師事務所

REGULATORY

Section 213 – SFC Does It “Its Way”As new and old Presidents move in and out of a “White House” and a “Blue House” respectively, to the tune of the song “My Way”, the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong is doing things its way – particularly, as regards its fight against market misconduct type activity. This is no better demonstrated (for now) than by the SFC’s recent “s. 213” civil proceedings against China Forestry Holdings Co Ltd, two of its co-founders, two co-sponsors and former auditors, with respect to events said to have arisen in connection with the company’s IPO in 2009.

In January 2017, the SFC issued its writ of summons, pursuant to s. 213 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), seeking a number of injunctive and/or restorative type orders against the various defendants (or one or more of them)*. It is important to note that the proceedings are civil in nature and are quite different to proceedings in a criminal court or proceedings before the Market Misconduct Tribunal (“MMT”). Criminal proceedings involving market misconduct are generally prosecuted

by the Department of Justice, although (as an alternative) the SFC can institute proceedings before the MMT (s. 252 of the Ordinance). Criminal proceedings can be problematic with respect to (for example) defendants who are not in the jurisdiction (and require a higher standard of proof); MMT proceedings are not generally known for their speed.

Ever since the landmark decision of the Court of Final Appeal in SFC v Tiger Asia Management LLC & Ors (2013) 16 HKCFAR 324, s. 213 civil proceedings offer the SFC a third option in order to pursue alleged transgressors. As some readers will recall, the Tiger Asia case decided that the Court of First Instance can make a determination in civil proceedings commenced by the SFC that a person has committed acts that contravene the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and, as a result, make certain final orders without there first being a finding of market misconduct by a criminal court or the MMT.

At the time, the Tiger Asia case was thought to be a ground-breaking decision and it has proved to be. The SFC has since generated something of an industry by its use of s. 213 proceedings in the civil courts. At the time of writing, the SFC’s writ in the China Forestry Holdings matter is one of the latest salvos, pursuant to s. 213 of the Ordinance, in its attempt to obtain final orders against alleged transgressors and/or to seek redress on behalf of those investors said to have lost out as a result of alleged market wrongdoing. What makes the writ unusual is that besides the normal principal targets (such as former directors) it names the co-sponsors and former auditors as additional defendants.

None of this is to suggest that s. 213 proceedings are without their difficulties. It will be interesting to see how (if at all) the SFC seeks to justify the grant of final orders based on any alleged wrongdoing on the part of professional service providers. Furthermore, s. 213 civil proceedings may be a “third way”


• March 2017

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

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

中的法律意見或被視作取代法律意見。

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

本刊歡迎各位提交短篇文章，廣大讀者分享業界的最新發展和動態。請與本刊編輯聯絡。

電郵：[email protected]


but sometimes they may also be an acknowledgment that the SFC’s regulatory jurisdiction often stops at certain borders. As some seek to build walls in certain parts of the world, the SFC is seeking to work around them.

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

* HCA No. 117 of 2017, 16 January 2017. Also see SFC’s legal proceedings – (i) for an “interim order” in the matter of a Ms Yik Fong Fong (SFC’s press release, 3 February 2017); and

(ii) pursuant to s. 214 of the Ordinance, against various parties in the matter of Hanergy Thin Film Power Group Ltd (SFC’s press release, 23 January 2017).

監管

第213條 – 證監會獨闢蹊徑

「白宮」有易主之時，「青瓦台」也有，

新任總統遷入，舊任總統遷出，各自走上

自己的路，體現名曲My Way所寄之意。

香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會也有自

己上路，獨闢蹊徑做事的時候――在打

擊市場失當行為一類活動方面，更是如

此。 (現時來說)沒有比證監會最近根據

「第213條」提起的民事法律訴訟(「213

條民事訴訟」)更能說明這個情況。這次，

證監會就某些事件針對中國森林控股有限

公司、該公司其中兩名共同創辦人、兩間

聯席保薦人及前核數師，提起213條民事

訴訟；據稱，該些事件的發生與該公司

2009 年首次公開招股有關。

證監會在2017年1月以《證券及期貨條

例》(「《條例》」)第213條為依據，

發出傳訊令狀，尋求多項針對各名(或者

一名或以上)被告人的禁制令及／或回復原

狀令*。必須一提，有關法律程序屬民事

性質，與刑事法庭的法律程序或在市場失

當行為審裁處(「審裁處」)席前的法律程

序，截然不同。通常，涉及市場失當行為

的刑事法律程序是由律政司提出檢控，不

過(另一個選擇是)證監會可以在審裁處席

前提起法律程序(《條例》第252條)。在

某些情況下，刑事法律程序也會有難解的

問題，例如被告人不在司法管轄區內(並需

要較高的舉證標準)；但一般人都不知道審

裁處進行法律程序的速度。

自從終審法院在SFC v Tiger Asia

Management LLC & Ors (2013) 16

HKCFAR 324作出具里程碑意義的裁決

以來，213條民事訴訟給證監會提供了第

三個選擇，可用來向涉嫌違規者採取行

動。應該有部份讀者會記得，Tiger Asia案

裁定，原訟法庭在證監會展開的民事法律

程序中，可以在刑事法庭或審裁處沒有事

先裁斷有市場失當行為出現的情況下，裁

定某人作出了違反《條例》相關規定的行

為，繼而就此作出若干最終命令。

T i g e r A s i a案當時被認為是破天荒的裁

決，事實證明的確如此。證監會後來根據

第213條在民事法庭提起法律程序，對業

界來說意義重大。在中國森林控股有限公

司案，證監會嘗試取得針對涉嫌違規者的

最終命令，及／或代表那些據稱因為被

指稱的市場不當行為而招損的投資者尋求

解決方法；筆者撰寫本文時，證監會就此

以《條例》第213條為依據發出令狀是其

中一著。這次令狀之所以與別不同，是因

為除了正常有的主要目標(例如前董事)之

外，證監會亦點名聯席保薦人及前核數師

為附加被告人。

這些都不是說213條法律程序本身沒有難

度可言。證監會以專業服務提供者任何

被指稱的過失為基礎，發出最終命令，

去看看證監會怎樣證明(假如果真要證明)

發出命令有理可據，一定很有意思。此

外，213條民事訴訟可能是「第三條出

路」，不過有時又可能是承認一種情況：

證監會的監管職權範圍通常到了某條邊界

線就結束。有人設法在世界某些地方築起

圍牆的同時，證監會也正在努力尋求繞過

圍牆之法。

- 施德偉合夥人，

Smyth & Co與RPC聯營

* HCA 117/2017，2017年1月16日。亦請參閱證監會(i)為了取得關於易芳芳女士的「臨時命令」(證監會2017年2月3日新聞稿)而展開的法律程序；及(ii)以《條例》第214條為依據，針對與漢能薄膜發電集團有限公司有關的多方人士展開的法律程序(證監會2017年1月23日新聞稿)。


CASES IN BRIEF案例撮要

ARBITRATION

A v D[2016] HKEC 2821Court of First InstanceMiscellaneous Proceedings No. 1014 of 2016Mimmie Chan J in Chambers 22 December 2016

Arbitral award – setting aside – application to set aside under Sch. 2 s. 4 on ground of serious irregularity – where no express in agreement that Sch. 2 would apply, court had no jurisdiction – where non-compliance with O. 73 r. 5(4), abuse of process to argue application as if made under s. 81

P1–3 and D, equity partners of a firm under an agreement dated 11 May 2007 (the “Agreement”), submitted a dispute over the amounts allegedly due from D as well as his entitlement to drawings and profits share under the Agreement to arbitration (the “Arbitration”) pursuant to an arbitration clause, expressly agreeing that the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) applied. However, the Agreement did not provide that Sch. 2 to the Ordinance was applicable or that the Arbitration was a domestic arbitration. Ps’ application to strike out D’s counterclaim was dismissed by the Arbitrator (the “Decision”) with costs to D (the “Costs Order”). Ps applied by originating summons to set aside the Decision and the Costs Order pursuant to O. 73 r. 5 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub. Leg.) and s. 4 of Sch. 2 to

the Ordinance on the ground of serious irregularity (the “OS”). The Ordinance came into force on 1 June 2011 and under s. 100: “All the provisions in Sch. 2 apply, … to – (a) an arbitration agreement entered into before the commencement of this Ordinance which has provided that arbitration under the agreement is a domestic arbitration …”.

Held, dismissing the application, that:

• TheCourthadnojurisdictiontodealwith the OS. The provisions of Sch. 2 of the Ordinance applied only if the parties opted for its application. Since the Agreement made no such express provision, there was no basis for Ps to apply to this Court to set aside the Decision and the Costs Order on the ground of serious irregularity under s. 4 of Sch. 2. Under s. 3(3) of the Ordinance, the court should interfere in the arbitration of the dispute only as expressly provided for in the Ordinance. Section 100 did not provide for Sch. 2 to apply to “domestic” arbitrations or agreements, but to an arbitration agreement which provides that the arbitration under the agreement was a domestic one. Further, an arbitration agreement could not by implication provide for domestic arbitration simply because the parties were Hong Kong residents and have a local place of business.

• Inaddition,itwouldbeanabuseofprocess to permit Ps, as they had sought, to argue the application as if it were made under s. 81 of the Ordinance since the OS did not, as required by O. 73 r. 5(4) of the RHC,

state any ground to set aside the Decision and Costs Order under s. 81.

• Evenifthefindingthats.4ofSch. 2 did not apply was wrong, Ps’ application lacked merit. There was no irregularity, either in the arbitral procedure or in the Arbitrator’s exercise of his powers.

仲裁

A v D

[2016] HKEC 2821

原訟法庭

高院雜項案件2016年第1014號

原訟法庭法官陳美蘭內庭聆訊

2016年12月22日

仲裁裁決 — 撤銷 — 以嚴重不當事件為由而根據附表2第4條申請撤銷裁決 — 假如雙方協議沒有訂明附表2適用，則法庭不具有司法管轄權 — 假如申請人沒有遵守第73號命令第5(4)條規則的規定，則該人在其申請猶如根據第81條提出的基礎上提出爭辯的做法乃屬濫用司法程序

根據一份日期為2007年5月11日的協議(

下稱「涉案協議」)，本案第一至第三原

告人(以下統稱Ps)及被告人(下稱D)是某商

行的權益合夥人。他們之間出現爭議，其

涉及D被指欠下款項以及他是否有權根據

涉案協議支取款項和分享利潤。他們根據

一項訂明各方同意《仲裁條例》(第609

章)適用的仲裁條款，把上述爭議提交仲


• March 2017

March 2017 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

CASES IN BRIEF案例撮要

裁 (下稱「涉案仲裁」)。然而涉案協

議既無訂明《仲裁條例》附表2適用，也

沒有訂明涉案仲裁屬本地仲裁。Ps申請剔

除D的反申索，但仲裁員駁回該申請(下稱

「涉案裁決」)，並下令Ps支付D的訟費(

下稱「涉案訟費令」)。Ps根據《高等法

院規則》(第4章，附屬法例A)第73號命

令第5條規則發出原訴傳票，申請撤銷涉

案裁決及涉案訟費令，理由為案中出現《

仲裁條例》附表2第4條所指的嚴重不當事

件(下稱「涉案傳票」)。《仲裁條例》自

2011年6月1日起生效，當中第100條規

定﹕「……附表2所有條文適用於符合以

下說明的仲裁協議 — (a) 在本條例生效前

訂立，並規定該協議所指的仲裁為本地仲

裁……」。

裁決 — 駁回申請﹕

• 法庭不具有司法管轄權處理涉案傳

票。只有當各方選用附表2的條文時，

該等條文才適用。鑒於涉案協議並無

如此訂明，Ps沒有理據以附表2第4條

所指的嚴重不當事件為由而向本庭申

請撤銷涉案裁決及涉案訟費令。根據

《仲裁條例》第3(3)條，法院應只在

該條例明文規定的情況下，才干預爭

議的仲裁。第100條並非規定附表2適

用於「本地」仲裁或協議，而是規定

附表2適用於規定協議所指的仲裁為本

地仲裁的仲裁協議。此外，仲裁協議

不能因各方是香港居民和在本地設有

營業地點而被視為藉隱含方式訂明該

協議所指的仲裁屬本地仲裁。

• 再者，Ps尋求在其申請猶如根據《仲

裁條例》第81條提出的基礎上提出

爭辯，而容許該做法將屬濫用司法程

序，因為涉案傳票並無按照《高等法

院規則》第73號命令第5(4)條規則的

規定，述明根據第81條撤銷涉案裁決

及涉案訟費令的理據。

• 即使關於附表2第4條不適用的裁斷錯

誤，Ps的申請亦無法證明成立。不論

是仲裁程序還是仲裁員行使其權力的

方式，都沒有不當之處。

CIVIL EVIDENCE

Secretary for Justice v Cheng Kam Mun[2016] HKEC 2712Court of First InstanceMiscellaneous Proceedings Nos. 2916–2932 of 2015Anderson Chow J in Chambers 16 December 2016

Affidavits – direction made in proceedings for committal for criminal contempt that affidavits or affirmations of Secretary for Justice’s witnesses stand as evidence-in-chief

The Secretary for Justice (the “SJ”) applied for a direction that the affidavits or affirmations filed on his behalf stand as the evidence-in-chief of the deponents at the trial of the proceedings for committal for criminal contempt provided that the deponents attend the trial to be cross-examined on their affidavits or affirmations by or on behalf of the respondents, Rs. Some of Rs supported the application, some of them opposed it and some of them adopted a neutral position. Counsel for the SJ advanced the following five reasons for making the direction sought: (a) there was power to give such a direction; (b) a similar direction had been given in the “Taxi Cases” by consent, and there was no rational reason for not giving the same direction in the present group of cases; (c) the current estimated length of trial of 40 days was based on the affidavits or affirmations standing as the deponents’ evidence-in-chief. If the deponents were required to give oral evidence in the traditional manner, it was estimated that an additional 15 to 20

days would be required for the trial; (d) there was no clear or intelligible reason why the deponents should be required to give evidence-in-chief in the traditional manner. None of Rs had indicated which paragraphs of the deponents’ affidavits or affirmations, or what areas of their evidence, was likely to be disputed. Nor had any of them been able to explain what tactical advantage he or she might obtain by requiring the deponents to give evidence-in-chief in the traditional manner; and (e) the mere fact that a witness’s credibility might be in issue did not necessarily mean that his or her witness statement should not be allowed to stand as his or her evidence-in-chief. The objections made to the direction sought were as follows: (a) the SJ should, instead of seeking such a direction, put forward agreed facts for Rs’ consideration, and use his prosecutorial discretion to identify witnesses who were necessary to prove his case so as to limit the number of witnesses required to give evidence at the trial; (b) Rs were not required to disclose or give any indication of their defence, because these were proceedings for criminal contempt with penal consequences. Hence, the SJ’s fourth reason had no force or validity; (c) the present cases and the facts in issue were identical to summary offences of a criminal nature. So the safeguards in the criminal trial process to ensure the integrity and fairness of the system should be followed. And there were Australian authorities which explained the rationale behind the usual rule or practice of requiring witnesses to give their evidence orally in criminal trials; and (d) requiring the witnesses to give evidence-in-chief would promote the public interest in the transparency of the

www.hk-lawyer.org 63www.hk-lawyer.org 63

proceedings.

Held, making the direction sought subject to any direction as might be given by the trial judge that the whole or any part of the evidence-in-chief of any particular witness be given orally, that:

• Ofthefivereasonswhichcounselfor the SJ advanced for making the direction sought, the important ones were the third and fourth reasons. As to the objections made to the direction sought, the position was as set out in the second to fifth holdings below.

• Thedirectionsoughtwouldnotbean obstacle to the agreement of undisputed facts or the limitation of witnesses.

• If,astheywereentitledto,Rschosenot to disclose their defence, the Court could only decide on the basis of the materials and arguments before it whether it was just to make the direction sought.

• Whatwascriticalwasnotwhetherthe proceedings were treated as civil or criminal but whether the direction sought would cause any real prejudice to Rs or compromise the fairness of the trial. The direction sought would not do either of those things.

• Transparencywouldnotbecompromised by the making of the direction sought. The trial would be fully reported in the media. And a large part of the SJ’s case would be presented by video evidence rather than the oral evidence of witnesses.

• Whetherthedirectionsoughtshouldbe made was ultimately a matter of case management. The result to be arrived at was one which promoted the efficient administration of justice while seeing that Rs would not be prejudiced. The proper balance could be achieved by making the direction sought subject to an express proviso that the trial judge could direct the whole or any part of the evidence-in-chief of any particular witness be given orally.

民事證據

Secretary for Justice v Cheng Kam

Mun [2016] HKEC 2712

原訟法庭

高院雜項案件2015年第2916–2932號

原訟法庭法官周家明內庭聆訊

2016年12月16日

誓章 — 在刑事藐視法庭的交付審判程序中作出的指示：把律政司司長的證人宗教式或非宗教式誓章用作為主問證詞

多名答辯人(「眾答辯人」)被控刑事藐視

法庭，律政司司長在交付審判程序進行聆

訊時提出申請，要求法庭頒發指示，假若

作供詞人出席審訊，就他們的宗教式或非

宗教式誓章(「誓章供詞」)接受眾答辯人

或眾答辯人代表律師盤問，由律政司司長

的代表送交法庭存檔的誓章供詞，被用作

為主問證詞。眾答辯人之中，有些支持申

請，有些反對，有些則中立。律政司司長

代表大律師提出五點理由，支持法庭作出

律政司司長所申請的指示：(a)法庭有權作

出這樣的指示；(b)法庭在「的士案件」

(Taxi Cases)中按同意作出過類似的指示，

而且並無合理理由支持不在這組案件中作

出相同的指示；(c)現時估計，如果把誓章

供詞用作為作供詞人的主問證詞，審訊需

時40天。如果作供詞人須以傳統方式在庭

上作口供，估計審訊時間會增加15至20

天；(d)為甚麼應當規定作供詞人以傳統方

式作主問證詞？這個規定沒有清晰或明白

易懂的理由解釋原因。眾答辯人中概無一

人指出作供詞人的誓章供詞有哪一段，或

他們的證供中有哪些地方很有可能受到爭

議。眾答辯人之中也沒有人能夠說清楚，

如果作供詞人以傳統方式在庭上作主問證

詞，眾答辯人在策略上可能有甚麼好處；

及(e)證人的可信性可能受到爭議，但單

憑這點，他或她的證人陳述書也不一定不

應該獲准用作為他或她的主問證詞。部份

答辯人反對律政司司長所申請的指示，理

由如下：(a)律政司司長應當提出議定的

事實給眾答辯人考慮，運用他在檢控上的

酌情權，找出證明他案由成立所必須要的

證人，從而限制必須在庭上作供的證人人

數，而不是向法庭申請這樣的指示；(b)

眾答辯人無須披露或提示辯護理由，因為

刑事藐視法庭會帶來刑事後果，而這些都

是按規定必須進行的程序。因此，律政司

司長的第四個理由並無效力；(c)這些案件

和受爭議的事實與刑事性質的簡易罪行相

同。因此應當遵照刑事審訊的程序，以確

保過程公平公正。要求證人在庭上作口供

是刑事審訊的一般規定或做法，澳洲有案

例典據解釋這些規定或做法背後的基本理

由；及(d)要求證人作主問證詞會增加法律

程序的透明度，提高公眾利益。

裁決 –作出律政司司長所申請的指示，但

原審法官可以指示某證人的全部或任何部

份主問證詞以口頭方式作出：

• 律政司司長的代表律師提出五點理由

支持法庭作出律政司司長所申請的指

示，其中第三和第四點最為重要。以

下第二至五點所列出的，則是反對的

理由。

• 律政司司長所申請的指示不會阻礙控

辯方同意不受爭議的事實，或在傳召

證人方面造成限制。

• 眾答辯人有權披露他們的辯護理由，

但如果他們選擇不作披露，法庭只

可以基於法庭席前的資料和論點去決

定，法庭作出律政司司長所申請的指

示是否公正之舉。

• 至關重要的不是要循民事程序還是刑

事程序處理案件，而是律政司司長所

申請的指示會不會對眾答辯人造成任

何真實的損害，或者會不會損害審訊

的公平性。律政司司長所申請的指示

兩樣都不損害。

• 法庭作出律政司司長所申請的指示

不會損害透明度。媒體會全面報道審

訊消息。律政司司長的案情大部份的

呈示方式是錄影證供，而不是證人口

供。

• 法庭應不應該作出律政司司長所申

請的指示，畢竟是案件管理方面的問

題。要達到的結果是眾答辯人不會受

到損害之餘，同時提升執行司法工作

的效率。要兩者平衡，恰到好處，

法庭可以作出律政司司長所申請的指

示，但表明原審法官可指示某證人的

全部或任何部份主問證詞以口頭方式

作出。


• March 2017


CONTRACT LAW

Li Ting Kit Tso v Cheung Tin Wah[2016] HKEC 2720Court of First InstanceHigh Court Action No. 2500 of 2013Recorder Stewart Wong SC16 December 2016

Illegality – illegal agreement to develop houses under Small House Policy – whether doctrine of locus poenitentiae applied – claim for return of land would fail where legal title to property no longer with defendant

P, a tso, owned land in the New Territories. P orally agreed to assign the land to D1 and/or his nominated persons who possessed the right to build small houses. If D1 failed to complete the application procedure under the Small House Policy within one year, P had the option to terminate the agreement and the land would be re-assigned to P. P subsequently entered into a written agreement with, and assigned title to the land to, D2. Consideration for the assignmentwasHK$2.8 millionwhichwas never paid. The land was divided into 13 sections, and D2 was to assign each section to various nominees. However, D2 was unable to nominate enough persons who had the right to build small houses and development of the land did not proceed. P subsequently terminated the agreement due to the substantial delay in the development of the land and demanded the return of title to the land. Instead, D2 assigned the remaining

sections such that all 13 sections were assigned. P secured the return of title to five sections from their current owners. P sought relief for the remaining eight sections “lost”: (a) for breach of contract; or (b) if the agreement was illegal, under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae; and (c) that the land was held on a resulting trust.

Held, ordering D2 to pay equitable compensation to P, that:

• TheagreementwasillegalandPwas not entitled to sue for breach of contract. In the performance of the agreement, it was inevitable false representations were made by indigenous villagers to the Lands Department that they were legal and beneficial owners of land, when in fact they were merely nominees.

• Thedoctrineoflocus poenitentiae was based on restitution of property only and did not apply. As all 13 sections of the land had been assigned, legal title was no longer with D2, and thus, P could not claim a return of the land.

• However,D2heldthelandonaresulting trust. The transfer of land was for a specific purpose to develop the land within a deadline, the non-compliance of which would entitle P to the return of the land, and not an outright transfer. In addition, consideration was not provided. As D2 was no longer in a position to account for the land, or restore it to P, P was entitled to equitable compensation from D2 of the market value of the eight sections of the land “lost” as at the date of the writ.

合同法

Li Ting Kit Tso v Cheung Tin Wah

[2016] HKEC 2720

原訟法庭

高院民事訴訟案2013年第2500號

特委法官黃繼明資深大律師

2016年12月16日

不合法事情 — 非法協議根據丁屋政策發展丁屋 — 「悔改場合」原則是否適用 — 在土地業權不再屬於被告人的情況裏，申索歸還土地會以失敗告終

原告人是祖堂，擁有一幅新界土地。原告

人口頭上協議轉讓該土地給第一被告人及

／或他指定的人士(「指定人」)，指定人

都有興建丁屋的權利(「丁權」)。假若第

一被告人未能在一年內辦妥丁屋政策規定

的申建程序，原告人有權終止協議，而該

土地會被轉讓歸還原告人。原告人其後與

第二被告人訂立書面協議，把該土地的業

權轉讓給第二被告人。轉讓代價為280萬

港元，但第一及第二被告人沒有支付過代

價。該土地被分割為13個分段，各分段經

由第二被告人轉讓給不同指定人。然而，

第二被告人無法湊足擁有丁權的人士做其

指定人，因而沒有發展該土地。原告人其

後因為該土地的發展被嚴重延誤而終止協

議，並要求獲歸還該土地的業權。第二被

告人沒有歸還業權，反而把剩餘未轉讓的

分段轉讓出去，13個分段因而全部被轉

讓了。原告人獲得5個地段現時的擁有人

歸還業權。原告人因為「失去了」(lost)

其餘8個分段，向法庭尋求濟助，所持

理由是：(a)協議方違約；或(b)如果協議

並不合法，就以「悔改場合」原則(locus

poenitentiae)為依據；及(c)該土地是以歸

復信託的形式持有。

裁決 –命令第二被告人向原告人支付衡平

法補償：

• 協議並不合法，原告人無權控告辯方

違約。既然原居村民事實上只是指定

人，他們履行合約就必然要向地政總


署作出虛假陳述，自稱是土地的合法

實益擁有人。

•「悔改場合」原則只以復還財產為基

礎，因此並不適用。由於該土地13個

分段已經全部被轉讓，合法業權不再

屬於第二被告人，原告人因此不能要

求第二被告人歸還該土地。

•然而，第二被告人是以歸復信託形式持

有該土地。轉讓土地不是要把該土地

徹底轉讓出去，而是為了完成一個特

定目的，就是在限期內發展該土地，

如果不依這個目的去行，原告人有權

獲歸還該土地。此外，兩名被告人都

沒有支付過代價。雖然第二被告人再

沒有向原告人交代或交回該土地的責

任，但原告人有權向第二被告人申索

衡平法補償，申索金額為「失去的」8

個分段於令狀日期的市值。

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

HKSAR v Wong Hei Chit[2016] HKEC 2646Court of AppealCriminal Appeal No. 182 of 2015Yuen, Macrae and Poon JJA7 December 2016

Evidence of uncharged acts – could not be used to establish elements of offence or offences charged

D was convicted of two counts of unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 1.66 kg of ketamine (Count 1) and 0.57 kg of ketamine (Count 2). Those dangerous drugs, which were being conveyed in a van driven by D on 27 February 2014, were in three iPhone boxes which someone collected from the van at about 6:50 pm and in nine iPhone boxes found by Customs officers in the van at about 7:00 pm. The prosecution’s case was based on the circumstantial evidence arising from those facts. D gave evidence denying that he knew that the boxes contained dangerous drugs rather than iPhones. He also gave and called

evidence of his having delivered iPhones in the past. Prosecuting counsel cross-examined D suggesting that none of his previous deliveries were of iPhones and that those deliveries also involved drug trafficking. In putting the prosecution’s position, the Judge told the jury, “[Prosecuting counsel] said the purported transportation business of the defendant was merely a smokescreen to cover up his drug-trafficking activities. Even if there was a genuine transportation business, said [prosecuting counsel], the defendant could still engage in drug-trafficking activities to earn extra money. Members of the jury, you may agree or disagree with [prosecuting counsel].”

Held, granting leave, treating the hearing as the appeal and allowing the appeal by quashing the convictions and ordering a retrial, that:

• In view of the way the prosecution was putting its case, it was necessary for the Judge to emphasise that: D’s evidence about his previous deliveries of iPhones was relevant to his defence that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the consignment of iPhones which he was asked to deliver on 27 February contained dangerous drugs. The prosecution was entitled to question D’s account of the previous deliveries and challenge his credibility on the issue. However, even if the jury rejected D’s evidence on the matter, the previous deliveries and the imputation that he had previously trafficked in dangerous drugs formed no part of the specific allegations in the indictment and could not be used to establish the elements of the offence. No such warning or direction along those lines was given. Instead, it was left open to the jury to agree with prosecuting counsel’s proposition. In all the circumstances, the omission of such a direction was a material non-direction.

• The proviso should not be applied. There was a significant body of evidence adduced by D and his witness to the effect that he operated a genuine transportation business.

It was a matter for the jury what they made of that evidence and of D. It could not be said that the jury must inevitably have convicted even if they had received an appropriate direction that they must not use the imputation that D had previously trafficked in dangerous drugs to decide whether the elements in the two specified counts in the indictment had been made out.

• There should be a retrial. The allegations were serious ones which had merited an overall sentence of 18½ years’ imprisonment. And since the error which obliged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal was concerned with the approach to the evaluation of evidence rather than the quality of the evidence itself, it was appropriate that there should be a proper determination of that evidence by a jury properly instructed.

刑事證據

HKSAR v Wong Hei Chit

[2016] HKEC 2646

上訴法庭

刑事上訴案件2015年第182號

高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧

高等法院上訴法庭法官麥機智

高等法院上訴法庭法官潘兆初

2016年12月7日

不被控告行為的證據 — 不可用來確立各被控罪行的元素

被告人被控非法販運危險藥物，即1.66

公斤氯胺酮(罪名1)及0.57公斤氯胺酮(罪

名2)，被裁定兩項罪名成立。2014年2月

27日，被告人駕駛客貨車運送那些危險

藥物；那些危險藥物當時被放在iPhone盒

內，晚上6時50分左右，有人取走客貨車

上其中三盒，另有九盒在晚上7時左右被

海關人員在客貨車內發現。控方案情以那

些事實的環境證據為基礎。被告人作供

否認他知道那些盒盛載的是危險藥物而不

是iPhone。他亦作供指自己過往有運送過

iPhone，也傳喚證人為他作證。控方代表


• March 2017


大律師盤問被告人，指他以往運送的都不

是iPhone，更指他那幾次運送都涉及販運

毒品。說到控方立場的時候，原審法官告

訴陪審團，「[控方代表大律師] 認為被告

人所指的運輸生意只是煙幕，是用來掩飾

他販毒。[控方代表大律師] 認為，即使真

的做運輸生意，被告人仍然可以販運毒品

賺取外快。各位陪審員，你可以同意或不

同意[控方代表大律師]的說法。」

裁決 –批予許可，把申請的聆訊當作上訴

聆訊，判被告人上訴得直，撤銷定罪並下

令案件重審：

• 考慮到控方提出其案情的方法，原審

法官有必要強調：被告人關於他過往

運送過iPhone的證供關係到他的抗辯

理由，即他不知道，也沒有理由懷

疑，他受託交付的iPhone之中，即他

被要求在2月27日運送的iPhone之中，

有危險藥物。控方有權懷疑被告人

關於過往運送過iPhone的說法，質疑

他在這爭議點上的可信性。然而，即

使陪審團拒絕接納被告人這方面的證

供，但他過往運送過iPhone因而被詆

譭過往曾經販運毒品，並不構成公訴

書中特定指控的任何部分，不可用來

確立罪行元素。原審法官沒有循這幾

方面作出提醒或指示，反而交給陪審

團決定是否同意控方代表大律師的觀

點。綜觀所有情況，遺漏指示即是沒

有指示，關係重大。

• 不應運用但書。被告人和他的證人提

出大量證據，以證明被告人真的經營

運輸生意。陪審團怎樣理解證據和被

告人，須由陪審團自行作決定。即使

陪審團接獲指示，知道絕不能基於對

被告人的詆譭，即詆譭他過往曾經販

運危險藥物，就決定公訴書內兩項特

定罪名有沒有罪行元素，陪審團也

不能被認為一定難免判被告人罪名成

立。

• 應當重審案件。被告人被指控的是嚴

重罪行，合共18年監禁是他應得的判

刑。令上訴法庭必須判被告人得直的

是一項與證據評核方法有關的錯誤，

而不是證據本身質素的問題，因此，

適當的做法是由得到恰當指示的陪審

團對該證據作出正確的裁決。

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

HKSAR v Castaneda Ortiz Jairo[2016] HKEC 2611Court of AppealCriminal Appeal No. 398 of 2015Lunn V-P, Macrae and McWalters JJA2 December 2016

Witness – law enforcement officer witness – rule that judge must not suggest to jury that law enforcement officers more unlikely than other witnesses to fabricate evidence

D was convicted of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs consisting of 0.65 kg of cocaine. Those drugs were found in a suitcase upon examination by Customs officers at the airport.

The prosecution’s case, based on the evidence of two Customs officers, was that it was D’s suitcase. D neither gave nor called evidence. His case, put to the Customs officers by his counsel in cross-examination, was that they had mixed up D’s suitcase with the suitcase in which the dangerous drugs were found. Defence counsel suggested that the Customs officers were mistaken. He did not suggest that either of them was lying. But when summing-up, the Judge suggested that it was implicit in the defence’s case that the Customs officers were lying. And he in effect suggested that the defence’s allegation was not credible because it was an allegation of criminal conduct on the part of law enforcement officers who enforce the law rather than break it. D applied for leave to appeal against conviction.

Held, granting the application, treating the hearing as the appeal and allowing the appeal by quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial, that:

• SincetheJudgetooktheviewthatan allegation that the Customs officers were lying was implicit in the defence’s case even though defence counsel had explicitly disavowed any such allegation, he should have clarified with defence counsel the true nature of the defence before summing up to the jury.

• Infact,theJudgewasincorrectinhis assumption that the defence’s case was that the Customs officers were lying. As a result, the Judge inaccurately portrayed the defence’s case when summing up to the jury.

• Thatinaccuracywasexacerbatedby the suggestion in the summing-up that persons whose duty was to enforce the law would not deliberately breach it by misconducting themselves in the way in which the Judge incorrectly assumed the defence’s case implied. This suggestion was in breach of the rule laid down in HKSAR v Leung Ka Yin and approved by the Court of Final


Appeal in Lee Fuk Hing v HKSAR (2004) 7 HKCFAR 600 at p. 611B that a judge must not suggest to the jury that law enforcement officers as a category or otherwise were more unlikely than other witnesses to fabricate evidence.

• Comingattheendofthesumming-up, that suggestion would not have been neutralised by the Judge’s direction, at the beginning of the summing-up, that the evidence of law enforcement officers was no more worthy of belief than that of any other witness.

• Thedefencearguedthattherewasa discrepancy in the prosecution’s evidence which made it inappropriate to order a retrial. But it would be open to the jury at a retrial to resolve the discrepancy and be satisfied to the requisite standard of D’s guilt.

刑事證據

HKSAR v Castaneda Ortiz Jairo

[2016] HKEC 2611

上訴法庭

上訴法庭刑事上訴案2015年第398號

上訴法庭副庭長倫明高

上訴法庭法官麥機智

上訴法庭法官麥偉德

2016年12月2日

證人 — 證人是執法人員 — 規定法官絕對不能向陪審團表示，執法人員比較其他證人更不可能捏造證據

被告人非法販運內含0.65公斤可卡因的

危險藥物，被裁定罪名成立。那些毒品

是機場關員檢查一件行李時，在行李內

發現的。控方案情是那件行李是被告人

的行李，而控方的案情是以兩名關員的

證供為基礎。被告人沒有作供，也沒有

傳召他人作供。辯方大律師在盤問中向關

員講述了他的案情，就是他們把被告人

的行李和被發現毒品的行李掉亂了。辯

方大律師認為是關員攪錯了。他不認為

有關員說謊。但原審法官作總結詞時表

示，辯方案情隱含着一個意思：關員在

說謊。而他實際上是認為辯方所指稱的

並不可信，因為辯方指稱作出刑事行為

的是執法人員，然而，執法人員的職責

是執法，不是違法。被告人針對定罪申

請上訴許可。

裁決 –批准申請，把申請的聆訊當作

上訴聆訊，判申請人上訴得直，撤銷判

罪，命令案件重審：

• 雖然辯方大律師已經明確否認辯方案

情隱含關員說謊的指稱，但是由於原

審法官認為有這個指稱，所以向陪審

團作總結詞之前，原審法官應當向辯

方大律師問個明白，澄清辯方的真正

意思。

• 原審法官假定辯方案情是關員在說

謊，事實上，他的假定並不正確。因

為假定不正確，原審法官向陪審團作

總結詞的時候，錯誤地描述辯方的案

情。

• 原審法官一錯再錯，他在總結詞中表

示，有責任執法的人是不會故意犯法

的，即是他們不會作出原審法官錯誤

假定辯方案情所隱含的不當行為。這

個意見違反在HKSAR v Leung Ka Yin

定下的規則，即法官絕對不可以指示

陪審團，執法人員較其他證人更不

可能捏造證供。終審法院在Lee Fuk

Hing v HKSAR (2004) 7 HKCFAR

600第611B段對這規則表示贊同。

• 原審法官在總結詞開端指示陪審團，

執法人員的證供不比其他證人的證供

更值得相信，但總結詞結尾部份的意

見不會被這個指示抵消。

• 辯方爭論指控方的證供有矛盾之處，

這令法官不適宜命令重審。但是陪審

團可以在重審時解決這個矛盾，並按

必要的標準信納被告人有罪。

CRIMINAL LAW

HKSAR v Zhou LimeiFACC 10/2016 (on appeal from CACC 81/2014)Court of Final AppealRibeiro, Tang and Fok PJs, Chan and Millett NPJs16 February 2017

Admissions – equivocal or ambiguous statements

The Appellant was directed to go through a customs inspection when she arrived at Hong Kong International Airport from Kuala Lumpur in 2012. During the inspection carried out in her presence, white powder was discovered in the lining of her suitcase. Tests conducted on the spot revealed that the white powder was heroin and the Appellant was arrested and cautioned. Upon being asked what the white powder was, the Appellant responded orally in Cantonese, “我諗呢一啲係

毒品啩”, translated in English as “I suppose this is dangerous drug”. Before the Court of First Instance, whether the Appellant’s response was capable of an admission as to knowledge was left to the jury. The jury convicted the Appellant of trafficking in a dangerous drug by a 5–2 majority.

Held, allowing the appeal and ordering a re-trial:

• TheAppellantgaveherresponseafter her suitcase had been searched in her presence and had heard the drug results of the white powder testing positive. Furthermore, the addition of the “啩”(gwa) final particle was a non-committal response by the Appellant and was not intended to be an admission of knowledge.

• TheAppellant’sresponsewasincapable of being an admission. Even if the statement was treated as possibly being an admission, it was so equivocal and qualified that the probative value would be extremely


• March 2017


limited and outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice from leaving it to the jury. Thus, the trial judge should have considered exercising his residual discretion to exclude the ambiguous statement as a possible admission.

This case was prepared by Morley Chow Seto.

刑事法

HKSAR v Zhou Limei

終院刑事上訴2016年第10號(原高院

上訴法庭刑事上訴2014年第81號)

終審法院

終審法院常任法官李義

終審法院常任法官鄧國楨

終審法院常任法官霍兆剛

終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷

終審法院非常任法官苗禮治勳爵

2017年2月16日

承認 — 不確定的或含糊的陳述

上訴人2012年從吉隆坡抵達香港國際機

場時被指示接受海關檢查。檢查在她面

前進行期間，她的行李箱襯層被發現藏

有白色粉末。當場進行的測試揭發白色

粉末是海洛英，上訴人因此被拘捕和警

誡。當被問及白色粉末是甚麼東西的時

候，上訴人用廣東話口頭回應：

「我諗呢一啲係毒品啩」，英文翻譯

為“I suppose this is dangerous drug”。

案件在原訟法庭審理時，法官把上訴人

的上述回應能否作為承認知情的問題，

交給陪審團考慮。陪審團以5比2大多數

裁定，上訴人販運危險藥物罪名成立。

裁決 –判上訴得直，命令案件重審：

• 上訴人是在她的行李箱在她面前被搜

查和聽到白色粉末的毒品測試報告為

肯定之後作出回應的。此外，「啩」

此最後語助詞的加入，是上訴人作出

的非明確性質的回應，不是他有意承

認知情。

• 上訴人的上述回應不能作為一項承

認。該陳述即使被視為有可能是一項

承認，其含意是那麼的不確定以致其

證據價值極為有限，而將有關問題交

給陪審團考慮所可能出現的不公平損

害的風險亦超過其證據價值。因此，

原審法官本應考慮行使他剩餘的酌情

權，把該項可能被視為承認的含糊陳

述豁除。

這案件是由麥樂賢周綽瑩司徒悅律師行

提供。

TORT

Law Chi Ching v Apple Daily Ltd[2017] HKEC 37Court of AppealCivil Appeal No. 221 of 2015Cheung, Kwan and Poon JJA13 January 2017

Defamation – damages – general damages – libel action by plaintiff who was not named in article in question – trial judge plainly wrong in assessing number of people who would have read defamatory article and had requisite knowledge to link it to plaintiff – plaintiff not celebrity or well-known figure in her community – award reduced

P was employed by the Hong Kong Government as a general worker. P worked in a team of nine workers in a police station in Kowloon and was responsible for cleaning, moving equipment and serving food and drinks. D1 was the publisher of the Apple Daily (the “Newspaper”). D2 was the Newspaper printer. D3 was the editor of the Newspaper and D4 was the reporter who wrote the article in question (the “Article”). In May 2008, D1 published the Article, reporting that a female civil servant attached to the police force was discovered to have stolen stationery from the police station and was given a verbal warning; it was suspected she frequently stole cleaning materials and tools from there and used them at dessert shops she operated; she was accused of frequently leaving her workplace which caused people to gossip or be discontent; and despite complaints to her superior, no action had been taken and it was suspected that someone covered for her. The Article did not name P, but gave the age and work period of the female civil servant. Prior to the publication of the Article, D4 had informed the police


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》。

that P had been accused of stealing the items in question. Consequently, P and others in her team were interviewed by the police and P was cleared of any misconduct. P claimed that she was the person referred to in the Article; that after it was published, her colleagues had approached her and asked what had happened; and she had suffered from depression as a result. The Judge allowed P’s claim for defamation and ordered Ds to pay general damages ofHK$700,000.Dsappealedonthequantum of the award.

Held, allowing the appeal and reducing theawardtoHK$450,000,that:

• TheJudge’sassessmentthattherewere a few hundred people who would be able to draw a link between P and the person referred to in the Article was not supported by evidence. There was no evidence that every one of the two to three hundred workers in the police station would have read the Article and those who read it had the requisite knowledge to link it to P. She was not a celebrity or a well-known figure in her community. A more realistic assessment of those readers who would be able to draw the link would be a few tens and not a few hundred. This was a “plainly wrong” situation where the Court of Appeal was entitled to interfere.

• TheCourtwasnotpreparedtoaccede to Ds’ request to discount the general damages award to reflect the uncertainty over the causal connection between the Article and the psychiatric injuries P suffered. There was no evidence on the respective impact of the police investigation of P and the publication of the Article on her psychiatric illness. In the absence of such evidence, the Court would go into a realm of speculation as to whether the police interview had partially caused P’s psychiatric illness.

侵權

Law Chi Ching v Apple Daily Ltd

[2017] HKEC 37

上訴法庭

民事上訊案件2015年第221號

高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐

高等法院上訴法庭法官關淑馨

高等法院上訴法庭法官潘兆初

2017年1月13日

誹謗 — 賠償 — 一般賠償 — 由沒有在涉案文章被點名的原告人提起的永久形式誹謗訴訟 — 原審法官估計讀過誹謗文章而又具有所需知悉把文章與原告人扯上關係的人數時犯了明顯錯誤 — 原告人不是她所處社區的名流或知名人物 – 減少判給的賠償金額

原告人是受聘於香港政府的雜工。她在九

龍某間警署工作，所屬工作小組共有九名

工人，她負責清潔、搬運儀器，送遞食物

和飲品。第一被告人是蘋果日報出版商。

第二被告人是蘋果日報印刷商。第三被告

人是蘋果日報編輯，而第四被告人則是撰

寫涉案文章的記者。第一被告人在2008

年5月刊登涉案文章，報道一名隸屬於警

署的政府女工曾被揭發偷取警署內文具而

遭口頭警告；有人懷疑她經常偷取警署內

清潔用品和工具，帶到數間由她自己經

營的糖水舖使用；她被指控經常離開工作

地點，因而被人議論或引起不滿；雖然她

的上司接到投訴，但未見有人採取任何

行動，因而她被懷疑有人包庇她。涉案文

章沒有點名直指原告人，但有提及該政府

女工的年齡和工作時段。涉案文章刊登之

前，第四被告人通知警方原告人被指控偷

取涉案物品。警方就原告人被指控的失當

行為訊問原告人及與她同組的其他人，結

果原告人獲還清白。原告人聲稱她是涉案

文章所指的那個人；涉案文章刊登之後，

她的同事找她問個究竟；她因此患上抑鬱

症。原審法官裁定她的誹謗申索得直，命

令眾被告人支付一般損害賠償700,000港

元。眾被告人就判給額提出上訴。

裁決 –判上訴得直，將判給的賠償金額減

至450,000港元：

• 原審法官估計有數百人會把涉案文章

所指的那人聯想為原告人。這個估計

沒有證據支持。沒有證據證明警署每

二、三百名工人就會有一人讀過涉案

文章，而那些讀過涉案文章的人都具

有聯想那人為原告人所需的知悉。原

告人不是她所處社區的名流或知名人

物。更為合理的估計是，有數十而不

是數百讀者會產生聯想。這是一種有

「明顯錯誤」的情況，上訴法庭有權

介入。

• 眾被告人要求折減判給原告人的一般

賠償，以反映涉案文章和原告人所受

精神創傷的因果關係並不明確。上訴

法庭法官不打算滿足眾被告人這個要

求。沒有證據是關於警方調查原告人

和涉案文章的刊登分別對原告人的精

神病所造成的影響。在欠缺有關證據

的情況下，上訴法庭會猜測警方的訊

問是否引致原告人患上精神病的原因

之一。


• March 2017

Photos from Hong Kong Anti-Corruption Forum 2016

SAVE THE DATE FOR THIS NOT-TO-BE MISSED ANTI-CORRUPTION FORUM

Asian Legal Business is proud to present the Hong Kong Anti-Corruption Forum on 23 March 2017. This annual forum gathers legal experts, in-house compliance professionals and government leaders together to discuss pertinent issues, corruption investigations and enforcement trends across Hong Kong and the Greater China.

Hear about recent anti-graft initiatives, explore various measures and practical solutions to mitigate corruption risks and delve deep into key concerns which legal/compliance professionals need to address to successfully safeguard corporate reputations and businesses.

AGENDA AT A GLANCE:• Latest Developments in Hong Kong Anti-

Corruption Legislations and Enforcement Trends

• Improving Third Party Risks Mitigation and Compliance through Enhancing Due Diligence for Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption

• Achieving Internal Compliance through Effective Anti-Bribery & Corruption Programmes

• Cross-Border M&A Transactions - Anti-Corruption Measures and Pitfalls to Avoid

• Enhancing Data Security and Privacy Against Cross-Border Corruption and Bribery Risks

• Combating Against Corruption and Bribery Crimes in Hong Kong and the Greater China

• Preventing Internal Fraud through Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and AML Compliance

BENEFITS OF ATTENDING:• KeynoteaddressbyJudgefromtheHighCourt

of Hong Kong• Keyinsightintothelatestanti-corruptionand

anti-bribery issues from Hong Kong and the Greater China region

• Networkwithseniorin-house counsels, lawyers and business leaders who are on top of their game

• In-depthworkshopsfocusingonthelatestlegal issues presented by top domestic and international law firms VIP networking luncheon and refreshments

• Speakernotesandmaterialsprovided

To register for this event, go to:www.regonline.com/hkanticorruption2017

For more information about this event, go to:www.legalbusinessonline.com/conferences/hk-anticorruption-2017

CONTACT FOR SPEAKING OPPORTUNITIES:Willy Leonardi+65 6870 [email protected]

CONTACT FOR SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES:Amantha Chia+65 6870 [email protected]

GUEST OF HONOUR:The Honourable Mr JusticeKevin Zervos, SCJudgeHigh Court of Hong Kong

KEYNOTE SPEAKER:William Tam, SCDeputy Director of PublicProsecutions, Head of theCommercial Crime Sub-Division, Prosecutions DivisionDepartmentofJustice

SUPPPORTING MEDIA PARTNERSUPPORTING ORGANISATION PROUDLY PRESENTED BYWORKSHOP SPONSOR ASSOCIATE SPONSOR

The following is the first in a two-part series of bulletins exploring issues

facing small and medium-sized firms in the context of the broader competitive market and with specific reference to Hong Kong.

In this bulletin we highlight a series of strategic and operational considerations for small and medium-sized law firm leaders and how these are changing with intensifying competition. The second of these bulletins will explore what law firm leaders need to do including moving from cash flow management to revenue generation as an outgrowth of this and a structural shift in organisational mindset.

While the principles of law firm management apply to firms of all sizes, their execution differs according to a firm’s organisational capabilities. Many of the challenges facing small and medium-sized firms are consistent with those of larger firms. How they respond to these challenges can differ vastly and the “trickle down” effect (from large to small) can alter the nature of the challenge, including in some cases magnifying their impact.

What small and medium-sized firms lack in organisational capability, they can more than make up for in agility both in their approach to their clients and markets and in the way in which they manage their businesses. However, this requires a clear understanding of a firm’s strategic positioning and the management skills to compete and maintain that position.

One characteristic of small and medium-sized firms in most markets is their focus on SME clients. In part, this has been driven by localised buying decisions often where a family business has retained counsel for a range of private and corporate matters. (SMEs are more inclined to use their law firm for a “package of business law services” provided the firm is truly good at these. This may not be the case from the client’s perspective.) These are segments of the market that “big law” has generally avoided because of an abundance of other, more profitable work and because their cost bases would not support lower margin work. Hence, big law and small and medium-sized firms effectively coexisted in parallel markets.

In this respect, Hong Kong has differed because of the relationship between personal wealth, closely held family businesses and the largest publicly listed companies. Small and medium-sized firms have traditionally been able to advise larger companies than would necessarily be the case in other markets.

In some markets in which competition is intensifying and in which access to SMEs is increasing, including through more efficient delivery mechanisms and lower costs of production, the

separation is blurring and a number of large professional services firms, notably the Big 4 accountancy firms, are actively targeting the SME sector.

According to the Hong Kong Government’s latest statistics, there are approximately 317,000 SMEs in the territory, constituting 98 percent of its business units and 46 percent of private sector employment. Despite the considerable size of this segment, it is not out of proportion, say, with the UK in which over 99 percent of businesses are SMEs, accounting for 60 percent of private sector employment [and 47 percent of private sector turnover]. However, the relative importance of SMEs in Hong Kong has been much greater for the reasons stated above including in the way in which legal services are bought.

This raises a series of related issues in managing the business of small or medium-sized firms and questions for their leaders to consider.

Client FocusA number of major business law firms (Global Elite and International Business Law (“IBL”) firms) that previously shunned private wealth services have altered their strategies in recent years. They are now investing in these areas and are actively targeting High-Net-Worth Individuals (“HNWIs”) through private wealth services as a means to secure

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT執業管理

How to Manage Business as a Small to Medium-Sized FirmBy Alan Hodgart, Managing Director Hodgart Associates Ltd Rob Ashing, Director Hodgart Associates Ltd


• March 2017

March 2017 • PRACTICE MANAGEMENT 執業管理

corporate instructions. The increasing flow of investment from Hong Kong and other large Asian economies into major international capital markets and business centres has been a catalyst in expanding this focus for some firms.

This is important for small and medium-sized Hong Kong firms whose diversified client bases include HNWIs targeted by business law firms. Local firms will increasingly compete directly with IBL firms particularly those with sizeable Hong Kong offices for specific medium and higher value work from these HNWIs and their corporate portfolios. There is an inherent strategic advantage for firms that are able to advise on private client matters and simultaneously provide public company advice in some cases in multiple jurisdictions. These firms will be able to invest in relationships including if necessary adopting a loss leader approach to private client services with the aim of securing more, higher margin corporate mandates.

In the past, small and medium-sized firms have been able to undercut competitors in other segments because their cost bases were lower. However, this is increasingly unsustainable as we discuss below.

Product ClarityWe are likely to see an increase in firm failures over the next decade as greater competition drives more underperforming firms to close. Invariably, lack of strategic focus coupled with poor management are the most common causes of law firm failures. This is particularly acute for small and medium-sized firms.

In our experience, small and medium-sized firms (as well as smaller offices of larger firms) often profess to specialise in a wide range of services and areas of law. In many cases, the number of services is greater than the number of lawyers employed by the firm or located in any one office. This relative lack of focus undermines the credibility of any such claims as to a firm or an individual’s actual expertise. This does not mean that all such firms should only specialise in a narrow range of services (although some may choose to do so) but rather that

(1) they should be able to compete for the work on which they are focused; and (2) it supports their preferred market position.

The Law Society of Hong Kong’s website lists 24 areas of practice. A large proportion of small and medium-sized member firms list themselves as experts in multiple areas of practice, often reinforced by marketing materials that make similar claims. As clients become more sophisticated in their buying behaviour, including as a result of greater choice of suppliers, the more likely this will be tested.

Strategic PathwaysHong Kong continues to be an attractive market as a gateway to and from China. Regardless of the need or otherwise for mainland offices, international firms still see Hong Kong as a safe haven and a bridge to the mainland. Well-managed and profitable local firms who have strong client bases and/or operations in the mainland are potential targets for acquisitive international firms.

In the space of the last eight years, the largest 15 mainland Chinese firms have more than quadrupled in size from an average of 359 fee earners in 2009 to 1,450 fee earners in 2016. (In 2016, 14 of the largest 15 Asian firms were headquartered in the mainland.) Whilst a small number have gone some way towards developing their international strategies either via merger (Dacheng, King & Wood Mallesons), strategic partnership (Yingke with Memery Crystal (UK)), association (Jingtian & Gongcheng with Mayer Brown JSM), or network (JunHe (Lex Mundi)), the pressure on others to do so will intensify as they compete for complex cross-border work.

Similarly, mainland Chinese firms seeking to “go out” often begin with Hong Kong because of its importance as one of two major regional capital markets and a preferred route through which much of their clients’ outbound investment is channelled. Eight of the ten largest mainland firms have a Hong Kong office and many others have a presence or relationships with domestic Hong Kong firms.

This becomes an important strategic consideration for small and medium-sized firms in Hong Kong whether they are committed to independence, are open to joining or are actively seeking a mainland or international law firm.

“Mid-Market Meltdown”In recent years, “mid-market” business law firms in most countries have been the biggest “losers” as competition has intensified. The middle ground has contracted as IBL firms and disruptors (largely driven by technology) have taken market share from domestic business law firms. (These are typically large firms in their own markets but small by comparison with their international counterparts and increasingly unable to compete with them for higher value cross-border work.) Over time, their share of purely or predominantly domestic work has also been eroded as clients consolidate their suppliers. In the markets where this trend is most advanced, the mid-market segment is likely to disappear within the next five to 10 years.

The latest list of Hong Kong’s 25 largest law firms included only five local firms. Outside the top 25, the average size of Hong Kong’s remaining 846 law firms (both foreign and local) was less than eight lawyers, with many significantly smaller practices.

In some markets, a new generation of boutiques are emerging as a diaspora from larger firms’ established niche practices, including in higher value practice areas. One consequence of the trickle-down effect is that small and medium-sized firms will need to compete with more specialist boutiques in key areas.

A question of scale?In the past, law firms as long as they have remained a certain size (particularly as founder-led firms), have been able to do so in the absence of robust systems and processes. Inevitably, practices develop organically as firms grow but typically lack the discipline required of a high functioning business. Once these firms reached a certain scale, it became


apparent that the existing systems and processes (or the lack thereof) were inadequate to enable these firms to transition into a new phase of growth.

Start-up firms can avoid this by ensuring that scalable systems and processes are in place from the outset. This is made easier by the fact that many more off-the-shelf products and outsourced solutions now exist that are suited to smaller platforms and that would require lower capital investment than has been the case in the past.

An appropriate business model (including systems and processes) increasingly forms part of a firm’s organisational capabilities regardless of its scale. Greater compliance obligations are likely to amplify this.

Increasing Price Pressure and Other New Sources of CompetitionTechnology, including the fast pace of adoption of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) as part of wider process efficiency initiatives, is intensifying competition. For larger firms, technology is helping to drive down the cost and speed of production by automating tasks that would otherwise be performed by lawyers.

In the past, these tasks might have been “farmed out” by lead counsel or the client to small and medium-sized firms who could perform them at a lower cost. The emergence of Legal Process Outsourcing (“LPO”) provided clients with an alternative model, albeit questions remained about the quality and consistency of work product in many cases. AI now promises more, cheaper and faster solutions with the additional benefit of continuous and systematised learning.

Small and medium-sized firms for whom this has been an important and often lucrative source of income will need to consider the impact of technology on the flow of referrals and direct instructions.

Rising Cost of Doing BusinessA key measure of the health of any firm and its competitive performance is its cost

multiple. In other words, the ratio of the revenue generated to the direct costs of the fee earners who generated it. The direct cost of fee earners is their salary and related costs and must include a cost of equity partners.

As a small or medium-sized firm, capital commitments are likely to be relatively low. In the past, this may not have been an issue at all. Capital costs for small firms are not generally onerous and, depending on the nature of those costs, are typically self-funded by partners. However, changes in the business model may require higher capital injections than previously have been the case.

Some of the larger international firms in Hong Kong have moved or are contemplating moving their back offices and in some cases their front offices out of Central. Rental costs in particular and their impact on firm margins have long been a source of concern but before now few have been prepared to relocate or have faced significant resistance from partners to avoid doing so.

With time, the adoption of more technology-led work processes will sufficiently alter the shape of their business models in some cases that they will be able to reduce their headcount and, hence, their need for expensive office space.

Small and medium-sized firms are not immune to the same cost pressures whether or not they are based in Central. However, nor are they likely to achieve the same technology-driven economies of scale even if they are able to fund the capital investment required.

Whilst local firms in Hong Kong as in other Asian markets have mostly benefitted from relatively low employee costs compared with some markets, the cost differential will shrink as larger firms drive down the cost of production including the cost per lawyer.

The Tasks of the Owner-ManagerAs a small professional services firm, we understand the competing demands in your markets.

Inevitably, small and medium-sized firms lack the infrastructure and organisational capability that larger firms have in abundance. Administrative tasks that would ordinarily be delegated to professional managers naturally fall to the partners (often the founder) to juggle with fee earning, client relationship management and business development commitments.

Role clarity is key in terms of the responsibilities of partners, senior lawyers and associates as are the disciplines and accountability that go with managing these. How much time is allocated to business generation, fee earning work, supervision, etc. and whether or not routine tasks can be performed more efficiently (including potentially through outsourcing these) will come into sharper focus. n


• March 2017

Questions to consider:1. How clear is your strategic

positioning? Who are your core clients? What are your core work types, values, volume positioning, competitive capabilities and organisational capabilities?

2. What are the implications of the changing nature of your client base?

3. How well is your strategic positioning understood in your core markets/by your core clients?

4. What is the optimum scale for your practice? Do you have the systems and processes in place to compete in five years’ time and, if not, what will you need to do to address this?

5. How adaptive is your business model to disruptive technology and/or to price pressure from traditional and non-traditional sources of competition?

6. How will you fund the capital investment required to achieve your strategic goals over the next three to five years?

7. How will your role change over the next five years and what additional support will you need in managing your firm?


作者 Alan Hodgart 董事總經理 Hodgart Associates Ltd Rob Ashing 董事 Hodgart Associates Ltd


中小型律師事務所如何管理其業務

這篇文章共分為兩部分，下文屬於第一部

分，探討在競爭激烈的市場環境下(特別

是香港目前所面對的情況)，中小型律師事務所

面對的問題。

本文探討的重點，是一系列供中小型律師事務所

管理層參考的，在策略上和運作上的考慮因素；

以及，隨著競爭情況日趨激烈，這些因素正在產

生如何的變化。這篇文章的第二部分將會探討律

師事務所的管理層需要採取如何的舉措，而當中

包括從現金流的管理，過渡到收入的創造上(作

為此中的自然結果)，以及在組織思維上的結構

性轉變。

儘管關於律師事務所的管理原則，可以適用於不

同規模的律師事務所，但在實際的運作上，則視

乎各律師事務所的組織能力而異。中小型律師事

務所面對的挑戰，在許多方面，均與大型律師事

務所面對的相同。然而，它們對此等挑戰如何作

出回應，當中可以存在很大差別，而「下滲」效

應(從大至小)亦會有可能令該等挑戰的性質發生

改變，包括在某些情況下將所產生的影響擴大。

中小型律師事務所在組織能力方面的不足，可

以憑著其於面對客戶和市場，以及在管理其業

務方面所具備的靈活性而予以補足。然而，要

達到這一目的，律師事務所必須對其策略性定

位有明確的了解，並具備進行競爭及維持該地

位的管理技能。

大多數市場的中小型律師事務所都

有一個共同特性，就是會把業務重

點放在中小企客戶上。當中的部分

原因，是因為許多家族企業都習慣

委託同一位律師來協助處理其私人

和公司的法律事務，所以這些客戶

的委託會很固定。(一家律師事務所

如果服務表現良好，中小企都較為

傾向讓該律師事務所繼續為其提供

「一籃子的商業法律服務」。從客

戶的角度看，也許並非必然如此。)

這些範疇，大型律師事務所一般都

不會觸及，因為它們擁有大量能帶

來可觀利潤的業務，而其成本基

礎亦不容許它們接受較低利潤的工

作。因此，大型律師事務所與中小

型律師事務所得以有效地，在兩個

並行的市場共存。

基於個人財富、封閉式的家族企

業、以及最大型上市公司之間的

關係，香港的情況在這方面有所不

同。與其他市場比較，香港的中小

型律師事務所向來比較可以為較大

型的企業提供法律服務。

在一些競爭日趨激烈，及與中小型企

業的接觸正在增多的市場(包括透過更

高效的交付機制和較低的生產成本)，

當中的分野已經變得越來越模糊，而

一些大型專業服務機構(尤其是四大會

計師事務所)亦正積極地瞄準中小型企

業，作為它們拓展業務的範疇。

根據香港政府的最新統計資料，目前

香港大約有317,000家中小型企業，

佔本地企業總數百分之九十八，所僱

用的人數，佔私營部門勞動人口的百

分之四十六。儘管百分比是如此高，

但若與例如英國比較，當地有超過百

分之九十九企業屬中小型企業，所僱

用的人數，佔私營部門勞動人口的百

分之六十 [而其私營部門營業額則佔

百分之四十七]。因此，香港的上述情

況也並非不成比例。然而，基於上述

原因(包括法律服務的運用情況)，香

港的中小型企業相對而言確是重要很

多。

這引發了一連串與中小型律師事務所

的業務管理相關的議題，以及一連串

供其管理層思考的問題。


• March 2017

以客戶為中心

從前回避私人財富服務的一些主要商

業法律事務所(環球菁英及國際商業法

(“IBL”)事務所)已在近年開始改變其經

營策略。現時，它們正在投資於此等領

域，並正在透過私人財富服務，積極瞄準

高淨值客戶(“HNWI”)，希望藉此取得

為企業提供法律服務的機會。現時從香港

及亞洲其他大型經濟體流向主要國際資本

市場及商業中心的投資正在上升，這亦成

為一些律師事務所加強聚焦於這一方面的

催化劑。

這對於其多元化的客戶基礎，包括商業法

律事務所瞄準的高淨值客戶的香港中小型

律師事務所來說，意義是十分重大。本地

律師事務所會更為直接地，與商業法律事

務所進行競爭(尤其是該些在香港設有大

型辦事處，以處理高淨值客戶及其公司業

務組合所提供的，具中等和較高價值工作

的商業法律事務所)。一些能夠為私人客

戶事務提供法律意見，又能同時在多個司

法管轄區就某些個案為上市公司提供法律

意見的律師事務所，它們確是享有內在的

戰略優勢。這些律師事務所將會投資於關

係的建立上，包括(如有必要)在私人客戶

服務方面採取虧本招徠方式，藉此取得數

量更多、利潤更豐厚的企業委託業務。

在過去，由於中小型律師事務所的所需經

營成本較低，因此它們能夠在其他服務範

疇超越其競爭對手。然而，正如下文所討

論的，這種情況將難以繼續維持下去。

產品清晰度

由於競爭日趨激烈，在未來十年我們將會

看到，會有愈來愈多的律師事務所因經營

不善而倒閉。律師事務所倒閉的最主要原

因，往往是因為缺乏策略性的重點和管理

不善。

根據我們的觀察，中小型律師事務所(及

大型律師事務所的較小規模辦事處)均承

認，它們所提供的服務和所涉及的法律範

疇過於寬泛。很多時候，律師事務所的業

務負荷，往往超過它們所僱用或是在其辦

事處所配置的律師人數。律師事務所若欠

缺發展重點，這將會使其難以建立自身的

信譽，和發揮其律師的服務專長。這並不

是說，所有的律師事務所都應該將其業務

範圍收窄，並只是專攻某些範疇(雖然有

些律師事務所確是如此選擇)，而是應該

(1)在其所專注的業務上具有競爭能力；

及 (2)能夠為其所選擇的市場定位提供支

持。

香港律師會的網站共列出了24個法律執

業範疇，而不少中小型律師事務所都聲稱

其擅長多個法律執業範疇，在其市場推廣

資料上，也是作出類似的聲稱。由於客戶

現時的購買行為已變得越來越老練(服務

提供者的數目增多是其中一個因素)，律

師事務所的此等聲稱因此將會受到考驗。

戰略途徑

香港是進出中國的大門，因此她仍然是一

個具有吸引力的市場。國際律師事務所對

在中國內地設立辦事處無論有何實際需

要，它們仍然會將香港視作一個安全港和

通往內地的橋樑。具備良好的管理能力與

盈利能力，擁有健全的客戶群，及/或在

內地擁有業務的本地律師事務所，它們將

會成為國際律師事務所有意收購的目標。

過去8年，中國最大的15家律師事務所

的規模擴大了4倍，而所聘用的法律工作

人員數目，也從2009年的平均359 人，

增至2016年的1,456人。(2016年，全

亞洲規模最大的15家律師事務所，有14

家的總部是設在中國。)一些律師事務所

通過合併(大成、金杜律師事務所)、戰略

合作夥伴關係(盈科律師事務所與英國的

Memery Crystal)、聯營(競天公誠律師事

務所與香港孖士打律師行)或建立網絡 (君

合律師事務所 (Lex Mundi))來實行其國際

戰略，而其他有意爭取此等複雜跨境業務

的律師事務所也亦步亦趨，群起仿效上述

這些律師事務所的做法。

同樣地，計劃「走出去」的中國律師事務

所，通常會基於香港是亞洲兩個主要資本

市場之一，享有重要地位，因而選擇以香

港作為它們的起步點，而香港也是它們的

客戶進行對外投資的首選路線。內地10

家最大的律師事務所，有8家在香港設有

辦事處，而其他律師事務所，有許多也與

香港的本地律師事務所建立了某種性質的

聯繫或是業務關係。

香港的中小型律師事務所是選擇獨立運

作，願意結盟，還是正積極地尋求與內地

或國際律師事務所進行合作？這對它們而

言，都是重要的戰略性考慮。

「中端市場消失」

在近年，由於競爭加劇，大多數國家的

「中端市場」商業法律事務所成為了最大

的「輸家」。本地商業法律事務所的市場

份額，被國際性的商業法律事務所及產業

顛覆者(disruptors)(它們主要是受科技應

用所推動)所奪取，以致中端市場萎縮。(

基本上，它們在自身所處的市場中，是屬

於大型律師事務所；但與其競爭對手－一

些大型國際律師事務所比較，卻只是屬於

小規模，並且在一些具較高價值的跨境業

務方面，越來越難與這些對手競爭。)由

於客戶慢慢開始固定使用某些服務提供

者，這些律師事務所的純本地(或主要為

本地的)業務份額，亦開始逐漸被侵蝕。

在這一趨勢最明顯的市場中，其中端市場

在未來5至10年將很可能會消失。

根據最新的資料顯示，香港首25家最大

型的律師事務所，只有5家是屬於本地律

師事務所。除了該25家最大型律師事務

所外，其餘的846家律師事務所(包括外

地和本地)平均聘有少於8名律師，而當中

的執業規模有許多是屬於明顯較少。

新一代的精品式律師事務所，現時在某些

法律服務市場中出現，並且脫離大型律師

事務所確立的執業細分範疇(包括具較高

價值業務的法律執業範疇)。此等下滲效

應所產生的一個結果是，中小型律師事務

所需要在其主要業務範疇，與較為專精的

精品式律師事務所進行競爭。

多大的規模？

在以往，只要律師事務所能維持一定的業

務規模(尤其是該些由其建立者主導的律

師事務所)，它便可以繼續經營下去，而



需要加以考慮的問題：

1. 你的戰略定位是否清晰？你的核心

客戶是誰？你的核心工作類別、價

值、容量定位、競爭能力和組織能

力如何？

2. 你的客戶群不斷變化的性質，會帶

來甚麼樣的影響？

3. 你的核心市場/核心客戶對你的戰略

定位理解有多深？

4. 甚麼是你的業務的最適切規模？在

5年裡，你是否會建立起競爭的制度

與程序？假如不行，你會如何處理

這一問題？

5. 你所實行的業務模式，是否能有效

適應顛覆性技術，及/或該等來自傳

統和非傳統競爭來源的價格壓力？

6. 在未來的3至5年，你會如何投入所

需的資本，以達成你的戰略目標？

7. 在未來5年你的角色將會有何變化；

以及，在管理你的律師事務所方

面，你將需要哪些額外支援？

無需建立強而有力的制度和程序。無可避

免地，隨著律師事務所的規模增長，其業

務也自然地有所發展，但卻通常會缺乏高

效能業務方面所需的紀律。當該等律師事

務所發展至一定規模後，其現行制度和程

序很明顯會不足以令其順利過渡到一個新

的增長階段。

初創的律師事務所，可透過在初始階段建

立可提升的制度和程序，避免此等情況的

發生。由於現時有為數不少的可供較小平

台使用的現成產品和外判解決方案推出，

因此該等律師事務所需要投入的資金，會

比以往的經營者為少，而它們的負擔亦因

而可以較輕。

一個適當的經營模式(包括制度和程序)，

會日漸成為一家律師事務所的組織能力方

面的不可分割一部分(不論其規模是大是

小)，而更重大的合規責任，會使此等情

況變得更加明顯。

增加價格壓力和其他新競爭來源

科技的運用(包括加快採用「人工智能」

－作為提升程序效率的部分動力)，正在

促使競爭情況加劇。對較大型的律師事務

所而言，科技有助它們將以往由律師擔當

的工作加以自動化，從而使成本降低和生

產速度提升。

在過去，此等工作可能會由首席法律顧問

或當事人「交予」可以較低成本完成該等

工作的中小型律師事務所來處理。「法律

流程外判」(“LPO”)的出現，為當事人

提供了另類的選擇，儘管在很多情況下，

其工作產出於品質和一致性方面，仍有需

要關注的地方。在目前，「人工智能」可

以提供數量更多、價格更廉宜、速度更快

的解決方案，並且能提供持續和系統性學

習的額外益處。

對於中小型律師事務所來說，這向來是它

們一項重要及可觀的收入來源，因此它們

需要考慮在業務轉介的流量，和客戶的

直接委託等方面，科技給它們所帶來的影

響。

經營成本上升

衡量任何律師事務所的經營狀況與競爭表

現是否良好的主要方法，是它的成本倍

數，也就是：它所創造的收入，與創造

該等收入的法律工作人員的直接成本之間

的比率。法律工作人員的直接成本，是指

它們的薪金與相關成本，並且也必須包括

權益合夥人的成本。

中小型律師事務所的資本承擔通常較低，

因此在過去這對它們來說，從來不構成任

何問題。一般而言，小型律師事務所在資

本成本方面的負擔並不太重(主要視乎該

等成本屬何性質)，而且通常都是由各合

夥人自行出資。然而，隨著經營模式的改

變，經營者現時可能需要較以往投入更多

的資金。

香港一些較大規模的律師事務所，已經

或正在打算將其後勤辦事處(而在某些情

況中，甚至是它們的前線辦事處)遷離中

區。長期以來，律師事務所特別關注租金

成本問題，以及該等成本對它們的利潤所

產生的影響。但在以往，很少律師事務所

會考慮遷離中區，而此等提議通常也會遭

到合夥人的強烈反對。

隨著時代的發展，越來越多的工作流程已

變成由科技帶動，因而大大改變了企業的

經營面貌，而此舉有助減少其對人力的需

求，以致其對昂貴的寫字樓面積之需求亦

有所下降。

不論這些中小型律師事務是否在中區經

營，它們總不能免除同樣的成本壓力，而

即使它們有足夠經濟能力投入所需的資

本，它們也不大可能達至相同的由科技帶

動的經濟規模。

與其他市場比較，香港的本地律師事務所

雖然也如其他的亞洲市場般，從較低廉的

員工成本中得益，但由於較大型的律師事

務所現時也有能力降低其生產成本(包括

每名律師的所需成本)，二者的成本差距

因此將會收窄。

所有者－經理人的工作

我們作為一家小規模的專業服務公司，十

分了解你們的市場目前所存在的競爭性需

求。

大型律師事務所擁有充足的基礎設施與組

織能力，而中小型律師事務所在這方面卻

付闕如。在一般情況下由專業管理人員負

責處理的行政工作，現時都無可避免地落

在合夥人(往往是其創辦者)的身上，而他

們既要關注律師事務所的收入，又要處理

與客戶關係、業務發展等相關的工作。

就合夥人、資深律師與助理律師的責任而

言，角色明確是關鍵的所在；同樣重要

的，是管理這些責任方面所涉及的紀律與

問責性。律師事務所會將多少時間分配在

開發業務、處理法律事務和進行監督上？

以及日常的例行工作，是否可以更有效的

方式來完成(包括將其外判的可能)？這一

切都將會受到更嚴格的審查。 n

PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

Newly-Admitted Members 新會員

CAI YUN MIN 蔡允旻

KING & WOOD MALLESONS 金杜律師事務所

CHAN KA HIN JEFF 陳嘉軒

CHANG CHE HO 張梓浩

CHEN KAI 陳凱

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER 富而德律師事務所

CHENG HIU NGA ANGELA 鄭曉雅

CHEUNG HOI LAM 張靄霖

CHEUNG LOK KI 張樂麒

WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS 華盛國際律師事務

所

CHOI CHUNG MING JERRY 蔡宗明

CHOW YAN LIN CAROL 周欣璉

HOGAN LOVELLS 霍金路偉律師行

GAN HONG KIAT DESMOND 顏鴻杰

LATHAM & WATKINS 瑞生國際律師事務所

JONG CHENG-HAN

LAM CHING HA NATALIE 林清霞

SO, LUNG & ASSOCIATES 蘇龍律師事務所

LAM SHUI YIN 林水彥

LAU KWOK-BUN BENJAMIN 劉國彬

BAKER & MCKENZIE 貝克• 麥堅時律師事務所

LEE SABRINA CARMEN 李嘉敏

WHITE & CASE 偉凱律師事務所


• March 2017

LEE TAN TAN 李丹丹

TSANG, CHAN & WONG 曾宇佐陳遠翔律師行

LI KING SHUN 李景順

C/O WALKERS

LIANG SHUANG 梁爽

LO YIN WAH AMELIA 盧彥樺

CHARLTONS 易周律師行

LU LAN 盧斕

SHUARE ASIA LIMITED

LUI CHI HO BILLY 呂子豪

LUI TSZ HO 雷子豪

HON & CO. 韓潤燊律師樓

MAI YUAN 麥原

NG KA WAI 吳家瑋

QIN ZHEN 秦臻

SADHWANI VIMAL DEEPAK

SIN RAYMOND 冼晞文

KING & WOOD MALLESONS 金杜律師事務所

TSUI KAR YEE ANGELA 徐嘉怡

HOGAN LOVELLS 霍金路偉律師行

TSUI TIEN HUA FLORA 徐天華

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL

WONG CHEUK YIU 王卓瑤

BAKER & MCKENZIE貝克• 麥堅時律師事務所

WONG NGA TING 黃雅婷

YAU RONALD HAWLEY 游學而

March 2017 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向


AU-YEUNG PUI YING FRANCES 歐陽沛盈

CHAN HO MAN PHOEBE 陳灝敏

CFN LAWYERS 陳馮吳律師事務所

CHAN YIN CHUNG DANIEL 陳彥充

CHIU WANG KEI 趙宏基

CHOW TUNG JANICE 鄒彤

FAN TSZ CHING 范芷晴

CFN LAWYERS 陳馮吳律師事務所

FOO PUI YAN JACQUELINE 傅沛欣

FU YAN YUEN 傅欣園

HON & CO. 韓潤燊律師樓

HUI LOK ON RONALD 許樂安

LAI TING HO TERENCE 黎庭皓

TEU & CO, VIVIEN LLP 張慧雯律師事務所有限法律責任合夥

LAM CHAMINADE 林澄

Partnerships and Firms合夥人及律師行變動

changes received as from 1 January 2017

取自2017年1月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

• AU MAN WAN TERESA commenced practice as the sole practitioner

of Au Man Wan & Co. as from 20/01/2017. 歐縵雲

自2017年1月20日獨資經營歐縵雲律師事務所。

• BISHOP ANDREW JOHN joined White & Case as a partner as from

06/02/2017. 自2017年2月6日加入偉凱律師事務所為合夥

人。

• CHAN CHEUK WAH became a partner of Deannie Yew and

Associates as from 01/02/2017. 陳卓華

自2017年2月1日成為姚逸華律師事務所合夥人。

• CHAN CHI FAI ceased to be a partner of Deannie Yew

and Associates as from 01/02/2017 and joined Pauline Wong & Co., Solicitors as an assistant solicitor on the same day.

陳志輝

自2017年2月1日不再出任姚逸華律師事務所合夥人一職，並於同日加入王婕妤律師事務所為助理律師。

• CHAN CHUNG YIN VICTOR commenced practice as the sole practitioner

of Victor Chan & Co. as from 03/01/2017. 陳仲然

自2017年1月3日獨資經營陳仲然律師行。

• CHAN DUN CHAU KENNETH ceased to be a partner of Latham & Watkins

as from 01/01/2017 and remains as a consultant of the firm.

陳端洲

自2017年1月1日不再出任瑞生國際律師事務所合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

LAM CHEUK NING JUSTINA 林卓寧


LAM WING KI PRISCILLIA 林穎琪

LEUNG LAURA SHU KA 梁樹嘉


LIU LINGDONG 劉凌東

LO WAI 盧暐

MAK KWAN CHAI 麥鈞齊

NG MING CHI 吳明芝

SY YI NING 施怡寧

WONG CHING YIN 王靖然

TANNER DE WITT 泰德威律師事務所

WONG WAI LUN ALAN 黃偉麟

JONES DAY 眾達國際法律事務所

WONG YUK FUNG VIOLET 王玉鳳

CHAN MEI MEI NICOLETTE 陳微微

SLAUGHTER AND MAY 司力達律師樓

Editorial Note: the photo that appeared next to Chan Mei Mei Nicolette, Slaughter and May, in the February 2017 issue of Hong Kong Lawyer was incorrect.

編按﹕2017年2月號的《香港律師》內陳微微(司力達律師樓)的照片出錯，敬希垂注。


• March 2017

• CHAN GEOFFREY ceased to be a partner of Ropes & Gray

as from 21/01/2017 and joined Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom as a partner on the same day.

陳傑鴻

自2017年1月21日不再出任瑞格律師事務所合夥人一職，並於同日加入世達國際律師事務所為合夥人。

• CHAN KIN FUNG PHIL ceased to be the sole practitioner of

Phillips as from 25/01/2017 due to the intervention in the practice of the firm by the Law Society on the same day.

陳建豐

自2017年1月25日不再出任Phillips獨資經營者一職，因該行於同日被律師會介入。

• CHAN LUNG JUNE ceased to be a partner of Orrick,

Herrington & Sutcliffe as from 13/02/2017.

陳瓏

自2017年2月13日不再出任奧睿律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CHAN YUEN MING SHARON became a partner of Yip, Tse & Tang as

from 01/02/2017. 陳婉明

自2017年2月1日成為葉謝鄧律師行合夥人。

• CHENG SHUI TAI ceased to be a partner of Payne

Clermont as from 03/02/2017. 鄭瑞泰

自2017年2月3日不再出任彭林律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CHEUNG CHUN PUN ceased to be a partner of Orrick,


張俊斌


• CHEUNG YING ceased to be a partner of Orrick,


張瑩


• CHIU CHO CHIU became a partner of Fairbairn Catley

Low & Kong as from 01/02/2017. 趙祖釗

自2017年2月1日成為范紀羅江律師行合夥人。

• CHONG YI JANNEY ceased to be a partner of Sidley

Austin as from 01/01/2017. 莊怡

自2017年1月1日不再出任盛德律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CHONG YIU KAM ceased to be a partner of Lily Fenn &

Partners as from 01/02/2017. 莊耀金

自2017年2月1日不再出任范家碧律師行合夥人一職。

• GARDINER GORDON ASHLEY WYNNE

became a partner of Holman Fenwick Willan as from 16/01/2017.

自2017年1月16日成為夏禮文律師行合夥人。

• GRIMM DAVID GRANT ceased to be a partner of Paul

Hastings as from 01/02/2017. 自2017年2月1日不再出任普衡律師

事務所合夥人一職。

• HARRISON JAMIE EDWARD joined Francis & Co. as a partner as

from 12/01/2017. 自2017年1月12日加入Francis &

Co.為合夥人。

• HO MAN YEE ESTHER joined Lam, Lee & Lai as a partner as

from 01/02/2017. 何敏怡

自2017年2月1日加入林李黎律師事務所為合夥人。

• HO WAI HONG joined Loeb & Loeb LLP as a partner

as from 01/01/2017. 何偉康

自2017年1月1日加入Loeb & Loeb LLP為合夥人。

• HOARE DAVID JOHN ceased to be a partner of Haldanes as from

01/02/2017 and remains as a consultant of the firm.

何大衛

自2017年2月1日不再出任何敦, 麥至理,鮑富律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• HSUI CHI HO JONATHAN ceased to be a partner of Ashurst Hong

Kong as from 26/01/2017 and joined Allen & Overy as a partner on the same day.

許智豪

自2017年1月26日不再出任亞司特律師事務所合夥人一職，並於同日加入安理國際律師事務所為合夥人。

• KATARIA AMIT became a partner of Morrison & Foerster

as from 26/01/2017. 自2017年1月26日成為美富律師事務所合

夥人。

• KWOK WING FUNG commenced practice as the sole

practitioner of W.F. Kwok & Co. as from 01/02/2017.

郭榮豐

自2017年2月1日獨資經營郭榮豐律師行。

• LAI SHUK KAI became a partner of K.Y. Lo & Co. as from

01/01/2017. 賴淑姬

自2017年1月1日成為勞潔儀律師行合夥人。

• LAM ROCKEY ceased to be a partner of Cheung &

Liu, Solicitors as from 22/01/2017 and commenced practice as a partner of KCL & Partners on the same day.

林樂丰

自2017年1月22日不再出任張廖律師事務所合夥人一職，並於同日成為新開業廖廣志律師事務所合夥人。

• LAU HIU PING ceased to be a partner of Stephenson

Harwood as from 10/02/2017 and joined Troutman Sanders as a consultant on the same day.

劉曉冰

自2017年2月10日不再出任羅夏信律師事務所合夥人一職，並於同日加入長盛國際律師事務所為顧問。

March 2017 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向


• LEE LINA joined Allen & Overy as a partner as

from 05/01/2017. 李蓮娜

自2017年1月5日加入安理國際律師事務所為合夥人。

• LEUNG CHUN CHEUNG JEFF became a partner of Cheung, Chan

& Chung as from 01/02/2017. 梁振祥

自2017年2月1日成為張陳鍾律師行合夥人。

• LEUNG HO YAN ceased to be a partner of Robin

Bridge & John Liu as from 28/01/2017.

梁可欣

自2017年1月28日不再出任喬立本廖依敏律師行合夥人一職。

• LIU KWONG CHI NELSON ceased to be a partner of Cheung &

Liu, Solicitors as from 22/01/2017 and remains as a consultant of the firm. Mr. Liu commenced practice as a partner of KCL & Partners as from 22/01/2017.

廖廣志

自2017年1月22日不再出任張廖律師事務所合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。廖律師於2017年1月22日成為新開業廖廣志律師事務所合夥人。

• LUK KAI CHIANG EDWIN ceased to be a partner of Orrick,


陸繼鏘


• MA WAN HIN became a partner of Haldanes as

from 26/01/2017. 馬允軒

自2017年1月26日成為何敦, 麥至理, 鮑富律師行合夥人。

• MILLER JAMES PATRICK DUDWELL became a partner of Smyth & Co as

from 23/01/2017. 自2017年1月23日成為Smyth & Co

合夥人。

• MOHNANI DHEERAJ SURESH commenced practice as the sole

practitioner of Mohnani & Associates as from 01/02/2017.

自2017年2月1日獨資經營Mohnani & Associates。

• NG KA LAI ceased to be a partner of Tam, Pun &

Yipp as from 01/02/2017 and remains as an assistant solicitor of the firm.

吳家勵

自2017年2月1日不再出任譚潘葉律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行助理律師。

• NG SHAN YUNG joined L & Y Law Office as a partner as

from 01/01/2017. 吳燦榕

自2017年1月1日加入林余律師事務所為合夥人。

• PAYNE GREGORY DAVID ceased to be a partner of S.T. Cheng &

Co. as from 03/02/2017. 彭格禮

自2017年2月3日不再出入任鄭瑞泰律師事務所合夥人一職。

• SHEN PENELOPE YEEMAN joined Kwok Yih & Chan as a partner as

from 01/02/2017. 沈汶蒑

自2017年2月1日加入郭葉陳律師事務所為合夥人。

• TAI CHI KEUNG ceased to be a partner of Yip, Tse & Tang

as from 01/02/2017 and remains as a consultant of the firm.

戴志強

自2017年2月1日不再出任葉謝鄧律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• WAN HO KEI RICKY became a partner of Yip, Tse & Tang as

from 01/02/2017. 温浩基

自2017年2月1日成為葉謝鄧律師行合夥人。

• WONG PAK WAI MICHAEL ceased to be a partner of K&L Gates as

from 21/01/2017 and joined Dechert as a partner as from 23/01/2017.

黃柏維

自2017年1月21日不再出任高蓋茨律師事務所合夥人一職，並於2017年1月23日加入德杰律師事務所為合夥。

• WONG SHING YEUNG BILLY ceased to be a partner of Orrick,


黃承揚


• WONG TAI LUN KENNETH ceased to be a partner of Nixon Peabody

CWL as from 17/01/2017. 黃泰倫

自2017年1月17日不再出任尼克松•鄭黃林律師行合夥人一職。

• YEU SOOK YOUNG became a partner of Orrick, Herrington &

Sutcliffe as from 17/01/2017. 自2017年1月17日成為奧睿律師事務所

合夥人。

• YEUNG SIN HANG joined ONC Lawyers as a partner as from

07/02/2017. 楊先恒

自2017年2月7日加入柯伍陳律師事務所為合夥人。


• March 2017

SAVE THE DATES

MALAYSIA LAW AWARDS - 6 AprilSSQ ALB CHINA LAW AWARDS - 20 April

SE ASIA LAW AWARDS - 19 MayJAPAN LAW AWARDS - 7 June

THE MACALLAN ALB HONG KONG LAW AWARDS - 8 SeptemberPHILIPPINE LAW AWARDS - 6 October

INDONESIA LAW AWARDS - 26 OctoberKOREA LAW AWARDS - 16 November

Nomination and event details:[email protected]

Sponsorship Opportunities:[email protected]

For more information about the Asian Legal Business Law Awards, visit www.legalbusinessonline.com/law-awards

CONTACT US TODAY!

CAMPUS VOICES法學院新聞

Co-Convenors of the Global China Research Programme: Prof. Fanny M. Cheung, CUHK Pro-Vice-Chancellor (2nd on the left) & Prof. Stephen W. K. Chiu (2nd on the right); General Editors and chapter writers for the book “Legal Dimensions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative”: Prof. Lutz-Christian Wolff, Wei Lun Professor of Law (1st on the right) and Prof. Chao Xi (1st on the left), Professor of the CUHK Faculty of Law.全球中國研究計劃召集人：張妙清教授副校長(左二)及趙永佳教授(右二)；《Legal

Dimensions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative》一書總編輯及章節作者：鄔楓偉倫法

律學講座教授(右一)及中大法律學院習超教授(左一)。

Cutting-Edge Research on the Legal Dimensions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative at the CUHKThe Belt and Road Initiative is a monumental development strategy launched by China’s President Xi Jinping in 2013. The Initiative has since been a topic of broad discussion at all levels. Although its tremendous significance for local, regional and global developments has been widely acknowledged, the discourse on the opportunities and challenges of the Initiative for the legal profession is only starting to emerge.

At the Chinese University of Hong Kong (“CUHK”), the Faculty of Law and the University’s Global China Research Programme have partnered to embark on a major research project that explores the legal and policy aspects of the Initiative. Joining hands with a distinguished team of internationally leading experts, seven CUHK Faculty of Law professors (Professors Jyh-An LEE, Michelle MIAO, Gonzalo VILLALTA PUIG, Lutz-Christian WOLFF, Chao XI, Yan XU and Mimi ZOU) have collectively engaged in an intellectual joint venture that leads to a recent milestone publication with Wolters Kluwer entitled Legal Dimensions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. One of the first English-language volumes on this topic, this edited volume discusses many open questions from the legal point of view to establish a framework for policy initiatives and legislative projects. It also serves as a theoretical basis for future research, and offers practical up-to-date guidance on the current status of the Belt and Road Initiative. For details about the book, please refer to www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/OBOR_Book.

The volume has recently been launched at a CPD-point-bearing international conference on Legal Aspects of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, taking place at the Law Faculty’s Graduate Law Centre at

中大就一帶一路的法律層面進行尖端研究

「一帶一路」倡議是中國國家主席習近平在2013年發起的一項

重大發展戰略，在各階層引起廣泛討論。儘管「一帶一路」對

本地、區域和全球發展的重大意義已得到廣泛承認，但就「一

帶一路」為法律界帶來的機遇和挑戰的討論才剛剛開始。

香港中文大學(中大)法律學院和全球中國研究計劃合作進行重

要研究項目，探討「一帶一路」的法律和政策方面。中大法

律學院7位教授(李治安教授、苗苗教授、Gonzalo VILLALTA

PUIG教授、鄔楓教授、習超教授、許炎教授及鄒密密教授)匯聚

知識，與Wolters Kluwer出版了《Legal Dimensions of China’s

Belt and Road Initiative》一書。本書乃此題目的首本英語著作

之一。本編輯版從法律角度討論了許多懸而未決的問題，以為

政策倡議和立法項目建立框架。它亦為未來研究提供理論基


• March 2017

March 2017 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

Keynote address “China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Context” by Dr. Markus Ederer, State Secretary, Federal Foreign Office, Germany.德國聯邦外交部國務秘書Markus Ederer

博士在會議上就「一帶一路」倡議發表

主題演講。

A new book “Legal Dimensions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative” with 9 out of the 24 chapters authored by CUHK Faculty of Law members has been released at the Symposium.新書《Legal Dimensions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative》中24個章節有9個由中大法律學院成員撰寫，在會議上發佈。

the Central on 5 November 2016. The conference was featured by a keynote address delivered by Dr. Markus Ederer, State Secretary, Federal Foreign Office, Germany, on “China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Context”. It attracted leading overseas and local academics, practitioners and officials to engage in thematic discussion sessions that looked into selected legal issues pertaining to the Belt and Road Initiative, including investment law, trade law, financial law, tax law, intellectual property law, labour law, national economic security and legal education. Further details about the conference are obtainable from www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/OBOR.

Having laid a solid foundation for research on the legal dimensions of the Initiative, the team at CUHK looks forward to opportunities to work with members of the legal profession in Hong Kong and beyond to take their research further forward.

城大舉辦 “亞洲消費者保護——過去，現在及未來” 研討會

2017年1月13-14日，香港城市大學法律學院舉辦了關於

亞洲消費者保護的研討會。是次研討會由城大法律學院

與赫爾辛基大學法學院合辦。約20名來自中國內地、香

港、澳門，日本，新加坡，澳大利亞，印度，越南，泰國

和馬來西亞的商法領域的相關知名專家學者雲集城大，

從不同角度分析亞洲消費者保護法。

會議由城大法律學院院長及商業法講座教授賀嘉倫教授

(Professor Geraint Howells) 致歡迎辭揭開序幕。賀教授介

紹了本次會議的背景和目的。他亦特別感謝海外的講者遠

道而來參加本次會議。

第一天的研討會分為兩個環節。第一個環節由我院André

Janssen博士主持，集中發表國家報告。亞洲知名學者依

次就其國家的消費者保護法律制度作簡要介紹，重點介

紹案例法，實踐，改革辯論及對其法律的影響。受邀在

CityU Hosted Conference on “Consumer Protection in Asia: Past, Present and Future” From 13–14 of January, the School of Law, City University of Hong Kong hosted a conference on Consumer Protection in Asia. The conference was co-organised by the School of Law, City University of Hong Kong and Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. Around 20 leading commercial law specialists and scholars from Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Japan, Singapore, Australia, India, Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia gathered at CityU to share their views on consumer protection law in Asia from different perspectives.

The conference was kicked off by the welcome speech of Professor Geraint Howells (Dean of the School of Law, City University of Hong Kong and Chair Professor, Commercial Law). Professor Howells introduced the background and the aim of the conference. He also thanked all participants for their support, especially the overseas

礎，並就「一帶一路」現時狀況提

供實用的最新指引。該書的詳情請

瀏覽www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/OBOR_Book。

該書於2016年11月5日在中環法律學院研究生部舉行的「中國

一帶一路的法律問題」國際會議(可獲專業進修學分)上發佈。德

國聯邦外交部國務秘書Markus Ederer博士在會議上就「一帶一

路」倡議發表主題演講。不多海外及本地學術界、法律從業員及

官員出席了會議，參與專題討論，探討「一帶一路」的一些法律

問題，包括投資法、貿易法、金融法、稅務法，知識產權法，勞

動法、國家經濟安全和法律教育。有關會議的更多詳情，請瀏覽

www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/OBOR。

中大的團隊為研究「一帶一路」的法律層面奠定了堅實基礎，期

望有機會與香港及其他地區的法律界人士合作，進一步推動研究

項目。


speakers who travelled a long way to Hong Kong.

The first day of conference was divided into two sessions. The first session, chaired by Dr. André Janssen (School of Law, City University of Hong Kong), was focused on national reports. Leading Asian scholars each gave a brief introduction to their consumer law systems with emphasis on case law, practice, reform debates and influences on their law. The speakers invited for this session were Dr. Jing Jin (School of Law, China Youth University for Political Sciences); Professor Ashok Patil (National Law School of India University); Professor Emeritus Hisakazu Hirose (Faculty of Law, University of Tokyo); Professor Dan Wei (Faculty of law, Macau University); Dr. Mateja Durovic, Professor Geraint Howells and Dr. André Janssen (School of Law, City University of Hong Kong); Dr. Gary Low (School of Law, Singapore Management University); Dr. Zalina Zakaria (Department of Shariah and Law, University of Malaya); Dr. Cuong Van Nguyen (Institute of Legal Science, Ministry of Justice of Vietnam); and Dr. Aimpaga Techapikum (Faculty of Law, Thammasat University).

In the second session, which was chaired by Dr. Mateja Durovic, eight speakers from non-Asia countries, namely Dr. Eileen Webb (Curtin Law School); Professor Gail Pearson (Business School, the University of Sydney); Professor Luke Nottage (Sydney Law School); Professor James Nehf (Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indiana University); Dr. Michel Cannarsa (Catholic University of Lyon Law School); Dr. Alberto De Franceschi (University of Ferrara); Professor Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz (European University Institute); and Dr. Marta Cantero Gamito (University of Helsinki), commented on the development of consumer protection law in Asia contrasting with EU, US and Australian perspectives. Topics covered in this session included “Information and right of withdrawal”, “Sale of Goods”, “Unfair Terms”, “Product Liability”, “Product Safety”, “Adaption to Digital Age”, “Unfair Commercial Practices” and “Access to Justice”.

Chaired by Professor Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, the second day of the conference focused on Case Studies in Asian Consumer Protection with the aim being to find out how consumer issues are or are likely to be addressed in practice. Each Asian national reporter presented their report on three case studies, concerning (1) product liability and product safety; (2) consumer products; and (3) telecommunication services, from their national perspective.

The concluding session was chaired by Professor Howells with a focus on global perspectives on Asian Law. Global commentators reflected on Asian consumer law from perspectives of the EU, the US, Australia, South America, the UN, ASEAN and Africa. Professor Tjakie Naude of

本環節發言的講者包括中國青年政治學院法學院金晶博

士，印度大學法律學院Ashok Patil 教授，東京大學法

學院Hisakazu Hirose榮譽教授，澳門大學法學院魏丹教

授，城大法律學院Mateja Durovic博士，賀嘉倫教授及

André Janssen博士，新加坡管理大學法學院 Gary Low

博士，馬來西亞大學法學院Zalina Zakaria博士，越南司

法部法律研究所Cuong Van Nguyen 博士與泰國國立法

政大學法律學院Aimpaga Techapikum博士。

第二個環節由Mateja Durovic 博士主持, 八位來自非

亞洲國家的講者，即科廷大學法學院Ei leen Webb博

士，悉尼大學商學院Gail Pearson 教授、法學院Luke

Not tage教授，印第安納大學麥肯尼法學院James

Nehf教授，里昂天主教大學法學院Michel Cannarsa博

士，費拉拉大學Alberto De Franceschi博士，歐洲大學

學院Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz教授與赫爾辛基大學Marta

Cantero Gamito博士，圍繞“信息和退出權”，“貨

物銷售”，“不公平條款”，“產品責任”，“產品

安全”，“適應數字時代”，“不公平商業慣例”

和“訴諸司法”，通過對比歐盟，美國及澳大利亞，

對亞洲消費者保護法的發展發表評論。

第二天的會議由Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz教授主持，集中

探討亞洲消費者保護法案例研究，目的是找出在實踐中

如何解決消費者相關問題。每位亞洲講者從其國家角度

就產品責任和產品安全; 消費產品; 及電信服務發表演

講。

最後一個環節由賀嘉倫教授主持，重點關注全球視角下

的亞洲法律。來自世界各地的講者從歐盟，美國，澳大

利亞，南美，聯合國，東盟以及非洲視角對亞洲消費者

保護法進行評論。開普敦大學法學院Tjakie Naude 教授

通過Skype 參加最後一個環節的會議並從非洲的角度分

享了她對亞洲相關法律的看法。

為期兩天的會議以賀嘉倫教授和Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz

教授的致辭作結。他們感謝所有的會議發言人對會議的

貢獻。是次會議富有成果，發人深思，整個會議的氣氛


• March 2017

March 2017 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

HKU Law Launches the First-in-Asia Legal Drafting CourseFaculty of Law at The University of Hong Kong launched for the first time in Asia a dedicated course in legal and legislative drafting to undergraduate students in the second semester.

The course teaches students how to compose coherent and unambiguous legal text, and how to structure legal documents to ensure maximum comprehensibility. It includes an examination of the principles of statutory interpretation that influence the judicial interpretation of legal documents, and shows how to use those principles to ensure that legal documents will be given their intended meaning if challenged before the courts. Legislative and contractual provisions are also analysed in class, as a way of identifying and correcting typical drafting errors. Students are required to draft or redraft legal provisions and short legal documents as a way to master different aspects of drafting.

Through a combination of lectures, assignments, exercises and in-class review of assignments and exercises, attending students have mastered the skills required to draft complex legal documents, and improved their skills at analysing legislative and contractual provisions. They learned by way of problem solving to identify drafting problems that reduce comprehensibility or create ambiguity, and apply the principles of good legal drafting to correct these defects. With enhanced legal research skills, they are able to identify problematic provisions in statute databases of a variety of different jurisdictions. They are also capable of communicating complex legal concepts clearly and unambiguously, and using correct grammar and language suitable to complex legal documents and legislation.

Because the preparation of legal documents is essential to many areas of legal practice, students who have participated in the course should be better prepared to handle the real-world challenges that they will face as practising lawyers. In addition, their ability to identify sources of ambiguity in legal documents will assist them in their analysis of such documents and improve their ability to challenge contractual or statutory provisions on behalf of their clients.

The pioneering legal and legislative drafting course was convened by Mr. Paul Salembier. Mr. Salembier also teaches legal drafting at Queen’s University, Canada and is a consultant on drafting legislation and advising clients on legislative initiatives. In 2014, he was invited by the Law Drafting Division of the Hong Kong Department of Justice to conduct a law drafting course for law drafters on fundamental techniques and principles in legislative drafting.

香港大學法律學院推出亞洲首個法律草擬課程

香港大學法律學院推出亞洲首個法律和立法草擬的專

門課程，供第二個學期的本科生就讀。

該課程教授學生如何撰寫連貫而明確的法律文本，以

及如何構建法律文件，以確保文本清晰易解。課程包

括研究影響法律文件司法解釋的法律解釋原則，並說

明如何利用這些原則來確保法律文件在法院受到質疑

時能夠被賦予它們的原意。課堂上亦會分析立法和

合約條款，識別和糾正典型的草擬錯誤。學生們須

草擬或重新草擬法律條文和簡短的法律文件，以掌握

草擬的各個方面。

通過結合講座、作業、練習以及堂上討論作業和練

習，學生們

能掌握草擬複雜法律文件的所需技能，提高分析立法

和合約條文的能力。他們通過解決問題的方式，學習

識別降低可理解度或造成模糊的草擬問題，並運用良

好的法律草擬原則來糾正這些缺陷。通過加強法律研

究技能，學生能夠在不同司法管轄區的法規數據庫中

識別有問題的條文。他們還能夠清楚明確地傳達複雜

的法律概念，使用適合複雜法律文件和立法的正確語

法和語言。

擬備法律文件對許多法律實踐領域均至關重要，參加

課程的學生應能更好地準備就緒，以應付將來擔執業

律師面對的現實挑戰。此外，他們能夠

識別法律文件中的歧義來源，將有助於

他們分析這些文件，提高代表客戶挑戰

合約或法定條文的能力。

法律和立法草擬課程由Paul Salembier

先生舉辦。Salembier先生亦加拿大皇

后大學教授法律草擬，並且是法律草擬

顧問，就立法措施向客戶提供諮詢。在

2014年，他受香港律政司法律草擬科

邀請，舉行法律草擬課程，向法律草擬

人員教授法律草擬的基本技巧和原則。

Department of Private Law, University of Cape Town, joined the concluding session via Skype and shared her views on Asian law from the perspective of Africa.

The whole conference was ended with the closing remarks of Professor Geraint Howells and Professor Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz who thanked all the conference speakers for their contributions to the conference. The conference was fruitful and thought-provoking, and the atmosphere throughout the whole conference was interactive. The insightful views of all the speakers who are the experts in the field of consumer law made the conference a landmark event for the development of consumer protection in this region. Papers presented at this conference will be published. It is expected that the conference proceedings will definitely be one of the authoritative publications in the field.

熱烈。消費者法領域專家在會上發表的深刻見解對該

地區消費者保護的發展意義重大。本次會議上發表的

論文不久將輯錄成書出版。預計有關的出版物必會成

為消費者保護法方面的其中一部權威性出版物。


LEGAL TRIVIA #35

1. In what year did the Hong Kong Full Court first sit?A. 1898B. 1900C. 1913D. 1921

2. Which Hong Kong court still has the British Coat of Arms on display on its exterior? A. Fanling MagistracyB. The District CourtC. The High CourtD. The Court of Final Appeal

3. In what year was the first puisne judge appointed in Hong Kong?A. 1844B. 1856C. 1865D. 1878

4. Which Governor of Hong Kong at one time served as the Chief Magistrate in Hong Kong?A. Alexander GranthamB. Chris PattenC. Henry Pottinger

5. In 1891, how many Chinese solicitors were practising in Hong Kong? A. 1B. 2C. 5D. 15.

This month we return to some Hong Kong legal history and trivia.

The questions have been prepared by Douglas Clark, Barrister. Suggestions for questions to appear in next month’s journal are most welcome.

Answers to Legal Trivia Quiz #34 1. C.

2. B.

3. B.

4. C.

5. B. 6. D.

7. B.

8. B.

9. B.

10. B.

The Election committee is made up of 1,200 members. (Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Chief Executive Election Ordinance).

A non-Chinese national who was not born in Hong Kong must be a resident in Hong Kong for seven years to be eligible to become a permanent resident. (Art. 24(4) of the Basic Law).

Members of any armed force are not eligible to be registered as electors in Hong Kong. (s. 31 Legislative Council Ordinance)

The minimum age requirement for the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is 40 years. (Art. 44 of the Basic Law)

A maximum of 20% of LegCo members may be non-Chinese nationals. (Art. 67 of the Basic Law)

75%. The Chief Justice must be a Chinese national. The other three Permanent Judges are not required to be. (Art. 90(1) of the Basic Law)

Freedom of Expression is not a defence to a charge of desecrating the Hong Kong flag. (See HKSAR v Ng Kung Siu (1999) 3 HKLRD 907).

Under Art. 4 of the Garrison Law, the expenditure stationing the PLA garrison in Hong Kong is borne by the Chinese Central Government.

Under Art. 112 of the Basic Law, the HK government is prohibited from imposing foreign exchange controls.

Hong Kong is part of China, so even though they are both members of the New York Convention, it is not possible to enforce an arbitration award between HK and China under the New York Convention. However, there is a special arrangement to facilitate doing so.

6. Which judge of the Court of Final Appeal was born in Shanghai?A. Geoffrey MaB. Joseph FokC. Robert TangD. Henry Litton

7. Who was the first local Hong Kong barrister to be appointed directly to the High Court?A. Archie ZimmernB. Miles Jackson-LipkinC. Kemal Bokhary

8. (True or False) The Supreme Court (now the High Court) previously sat for a time in the Sun Hung Kai Centre.A. TrueB. False

9. Aston and Bell, the architects of the current Court of Final Appeal Building (formerly the Supreme Court Building) also designed which of the following structures? A. The façade of Buckingham PalaceB. The original Hong Kong Club buildingC. The Victoria and Albert MuseumD. Flagstaff House

10. When was the first Patents Ordinance enacted in Hong Kong?A. 1844B. 1862C. 1912D. 1955


• March 2017

Contest Rules: To be eligible to win a bottle of Ch. La Croizille 2007 from Global Vintage Wines Centre, please send your quiz question answers to [email protected]. The first reader to respond with the most correct answers, with no more than 3 incorrect responses, will be deemed the winner. The decision of Thomson Reuters regarding the winner is final and conclusive.

法律知識測驗 #35本月的問題圍繞香港法律史和逸事。

問題由馬錦德(Douglas Clark)大律師編製。歡迎建

議下期問題。

1. 香港合議庭於何年首次組成？

A. 1898

B. 1900

C. 1913

D. 1921

2. 哪個香港法院外仍展示英國國徽？

A. 粉嶺裁判法院

B. 地區法院

C. 高等法院

D. 終審法院

3. 香港首位按察司於何年獲委任？

A. 1844

B. 1856

C. 1865

D. 1878

4. 哪位港督曾同時擔任首席裁判司？

A. 葛量洪

B. 彭定康

C. 砵甸乍

5. 1891年有多少位華籍律師在香港執業？

A. 1

B. 2

C. 5

D. 15

法律知識測驗#34的答案選舉委員會由1,200人組成。(《行政長官選舉條例》附表1第2部)。

非香港出生的非中國籍人士必須在香港居住最少7年才獲永久性居民身份。(《基本法》第24(4)條)

任何武裝部隊的成員均沒有資格在香港登記為選民。(《立法會條例》第31條)

香港特別行政區行政長官須年滿40歲。(《基本法》第44條)

非中國籍的立法會議員所佔比例不得超過立法會全體議員的20%。(《基本法》第67條)

75%。首席法官必須為中國公民，其餘三位常任法官沒有規定。(《基本法》第90(1)條)

言論自由不是褻瀆香港區旗的抗辯理由。(見See HKSAR v Ng Kung Siu (1999) 3 HKLRD 907)

根據《駐軍法》第四條，中國人民解放軍駐香港費用由中央人民政府負擔。

根據《基本法》第112條，香港特別行政區政府不得實行外匯管制。

香港是中國的一部分，所以儘管兩地都是《紐約公約》的締約國，但根據《紐約公約》，香港和中國之間不能相互執行仲裁裁決。然而，就內地與香港相互執行仲裁裁決的有關事宜，已有特別安排。

1. C.

2. B.

3. B.

4. C.

5. B.

6. D.

7. B.

8. B.

9. B.

10. B.

6. 哪位終審法院法官在上海出生？

A. 馬道立

B. 霍兆剛

C. 鄧國楨

D. 烈顯倫

7. 誰是首位被直接委任為高等法院法官的香港本地大律師？

A. Archie Zimmern

B. 李栢儉

C. 包致金

8. 最高法院（現高等法院）曾位處新鴻基中心一段時間。

A. 是

B. 非

9. 現終審法院大樓（前身為最高法院大樓）的建築師Aston & Bell

也設計了下列哪個建築物？

A. 白金漢宮的外觀

B. 原香港會所大廈

C. 維多利亞和艾伯特博物館

D. 三軍司令官邸

10. 香港最早的專利條例於何年制定？

A. 1844

B. 1862

C. 1912

D. 1955

March 2017 • LEGAL TRIVIA QUIZ 法律知識測驗


競賽規則：

讀者如欲贏取一瓶由Global Vintage Wines Centre提供的

2007年Ch. La Croizil le葡萄酒，請將問題答案寄交

[email protected]。

首位能提供最多正確答案(答錯的題目不得多於三題)的讀者將成

為優勝者。湯森路透就得獎者所作的決定是最終及不可推翻的。

Imagine you are a senior partner at a networking dinner with your

colleagues. Over a glass of sauvignon blanc, your client starts rattling off all the extra-curricular activities he and his wife have enrolled their daughter in for the next school term. “We have to make sure she maintains a competitive edge,” he says while playfully prodding your colleague. “So, do you have kids?,” he turns and asks, trying to bring you into the conversation.

Interactions like these are without a doubt the social glue that helps us forge close relationships in the business world. We share stories to get to know one another and form bonds outside of work – disclosing titbits about the real human stuff that comprise our lives.

While this question can prove uncomfortable for a variety of lawyers for a variety of reasons, imagine for a moment that you are a closeted lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (“LGBT”) lawyer who is fielding this question: someone who is wary of being discriminated against.

Under those circumstances, “Do you have kids?” becomes much more complicated to answer, as your response can lead to a deluge of other questions about your personal life.

While such a lawyer might want to open up about the trials and tribulations he and his partner have faced when juggling their son’s busy schedule, he likely won’t. Rather, he will likely offer a simple response, keeping any evidence of who he really is hidden away.

LGBT-Inclusive Law FirmsEliminating this type of stressful situation in which one’s social and work lives collide is exactly what LGBT-inclusive law firms and businesses across Hong Kong are taking on, explains Justin D’Agostino, Global Head of Practice, Dispute Resolution and Managing Partner for Asia and Australia, at Herbert Smith Freehills*. “Our firm is very sensitive to local cultural norms, and as an employer, we are also very clear that we stand proudly for diversity and inclusion (or D&I). We have created an inclusive environment where people are welcomed, valued and rewarded on the basis of their talents and skills, without reference to their gender, culture, family status or sexual orientation,” he said. “It’s in our firm’s DNA and highly appropriate for the complex environment that is the typical Asian workplace.”

* Mr. D’Agostino was named one of the world’s leading OUTstanding Executives in the Financial Times’ 2016 Global List of LGBT and Ally Ambassadors.


• March 2017

Making the Case for Diversity & Inclusion By Cynthia G. Claytor

As the line between social and business lives often blur for lawyers in Hong Kong, Justin D’Agostino, the Global Head of Practice, Dispute Resolution, and Managing Partner for Asia and Australia at Herbert Smith Freehills, explains why open, inclusive and diverse workplaces not only make good business sense, but are also crucial to succeed in Asia.

Walking the WalkFor a decade, Herbert Smith Freehills has been a pioneer on the diversity front. “In 2007, it was the first major international law firm to set up an LGBT network in London. At that time, I was a newly promoted partner,” Mr. D’Agostino recalled. “The firm had recently decided to spearhead diversity initiatives, so there was a lot of support from senior management and leaders in the firm. I saw getting involved as very important for me personally and for my colleagues – I have been openly gay since I joined the firm and have felt fully supported throughout my career. I also saw it as an opportunity to make a difference and a real change. Although it feels like so much has happened in the last 10 years, it really was not that long ago that firms avoided talking about diversity or LGBT issues. There also were not very many role models in senior positions or partners who were openly gay. It feels like a long way away from where we are now, as a society and as a firm.”

When Mr. D’Agostino relocated to Hong Kong in 2009, he helped the firm launch its LGBT network in Asia. Similarly, when Herbert Smith went through its big merger with Freehills in 2012, he supported the launch of its LGBT network in Australia. More recently, he was involved with rebranding and launching the LGBT network globally under the new name IRIS, which stands for Inclusion, Respecting Identity and Sexuality. The firm launched the IRIS network in Asia this February.

The IRIS network was established to complement regional LGBT efforts by connecting people across the firm, to make firm-wide communications easier and enable consultation on issues of global significance. Across the global network, Herbert Smith Freehills hopes to grow membership, including allies, and share best practices across different regions. Mr. D’Agostino also noted that the network’s name reflects its strong connection with the heart of the firm’s

brand, elaborating that Herbert Smith Freehills uses an iris in its logo to reflect the firm’s curiosity, insight and openness. “Iris” also happens to be the Greek goddess of the rainbow, he added with a grin.

Diversity & Inclusion: Facts & FiguresIn making his case for diversity, Mr. D’Agostino marshals facts and figures to show open, inclusive and diverse workplaces are better for a company’s bottom line.

“If you can create an inclusive workplace, you can attract and retain the best talent in the market,” he said. “If you do not get this right, that talent will go elsewhere or they will not join your firm in the first place. This goes to the heart of the business case for diversity.”

Another element of the business case is that clients in Asia expect firms to field a diverse team, he continued. When you pitch for work or when a client asks you to help them with an issue, this is the baseline expectation, he explained.

It is clear that when you have a diverse group of people sitting around the table, challenging each other, you get a better

outcome, he added. “Each person is thinking about the issue differently and approaching the problem from a different angle, which strengthens your ideas and solutions. Diversity of thought is what diversity is all about. This is certainly necessary to be successful in Hong Kong, which is a fabulous international and cosmopolitan city with a huge amount of diversity. If your team only represents one part of the community, you will be at a distinct disadvantage.”

As for figures of interest, a report recently released by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Sexualities Research Programme found “about three-quarters of the Hong Kong public surveyed hold neutral or positive attitudes towards an LGB-friendly business [organisation]; only about one-quarter of the Hong Kong public surveyed see the LGB-friendly business [organisation] negatively.” 1

Making It WorkFor D&I initiatives to succeed, it is important to adopt a multi-level approach. “These initiatives have to be driven from the top and supported from the bottom,” Mr. D’Agostino said.

However, garnering multi-level support and creating diverse teams, is not the

1 Suen, Y.T., Wong, M.Y., Chan, R.C.H., Yeung, G.K.W. (2016) Study on Hong Kong Public and LGB People’s Attitudes towards LGB-friendly Business Organisations (Nov 2016).

LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情March 2017 •


作者 Cynthia G. Claytor

締造多元共融的工作環境

對香港的律師來說，社交和工作生活之間的界線通常是

模糊不清的，有見及此，史密夫斐爾律師事務所爭議解

決部全球業務主管兼區域主管合夥人(亞洲及澳洲)歐智樂

(Justin D’Agostino)給我們解釋為甚麼坦誠開放、擁抱共

融，促進多元的工作環境不僅是營商之道，而且是在亞洲

市場取得成功的關鍵。

大家試試想像自己是高級合夥人，

一天，你和同事一起出席晚飯聯誼

活動。手捧一杯長相思葡萄酒(Sauvignon

Blanc)，你的客戶打開了話匣子，滔滔不

絕地逐一細數他和太太已經為女兒報名在

下學年參加的課外活動。他說：「我們要

肯定她具有競爭優勢」，又開玩笑地催促

你的同事仿效。「你呢？你有仔女嗎？」

他轉過頭來問你，想你也加入話題。

這一類交流互動在香港是常見的，在商業

end of the story, he continued. “In some ways, it is easy to create a diverse team. The hard bit is to make that diversity work every day – that’s the “I” or inclusion bit of D&I. This means ensuring diversity in the decision-making process and not marginalising people who might not “look” like you. This is something that I think we all need to get much better at – I am very focussed on this – making the diverse teams we have created feel included every day and making diversity the norm, ultimately, to become business as usual.”

When you create an inclusive environment, you get so much more out of people and they get so much more out of their work, he added. “This is not just an LGBT issue. Our approach to D&I is

about creating the right environment for people from different cultural backgrounds, creating the right platform for women, and creating an environment that is welcoming to those with disabilities. It all comes back to good business sense.”

Herbert Smith Freehills also works with a number of organisations, such as Community Business in Hong Kong and Stonewall globally, which provide best practice and benchmarking standards against which to measure ourselves, Mr. D’Agostino noted. “There are so many fantastic organisations out there that are equipped to help you become an employer of choice in this space.”

Challenges AheadWhile firms that support D&I initiatives have made significant headway in Hong Kong, Mr. D’Agostino acknowledges that many challenges lie ahead for businesses and people who value diversity – from lobbying for legislative reforms and constantly challenging unconscious bias to continuing to make the business case for D&I.

“I think there is a positive obligation on employers – whether you are a large international player or a smaller organisation – to support your people. With access to so many different market sectors and industries, the legal profession is in a unique position to spearhead best-practice initiatives and promote the business case for D&I. We still have a long way to go, but we plan to keep at it,” he said. n

世界之中，更肯定是建立緊密社交關係

的黏合劑。我們分享自己的故事，彼此

認識，在工作以外建立關係――大家細

說趣聞軼事，共享生活點滴。

對於某一類律師，基於某一些原因，這

個問題可以令人感到很不舒服；試想一

下你是回答這個問題的律師，不過你也

有一個秘而不宣的身份，那就是，你是

女同性戀者、男同性戀者、雙性戀者，

或者是變性人(「同志」)：同志都害怕

被歧視，甚至可能被解僱。

在這些情況下，「你有仔女嗎？」這個問

題就變得複雜多了，因為你的回應有可能

引發一連串關於你私人生活的問題，令你

應接不暇。

儘管同志律師可能想公開他與伴侶應付兒

子忙碌活動時所要面對的艱難困苦，但

他大多不會這樣做，反而很可能會迴避

問題，顧左右而言他，隱藏自己真正的身

份，不願露出半點端倪。


• March 2017

同志共融的律師行

史密夫斐爾律師事務所(「史密夫斐爾」)

爭議解決部全球業務主管兼區域主管合夥

人(亞洲及澳洲)歐智樂*解釋，這種壓力

存在於生活和工作互相衝擊的環境之中，

而消除壓力正是實現同志共融的律師行，

以至全香港各行各業著手要做的事。「儘

管史密夫斐爾對本地文化框框具有敏銳的

觸角，但作為僱主，我們亦非常清楚要滿

有自信地支持多元共融。我們創建擁抱共

融的環境，讓人人都因為自己的才能和一

己之長而受人歡迎、尊重並得到回報，不

會因為性別、文化、家庭狀況或性取向而

有所不同，」他說。「這是史密夫斐爾的

DNA，亞洲企業通常都處於複雜的環境之

中，因此極適合建立彼此共融的環境。」

說得出，做得到

史密夫斐爾十年來一直是推行多元化的先

鋒。「史密夫斐爾2007年在倫敦設立同

志網絡，是率先在當地設立同志網絡的大

型國際律師行。那時候，我剛晉升為合夥

人，」歐智樂律師回憶說。「律師行最近

決定要做先頭部隊，帶路推廣多元化活

動，律師行上下一呼百應，高級管理層和

負責人紛紛表示支持。我知道自己的參與

對我本人和各位同事具有重大意義――自

從我加人律師行開始，己經公開承認自己

是同性戀者，在整段職業生涯中，我覺

得得到了百分百的支持。我亦視那一次為

作出轉變，改轅易轍的機會。雖然過去

十年好像發生了很多很多事，但其實不久

之前，『多元化』或『同志』在律師行是

一個忌諱的話題。那時願意站出來成為榜

樣，公開承認自己是同性戀者的高層人士

或合夥人寥寥可數。不論是我們的社會還

是律師行，都像走過了漫漫長路才走到今

天身處之地。」

當歐智樂律師2009年調職來到香港的時

候，他協助律師行在亞洲區開設同志網

絡。同樣地，當2012年史密夫律師事

務所與斐爾律師事務所進行大規模合併

的時候，他也支持律師行在澳洲開設同

志網絡。近來，他參與重塑同志網絡的

工作，為網絡冠上新名稱IRIS(Inclusion,

Respecting Identity and Sexuality，意思

是共融、尊重身份和性取向)，向全球推

廣IRIS網絡。律師行今年二月在亞洲區設

立了IRIS網絡。

設立IRIS網絡的目的是把律師行上下所有

人員聯繫起來，補足地區同志網絡的工

作，方便律師行全體員工溝通，讓大家能

夠在全球關注的問題上有商有量。綜觀全

球網絡，史密夫斐爾希望收納更多會員，

包括支持者，並跨越地域界限，彼此分享

最佳的實踐方式。歐智樂律師亦提到，網

絡的名稱反映網絡與律師行品牌核心緊密

扣連，而標誌的彩虹七色是史密夫斐爾用

來反映律師行求知求真，洞悉世情，支持

開放。他咧嘴一笑補充說，IRIS網絡碰巧

與希臘彩虹女神同名，因為Iris一字也有

彩虹之意。

多元共融：事實和數據

在闡述自己的觀點時，歐智樂律師列舉事

實和數據來證明，支持開放、促進共融、

擁抱多元，公司會獲益良多。

「你要是能夠創建和洽共融的工作環境，

就吸納到市場最優秀的人才，也留得住他

們，」他說。「如果這件事做得不好，人

才就會另覓工作，擇良木而棲，或者不首

先考慮加入你的律師行。這觸及企業的核

心。」

他續說，另一個企業元素是，亞洲客戶期

望律師行派上場的團隊具備多元化人才。

他解釋，當你推銷工作的時候，或者客戶

要求你幫忙解決問題的時候，這是一種基

本的要求。

補充說，很明顯，當你有多元人才圍坐討

論問題，互相提問求證，所得的結果會更

勝一籌。「每個人思考問題的方法都不一

樣，會分別從不同角度看待問題，有助進

深你的想法和解決方法。多元化不外乎是

思維多元化。香港是享負盛名的國際大都

會，多元文化非常盛行，在這裏，創建共

融環境當然是成功的必備元素。如果你的

團隊只是代表社區中的一撮人，你就明顯

處於劣勢了。」

說到有意思的數據，香港中文大學與性小

眾研究計劃最近公布研究報告，發現「香

港受訪市民中，大約四分之三對同志友善

企業[機構]態度中立或正面；香港受訪市

民中，只有大約四分之一對同志友善企業

[機構]態度負面。」1

* 歐智樂律師2016年獲《金融時報》稱譽為全球同志及支持者之中傑出的主管人員。

1 Suen, Y.T., Wong, M.Y., Chan, R.C.H., Yeung, G.K.W. (2016) Study on Hong Kong Public and LGB People’s Attitudes towards LGB-friendly Business Organisations (Nov 2016).

LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情March 2017 •


使多元共融發揮果效

促進多元共融的活動要取得成功，必須採

用層層推進的方法。歐智樂律師說：「這

些活動一定要由上而下推行，而又由下而

上給予支持。」

歐智樂律師繼續說，即使得到了各階層人

員的支持，也設立了多元化團隊，事情也

並不就此結束。「從某些方面看，設立多

元化團隊是輕而易舉之事。難處在於要令

多元化每天奏效――那就是多元共融的其

中一環。這個意思是要確保決策過程多元

化，並不是邊緣化可能看你「不順眼」的

人。我想，這正是我們需要同心做得更好

的事――我一直十分專注於這件事：使我

們創建的環境擁抱共融，促進多元化，並

最終以此成為每天業務運作的一部分。」

歐智樂律師補充說，當你創建共融環境的

時候，從人所得的好處多不勝數，人從工

作所得的好處也不可斗量。「這不只是一

個關乎同志的問題。我們建立的多元共融

關係到為來自不同文化背景的人創建合適

的環境，為女性創建合適的平台，也為殘

疾人士創建無障礙環境。這一切都符合營

商之道。」

歐智樂律師表示，史密夫斐爾亦與一些機

構合作，例如香港的Community Business

和環球機構Stonewall就分別給我們提供

實踐多元共融的最佳方法，以及用來衡量

自己的標準。「到處都可找到極為出色的

機構，這些機構有能力幫助你成為眾人心

目中最能實踐多元共融的僱主。」

未來的挑戰

雖然香港支持多元共融的公司已經邁出了

一大步，但歐智樂律師承認，重視多元化

的企業和人士在未來還要面對一大堆挑

戰――遊說透過立法進行改革，不斷挑戰

無意識的偏見，以延續多元共融的企業文

化等等。

「我認為僱主有一項必須履行的責任――

不論你是大型國際企業還是規模較小的機

構――就是支持你的員工。法律專業人員

有機會接觸市場各行各業，因此處於優越

位置帶領活動分享最佳實踐方法，以及推

廣企業多元共融。歐智樂律師說：「雖然

前面仍然有漫長的路要走，但是我們會一

步一步的堅持走下去。」n


• March 2017

taylorroot.com @TaylorRootLegal taylor-root

Private Equity Lawyer › 4-7 PQE › Asset Management HouseOur client is a leading asset management player in Asia being one of the more established houses in China. With a sizable business in Hong Kong, the Head of Legal is keen to take on a lawyer to join the team. You will advise on the setting up of private equity fund structures, conduct legal due diligence on investee companies and draft/review/negotiate a variety of agreements such as fund formation documents, term sheets, investment agreements, subscription agreements, fund management agreements. You will be a 4+ years’ PQE lawyer, with solid experience gained in the area of private equity. Strong English and Chinese language skills are required. Ref: H3774040

General Counsel › 8+ PQE › Chinese Multinational CompanyOur client is rapidly growing company headquartered in China. With growing worldwide presence over the decade establishing operations in the U.S., Europe and North Asia, they are seeking to hire a seasoned lawyer to cope with their growth. Reporting to the Board of Directors, you will advise senior management on practical and commercial legal strategy, as well as to drive corporate transactions. You will be a senior lawyer specializing in US IPO transactions, with strong working knowledge of s144A, ideally working with a leading law firm. Strong education background is required, as is fluency in English, Cantonese and Mandarin. Ref: H38534800

Professional Support Lawyer › 3-10 PQE › City FirmOur client is a very sizable City Firm now hiring a Professional Support Lawyer for the Dispute Resolution Practice. Reporting directly to the Practice Area Head, you will capture and analyze developments, practice from external and internal sources, as well as deliver practical know-how effectively to fee earners through a range of current awareness services. This is a good opportunity for an experienced litigator to explore a different career and to acquire managerial and project management skills. You will be a common law qualified lawyer with litigation experience obtained with an international law firm, ideally with successful buy-in and engagement of senior management. Ref: H3110850

Corporate/Banking Lawyer › 4+ PQE › Well-established Financial InstitutionJoining an established legal team and reporting to the Deputy Head of Legal, you will take on a focus on either corporate & private equity or banking finance matters based on your background, also with exposure to the other area. The ideal candidate will be a 4+ PQE Hong Kong qualified lawyer, with strong experience obtained in the areas of either corporate or banking, obtained with international/sizable law firms. You will have willingness to pick up on new work on top of your core focus and be a strong team player. Excellent communication skills are required, as is fluency in English and Chinese language skills. Ref: H3876570

Legal Counsel › 3+ PQE › Fast Growing Aviation BusinessOur client is a fast growing multinational company in the aviation industry. They have steadily expanded their networks and established a strong reputation in the industry. Currently seeking a Legal Counsel to join the team, the ideal candidate will be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with at least 3 years’ PQE obtained in the areas of corporate commercial law, being well versed in drafting and reviewing commercial contracts and agreements. Prior experience as an in-house counsel is advantageous, as is exposure to aviation/transportation industries. Fluency in spoken and written English and Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese) is required. Ref: H3854220

DCM Associate › 1-3 PQE › Leading UK firm A leading international law firm with established offices in Hong Kong and other Asian major cities created a new headcount to take on a junior debt capital markets and structured finance solicitor. In this role you will be exposed to a wide range of high-profile and award-winning transactions, covering DCM transactions, bonds and securitization matters. The ideal candidate is a Hong Kong or UK qualified solicitor with good English and Chinese language skills. Candidates with solid banking finance experience from international law firms who interested in exploring a career in the DCM will be considered. Ref: H3827680

LegalSpecialists in legal recruitment

www.michaelpage.com.hk

SPECIALISTS IN LEGAL RECRUITMENTMICHAEL PAGE LEGAL

Olga Yung, Regional Director, Financial ServicesOlga has been specialising in legal recruitment for over ten years, with a focus on financial services clients. She has an outstanding proven track record in placing all levels of legal professionals, with a stronger focus on mid to senior level hires. Graduating with a Bachelor and Master degree in Law, Olga possesses experience gained from international law firms prior to joining Michael Page. Olga has extensive networks across the in house sector and with in-depth knowledge of legal talent available within the region. She has also successfully recruited within the private practice and in house legal space.

[email protected] | +852 2848 4791 | linkedin.com/in/olgayung

Marta Verderosa, Manager, Private Practice Marta has over 4 years of legal recruitment experience, with a dedicated focus on private practice. She has extensive experience in recruitment covering all areas of practices for lawyers, from newly qualified up to partner level, for leading and sizable law firms in Hong Kong. She also oversees legal support hires for financial institution clients, and has recruited within the in house legal space. Marta is

a LLB graduate and worked in a leading law firm and a global insurance company before joining Michael Page.

[email protected] | +852 2848 4794 | linkedin.com/in/martaverderosa

MEET THE TEAM FINANCIAL SERVICES IN-HOUSE CORPORATE PRIVATE PRACTICE

Michael Page Legal services major corporates, international and leading local law firms, as well as financial services institutions on a global scale. Our consultants are strategically specialised in focusing on legal recruitment for different aspects of the job function and industry, diversifying and maximising our recruitment coverage as a team. We have successfully placed candidates across all levels from Associates and Junior Legal Counsels, to Partners and Heads of Legal.

Serena Tang, Associate Director, In House CorporateSerena has over 6 years of recruitment experience, specialising in the recruitment of in-house lawyers where her industry focus is across in house corporate, assisting all types of commercial clients in Hong Kong. Serena has long standing work relationships with the executive-level legal and human resources professionals across a variety of industries with multinationals, state-owned enterprises,

as well as domestic private and listed companies. Graduating from the University of Wisconsin, Serena gained experience in management consulting prior to joining Michael Page in 2010.

[email protected] | +852 3412 4810 | linkedin.com/in/tangserena

Banking Finance Lawyer › 5-9 PQE › Investment BankOur client is an established financial institution in Hong Kong. They are seeking for a seasoned banking lawyer to join the team, to report to the Head of Legal. You will support the Lending & Financing Business, and will advise on a variety of financing transactions, bilateral and syndicated loans, as well as other general banking matters. You will have the opportunity to gain exposure in fixed income and equity financing matters. The successful candidate will be a 5 to 9 years’ PQE banking lawyer being well versed in lending and financing work. You will speak and write excellent English and Chinese. Ref: H3828150

Senior Counsel › 10+ PQE › Reputable Hong Kong ConglomerateOur client is a reputable conglomerate with businesses in gaming, hospitality, retail and property sectors. Due to business expansion, they are seeking a Senior Legal Counsel to join as a member of the management team. You will work with different department heads to provide commercial legal advice to business teams in respect of their operations and projects. You will have a minimum of 10 years’ PQE with strong corporate commercial experience as well as excellent business acumen and analytical abilities. You should also demonstrate outstanding communications sills with fluency in spoken and written English and Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese). Ref: H3857370

Litigation Associate › 5+ PQE › Hong Kong Law FirmA leading local law firm is seeking to take on a senior Dispute Resolution Lawyer, to cope with their expanding practice. This is an exciting opportunity for lawyers seeking for broader exposure and career progression. In this role you will be exposed to a broad range of dispute resolution matters, including shareholder disputes and a variety of cross border China-related disputes, as well as arbitration work. You will have at least 4 years’ PQE, qualified in Hong Kong, with significant hands on experience on dispute resolution. Chinese client facing experience will be highly regarded. Trilingual fluency in English, Cantonese and Mandarin is required. Ref: H3827670

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

Tina Wang, Managing Consultant, In-House Corporate

Tina has over 4 years’ recruitment experience within the in house commercial space, specialising in recruitment of in-house lawyers at all levels. She has an excellent track record working with multinationals, state-owned enterprises, as well as domestic private and listed companies in Hong Kong. Tina’s in-depth market knowledge and extensive networks in the region allows her access

to high calibre candidates and clients. Tina is CPA qualified with a prior career in PriceWaterhouse Coopers prior to joining Michael Page.

[email protected] | +852 2848 9561 | linkedin.com/in/tina-wang-cpa-8b604746

Kamil Butt, Consultant, Private PracticeKamil joined Michael Page Legal in year 2015 with over 2 years legal recruitment experience. He specializes in recruitment for private practice and financial services clients, with an excellent track record in successfully assisting legal support candidates including paralegals and company secretaries at all levels. Kamil was born in Hong Kong and speaks both English and Cantonese, he graduated with a Bachelor Degree in Law from University of Bristol.

[email protected] | +852 2848 4798 | linkedin.com/in/kamilbutt

Sabina Li, Consultant, Legal SupportSabina specialises in the recruitment of company secretarial professionals at all levels, with a focus on in house commercial clients in Hong Kong. She has 2 years of recruitment experience servicing commercial clients across a variety of industries. Sabina graduated from the UK with a Bachelor of Science and a Graduate Diploma in Law. Prior to joining Michael Page, she worked with a law

firm and a HK listed company as a paralegal and company secretary.

[email protected] | +852 3602 2480 | linkedin.com/in/sabinali

Soraya Tennent, Consultant , Legal SupportSoraya’s career with Michael Page commenced in Australia in 2015. She has 2 years of recruitment experience in the areas of legal and finance. After moving to Hong Kong, Soraya specialises in the recruitment of legal support staff for all leading and sizable law firms as well as global and local financial institutions. Soraya graduated from Curtin University with a Double Major in Business Law and

Journalism.

[email protected] | +852 2848 4795 | linkedin.com/in/soraya-tennent-0b9a6a95

This is a small selection of our current vacancies. Please refer to our website for a more comprehensive list of openings.Please contact Lindsey Sanders, [email protected] +852 2537 7409 or Eleanor Cheung, [email protected] +852 2537 7416

or Karishma Khemaney, [email protected] +852 2537 0895 or email [email protected]

www.lewissanders.com

In-House Private Practice

LITIGATION HONG KONG 5-8 years

Top UK law firm seeks a senior disputes lawyer with HK qualification & experience in commercial litigation matters. Prior experience in contentious regulatory, tax disputes, high networth / contentious probate matters advantageous. Native Cantonese & Mandarin preferred. HKL6305

LITIGATION/ARBITRATION PARTNER HONG KONG 8-20 years

Reputable US firm seeks a seasoned arbitration/litigation partner to join its existing disputes team. You will have extensive APAC litigation & arbitration experience from an international firm. A portable book of business & fluent Mandarin language skills needed. HKL6169

GENERAL CORPORATE HONG KONG 1-9 years

Law firm with strong global network & in expansion mode seeks senior & junior general corporate/commercial lawyers. You will focus on cross-border M&A transactions, commercial matters and post-IPO compliance work. Excellent work/life balance & career prospects on offer. HKL6337

BANKING & FINANCE HONG KONG 3+ years

International law firm is seeking a mid-level lawyer with strong general banking experience from an international or reputable HK law firm to join its team. This role will include a broad range of vanilla banking work. Fluent level Mandarin skills are essential. HKL1448

IP HONG KONG 3-5 years

Well-established international law firm is looking for a mid-level IP associate to join its team. Ideal candidates should have contentious and non-contentious IP experience particularly involving trademarks. HK qualification and Mandarin language skills are required. HKL6342

VP - FUNDS HONG KONG 6-8 years

Bulge bracket bank with a strong investment management business seeks a mid to senior funds lawyer in a business facing role. You will be familiar with the drafting & negotiation of fund documentation with clients & funds service providers. Chinese language skills preferred. HKL6352

HEAD OF LEGAL HONG KONG 10-15 years

A listed conglomerate seeks a Head of Legal for its real estate business. You will advise senior management on legal & risk matters and manage the Group’s property development & M&A projects. Prior in-house experience & fluent English, Cantonese & Mandarin are required. HKL6343

REAL ESTATE HONG KONG 5-10 years

Leading investment bank is seeking a mid to senior level real estate lawyer with experience in complex real estate transactions & negotiating leases to join its legal team. Common law qualification required & Mandarin language skills are advantageous but not essential. HKL6360

FUNDS / PE HONG KONG 7+ years

Financial services company seeks a legal counsel to provide legal support to its investment function. Experience in asset management/private equity / M&A & regulatory/corporate governance matters required. Commonwealth qualification & ability to work independently are essential. HKL6336

AVP - DERIVATIVES HONG KONG 3+ years

Global bank seeks a derivatives lawyer with experience in the APAC region. You will cover a mix of transactional & regulatory work with an emphasis on equity derivatives & structured products distribution. Chinese language skills advantageous. HKL6339

DCM HONG KONG 2-4 years

Magic Circle firm seeks a junior to mid-level lawyer with DCM experience to join the DCM team. Great opportunity to join a strong practice with a good working environment. Those with UK qualifications will also be considered. Fluent English and Mandarin language skills are required. HKL6331

LEGAL RECRUITER HONG KONG 2+ years

Lewis Sanders is busy across in-house and law firm recruitment & we are seeking a legal recruitment consultant to work across a mix of both areas. You may be a legal recruitment consultant with at least 2 years’ experience or a junior/mid-level lawyer looking for a change in career direction.

CORPORATE FINANCE/M&A HONG KONG 4-8 years

A listed financial services entity seeks a corporate legal counsel in HK. You will have experience in corporate finance, M&A, funds formation or DCM. Business level Mandarin skills & HK qualification are essential. Both private practice & in-house candidates will be considered. HKL6347

LITIGATION & INVESTIGATIONS HONG KONG 6-10 years

Global investment bank is looking for an experienced litigator to handle litigation & contentious regulatory matters. Prior financial services litigation experience & ability to conduct complex investigations are essential. Fluent Chinese skills are essential. HKL6317

SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENTLEGAL PROFESSIONALS

www.robertwalters.com.hkROBERT WALTERS HONG KONG • 20/F NEXXUS BUILDING • 41 CONNAUGHT ROAD CENTRAL • CENTRAL • HONG KONG

TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THESE EXCITING LEGAL CAREER OPPORTUNITIES, PLEASE CONTACT:

Megan Craighead +852 2103 5377 [email protected] Oliver Allcock +852 2103 5317 [email protected] Ricky Mui +852 2103 5370 [email protected] Tony Wilkey +852 2103 5338 [email protected]

APAC LEGAL COUNSELGLOBAL INSURER OAA/ 543680

A European insurer, recently restructured following a change of management, is seeking a legal manager to sit in Hong Kong and manage the APAC business. The role will be broad, covering corporate activity as well as commercial matters.

HEAD OF LEGAL & COMPLIANCEINVESTMENT FUND HOUSEOAA/ 534180

A Hong Kong based investment fund that has multiple product lines is looking to hire a first legal and compliance counsel. To date this work has been managed by the CFO and they now need to hire a dedicated lawyer to manage the legal function and build out the compliance offering. They currently have 20 employees in Hong Kong and are opening offices in Europe and the US.

VP CORPORATE BANKING COMPLIANCEGLOBAL INVESTMENT BANKWDM/ 543270

European bank with extensive operations in APAC is hiring within their Corporate Banking team. This group is seeking a well-rounded advisory professional with experience in a generalist group interfacing directly with the business and regulators. Regulatory compliance will be a key component to the role as this individual will be responsible for educating the front office on evolving regulatory landscape.

TRUST & TAX COUNSELFAMILY OFFICEOAA/ 541510

A recently established family office with a very strong client base in mainland China is seeking an experienced tax/ trusts/ wealth lawyer to join the team. The business has a very strong platform, leveraging off the long established China business.

SENIOR COMPLIANCE MANAGER SECURITIES BROKERAGEWDM/ 546040A European headquartered securities firm and global leader in the brokerage industry is recruiting a Senior Compliance Manager for their Hong Kong office. This professional will report directly to the APAC Head of Compliance who sits elsewhere in the region and will have autonomy and ownership of the compliance function for Hong Kong. This role will involve working directly with the trading teams, regulatory compliance, and monitoring of trading activity.

DIRECTOR, REGIONAL COMPLIANCE CREDIT INSTITUTIONWDM/ 542480

European Credit Institution is growing their APAC team and is hiring a Director of Regional Compliance to lead the compliance function for the region covering 5 countries. This person will be a deputy and direct report to the regional CEO and have ownership in strategic implementation of a regional compliance regime.

Key Requirements:

■ Hong Kong or commonwealth qualified lawyer with a minimum of six years’ PQE

■ Prior experience in financial services law is essential■ Insurance experience will be highly advantageous■ Chinese languages are preferable but not essential

Key Requirements:

■ Hong Kong or commonwealth qualified lawyer with a minimum of six years’ PQE

■ Extensive knowledge of funds and investment management from both a legal and compliance perspective

■ Fluency in English and Mandarin Chinese is essential

Key Requirements:

■ Hong Kong qualified lawyer with a minimum of eight years’ experience in compliance role within banking industry

■ Strong knowledge of corporate/ transaction banking products■ Experience in China facing or RMB transactions is highly preferred

Key Requirements:

■ Hong Kong, PRC or commonwealth qualified lawyer with a minimum of six years’ PQE

■ Extensive knowledge of tax/ trusts/ private wealth management legal issues

■ Fluency in English and Mandarin Chinese is essential

Key Requirements:

■ A minimum of 10 years’ experience in compliance role within investment banking or brokerage industry

■ Expertise in local regulatory requirements and established relationships with regulatory bodies

■ Strong interpersonal skills and ability to operate autonomously

Key Requirements:

■ 10 to 15 years’ experience in compliance role within financial services industry, with exposure to regional level is highly preferred

■ Background in advising senior leadership on development of regional level initiatives

■ Strong knowledge of risk potentials within enterprise or regional level compliance regimes

FINANCIAL SERVICES

www.atticus-legal.com

Capital Markets1-3 PQE Hong Kong

A fantastic opportunity for a lawyer to become part of this renowned practice with this US law firm. Your work will include focusing on a range of IPO and innovative merger and acquisition transactions on a global scale assisting an established partner. You will be Hong Kong qualified. Mandarin skill preferred. HKL4454

Derivatives & Structured Finance2-4 PQE Hong Kong

This top tier practice seeks a lawyer to join their market leading international practice. You will work with highly regarded partners and be exposed to a wide range of structured finance and derivatives transactions, including repackagings, total return swaps, CLOs, CDOs and also OTC derivatives. HKL4231

Banking & Finance1+ PQE Hong Kong

This global law firm seeks a HK qualified junior lawyer to join their practice, assisting renowned individuals and high profile clients. You will work on big ticket deals, including corporate lending, equity-backed financing, restructuring and mainstream syndicated lending. HKL4453

Banking PSL5+ PQE Hong Kong

This is an excellent opportunity for experienced lawyers to step away from fee-earning and join a highly regarded global law firm’s Banking and Finance practice. You will work with a collegiate team and take on a full range of PSL duties including creating a solid precedent system, preparing notes on legal issues and know-how documents. HKL4100

Head of Legal10+ PQE Hong Kong

Leading asset management and investment firm seeks a competent lawyer to take on a legal role working closely with various departments within the business. You will be a corporate lawyer admitted in HK with private banking or securities house experience. Chinese essential. HKL4443

Dispute Resolution2-4 PQE Hong Kong

A very exciting opportunity for a litigation associate to join this leading practice. You will represent local and international clients on a range of disputes, contentious financial services regulatory and banking matters. You will be admitted in a common law jurisdiction. Language skills required. HKL4439

Capital Markets3+ PQE Hong Kong

This is a stellar opportunity for a senior associate to join this notable practice and work alongside a reputable partner. You will work on corporate finance transactions, including HK listings, merger and acquisition transactions, and more. Mandarin language skills essential. HKL4420

Dispute Resolution5+ PQE Hong Kong

This globally recognised premier law firm has an excellent disputes practice, due to increased work they are seeking a common law qualified senior litigator with solid commercial litigation experience to work on a range of general commercial litigation and contentious regulatory matters and more. Mandarin preferred but not essential. HKL4414

Corporate M&A/PE 3+ PQE Hong Kong

Premier practice seeks a mid level associate looking for a broad mix of work. You will work for highly regarded partners on a range of complex M&A, Private Equity and Cap Market transactions for premier clients in a rewarding environment with manageable working hours. Mandarin essential. HKL4050

Corporate M&A3-5PQE Beijing

This is an outstanding opportunity for a midlevel associate with solid experience gained at an international law firm. You will join this top tier firm to focus on M&A/PE and China outbound transactions. PRC associates or lawyers admitted to the NY bar will also be considered. HKL4360

Banking & Finance4-6 PQE Hong Kong

Globally recognised firm seeks a lawyer to join their practice, assisting renowned partners and high profile clients. You will work on big ticket deals, including corporate lending, equity-backed financing, restructuring and mainstream syndicated lending. Common law qualification required, Mandarin a bonus. HKL4448

Debt Capital Markets2-6 PQ Hong Kong

This is a fantastic opening for a lawyer to join a leading international practice and to work on a variety of global debt capital markets transactions advising issuers and underwriters, amongst a collegiate and professional team. US/ HK/E&W qualification required for this role; Mandarin required. HKL4449

Securities Litigation 1-3 PQE Hong Kong

This is a superb opportunity for a US qualified junior litigator to join this top tier law firm and its established team to work on securities litigation, regulatory and government investigations. Ideal candidates will possess native Mandarin language skills and the ability to draft in English. HKL4467

Corporate PSL5+ PQE Hong Kong

Leading practice seeks experienced PSL lawyer with solid understanding of Corporate transactions, including Merger & Acquisition, Private Equity, HK Listing Rules and more. Ideal candidate will have a minimum of 5 years experience, a strong academic background and high level of language skills, mandarin will be a bonus. HKL3730

ECM/DCM 3-5 PQE Sydney

This premier firm is seeking an individual with capital markets experience to join their highly regarded team in Australia. You will have solid experience/exposure to project finance, equity/debt capital markets, leveraged finance and restructuring. You be US qualified with first rate academics and top tier law firm experience. HKL4402

trust | honesty | integrity | partnership

This is a selection of our current vacancies; for more information in complete confidence,

please call the Hong Kong office on +852 2503 2500 or email us at

[email protected]

Major, Lindsey & Africa, founded in 1982, is the world’s largest and most experienced legal search firm, offering unparalleled service and strategic advice to candidates and clients looking to gain access to Asia Pacific, Australia, EMEA and the United States.

CARL HOPKINSManaging Partner, Law Firm Group, Asia Pacific (ex Japan)[email protected]

ANDREW NGManaging Consultant, Hong Kong/Palo Alto +852.3628.4698/[email protected]

NATHAN PEART Consultant, Hong [email protected]

MAGGIE KWOKConsultant, Hong [email protected]

FRANNY GAOAssociate, Hong [email protected]

MIKAELA ORMEConsultant, [email protected]

LAURIE LEBRUNPartner, [email protected]

Our dedicated Search Consultantsare experts and ready to speak

with you about your plans in Asia

> Partners & Partner Teams> New Market Entry> Associates

> In-House Counsel & Compliance Counsel

AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BALTIMORE BASKING RIDGE BEIJING ** BOSTON CHARLOTTE

CHICAGO DELHI ** HONG KONG HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON LOS ANGELES MIAMI

MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY PALO ALTO PHILADELPHIA SAN DIEGO

SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SEOUL* SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C.

WWW.MLAGLOBAL.COM*STRATEGIC ALLIANCE **AFFILIATE

www.alsrecruit.comTo apply in confidence, please send your updated resume to [email protected], or contact one of our Legal Consultants in Hong Kong:

Hong Kong • Singapore • Beijing • ShanghaiSpecialising in Legal, Financial Services, and Commerce

Georgeanna MokTel: +852 2920 9101Email: [email protected]

Claire ParkTel: +852 2920 9134Email: [email protected]

William ChanTel: +852 2920 9105Email: [email protected]

www.alsrecruit.comTo apply in confidence, please send your updated resume to [email protected], or contact one of our Legal Consultants in Hong Kong:

Hong Kong • Singapore • Beijing • ShanghaiSpecialising in Legal, Financial Services, and Commerce

Georgeanna MokTel: +852 2920 9101Email: [email protected]

Claire ParkTel: +852 2920 9134Email: [email protected]

William ChanTel: +852 2920 9105Email: [email protected]

Private Practice In-houseCORPORATE HONG KONG PARTNER Our client has ambitious growth plans and is keen to speak to partners within the M&A, capital markets, and restructuring sectors. Based in Hong Kong, this is an excellent opportunity for ambitious senior lawyers to join and develop/grow their business in Asia. (HKL 14864)

INVESTMENT FUNDS HONG KONG 5 – 10 PQE A leading funds team seeks a lawyer with solid experience in funds work. You will focus on structuring and the formation of PE and VC funds in Hong Kong and Greater China, and be comfortable in managing junior associates. (HKL 15010)

M&A HONG KONG 5 – 10 PQE This international law firm in expansion mode seeks to hire an M&A lawyer with strong transactional experience. Strong track in managing client relationships and handling deals independently. You will gain exposure to clients in a variety of industries, and work for household names. Chinese language skills essential. (HKL 12261)

BANKING FINANCE HONG KONG 4 – 6 PQELeading offshore law firm is looking to hire a mid-level banking finance associate. Ideally Commonwealth qualified with a reputable law firm. Mandarin not required. (HKL 14970)

RESTRUCTURING/INSOLVENCY HONG KONG 2 – 5 PQEWell-established international law firm seeks a lawyer to work on contentious and non-contentious insolvency and restructuring deals as well as assist the disputes and banking practice. Mandarin required. (HKL 15006)

ARBITRATION HONG KONG 1 – 7 PQE This growing international arbitration team seeks a lawyer with solid experience gained within the region, where you will work with a team of highly regarded partners and collegiate team members on large-scale disputes. Mandarin language skills is beneficial. (HKL 15011)

CONSTRUCTION HONG KONG 1 – 4 PQETop tier firm looking to add an additional associate to their construction team. Ideal candidates will be Hong Kong qualified with a mix of contentious and non-contentious construction work. (HKL 14932)

COMMERCIAL HONG KONG 10+ PQE Conglomerate based in Hong Kong seeks an experienced commercial lawyer to advise on a wide range of commercial legal matters with legal implications for various business units within the company, and manage a medium-sized team of lawyers and support staff. Strong in-house experience handling commercial and contentious matters, as well a proven track in people-management is necessary. Cantonese required. (HKL 14379)

FUNDS HONG KONG 8 – 10 PQE Investment firm seeks experienced senior funds lawyer to handle their asset management space. Funds experience essential (funds structures and distribution), Mandarin preferred but not essential. In-house experienced lawyers required. (HKL 14936)

FMCG HONG KONG 5 – 10 PQEUK listed company with significant growth plans for Asia Pac has headcount to appoint its first in-house counsel in Hong Kong to support the regional management team covering Asia Pac. Work will involve negotiating a range of commercial agreements and providing general in-house advice. Great opportunity to support a dynamic and young executive team in a business that is one of the sector’s best global performers. (HKL 11472)

INSURANCE HONG KONG 3 – 7 PQE Global insurance group is looking to expand their Hong Kong legal team. The position will advise on a wide range of business operational matters including policy, distribution and marketing. Fluency in Cantonese (written and spoken) is required. (HKL 14678)

FINANCIAL SERVICES HONG KONG 3 – 5 PQE Opportunity to join a well-regarded financial institution, provide legal support across the Asia region to the brokerage and its investment banking business. Ideal candidate will be a HK qualified lawyer with solid experience in advising financial services. Mandarin is required. (HKL 14752)

TRUSTS AND ESTATES HONG KONG 2 – 4 PQE Financial Institution seeks an experienced lawyer to work in-house within private wealth management. Ideally suited for lawyers with a tax, PWM, estate planning background. Opportunity to move in-house and take on a business/legal position managing trust relationships. (HKL 14745)

FIXED INCOME HONG KONG 1 – 4 PQE Investment bank seeks experienced junior lawyer to join their Fixed Income Derivatives legal team. Excellent opportunity to move from private practice to in-house. Mandarin preferred but not essential. (HKL 14917)

Pure Search:

First Choice for Private Practice Hires We are delighted to announce that Jane Kim has joined Pure Search.

Mike Wright

+852 2520 5298 [email protected]

Alexandra Starke


EA Licence No.: 12S5954 / R1222863

Sonia Taylor


Paulin Tan


EA Licence No.: 12S5954 / R1433787

Hong Kong Singapore

puresearch.comPure Search International Ltd, Level 61, Unit 09 The Center 99, Queen’s Rd Central Hong Kong

Pure Search International Pte Ltd, 8 Marina View, #07-04 Asia Square, Tower 1, Singapore 018960EA Licence No.: 12S5954Co. Reg. No.: 201209597C

For a confidential discussion on your business needs, a bespoke career consultation, or for a more general discussion on the market, please contact one of the team.

Jane is an experienced legal recruiter; prior to joining Pure she covered both private practice and in-house for a specialist legal recruitment firm. In addition to her strong understanding of the Hong Kong market, she is very familiar with China, Singapore, Japan and Australia.

+852 2499 1244 | [email protected]

Jane will work closely with our existing team of Private Practice Legal recruitment specialists in the North Asia region:

Jane Kim

Shaping the careers of city professionals since 2002, Oliver James Associates partners with leading law firms and blue-chip multinationals worldwide. Our consultants have unrivalled knowledge of their vertical markets and networks that span the global legal sector, enabling you to access the most exclusive opportunities in the industry. Working from 12 international locations, we represent legal professionals within the Asia-Pacific regions, the US, UK and the EU, placing them in Associate, Legal Counsel, General Counsel and Partner-level positions. Embrace your future, transform your career and contact Oliver James Associates today.

Whether you are seeking your next career move now, or you would like to have a confidential discussion about the legal market to feel more informed, please contact us today.

How far could you go? Brighter futures begin with Oliver James Associates

Arron Leale - Manager+852 3708 [email protected]

Richard Whalley - Senior Consultant+852 3708 [email protected]

David Chin – In-House Consultant+852 3708 [email protected]

Patrick Haughey – Consultant+852 3708 [email protected]

Erik Bainbridge - Consultant+852 3708 [email protected]

www.ojassociates.comoliver-james-associates @ojassociatesHK

HK Lawyer - March.indd All Pages 21/02/2017 10:44

Gregory SoGBS JP - Hong Kong Lawyer

Documents

Transcript of Gregory SoGBS JP - Hong Kong Lawyer