Hong Kong Lawyer

March 2014 二零一四年三月

HK$280

h k

- l a

w y

e r

. org

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

Ma

rc

h 2014

Ship Collision Liability in Hong Kong - Dawn of a New Era? 與船舶碰撞法律責任有關之香港法例的新紀元？

ADMIRALTY 海事法

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal – Reflections on Decision Making and Process律師紀律審裁組–對裁決及相關過程的檢討

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 專業實務

The New Companies Ordinance – Highlights of Some Major Changes (a Companies Registry series)

新公司條例 –主要改變概要 (公司註冊系列)

COMPANIES 公司

“It used to be the case that the Chinese would avoid issues surrounding death. Such an attitude has changed over time.”

Face to Face With

BILLY MA

Cover Story 封面專題

Veteran Probate Practitioner and Partner, Hobson & Ma

馬華潤律師資深遺囑認證執業者兼何柏生馬華潤律師行合夥人

專訪

「中國人對於談論死亡，向來都有所忌諱。然而，這一態度已慢慢有所改變。」

www.tricorglobal.com

Our services include:

• Accounting

• China Entry & Consulting

• Company Formation

• Corporate Governance & Company Secretarial

• Executive Search & Human Resources Consulting

• Initial Public Offerings & Share Registration

• Fund, Payroll, Treasury & Trust Administration

• Management Consulting

Member of BEA Group

We enable you to focus on growing your business

You’re in good hands with Tricor looking after your non-core business support functions.

Tricor is a global provider of integrated Business, Corporate and Investor services. As a business enabler, Tricor provides outsourced expertise in corporate administration, compliance and business support functions that allows you to concentrate on what you do best – Building Business.

You’re known by the

company you keep.

And by the company

that keeps you.

The Business Enablers

BARBADOS • BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS • BRUNEI • DUBAI UAE • HONG KONG • INDIA • INDONESIA • JAPAN • KOREA • LABUAN • MACAU • MAINLAND CHINA • MALAYSIA • SINGAPORE • THAILAND • UNITED KINGDOM

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

HK Lawyer Mar 2014 (Generic).ai 1 18/02/2014 14:25:01

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

HONG KONG LAWYERwww.hk-lawyer.org

Inside your March issue 三月期刊內容

4 EDITOR’S NOTE [PDF] [HKL online] 編者的話 [PDF] [HKL online]

6 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE [PDF] [HKL online] 會長的話 [PDF] [HKL online]

8 CONTRIBUTORS [PDF] [HKL online] 投稿者 [PDF] [HKL online]

10 DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決 [PDF] [HKL online]

13 FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE [PDF] [HKL online] 理事會議題 [PDF] [HKL online]

14 LETTER TO HONG KONG LAWYER [PDF] [HKL 給《香港律師》的信 [PDF] [HKL online]

16 FROM THE SECRETARIAT [PDF] [HKL online] 律師會秘書處資訊 [PDF] [HKL online]

18 COVER STORY [PDF] [HKL online] 封面專題 [PDF] [HKL online] Face to Face With 專訪

BILLY MA 馬華潤律師 Veteran Probate Practitioner and Partner, Hobson & Ma 資深遺囑認證執業者兼何柏生馬華潤律師行合夥人

26 LAW SOCIETY NEWS [PDF] [HKL online] 律師會新聞 [PDF] [HKL online]

36 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE DF] [HKL online] 專業實務 [PDF] [HKL online] The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal – 律師紀律審裁組–

Reflections on Decision Making and Process 對裁決及相關過程的檢討

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

Charles CC Chau 周致聰

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

Steven B GallagherJulienne Jen 任文慧

Dave Lau 劉子勁 George YC Mok 莫玄熾

Anne Scully-Hill Michele Tsang 曾憲薇

Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟

Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華

Tony Yen 嚴元浩

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

President 會長

Ambrose SK Lam 林新強

Vice-Presidents 副會長 Stephen WS Hung 熊運信

Thomas ST So 蘇紹聰

Council Members 理事會成員

Denis Brock 白樂德 Charles CC Chau 周致聰

Brian Gilchrist 喬柏仁 Junius KY Ho 何君堯

Angela WY Lee 李慧賢 Joseph CW Li 李超華

Michael J Lintern-Smith 史密夫

Peter CL Lo 羅志力

Billy WY Ma 馬華潤 Amirali B Nasir 黎雅明

Gavin P Nesbitt 倪廣恒 Kenneth SY Ng 伍成業

Melissa K Pang 彭韻僖

Sylvia WY Siu 蕭詠儀

Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華

Huen Wong 王桂壎

Dieter LT Yih 葉禮德

Secretary-General 秘書長

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

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

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

Thomson Reuters10/F, Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong KongTel: +852 3762 3200www.thomsonreuters.com

ISSN 1025-9554

Annual Subscription 全年訂閱: HK$3,360

36 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

18 COVER STORY

March2014二零一四年三月

HK$280

46 CAMPANIES [PDF] [HKL online] 公司 [PDF] [HKL online] The New Companies Ordinance – 新《公司條例》— Highlights of Some Major Changes 主要改變概要 (a Companies Registry Series) (公司註冊系列）

52 ADMIRALTY [PDF] [HKL online] 海事法 [PDF] [HKL online] Ship Collision Liability in Hong Kong - 與船舶碰撞法律責任有關 Dawn of a New Era? 之香港法例的新紀元？

58 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS [PDF] [HKL online] 業界透視 [PDF] [HKL online]

66 CASES IN BRIEF [PDF] [HKL online] 案例撮要 [PDF] [HKL online]

74 PROFESSIONAL MOVES [PDF] [HKL online] 會員動向 [PDF] [HKL online]

78 ASIDEPDF] [HKL online] 隨筆 [PDF] [HKL online] “When we’re connected to others, 「唯與人聯繫，方能進步。」

we become better people.” 摘自Randy Pausch的《最後的演講》

Randy Pausch, The Last Lecture

82 CAMPUS VOICES [PDF] [HKL online] 法學院新聞 [PDF] [HKL online]

84 THE LAST WORD [PDF] [HKL online] 趣聞 [PDF] [HKL online]

86 LEGAL MARKET [PDF] [HKL online] 職場資訊 [PDF] [HKL online]

Managing Editor 執行主編 Vince Chong 張哲寧

[email protected]

Chinese Editors 中文編輯 Natalie Lee 李頴琳

Design and Production 設計及制作 Samson Pang 彭振生

Sales and Marketing Director 銷售總監

Jane Lewis 劉真美

Translation team 翻譯組:Info Power

Staff contributors 內部貢獻:Carmen Chu 朱慧敏

Vivian Leung 梁靜妍

Rocky So 蘇衍成

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:

Gordon Ng 吳子鵬

[email protected]

Tel: +852 3762 3223

For subscriptions contact:

Traffic Administrator 統籌

Vivian Leung 梁靜妍

[email protected]

Tel: +852 3762 3268

Publisher 出版人

Klaus Pfeifer 范梓樺

[email protected]

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

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

46 COMPANIES

78 ASIDE

52 ADMIRALTY

EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

2012年10月和2014年2月，香港發生撞船事件，令不少

以為在本港水域航行一向甚為安全的港人感到吃驚，甚

或乎震驚。這些事故引發不同的問題，其中包括法律下

的責任。今期其中一篇專題就以近期一宗海事案為例，

為讀者分析這方面的法律，而該案正是首宗被告人被判

負上全部法律責任的案件(詳見第56頁)。

另外，本刊邀得一名資深的遺囑認證律師與讀者探討，

為何這個執業領域雖已漸為人所接受，即意味著業務具

增長潛力，但仍無法吸引新人投身這領域(詳見第23頁)。

此外，今期另有兩篇專題，相信值得香港的廣大律師一

讀：一文由公司註冊處撰文，簡述新《公司條例》的主

要變更，今期為三篇系列中的首篇(詳見第50頁)；另一文

由律師紀律審裁組執筆，為讀者剖析其決策過程(詳見第

42頁)。

張哲寧《香港律師》編輯

Sweet & Maxwell 執行主編

湯森路透

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2014

In October 2012 and February 2014, vessel collisions in Hong Kong surprised, and perhaps even shocked, many in the city who thought maritime travel in local waters as safe as it could have been. The incidents threw up varying issues, including liability under the law. In this month’s journal, we feature an analysis on this particular matter, based on a recent case that for the first time placed full liability on the defendants (pg. 52).

Elsewhere in the magazine, we talk to a veteran probate lawyer on an area of practice that is in the peculiar situation of being more widely accepted among individuals and families - meaning potentially more business - while yet seemingly unable to attract new practitioners (pg. 18).

Also, there are two features that we believe will be worth a read for most, if not all, solicitors in Hong Kong - the first of three articles from the Companies Registry that highlight major changes in the new companies law (pg. 46), and a piece from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that reflects on its decision-making process (pg. 36).

Vince ChongEditor, Hong Kong Lawyer

Managing Editor, Sweet & Maxwell

Thomson Reuters

[email protected]

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

Ambrose Lam, President

Among the many duties as President, I consider the active

exploration of business opportunities for members of the Law Society one of the most important.

I have represented the Law Society at various international trade missions and events during which I have had the opportunity to meet senior government officials who formulate national economic policies, representatives of multi national corporations who determine investment strategies as well as many other stakeholders in the global legal service market. One pleasant observation is that Hong Kong solicitors enjoy a very reputable status internationally as top quality legal service providers of the highest standards. However, the reality is that reliance on reputation alone may no longer be sufficient to generate business in this competitive environment.

A phenomenon that seems to have become more acute nowadays is a mismatch of resources and capability resulting in market inefficiency. There is an abundance of resources, but these resources have not been able to find their place in capable hands for efficient utilization.

The Law Society has been actively promoting Hong Kong’s legal services to the international community at every possible opportunity. We are also putting in substantial efforts to enhance the global understanding of the unique position of Hong Kong as

a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China under the implementation of the concept of “One Country Two Systems”. Hong Kong is unique in that it enjoys being a part of China as well as being entitled to continue its robust legal system and to maintain independence of the judiciary.

To go one step further beyond promoting Hong Kong’s edge, the Law Society is exploring more effective ways to correct the market inefficiency, i.e. to match the resources to the appropriate expertise. A logical start will be to collate information on those who are looking for investment opportunities, understand their investment objectives, formulate how Hong Kong solicitors can assist in the process and invite those with the relevant expertise to express their interest to be involved. Hopefully, with a more systematic coordination of all the relevant information, there will be a win-win result for all parties involved.

We are now consulting with various authorities and organisations on how to collate the relevant information on the needs of potential investors. Transparency is the key and at the appropriate stage, all members of the Law Society will be given an opportunity to indicate their interest to be involved in the process.

Simultaneously, the Law Society has received invitations from emerging markets, where the development of the legal profession is still groping its way towards the right direction, to share our

professional practice standards and experiences and to assist in refining and strengthening their local practices. As always, we stand ready and willing to assist our counterparts. I always believe that there is never a one-way traffic – those offering help as well as those receiving help will both benefit from their meaningful encounters. In due course, we will be soliciting interest from our members to assist on this front as well.

Many initiatives are in the pipeline, but they take time to materialise. We will stay focused and continue our tireless efforts to secure more opportunities for our members and maintain a healthy and sustainable development of our profession.

President Ambrose Lam (right) and Mr We Chul-whan, President of the Korean Bar Association (left), at the Signing Ceremony for the Renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two professional bodies.香港律師會會長林新強律師(右)與韓國律師協會會長魏哲

煥先生(左)在兩會<諒解備忘錄>更新的簽署儀式上。

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2014

March 2014 • PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

會長所肩負的各項職責中，我認

為為律師會會員積極開拓商

機，是最重要的任務之一。

我曾代表律師會出席不同的國際貿易

團和活動，期間有機會認識制定國家

經濟政策的政府高層官員、決定投資

策略的跨國公司代表，以及眾多全球

法律服務市場的其他持分者。從觀

察所得，香港的律師在國際間聲譽

卓著，獲公認為秉持最高標準的一流

法律服務提供者，這確令人欣慰。

然而，現實情況是，單靠聲譽或不再

足以在這個競爭激烈的環境中帶來商

機。

資源和能力錯配導致市場低效，如今

情勢似乎經已迫在眉睫。我們擁有豐

富的資源，但這些資源一直未能交到

可堪信賴的人手中，以善加利用。

律師會一直把握每個良機，積極向國

際社會推廣香港的法律服務。我們亦

奮力令國際加深了解香港在落實「一

國兩制」的理念下作為中華人民共和

林新強會長

國特別行政區的獨特地位。香港回歸

中國的同時，繼續維持穩健的法律制

度，司法獨立亦不變，可說是獨一無

二的。

為了進一步推廣香港的優勢，律師會

正致力尋求更有效的方法糾正市場低

效的問題，亦即是如何把資源編配到

恰當的專業類別上。最合乎邏輯的第

一步，是向尋找投資機會的人士搜集

資料並進行整理、了解他們的投資目

標、定出香港律師在過程中可提供甚

麼協助，以及邀請具備相關專業知識

的人士表達是否有興趣參與其中。我

們希望透過更有系統地協調所有相關

資料，讓各方達致雙贏局面。

我們現正就如何整理潛在投資者的需

要的相關資料諮詢不同機關和組織。

透明度是關鍵，因此在適當階段，律

師會所有會員將有機會表明他們是否

有興趣參與有關過程。

與此同時，律師會收到一些新興市場

的邀請，由於這些市場在法律專業方

面的發展仍處於摸索階段，故希望我

們分享香港專業執業標準和經驗，並

協助他們改進及加強執業方式。一

如以往，我們非常樂意為同業提供協

助。我深信，世上並沒有單向付出這

回事，因為不論是伸出援手還是接受

助者，從中必有所得。我們會在適當

時候誠徵會員就這事宜提供協助。

我們有許多計劃正在進行中，惟落實

需時。我們將繼續以專注的態度和不

懈的努力，為各會員爭取更多商機，

使業界得以持續健康發展。

President Ambrose Lam (right) and Mr. Wang Junfeng, President of the All China Lawyers Association explored how to facilitate collaboration of the legal profession between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

香港律師會會長林新强律師(右)與全國律協會長王俊峰律師(左)探討如何促進中港兩地律師的交流及合作。

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

Ada LL Chung, JPCompanies Registry of the Government of the HKSAR, Registrar of Companies,

Ms Ada Chung has a career in accounting and law. She is a Certified Public Accountant (FCPA) and a barrister. Ada was appointed as the Registrar of Companies in August 2007 and has since been heavily involved in the Companies Ordinance Rewrite exercise and the introduction of electronic incorporation and electronic filing of company documents. Before her appointment as the Registrar of Companies, Ada was the head of the Civil Litigation Unit of the Department of Justice.

鍾麗玲太平紳士

香港特區政府公司註冊處

公司註冊處處長

鍾處長以會計和法律為專業，是一名

資深會計師和大律師。她在2007年8

月獲委任為公司註冊處處長，自此積

極參與《公司條例》的重寫工作，並

致力推行電子成立公司及電子提交公

司文件。她獲委任為公司註冊處處長

之前，為律政司民事訴訟組首席政府

律師。

Karen HoCompanies Registry of the Government of the HKSAR, Deputy Principal Solicitor

Mrs Karen Ho is a Deputy Principal Solicitor (Company Law Reform) of the Companies Registry and her main duty is to assist in the rewrite of the Companies Ordinance.

何劉家錦

香港特區政府公司註冊處

副首席律師

何律師為公司註冊處副首席律師(公

司法改革)，主要的職責是協助《公

司條例》的重寫工作。

CONTRIBUTORS投稿者

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2014

March 2014 • CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

Ernest YangDLA Piper Hong Kong, Partner

Ernest is a dispute resolution lawyer specialising in shipping matters, and was recently appointed a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference for Shanghai with a mandate to help Shanghai develop into an international maritime centre.

Xiaoshan ChenDLA Piper Hong Kong, Registered Foreign Lawyer

Xiaoshan is a dispute resolution lawyer specialising in shipping matters. In his spare time, Xiaoshan loves travelling and football.

楊大明

歐華律師事務所合夥人

楊律師專門從事爭議解決事務，尤其

擅長於航運領域。他最近獲委任為上

海政協委員，任務是協助上海發展成

為國際航運中心。

陳曉山

歐華律師事務所註冊外地律師

陳律師專門從事爭議解決事務，尤其擅

長於航運領域。工作之餘，他熱愛旅遊

和足球。

Eric WooONC Lawyers, Senior Associate

Eric is a shipping litigation lawyer specialising in both wet and dry shipping matters, including charterparties, shipbuilding, shipping casualties, sale and purchase of vessels, ship arrest and release, international sale of goods, ship financing, cargo claims, bills of lading, letters of credit, marine insurance and other cross-border transport disputes. Eric enjoys a variety of sport activities including basketball, soccer and bowling as well as recreational activities such as bridge and social dance.

胡慶業

柯伍陳律師事務所高級律師

胡律師是一名航運訴訟律師，海商及

海事兩方面均為其專長，包括租賃合

約、造船、航運傷亡、船舶買賣、船

舶扣押和釋放、國際貨物買賣、船舶

融資、貨物索賠、提單、信用狀、海

上保險和其他跨境運輸糾紛。胡律師

熱愛的運動項目包括籃球、足球和保

齡球，而且橋牌和社交舞等活動亦為

他所喜愛。

www.hk-lawyer.org 9

DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS紀律裁決

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

• March 2014

Wong Chun Yip Kenny (the “Respondent”) • Disgraceful,dishonourableanddiscreditableconduct

Hearing date: 15 May 2013 and 5 September 2013

Statement of Findings: 8 August 2013

Reasons and Order: 24 December 2013

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaint proved:

The Respondent, being a former employee of a solicitors’ firm, committed disgraceful, dishonourable and discreditable conduct in that he was convicted of the offence of possessing a false instrument, contrary to Section 75(2) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) in Eastern Magistrates’ Courts Criminal Case No. 4333 of 2010 and was sentenced to probation for 12 months.

The Tribunal ordered that:

(a) the Respondent be prohibited from being employed by any firm of solicitor(s) or foreign lawyer(s) for two (2) years from the date of the Order;

(b) the Respondent bears and pays for the costs of the proceedings:

(i) a fixed sum of HK$45,000 being the assessed and allowed costs of the Law Society; and

(ii) a fixed sum of HK$22,000 being the assessed and allowed costs of the Clerk.

MissJaniceKwan,In-HouseProsecutorfortheApplicant.

TheRespondentwasabsent.

TribunalMembers:Mr.ButManTai(Chairman) Ms.ConstanceHMChoyMr.ConradWongTinCheung

王振業(下稱「答辯人」)

• 可恥、不名譽及有損信譽的行為操守

聆訊日期：

2013年5月15日及9月5日

裁斷陳述書：

2013年8月8日

理由及命令：

2013年12月24日

律師紀律審裁組裁定以下申訴成立：

答辯人為某律師行的前僱員，作出可恥、

不名譽及有損信譽的行為操守，在東區裁

判法院刑事案件2010年第4333號中，違

反《刑事罪行條例》（第200章）第75(2)

條，被裁定管有虛假文書罪罪成，並被判

接受感化12個月。

審裁組命令：

(a) 禁止答辯人受僱於任何律師行或外地

律師行，為期兩年，由本命令日期起

生效；

(b) 答辯人須承擔並支付以下訴訟費用：

(i) 一筆45,000港元的定額款項，作為

律師會的經評定及准予訟費；及

(i) 一筆22,000港元的定額款項，作

為審裁組書記的經評定及准予訟

費。

內部檢控人員關琅天代表申請人。

答辯人缺席。

審裁組成員：畢文泰先生（主席）

蔡學雯女士

黃天祥先生

Stephen Finley, the sole proprietor of Messrs. Finley & Co. (the “Respondent”) • Rule2(a),(c),(d)and(e)oftheSolicitors’PracticeRules(“SPR”)

• Principles6.04,12.04,12.05,13.02and14.02oftheHongKongSolicitors’GuidetoProfessionalConduct,Volume1,SecondEdition(“Guide”)

• Section8AAoftheLegalPractitionersOrdinance(Cap159)(“LPO”)

Hearing date: 24, 25 July and 6, 13 August 2012

Statement of Findings: 6 June 2013

Reasons and Order: 9 December 2013

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the following complaints against the Respondent proved after holding substantive

March 2014 • DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決

www.hk-lawyer.org 11

hearings on 24, 25 July and 6, 13 August 2012 respectively:

1st Complaint

Breaches of Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR and Principle 13.02 of the Guide in that on or about 1 September 2009, a cheque which the Respondent issued on his office account to his client (whom he had acted for in a District Court proceedings and the claim was partially successful),was dishonoured.

2nd Complaint

Breaches of Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR and Principle 13.02 of the Guide in that on or about 28 April and 28 May 2010, cheques which the Respondent issued on his office account to the landlord of his firm’s office premises (the “Landlord”) were dishonoured.

3rd Complaint

Breaches of Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed between 13 August 2009 and 31 January 2010 to pay to the Landlord the rent, management fees and rates due on his firm’s office premises, allowed the Landlord to enter judgment against him for the unpaid rent, etc. and allowed the Landlord to serve a statutory demand on him in connection with the unpaid rent, etc.

4th Complaint

Breaches of Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR and Principle 14.02 of the Guide in that the Respondent did not comply with an undertaking he gave to another solicitors’ firm during September 2009 to return to that another solicitors’ firm an assignment in connection with the purchase of a property in Sky Tower, Kowloon.

5th Complaint

Breaches of Principles 12.04 and 12.05 of the Guide in that the Respondent did not either pay or challenge, within two (2) months, fee notes delivered by a Senior Counsel (the “Senior Counsel”) on 10 July and 21 October 2008.

6th Complaint

Breaches of Rule 2(d) of the SPR and Principle 12.05 of the Guide in that as at 1 November 2011 the Respondent did not pay the fees notes delivered by the Senior Counsel on 10 July and 21 October 2008.

7th Complaint

Breaches of Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR and Principle 13.02 of the Guide in that on or about 31 December 2009 and 3 February 2010, cheques issued by the Respondent on his office account to the Senior Counsel were dishonoured.

8th Complaint

A breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent failed to respond promptly and meaningfully to enquiries from the Law Society.

9th Complaint

Breaches of the Section 8AA of the LPO and Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed to comply with a notice of inspection issued by the Law Society on 26 March 2010.

10th Complaint

The common law offence of misconduct on account of the facts detailed in the above complaints. The common law offence of misconduct includes any conduct which is not dealt with by any specific rule but is nonetheless improper.

After consideration of the mitigation submitted by the Respondent, the Tribunal ordered that:-

(a) The Respondent be censured for all the complaints.

(b) In regard to the 1st Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$300,000. This sum will be reduced to HK$150,000 provided the Respondent satisfies the Tribunal that full payment to his client mentioned in the 1st Complaint has been made within 10 days.

(c) In regard to the 2nd and 3rd

Complaints, the Respondent is fined a total amount of HK$100,000 for both complaints.

(d) In regard to the 4th Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$75,000.

(e) In regard to the 5th and 6th Complaints, the Respondent is fined a total sum of HK$160,000. This sum will be reduced to HK$100,000 provided he satisfies the Tribunal that he has made full payment to the Senior Counsel within 10 days.

(f) In regard to the 7th Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$100,000.

(g) In regard to the 8th Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$100,000.

(h) In regard to the 9th Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$150,000.

(i) In regard to the 10th Complaint, there will be no additional penalty.

(j) For a period of 12 months after the Respondent is issued a fresh Practising Certificate, if any, following the intervention by the Law Society on 4 January 2012 in the practice of the Respondent, the Respondent shall not practise as a sole-proprietor or partner of a solicitors’ firm but can only practise as an employed solicitor under the supervision of a solicitor who has been actively practised in Hong Kong for at least 10 years.

(k) The costs of these proceedings, including the costs of investigation of the Applicant, the costs of the Applicant and the Clerk to the Tribunal, be borne and paid by the Respondent on an indemnity basis, such costs to be taxed, if not agreed.

Mr.GeoffreyJamesShawofMessrs.Haley&Co.fortheApplicant.

TheRespondentinperson.

TribunalMembers:Mr.NGMan-kin,ChairmanMr.CharlesWilliamAllenMs.KaiShunCatherineYen


• March 2014

范凌律師行獨營執業者范凌

(下稱「答辯人」)

• 《律師執業規則》第2(a)、(c)、(d)及

(e)條規則（下稱「《規則》」）

• 《香港律師專業操守指引》第二版第

一冊第6.04、12.04、12.05、13.02及

14.02條原則（下稱「《指引》」）

• 《法律執業者條例》（第159章）第

8AA條（下稱「《條例》」）

• 普通法的不當行為罪行

聆訊日期：

2012年7月24、25日及8月6、13日

裁斷陳述書：

2013年6月6日

理由及命令：

2013年12月9日

律師紀律審裁組於2012年7月24、25日

及8月6、13日舉行正式聆訊後，裁定針

對答辯人作出的以下申訴成立：

第一項申訴

約在2009年9月1日，答辯人以律師行帳

戶向客戶（他曾在一宗區域法院訴訟中代

表該名客戶，而該申索獲判部分勝訴）開

出的支票未能兌現，因此違反《規則》第

2(a)、(c)、(d)及(e)條規則及《指引》第

13.02條原則。

第二項申訴

約在2010年4月28日及5月28日，答辯人

以律師行帳戶向其律師行辦事處的業主（

下稱「該業主」）開出的支票未能兌現，

因此違反《規則》第2(a)及(d)條規則及《

指引》第13.02條原則。

第三項申訴

在2009年8月13日至2010年1月31日期

間，答辯人未能向該業主支付其律師行辦

事處的到期租金、管理費及差餉，令該業

主登錄答辯人須支付未付租金等的判決，

並向他送達有關未付租金等的法定要求償

債書，因此違反《規則》第2(a)及(d)條

規則。

第四項申訴

答辯人未能履行他於2009年9月向另一間

律師行作出的承諾，交還一份有關購買一

項位於九龍傲雲峰的物業的轉讓書，因此

違反《規則》第2(a)、(c)、(d)及(e)條規

則及《指引》第14.02條原則。

第五項申訴

答辯人沒有按一名資深大律師（下稱「該

資深大律師」）在2008年7月10日及10

月21日發出的收費單於兩個月內付款或

提出反對，因此違反《指引》第12.04及

12.05條原則。

第六項申訴

截至2011年11月1日，答辯人仍未支付

該資深大律師在2008年7月10日及10月

21日發出的收費單，因此違反《規則》第

2(d)條規則及《指引》第12.05條原則。

第七項申訴

約在2009年12月31日及2010年2月3

日，答辯人以律師行帳戶向該資深大律師

開出的支票未能兌現，因此違反《規則》

第2(a)及(d)條規則及《指引》第13.02條

原則。

第八項申訴

答辯人未能及時就律師會的查詢作出有意

義的回應，因此違反《指引》第6.04條原

則。

第九項申訴

答辯人未能遵守律師會在2010年3月26

日發出的查閱通知，因此違反《條例》第

8AA條及《規則》第2(a)及(d)條規則。

第十項申訴

上述申訴所詳述的事實構成普通法的不當

行為罪行。普通法的不當行為罪行包括沒

有受任何特定規則所涵蓋，但仍屬不當的

行為。

審裁組考慮過答辯人提交的輕判理由後，

作出以下命令：

(a) 就所有申訴對答辯人施以譴責；

(b) 就第一項申訴，答辯人被罰款300,000

港元。如答辯人能使審裁組信納，他

已在10日內向第一項申訴所述的客戶

悉數償還款項，則這筆罰款可減少至

150,000港元。

(c) 就第二及第三項申訴，答辯人被罰款

總共100,000港元。

(d) 就第四項申訴，答辯人被罰款75,000

港元。

(e) 就第五及第六項申訴，答辯人被罰款

總共160,000港元。如答辯人能使審裁

組信納，他已在10日內向該資深大律

師悉數償還款項，則這筆罰款可減少

至100,000港元。

(f) 就第七項申訴，答辯人被罰款100,000

港元。

(g) 就第八項申訴，答辯人被罰款100,000

港元。

(h) 就第九項申訴，答辯人被罰款150,000

港元。

(i) 就第十項申訴，不處以額外罰款。

(j) 如答辯人在律師會於2012年1月4日介

入其執業業務後獲發新的執業證書，

則答辯人在該執業證書發出起12個月

內，不得以獨營執業者或律師行合夥

人的身份執業，僅可以受僱律師的身

份執業，並須由一名已在香港積極執

業至少10年的律師監督。

(k) 訟費按彌償基準由答辯人承擔及支

付，包括律師會的調查費用、申請人

的費用及審裁組書記的費用，若未能

就該等訟費達成協議，則有待評定。

由Haley & Co.的Geoffrey James Shaw先

生代表申請人。

答辯人自行應訊。

審裁組成員：吳文堅先生 (主席)

Charles William Allen先生

嚴家洵女士

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE理事會議題

有關修訂《房地產投資信託基金守則》的諮詢文件

2014年1月27日，證券及期貨事務監察委員會(下稱「證

監會」)就修訂《房地產投資信託基金守則》(下稱「《守

則》」)展開為期一個月的諮詢。

《守則》對房地產投資信託基金施加若干投資限制，以確

保房地產投資信託基金主要投資於可產生收入的房地產項

目，例如房地產投資信託基金不得從事物業發展活動。雖

然房地產投資信託基金可以購入空置及沒有產生收入的未

完成單位，但這些房地產項目的累積合約價值，不得超過

該基金總資產淨值的10%。

考慮到要在「促進市場發展」及「保障投資者利益和市場

穩健」之間取得適當平衡，證監會建議修訂《守則》，為

房地產投資信託基金的投資範圍引入靈活性： -

(a) 允許房地產投資信託基金進行物業發展投資/相關活

動，惟(i)物業發展投資/相關活動及(ii)購買未完成單位

的投資總額不得超過該基金資產總值的10%。

(b) 允許房地產投資信託基金投資於某些類別的金融工具

(下稱「相關投資」)，惟需受到若干限制，其中包括房

地產投資信託基金所持有的由任何單一公司集團發行

的相關投資的價值，不得超過該基金資產總值的5%，

以及房地產投資信託基金的資產總值至少有75%投資

於產生定期租金收入的房地產項目上。

證監會亦提出一系列保障投資者的措施，例如有關方面需維

持有效的內部監控和風險管理系統，並定期向投資者提供更

新資料，以及《守則》中有關匯報、披露及單位持有人批准

的現行規定將同樣適用於物業發展/金融工具的投資。

律師會的投資產品及金融服務委員會(下稱「委員會」)已審

議相關建議修訂。原則上，基於可供比較的海外司法管轄

區在房地產投資基金業界的經驗，我們歡迎在投資範圍方

面引入合理程度的靈活性，認為會為香港房地產投資信託

基金市場的長遠發展帶來裨益。然而，除了證監會提出的

保障措施，與關連人士交易的相關規定亦應擴展至適用於

房地產投資信託基金有意投資於由關連人士(不包括受託人)

發行的證券這一情況。

委員會提交有關的完整意見書，請瀏覽律師會網站：

http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk。

March 2014 • FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

Consultation Paper on Amendments to the Code on Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”)On 27 January, the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) published a one-month consultation on the amendments to the Code of REITs (the “Code”).

The Code imposes certain investment restrictions on REITs to ensure that a REIT invests primarily in income-generating real estate. For example, a REIT is prohibited from engaging in property development activities. Whilst a REIT may acquire uncompleted units which are unoccupied and non-income producing, the aggregate contract value of such real estate shall not exceed 10% of the total net asset value of the REIT.

In striking a proper balance between “facilitatingmarketdevelopment” and “protectionofinvestors’interestandmarketintegrity”, the SFC proposed to amend the Code to introduce flexibility in the scope of investment for REITs:-

(a) To undertake property development investment/related activities provided that the total costs of (i) investment in property development/related activities and (ii) acquisition of uncompleted units shall not exceed 10% of the REIT’s gross asset value.

(b) To invest in certain types of financial instruments (“relevant investment”) subject to, inter alia, the value of a REIT’s holding of the relevant investment issued by any single group of companies not exceeding 5% of the gross asset value of the REIT and at least 75% of the gross asset value of a REIT invested in real estate that generates recurrent rental income.

The SFC also proposed a series of safeguards for investors such as maintaining effective internal controls and risk management systems, periodic updates to investors and existing requirements on reporting and disclosure, as well as having unit holders’ approval under the Code applying equally to investment in property development/financial instruments.

The Law Society’s Investment Products and Financial Services Committee (the “Committee”) has reviewed the proposed amendments. In principle, based on the experience of the REIT industry in some comparable overseas jurisdictions, the introduction of a reasonable degree of flexibility in the scope of investment is welcome, as this will benefit the long-term growth of Hong Kong’s REIT market. However, in addition to the safeguards proposed by SFC, the connected party transaction rules should be extended to apply to situations where a REIT contemplates investing in securities issued by connected persons (excluding trustees).

For the full submission made by the Committee, please visit the Law Society website at www.hklawsoc.org.hk.


給《香港律師》的信

Letter to Hong Kong Lawyer

外地家務助理的遺產布時雨律師／顧問布高江律師行

不少人曾對家務助理以及他們在世時在香港所面對的

問題發表意見。

然而,他們所面對的問題不止於此。筆者不久前得悉的

一宗個案顯示,一旦家務助理在香港離世並留下遺產,他

們的家人將可能要應付多個問題。

不少在香港工作的外地家務助理都在本港開立銀行戶

口,以作收取工資之用。他們當中即使有人訂立遺囑,為

數也不多,因此他們大多未立遺囑而去世。

筆者得悉的一宗個案,涉及一對在菲律賓結婚的夫婦

（妻子下稱「母親」）,他們育有一名年僅十歲的女

兒。母親在香港任職家務助理已有一段時間,其工資一

直存入她的本港銀行戶口。她後來離世,當時她的戶口

結餘為28,000港元。

母親的死因是她返回菲律賓度假,但期間她與丈夫不幸

遭遇同一宗致命意外。

死者母親的胞妹（妻子下

稱「姨母」）亦在香港任

職家務助理。

母親及其丈夫均沒有訂立

遺囑。姨母的僱主對上述

事故表示同情,而姨母亦就

如何能提取上述的28,000

港元戶口結餘尋求其僱主

的意見,因為該筆款項將大

大協助兩名死者遺下的孤

兒渡過難關。

該名孤兒的父母離世後,她

的一名居於菲律賓的外祖


• March 2014

Estates of Foreign Domestic HelpersBy Melville Boase, Consultant Boase Cohens & Collins

There are many comments about domestic helpers and the problems they face in Hong Kong when they are alive.

However that is not all their difficulties. As a case that has recently come to my attention shows, a domestic helper’s family can face many problems if she/he dies leaving estate in Hong Kong.

Many domestic helpers open bank accounts here and have salary paid in. Few, if any, make a will, so they die intestate.

There was a married couple in the Philippines with a 10-year-old daughter, their only child. The mother had been working for some time in Hong Kong as a domestic helper and her salary was paid into her Hong Kong bank account. At the time of her death the balance in the account was HK$28,000.

The mother returned to Philippines on holiday when unfortunately both she and the child’s father were killed in the same accident.

The deceased mother’s sister was also a domestic helper in Hong Kong (the “Aunt”).

Neither of the deceased parents left a will. The Aunt sought advice from her sympathetic employer as to how to access the HK$28,000 in the bank account, as this would be very useful indeed for the welfare of the orphaned child at this tragic time.

With the death of the parents, the child’s maternal grandmother in the Philippines became the guardian. She gave a Power of Attorney (“POA”) to the Aunt.

The Aunt went to the bank, which confirmed that there was indeed an account in the deceased mother’s name with HK$28,000 in it. The bank advised her to approach the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”). She did so.

The HAD asked for the death certificate and the POA. When these were produced, HAD then said they could not help, and directed the Aunt to the Probate Registry.

March 2014 • LETTER TO HONG KONG LAWYER 給《香港律師》的信

母成為她的監護人。該名外祖母簽立一份授權書,把相

關權力授予姨母。

姨母前往上述戶口所屬銀行。該銀行確認確有一個以

死者母親名義開設的戶口,當中亦確有28,000港元的

結餘。姨母遵照該銀行所提供的意見,與民政事務總

署聯絡。

民政事務總署要求姨母出示母親的死亡證明書及上述

授權書。姨母應要求出示該等文件,但民政事務總署繼

而表示無法協助姨母,並指示她與遺產承辦處聯絡。

遺產承辦處認為事件複雜,因此建議姨母徵求律師的

意見。她亦獲告知,遺產管理官可協助處理金額最高為

150,000港元的遺產,而民政事務局可協助處理金額最

高為50,000港元的遺產,但這兩項服務均不適用於本個

案,因為本個案被指涉及複雜的法律問題,例如死者於去

世時以香港境外地方為其居籍。

姨母被要求提交一份由死者的原居國家內的律師簽立

的誓章,以解釋在當地誰人有權管理死者的遺產。

雖然上述兩名死者的唯一女兒是死者遺產的唯一受益

人,但姨母獲告知,遺產承辦處要求姨母提供證據以證明

較早離世的是父親還是母親。此外, 雖然該兩名死者一

直只有一名子女,但遺產承辦處要求姨母提供關於該兩

名死者的任何其他親人的資料。

由於上述兩名死者遺下的孤兒年僅十歲,因此有需要根

據《無爭議遺囑認證規則》委任一名監護人,並且有需

要考慮應否根據《遺囑認證及遺產管理條例》（第10

章）第36條提出申請。此外,亦有需要出示已離世父母

的經認證死亡證明書以及該名孩子的經認證出生證明

書。

令事情更形複雜的包括：假如要獲授予遺產管理書,則

需要有至少兩名香港居民出任擔保人；而相關款項將

要撥入信託,直至該名孩子年滿21歲為止。

上述個案只涉及為一名遺孤提供一筆有限的款項,本應

相當簡單,但所需程序竟然如此繁複,姨母及其僱主對此

均深感驚訝。

我們都明白,假如遺產涉及巨額金錢,則在處理遺產管理

事宜時,固然必須採取按部就班、有條不紊的做法。

然而,就諸如上述個案的情況而言,定必能設立機制,使

死者遺產的受益人和管理人可更容易地得取死者的

積蓄。


At the Registry she was advised to consult a solicitor as the matter was complicated.

She was informed too that the Official Administrator could deal with an estate of up to HK$150,000 and the Home Affairs Bureau could deal with an estate of up to HK$50,000. However, neither of these facilities was available in cases such as this one, since it is said to involve complicated issues of law such as the deceased having died domiciled outside of Hong Kong.

An affidavit was required from a lawyer in the deceased’s home country as to who was entitled to administer the estate of the deceased there.

Despite the sole beneficiary being the only child of the deceased couple, the Aunt was informed that the Probate Registry would require evidence of which parent had died first, mother or father. They would also require information concerning any other relatives of the deceased couple, although there is only ever one child of the family.

As the orphan was only a 10 year old, a guardian would have to be appointed under the Non-Contentious Probate Rules and also consideration will have to be given as to whether an application should be made under Section 36 of the Probate and the Administration Ordinance (Cap. 10). Authenticated death certificates of both parents and an authenticated marriage certificate together with the authenticated birth certificate of the child would also be required.

Further complications included the need for at least two Hong Kong residents to act as sureties if Letters of Administration were to be granted. Further, the funds would be put in a trust until the child reaches the age of 21.

The Aunt and her employer were amazed at the complexity of this process for what should be a simple matter of a small amount of money for an orphaned child.

One appreciates that where there is an estate with a substantial amount of money involved, there must be an ordered and structured approach to dealing with administration issues.

However, in a case such as this, surely a system could be devised to make a deceased worker’s savings more easily available.

Amendments to the Overseas Lawyers(Qualification for Admission) RulesThe Overseas Lawyers Qualification Examination (the “Examination”) offers an overseas qualified lawyer a means to gain admission as a Hong Kong solicitor.

The Examination is held annually, generally in November and December. It comprises four written Heads: (Head I) Conveyancing; (Head II) Civil and Criminal Procedure, (Head III) Commercial and Company Law; and (Head IV) Accounts and Professional Conduct. For candidates qualified in non-common law jurisdictions, they have to pass an oral examination on Principles of Common Law (Head V) as well.

A candidate is taken to have passed the Examination only if he or she has passed all the Heads that he or she is required to sit. A candidate may apply for exemption from sitting all or part of the Examination. There is a pre-requisite of five years’ experience in the practice of law before an applicant can apply for exemption from sitting a written Head.

The Examination is conducted on the basis of and is governed by the Overseas Lawyers (Qualification for Admission) Rules (the “OLQE Rules”).

As a result of a comprehensive review conducted on the Examination some time ago, certain amendments were proposed to the OLQE Rules.

(a) To become a solicitor in Hong Kong, a person should also be required to have an understanding of the Basic Law. It is not uncommon that in overseas jurisdictions, foreign lawyers seeking admission in those jurisdictions are tested on the constitutional law of the jurisdiction before they are admitted. Rule 7 of the OLQE Rules has therefore been amended to include “Hong Kong Constitutional Law” as an additional written Head of Examination.

(b) Most overseas lawyers are qualified in a number of jurisdictions. In calculating the five (5) years of experience in an application for exemption under Rule 4(1) of the OLQE Rules, the experience in the practice of law in all the common-law jurisdictions in which the common law applicants were qualified to practise should be counted.

(c) Similarly, the experience in the practice of law in all the non-common law jurisdictions in which the non-common law applicants were qualified to practise should also be counted for the purpose

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

秘書長朱潔冰律師

《海外律師(認許資格)規則》的修訂

海外律師資格考試(下稱「資格考試」)為已在海外取得

資格的律師提供一個獲認許為香港律師的渠道。

資格考試每年舉行一次，一般安排在11月和12月進行。

當中包括以下四個筆試科目：(卷一)物業轉易、(卷二)民

事及刑事法律訴訟程序、(卷三)商業及公司法，及(卷四)

帳目及專業操守。對於已在非普通法司法管轄區取得律

師資格的考生，他們亦須在以口試形式進行的「普通法

原則」(卷五)中考取合格。

考生須在所有其需要應考的科目中考取合格，才會被

視為通過資格考試。考生可申請豁免應考資格考試的

全部或部分科目。但要申請豁免應考任何筆試科目，

有一個先決條件，就是申請人須具備五年從事法律執

業的經驗。

資格考試根據《海外律師(認許資格)規則》(下稱「《規

則》)進行，並受其所規管。

早前對資格考試進行的全面檢討，建議對《規則》作出

以下修訂：

(a) 要成為香港律師，有關人士須對《基本法》有所認

識。這做法在海外司法管轄區並不鮮見，申請在該

等司法管轄區獲認許的外地律師，必須接受有關司

法管轄區的憲法考試，方可獲認許。因此，《規

則》第7條已作修訂，將「香港憲法」這額外的筆試

科目包括在內。

(b) 大部分海外律師擁有多個司法管轄區的律師資格。

就根據《規則》第4(1)條提出的豁免申請計算有關五

年經驗的規定時，普通法申請人在所有取得執業資

格的普通法司法管轄區所獲得的法律執業經驗應計

算在內。

(c) 同樣地，就根據《規則》第5(1)條提出的豁免申請計

算有關五年經驗的規定時，非普通法申請人在所有


• March 2014

March 2014 • FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

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

業界最新統計資料

律師會會員不時要求秘書處提供與業界有關的統計資料。

下列是一些最新的業界統計數字(截至2014年1月底)：

Members (with or without practising certificate) 8,969Members with practising certificate 7,776Trainee Solicitors 957Registered foreign lawyers 1,428Hong Kong law firms 818Registered foreign law firms 72Civil Celebrants 1,908Reverse Mortgage Counsellors 353Solicitor Advocates 14

會員(持有或不持有執業證書) 8,969

持有執業證書的會員 7,776

實習律師 957

註冊外地律師 1,428

香港律師行 818

註冊外地律師行 72

婚姻監禮人 1,908

安老按揭輔導法律顧問 353

訟辯律師 14

of the five (5) years of experience in an application for exemption under Rule 5(1) of the OLQE Rules.

(d) Most jurisdictions provide for a period of practical legal training in lieu of traineeship as a requirement for admission. Rule 4(2)(b) of the OLQE Rules have been amended to clarify that the practical legal training which satisfied the admission criteria in an applicant’s jurisdiction of admission can be recognised by the Society as experience in the practice of law for the purpose of the Examination. The period of pupillage however cannot be recognised as post-admission experience to satisfy the eligibility criteria to sit the Examination.

(e) A prerequisite requirement for non-common law applicants is that they must have completed a one-year full time study of Contract, Tort, Property, Criminal Law, Equity, Constitutional and Administrative Law. Rule 5(2) has been amended to extend recognition to similar studies on a part-time basis.

(f) Some applicants are admitted in more than one jurisdiction. Currently, the jurisdiction in which an applicant was first admitted would be taken as his jurisdiction of admission for the purposes of the OLQE Rules. If an applicant was first admitted in a non-common law jurisdiction, he would be treated as a non-common law applicant unless he has been admitted in another jurisdiction for more than three (3) years and he has chosen that as his jurisdiction of admission. Rule 8 has been amended to enable an applicant who has been admitted in more than one jurisdiction to elect any one of those jurisdictions as his jurisdiction of admission.

The Chief Justice granted his final approval of the proposed amendments to the OLQE Rules in October 2013.

The proposed amendments have been incorporated into the Overseas Lawyers (Qualification For Admission) (Amendment) Rules 2014 (the “Amendment Rules”). The Amendment Rules were approved by the Council in January 2014 and steps are being taken to prepare for the gazettal of the Amendment Rules. After the Amendment Rules are gazetted, they will be tabled before the Legislative Council for negative vetting. It is anticipated that the Amendment Rules may come into operation by the 2015 Examination.

取得執業資格的非普通法司法管轄區所獲得的法律執

業經驗亦應計算在內。

(d) 大多數司法管轄區允許以為期若干時期的法律實務培

訓代替實習作為認許的必要條件。《規則》第4(2)(b)

條已作出修訂，闡明若申請人接受的法律實務培訓符

合其司法管轄區的認許準則，則就資格考試的目的而

言，該培訓可獲律師會承認為法律執業經驗。然而，

實習大律師的實習期並不會獲承認為符合申請參加資

格考試的條件中所指的獲認許後經驗。

(e) 非普通法申請人須符合一個先決條件，就是他們必須

已完成為期一年涵蓋合約法、侵權法、財產法、刑事

法、衡平法，以及憲制與行政法的全日制課程。第5(2)

條已作出修訂，擴展至以兼讀形式進行的同類課程。

(f) 有些申請人在多於一個司法管轄區獲認許。目前，就

《規則》的目的而言，申請人首次獲認許的司法管轄

區將被視為他獲認許的司法管轄區。如果申請人首次

獲認許的司法管轄區是非普通法司法管轄區，除非他

已在其他司法管轄區獲認許三年以上，並選擇該司法

管轄區作為其獲認許的司法管轄區，否則他將被視為

非普通法申請人。第8條已作出修訂，允許在多於一

個司法管轄區獲認許的申請人選擇當中任何一個司法

管轄區作為其獲認許的司法管轄區。

終審法院首席法官已於2013年10月就《規則》的建議修

訂作最終批准。

這些建議修訂已納入《2014年海外律師(認許資格)(修訂)

規則》(下稱「《修訂規則》」)。《修訂規則》在2014

年1月獲理事會通過，而有關方面正為《修訂規則》的刊

憲作準備。《修訂規則》刊憲後，將提交立法會進行先訂

立後審議的程序。我們預期《修訂規則》可於2015年的

資格考試舉行前生效。



• March 2014

BILLY MAFace to Face With.......

News of power and inheritance struggles involving high-profile individuals, like casino king Stanley Ho or the late billionaire NinaWang, never fails to draw public attention. This is probate law at arguably its most fascinating, though as practicing lawyers know, the area is much more than the semblance of a reality show.

Hong Kong Lawyer talks to Mr. Billy Ma Wah Yan, a leading member of the Law Society’s Probate Committee who has more than four decades of experience in this area, about this particular practice.

專訪

馬華潤律師資深遺囑認證執業者兼何柏生馬華潤律師行合夥人

Veteran Probate Practitioner and Partner, Hobson & Ma

By Carmen Chu

作者朱慧敏

March 2014 • COVER STORY 封面專題


❝ Bear in mind, when probate clients approach you for legal assistance, their families have already suffered a big loss. ❞



• March 2014

Through reporting by the media and courts, the public are arguably more informed

today about basic laws governing the administration and distribution of the wealth, due mainly to a slew of cases in recent years involving tycoons and their families. In addition, information as to the setting up of private and charitable trusts, and trust management, is also available to the public. This is especially beneficial to a public that has limited legal backgrounds and training, says Mr. Ma.

“Generally, everyone who is interested in these areas will benefit from all the reports in the public domain,” he tells Hong Kong Lawyer.

Over years of practice, he also noticed that the mindsets of the public and government have evolved where this issue is concerned.

“It used to be the case that the Chinese would avoid issues surrounding death. Such an attitude has changed over time.” he notes.

Thanks partly to heavy media reporting and television dramatisation, for one, executing a will to manage one’s assets is no longer regarded as taboo today.

The Hong Kong Probate Regime In Hong Kong, says Mr. Ma, the most relevant ordinances to probate law and practice are: the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap. 10) , Wills Ordinance (Cap. 30) and Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance (Cap. 481). If a child is involved, the Parent and Child Ordinance (Cap. 429) may also be relevant. The Probate Registry of the Hong Kong High Court remains the gatekeeper of applications for all kinds of Grant of Representation, which gives one the legal right to deal with the estate of the deceased.

“In Hong Kong, there is now concord on succession laws,” Mr. Ma says.

For example, before the abolition of estate duty in 2006, Estate Duty Clearance - obtained after the required duty had been paid in dutiable case or in exempted case - was needed before an application can be made for a Grant of Representation. With it gone, it now takes lesser time to complete a probate application.

Plus, with the benefit of the prescribed forms and the Guide to Non-Contentious Probate Practice issued by the Judiciary, non-contentious probate applications for the Grant of Representation are often straight forward. All these represent progress in probate practice, Mr. Ma notes.

However, probate cases remain “very challenging and complicated” partly because each one is markedly different.

“Since each application has its own family background and characteristics”, Mr Ma stresses, “it still takes some time to complete some probate applications”.

This varies from one case to another. A simple and straightforward case may take about two to three months on average, while a complicated one with complex estates will naturally take much longer, he says.

“There are still many complicated non-contentious probate applications and you may have to wait at least six weeks after lodging a response to the requisitions to complete the application.”

“Perhaps the judiciary should consider recruiting more probate officers or probate lawyers to improve the situation,” Mr. Ma mulls.

The issue of domicile has an important role to play in the probate applications regarding the devolution of the deceased assets, in particular to the movable assets. Probate applications

for the deceased died domiciled in Hong Kong are considerably simpler. Whenever an application involves foreign elements and aspects, the processes involved will be more difficult and complicated.

In an international city as Hong Kong, it is “not incomprehensible” to have the deceased died domiciled outside Hong Kong leaving assets in Hong Kong. Those applications, including the deceased died domiciled in Mainland China, are governed by Rule 29 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules (Cap. 10A). Under Rule 29, separate procedures and more documents are required in support of such applications.

While acknowledging Hong Kong as a good probate law regime, Mr Ma indicated his hope for “more simplification of the areas of the practice under Rule 29”.

The Practice of ProbateThe ultimate goal of probate applications is to enable the successor of the estates to unfreeze the assets as well as liabilities owned by the deceased, Mr. Ma says. Before making a probate application, he advises, a solicitors should first seek clear and accurate instructions from clients to ensure who are entitled to apply for the Grant of Representation and what exact documents are required in support of such applications. This is extremely crucial.

“You may also need to apply your common sense as to whether your client is the person entitled to the Grant (of Representation),” says Mr. Ma.

Homemade wills, drawn up without witnesses or with obliteration, interlineation or other alterations, are not uncommon. Wills which are unclear or fall short of formality usually end up with lengthy application or even litigation. Therefore, special attention



is also required where such homemade documents are concerned.

Due to the variety of assets and liabilities, inevitably, knowledge of different areas of laws is required for probate practice.

“Dealing with probate matters opens the doors to all kinds of legal practice,” Mr Ma adds.

Probate practice is simpler when only bank accounts and personal chattels are involved in the deceased estates. However, this is usually not the case

For example, where public stocks are concerned, “depending on the holding, you may end up to providing legal advice over the compliance of the securities laws and may involve in the take-over of the controlling interest of the deceased in public companies. These are all very interesting legal work,” Mr. Ma elaborates.

Or where real estate is involved, one will be dealing with “conveyancing works, including but not limited to sale, assenting of the properties to the beneficiaries and even re-development”, while dealing with overseas assets exposes one to succession laws in other jurisdictions, he adds.

“Of course, if you are involved in contentious matters, they will cover many many other areas,” Mr. Ma continues, enthusiasm for his work peeking through.

Such cases take varied forms in Hong Kong, he notes. If the deceased died testate domiciled in Hong Kong, given the application has to be based on a valid will, the validity issue of the will may arise, such as in the case of late tycoon Ms. Wang. Another example that Mr. Ma came across is where the original will was lost, and no consensus could be reached amongst the family members in admitting a copy of the lost will. Other contentious issues include the validity of marriage of the deceased,

the legal status of the children, ie. natural or/and lawful, and the testamentary capacity of the testator. These probate applications can hence be rather complicated and time consuming, though their intricacies can also mean an interesting in-depth look into a myriad of laws.

Current probate market Stressing that it takes more than a chat with Hong Kong Lawyer to explain fully the challenges of today’s probate practice, Mr. Ma nevertheless lets us in on some of his thoughts concerning the issue.

For instance, on a practical level, even with more lawyers choosing to specialise, many law firms, both big and small, are reluctant to take up probate practice, not only because this may not be as rewarding as other areas, but could also be unproportionately “risky and burdensome”, he says.

“Sadly, one of the big local firms recently closed its probate practice,” Mr. Ma observes.

A market is all about demand and supply and the probate market is of no exception. To improve the Hong Kong probate practice, issues at both ends have to be addressed, he adds.

On the demand side, simplifying the Grant of Representation further, regardless of whether the deceased died testate or intestate, and whether he/she was domiciled in Hong Kong, can lead to “more people willing to keep their personal wealth in Hong Kong”, thus increasing the demand for probate services.

Concurrently, the legal profession, ie. the supply side, can be exposed to even “more educative information as to how to take instructions and prepare a will”, which will also help minimise the risks of being challenged after the death of the testator, says Mr. Ma.

Speaking from his experience, even though probate practice remains “reasonably remunerated”, individuals who want to specialise in the area might do well not to look at it from a “marketability” standpoint but to treat it “as an interesting practice of multi-legal matters”.


• March 2014

Passion for probateFor Mr. Ma though, the practice of probate goes further than just legal work. He believes that the legal profession is about helping clients and making their lives easier since “losing a loved one understandably means going through some of the most difficult times in one’s life”.

“Bear in mind, when probate clients approach you for legal assistance, their families have already suffered a big loss,” Mr. Ma says.

When probate clients seek legal advice, they may well be puzzling about what needs to be done to the deceased’s frozen assets. Some of them may be desperate for immediate or prompt release of the assets to maintain their families’ livelihood. To these clients, “patience is key”.

For example, legislation empowers the Probate Registrar to make inquiries, and there is no greater frustration than receiving requisitions from the Registry repeatedly for each of the

applications, Mr. Ma says. To avoid desperation, probate practitioners should always ensure all applications are correctly prepared while making use of the opportunity to discuss the initial requisitions with the Probate Officer to find out exactly what the issue is.

“You need to provide comfort to clients before explaining all the rights and entitlements under the succession laws and advising them what needs to be done in order to secure the Grant of Representation,” Mr. Ma adds.

“It is also very important to let them know the legal costs and disbursements.”

All probate cases, Mr. Ma admits, contentious or non-contentious, are difficult in their complexities. What keeps him going, he says, is satisfaction through helping grieving families. By the same token, he also enjoys helping individuals plan their estates in advance so that they may avoid potential hassle down the road.

His most satisfying moment at work, he

says, is when he receives the fax of the notification from the Probate Registry to collect a Grant of Representation.

“Helping a family get the Grant (of Representation) is a very joyful achievement,” Mr. Ma adds.

In addition to the legal knowledge gained and improving his tactics in dealing with people, probate practice also brings him other benefits.

“In most cases, clients will treat you as a family friend and will continue to seek your assistance on their legal affairs.”

But to achieve this, Mr. Ma concludes, “whatever you do in probate practice, you must do it with a heart of love”, an attitude imparted to him by his late mentor Peter AL Vine. To this end, Mr. Ma will like to renew his hearfelt gratitude to Mr. Vine, a former President of the Law Society and a staunch advocate of the advance of legal education in Hong Kong (see Mr. Ma’s article “In Memoriam: Remembering Peter Alan Lee Vine (1921 – 2005)” in the May 2005 issue of Hong Kong Lawyer). n



❝我們必須謹記，當遺囑認證

的當事人向你尋求法律援助時，

他/她們的家庭正因失去了親人

而遭逢極大的傷痛。❞

涉及社會知名人士 (例如賭王何鴻燊先生及已故億萬富豪龔如心女士) 的權力及家

產爭奪新聞，從來都不乏人關注。可以說，這是遺囑認證法律的最吸引人之處。

然而，正如執業律師所了解的，真正的遺囑認證工作，遠不止我們在「真人秀節

目」中所見到的那樣。

《香港律師》就這一專門法律工作範疇，專訪了在這一領域有超過40年執業經驗

的香港律師會遺產事務委員會主要委員馬華潤律師。

由於近年屢有涉及富豪與其家族的

財產糾紛案件出現，而通過媒

體與法院的報導，公眾人士在今天對於

遺產管理及財富分配的基本法例已有更

多認識。此外，有關私人和慈善信託之

設立以及有關信託管理方面的資訊，公

眾人士在今天也不難取得。馬華潤律師

說，這對於並無充足法律背景及培訓的

公眾人士來說，尤其是一件好事。

他告訴《香港律師》﹕「一般而言，有

興趣認識這門專業的人士，都基於這些

公開報導而有所得益。

在這多年的執業中，馬華潤律師留意到社

會人士及政府對於涉及遺囑的事宜，在心

態上已有所改變。

他指出﹕「中國人對於談論死亡，向來都

有所忌諱。然而，這一態度已慢慢有所改

變。」

部分原因，是由於傳媒對這一話題的經常

報導，加上電視節目中的戲劇化情節，以

致人們今天已不再將遺囑執行及死者遺產

的管理，視為一種不可談論的禁忌。

香港的遺囑認證制度

馬華潤律師說，與遺囑認證的法律與實務

最具關係的香港法例為《遺囑認證及遺產

管理條例》(第10章)、《遺囑條例》 (第

30章) 及《財產繼承(供養遺屬及受養人)

條例》 (第 481章)。當中如涉及子女的

話，則《父母與子女條例》也是一項相關

的法例。香港高等法院遺產承辦處仍然是

各類「遺產承辦書」申請的把關人，而「

遺產承辦書」則授予人們法定權利辦理死

者的遺產。


• March 2014

馬華潤律師說﹕「香港的繼承法規現時是

和諧一致的。」

例如，在遺產稅於2006年廢除以前，人

們若要申請「遺產承辦書」，便必須先行

取得「結清遺產稅證明書」(在應課稅情

況下已繳納有關稅款及在獲得豁免繳納情

況下取得)。

馬華潤律師亦指出，由於司法機構發出了

指定的表格及《不具爭議性遺囑認證實務

指引》，因此現時對於不具爭議性遺囑認

證的「遺產承辦書」申請，其手續通常是

簡單直接。這種種情況均顯示，遺囑認證

工作正在不斷地發展。

然而，遺囑認證工作仍然存在「非常具挑

戰性及繁複」的地方﹔部分原因，是由於

每宗個案都有其顯著不同的地方。

馬華潤律師指出﹕「由於每一宗申請都涉

及家庭背景與特徵，因此有些遺囑認證申

請需要花較長時間處理。」

他指出這要視個別情況而定。一宗簡單

而直接的個案，平均大約只需要二至三

個月便可以完成處理﹔而一些涉及異常

複雜遺產的個案，則通常需要較長的時

間來處理。

此外，有許多複雜但不具爭議性的遺囑認

證申請，當我們就有關查詢作出了回應

後，也許需要等待至少6個星期，該項申

請才完成審批。

馬華潤律師稱﹕「司法機構也許應考慮增

聘更多遺囑認證人員或律師來改善有關服

務。」

關於死者遺產的轉予 (尤其是在動產) 方

面，居籍問題在遺囑認證申請中起非常重

要作用。當死者去世時，如果他是以香港

作為其居籍，則有關的遺囑認證申請便會

簡單直接很多。相反，如果該項申請涉及

外地元素或層面，則有關程序便會較為困

難和複雜。

在香港這個國際都市，一名死者去世時如

果是以香港以外的地方作為其居籍，並在

香港留下了財產，這情況「絕非難以理

解」。該等申請(包括當死者去世時，他

是以中國大陸作為其居籍) 將受《無爭議

遺囑認證規則》(第10A章)第29條所規

管。根據第29條的規定，有關申請需要

另行通過別的程序，而申請人需要提交更

多文件來支持其所提出的申請。

馬華潤律師承認香港雖然擁有良好的遺囑

認證法律制度，但他仍希望「根據第29

條之規定而進行的遺囑認證工作可以更為

簡化」。

遺囑認證工作

馬華潤律師說，遺囑認證申請之最終目

的，是要讓遺產繼承人得以將死者所擁

有的財產及債務解凍。他建議律師在提

出遺囑認證申請前，應首先尋求當事人

清晰而明確的指示，從而確定哪些人有

權申請「遺產承辦書」，以及需要提交

甚麼文件來支持有關申請。這些都是極

為重要的考慮因素。

馬華潤律師說﹕「在確定當事人是否符

合資格取得「遺產承辦書」時，我們需

要運用個人常識來作出判斷。

自製遺囑(即遺囑訂立時並無見證人在

旁，或是遺囑經過塗改、行間書寫、或

其他改動)的情況亦並非罕見。遺囑內

容不明確，或是不符合格式要求，往往

會導致申請時間被拖長，甚至會引起訴

訟。因此，人們在自行訂立遺囑時務須

格外審慎。

由於財產和債務形式有各種各樣，因此

從事遺囑認證工作，無可避免地需要具

備不同領域的法律知識。

馬華潤律師說﹕「從事遺囑認證工作，

讓你有機會在同一時間處理各類不同法

律實務。」

如果死者的遺產只涉及銀行賬戶和非土

地實產，那麼有關的遺囑認證工作便會

較為簡單容易。然而，很多時候情況並

非如此。

例如當涉及公眾股份的話，馬華潤律師

闡釋稱﹕「這視乎死者所持有的是甚麼股

份，而我們可能需要就證券法之規定向當

事人提供法律意見，並可能涉及對死者在

公眾公司之控股權益的接管。所有這些，

都是非常有趣的法律工作。」

又或是，死者的遺產倘涉及房地產，我們

便有需要處理「物業轉易工作，包括但

並不限於出售物業、允許將物業給予受益

人，甚至是將物業重新發展」﹔但當我們

需要處理海外的資產時，我們便需要考慮

其他司法管轄區的繼承法，他補充說。

馬華潤律師續稱﹕「當然，你所處理的假

如是具爭議性的事項，當中將會涉及許許

多多的不同範疇。」可以看出，他在流露

對自己工作的熱愛。

他同時指出，該等案件在香港可以藉各種

不同的方式出現。假如死者去世前已立下

遺囑，而他是以香港作為其居籍，那麼，

基於遺囑認證申請需要以有效的遺囑作為

依據，因此有可能會產生遺囑的有效性問

題，正如已故億萬富豪龔如心女士的情況

一般。馬華潤律師所接觸過的另一例子，

是原來的遺囑已遺失，但各家庭成員卻未

能就接納一份已遺失遺囑的複本達成一致

意見。其他具爭議性的事項包括﹕死者婚

姻的有效性、子女的法律地位(即是親生

或/及合法)，以及立遺囑人的訂立遺囑能

力等。所以，此類遺囑認證申請確是相當

繁複和耗費時間。但是，正由於它所具有

的複雜性，這意味律師將可以透過深入探

討各種不同的法律規定，從而感受當中的

無窮趣味。

現行的遺囑認證服務

儘管馬華潤律師強調在這次的《香港律

師》專訪中，他實在難以充分說明今天的

遺囑認證工作所面對的挑戰，但他還是表

達了他就該等問題的一些想法。

他說，例如在法律實務上，儘管正有

越來越多律師選擇投身於專門的法律工

作，但許多律師行，不論其規模大小，

卻不願意從事遺囑認證工作﹔而箇中原

Mr. Billy Ma moderating at a the seminar. 馬華潤律師在主持一研討會。



因，不單由於這方面的工作也許不如其

他一些法律工作那麼收入豐厚，更可能

由於它所涉及的「風險和繁複程度」，

是不成比例地偏高。

馬華潤律師說﹕「很可惜，最近便有一家

本地律師行結束了它的遺囑認證業務。」

他補充說，市場的運作就是供與求的關

係，而遺囑認證市場也不例外。要改善香

港的遺囑認證環境，我們需要同時在供與

求方面下功夫。

在需求方面，香港應進一步簡化「遺產承

辦書」的辦理手續，不論死者是否曾立下

遺囑，亦不論他是否以香港作為居籍。如

此，將可吸引「更多人願意將其個人財富

存放於香港」，從而增加對遺囑認證服務

的需求。

馬華潤律師說，與此同時，法律專業(即

供應方)應涉獵「更多如何聽取當事人的

指示及如何製備遺囑等方面的資料」，這

可有助將立遺囑人過身後，所可能面對的

挑戰風險降至最低。

根據馬華潤律師的經驗，儘管遺囑認證工

作的「報酬處於合理水平」，但有意在這

個專業範疇發展的律師，不應從「銷路」

的角度來看這一門專業，而是應將它視作

「趣味性極濃，並且涉及各個不同法律範

疇的專業」。

對遺囑認證工作的熱愛

對於馬華潤律師來說，遺囑認證實務並非

單單是法律工作。他深信，法律專業是要

協助當事人解決問題，使他/她們得以安

心，因為「我們可以想像，一個人失去了

至親，這是他/她一生中所經歷的最痛苦

時刻」。

馬華潤律師說﹕「我們必須謹記，當遺囑

認證的當事人向你尋求法律援助時，他/

她們的家庭正因失去了親人而遭逢極大的

傷痛。」

遺囑認證的當事人在尋求法律意見那一

刻，他們可能正為應當如何處理死者被凍

結的資產而感到徬徨。當中有些人可能會

十分焦慮，希望財產能獲得即時或迅速解

凍，以濟他/她們生活上的燃眉之急。對

於這些當事人，「與他/她們相處的訣竅

就是要包容」。

馬華潤律師稱，舉例說，法例賦權遺產承

辦處就遺囑認證申請作出查詢，但沒有令

人感到更沮喪的情況是，每當提交了申請

後，便不斷接獲來自該處的查詢。要避免

此等令人沮喪的情形發生，處理遺囑認證

工作的律師應當時常確保所有的申請都已

正確辦妥，並把握機會在最初提出的查詢

中，與遺產承辦處的人員進行溝通，從而

確切了解問題的所在。

馬華潤律師續稱﹕「在向當事人解釋所

有在繼承法下的權利及享有權，以及告

知他們需要辦理甚麼手續以取得「遺產

承辦書」之前，我們首要做的事情是安

慰當事人。」

讓他們得知相關的法律費用及代墊付費

用，也是十分重要的一點。

馬華潤律師承認，所有的遺囑認證個

案，不論是具爭議性或是不具爭議性

的，都是相當繁複和困難。但他說，令

他繼續堅守著這個專業崗位的，是他為

不幸家庭提供幫助後所獲得的一份滿足

感。出於同樣原因，他也很樂意協助其

他人預先為自己的財產作安排，以避免

將來可能產生的煩擾。

他說，工作中令他最感興奮的一刻，就是

接到遺產承辦處的傳真，通知他收取「遺

產承辦書」的時候。

他說﹕「協助一個家庭取得「遺產承辦

書」，是最值得高興的成就。」

遺囑認證工作除了令他能吸收法律知識和

增進與人相處的技巧外，也帶給他許多其

他方面的好處。

在大多數個案中，當事人都會將你當作是

他家中的好友，而在其他法律事情上，他

們也樂於找你幫忙。

然而，要做到這一點，馬華潤律師在總

結時說﹕「無論我們處理怎麼樣的遺囑

認證工作，都必須以真誠和愛來對待當

事人。」馬華潤律師的這種誠懇態度，

是源自他的恩師—已故的Mr. Peter AL

Vine的教導。Mr. Peter AL Vine是香港

律師會的前會長，也是香港法律教育

發展的堅定倡導者(參見馬華潤律師在

2005年5月號《香港律師》所發表的一

篇名為“In Memoriam: Remembering

Peter Alan Lee Vine (1921 – 2005) ”

的文章。) n

LAW SOCIETY NEWS律師會新聞


• March 2014

2014法律年度開啟典禮法律年度開啟典禮是法律界的盛事，海外及內地的法律

界領袖藉此聚首一堂，就業界在世界各地的最新發展交

流意見，及增進彼此關係。

2014年法律年度開啟典禮於1月13日舉行。律師會有幸

款待40名海外及內地的法律界領袖和代表。一如過往，

律師會為各地代表訪港期間安排了一系列行程。

Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2014A significant event in the legal field, the annual Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year is an occasion where overseas and PRC bar leaders meet to exchange views on the latest development of the profession around the world and to foster relationships.

The Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2014 was held on 13 January. The Law Society was honoured to host 40 overseas and PRC bar leaders and legal representatives. As in previous years, the Law Society arranged a hospitality programme for the chief delegates during their stay in Hong Kong.

Visit to the Legislative CouncilThe programme kicked off with a visit to the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) where its President, Mr. Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, greeted the delegates and explained the functions and formation of LegCo, Hong Kong’s electoral system and how a bill is introduced and passed by LegCo. This was followed by a guided tour of the LegCo Complex.

參觀立法會首項行程是參觀立法會。立法會主席曾鈺成先生接見各代表，並向他們介紹立法會的職能和產生辦法、

香港的選舉制度，及如何提出及通過一項法案。各代表接著以導賞形式參觀立法會綜合大樓。

Visit to the Law Reform CommissionThe overseas delegates also met with Mr. Stephen K Y Wong, the Secretary of the Law Reform Commission (the “Commission”), following the LegCo visit. The delegates expressed keen interest in the work of the Commission, especially on proposed reforms to various legislations.

到訪法律改革委員會參觀立法會後，一眾海外代表與法律改革委員會(下稱「法改

會」)秘書長黃繼兒律師會面。各人對法改會的工作非常感興

趣，尤其是法改會就各項法例提出的改革建議。

At the LegCo Complex.各代表在立法會綜合大樓留影。

LegCo President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing (right) receiving a souvenir from Mr. Stephen L Dreyfuss, President of the Union Internationale Des Avocats.

立法會主席曾鈺成先生（右）接受國際律

師聯盟主席Stephen L Dreyfuss律師致

送紀念品。

Meeting with the Secretary of the Law Reform Commission Stephen KY Wong (seated, third from left).

各代表與法律改革委員會秘書長黃繼兒律師（前排左三）會面。


March 2014 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

Presidents’ RoundtableChaired by the President of the Law Society of Hong Kong, Ambrose Lam, the Presidents’ Roundtable took place after the luncheon jointly hosted by the HKLS and the Hong Kong Bar Association (“HKBA”) at the Hong Kong Club. Chief delegates were invited to share their opinions on the topics “From Collaboration to Strength” and “Strengthening the Future Pillars of our Profession”. Overseas and PRC legal professionals also introduced their activities, shared thoughts and generated ideas on the topics concerned.

會長圓桌會議由香港律師會及香港大律師公會聯合舉辦的午宴於香港會舉行，之

後由香港律師會會長林新強律師主持的圓桌會議正式展開。與會代

表獲邀就「從合作到優勢」及「鞏固業界未來棟樑」這兩個課題分

享灼見。會長圓桌會議亦讓海外及內地法律界同業有機會就相關課

題介紹他們的活動、交流意見，並構思新意念。

More than 30 chief delegates attending the Presidents’ Roundtable.超過30名各地代表出席會長圓桌會議。

President Ambrose Lam delivering a welcoming speech at the luncheon jointly hosted by the Law Society of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Bar Association.

會長林新強律師於由

律師會及香港大律師

公會合辦的午宴上致

歡迎辭。

President Ambrose Lam and Secretary General Heidi Chu at the Presidents’ Roundtable.會長林新強律師主持圓桌會議，旁為秘書長朱潔冰律師。

Participants at the Presidents’ Roundtable.

參加者在圓桌會議活動上交流。

President Ambrose Lam addressing the audience at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year.

會長林新強律師在開啟典禮上致辭。

President Ambrose Lam at the Ceremonial Opening of Legal Year 2014.

會長林新強律師出席2014年法律年度開啟典禮。

Opening CeremonyThe highlight was surely the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2014 at City Hall, which attracted hundreds of legal practitioners to celebrate the beginning of a new legal year. Speeches were delivered by the Chief Justice, the Secretary for Justice, the President of the Law Society of Hong Kong and the Chairman of the HKBA. Following the ceremony was a cocktail reception hosted by the Judiciary, where attendees could mingle and continue with the festivities.

開啟典禮行程的焦點是假香港大會堂舉行的開啟典禮。

這項盛事吸引了數百名法律界人士參加，一同

慶祝新一屆法律年度正式展開。終審法院首席

法官、律政司司長、香港律師會會長及香港大

律師公會主席均有在典禮上發表演說。典禮結

束後，司法機構舉行慶祝酒會，讓一眾出席者

聯誼交流。

By the courtesy of the Information Services Department of the Hong Kong SAR Government鳴謝香港政府新聞處提供相片


• March 2014

President Ambrose Lam (left); Mr. Michael Colbran, President of the Law Council of Australia (middle); and Mr. Paul Shieh, Chairman of the HKBA.

會長林新強律師、澳洲法律協會會長Michael

Colbran先生及香港大律師公會主席石永泰資

深大律師。

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma (front row, middle), Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen (front row, fifth from right), President Ambrose Lam (front row, fifth from left) and participants of the Korean Internship Programme.

終審法院首席法官馬道立法官、律政司司長袁國強資深大律師、會長林新強律師及韓國實習計劃的參加者在晚宴上合照。

Leaders of the legal profession from various parts of the world.

來自世界各地的法律界領袖出席交流晚宴。

Dinner ReceptionThe day concluded with a dinner reception jointly hosted by the Law Society of Hong Kong and HKBA. A group of Korean law students who were in Hong Kong for an internship programme was also invited to partake in dinner and mingle with overseas guests and members of the Law Society Council.

Guests were also treated to a performance of the ancient Chinese art of “mask-changing”, no doubt one of many highlights of the night. Towards the end of the reception, the President of the Law Society of Hong Kong and Chairman of the HKBA presented souvenirs to overseas and PRC representatives as a show of appreciation for their presence in Hong Kong, which no doubt lent stature to the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2014.

It was a privilege for the Law Society to have assisted the Judiciary in coordinating the participation of all overseas and PRC bar leaders on this occasion. We would further like to express our appreciation to Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma and the Secretary for Justice, Rimsky Yuen SC, who so graciously attended the dinner reception.

交流晚宴

是日行程以香港律師會和大律師公會聯合

主辦的晚宴作結。香港律師會亦邀請了一

班來港參加律師行實習計劃的韓國法律系

學生參加晚宴，與各地嘉賓及律師會理事

歡聚交流。各嘉賓亦欣賞到中國傳統藝

術表演「變臉」，這環節無疑成為當晚

的眾多亮點之一。在晚宴尾聲，香港律師

會會長和大律師公會主席向海外及內地的

代表致送紀念品，答謝他們撥冗來港，令

2014年法律年度開啟典禮蓬蓽生輝。

為司法機構出一分力，款待所有參與是次

盛會的海外及內地法律界領袖，實屬香港

律師會的榮幸。我們亦非常感謝終審法院

首席法官馬道立法官及律政司司長袁國強

資深大律師賞光出席晚宴。

Chief delegates from Greater China.

大中華地區的代表參加交流晚宴。



Visit by PRC Senior JudgesOn 16 January, a group of 31 senior PRC judges participating in the 8th Advanced Programme for Chinese Senior Judges at the School of Law of the City University of Hong Kong (“CityU”) visited the Law Society.

Law Society Vice President Thomas So, Council Member Sylvia Siu together with Ms. Elsie Leung, Member of the Greater China Legal Affairs Committee (“GCLAC”), met with the visitors and provided them with an overview of the local law and mediation services in Hong Kong. They also discussed mutual legal assistance between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

A seminar on Chinese Law Reform was also held later that day, where three of the senior PRC judges were invited to be the speakers to share valuable experience. Mr. James Wong, Vice Chairman of the

Representatives of the Law Society with delegates from CityU’s Advanced Programme for Chinese Senior Judges.香港律師會代表與中國高級法官研修班代表團成員合照。

Standing (from left): Mr. Ip Shing Hing, Member, GCLAC; Ms. Heidi Chu, Secretary General; Ms. Alexandra Lo, Member, GCLAC; and Mr. James Wong, Vice Chairman, GCLAC.Seated (from left): Mr. Amirali Nasir, Council Member; Mr. Wang Shengming, Vice Chairman, Internal and Judicial Affairs Committee, NPC; Law Society President Ambrose Lam; and Mr. Chen Limin, Deputy Director of the General Office, Internal and Judicial Affairs Committee, NPC.

後排左起：大中華法律事務委員會成員葉成慶律師、秘書長朱潔冰律師、大中華法律

事務委員會成員羅德慧律師及大中華法律事務委員會副主席黃江天律師。

前排左起：律師會理事黎雅明律師、全國人大內務司法委員會副主任王勝明先生、律

師會會長林新強律師及全國人大內務司法委員會辦公室副主任陳立民先生。

From left: Ms. Liao Ying, Associate Dean of Tsinghua Law School; Ms. Teresa Cheng SC, Director of International Arbitration and Dispute Settlement Course (“IADS“), Tsinghua Law School; Past President Huen Wong; and Secretary General Heidi Chu.左起：清華大學法學院副書記廖瑩女士、清華大學法學院國際仲裁與爭端解决項目主任鄭若驊資深大律師、前會長王桂壎律師及秘書長朱潔冰律師。

GCLAC, along with Professor Wang Guiguo, Director of Centre for Judicial Education and Research, CityU, moderated the event.

中國高級法官研修班到訪問律師會1月16日，31名參加了香港城市大學(下

稱「城大」)法律學院「第八期中國高級

法官研修班」的中國高級法官到訪律師

會。律師會副會長蘇紹聰律師、理事蕭詠

儀律師及大中華法律事務委員會成員梁愛

詩律師參與會面，並向訪客介紹香港的法

律及調解服務概況，以及中港兩地的司法

協助規則。

同日稍後時間更舉行了「中國司法改革

研討會」，並邀請了三名高級法官擔任

講者，分享寶貴意見。大中華法律事務

委員會副主席黃江天律師及城大司法教

育與研究中心主任王貴國教授則擔任研

討會主持人。

Visit by Tsinghua LLM StudentsOn 20 January, a group of 17 LLM students of the International Arbitration and Dispute Settlement Course at the Tsinghua University School of Law visited the Law Society. They were received by Law Society Past President Huen Wong - an arbitration specialist - and Secretary General Heidi Chu, who provided them with an overview of the Law Society and

the development of Hong Kong's legal profession.

清華大學法學碩士生到訪律師會

17名就讀於清華大學法學院國際仲裁

與爭端解决項目的碩士生，於1月20

日到訪律師會，由律師會前會長王桂

壎律師及秘書長朱潔冰律師接待，並

向他們簡介律師會及香港法律業界發

展的概況。

PRC VisitorsOn 24 January, Mr. Wang Shengming, Vice Chairman, along with Mr. Chen Limin, Deputy Director of the General Office, both from the Internal and Judicial Affairs Committee of the PRC's National People’s Congress (“NPC”), visited the Law Society.

Law Society President Ambrose Lam, along with Council Member Amirali Nasir; GCLAC Vice-Chairman James Wong and GCLAC members Ip Shing Hing and Alexandra Lo, attended the meeting and introduced, among other things, the structure, functions and operation of the Law Society.

全國人大內務司法委員會到訪律師會

全國人大內務司法委員會副

主任王勝明先生及辦公室副

主任陳立民先生於1月24日

到訪律師會。律師會會長林

新强律師、理事黎雅明律

師，以及大中華法律事務委

員會副主席黃江天律師、委

員葉成慶律師及委員羅德慧

律師出席會面，並簡介香港

律師會的組織架構、功能、

運作等。

Past President Huen Wong (left) and Council Member Melissa Pang with Mr. Jasper Tsang, President of the Legislative Council.

前會長王桂壎律師（左）、理事彭韻僖律師與立法會主席曾鈺成先生

合照。

President Ambrose Lam (right) with Mr. Allan Chiang, Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data.

會長林新強律師（右）與個人資料私隱專員蔣任宏先生交流。


• March 2014

Members’ forum on common entrance examinationPresident Ambrose Lam (middle); Vice President and Chairman of the Working Party on the Common Entrance Examination Stephen Hung (left); and Immediate Past President Dieter Yih, spoke at the Members’ Forum on the Common Entrance Examination (the “Forum”) on 28 January.

The speakers explained the Law Society’s rationale behind the consultation and discussed various issues raised in the consultation document. Over 130 practitioners attended the Forum.

Spring Reception 2014Over 200 guests and members attended the Law Society’s Annual Spring Reception to celebrate the new Lunar Year of the Horse on 11 February. The Law Society was very much honoured by the company of distinguished guests including Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen SC; Secretary for

Taiwan VisitorsOn 24 January, a delegation from the Ministry of Justice of Taiwan led by Ms. Tsai Pi Yu, Administrative Deputy Minister, and Ms. Chen Wei Chi, Director General, Department of International and Cross-Strait Legal Affairs, visited the Law Society.

Law Society President Ambrose Lam, Vice President Thomas So, Council Members Sylvia Siu and Kenneth Ng, and Mr. Wilfred Tsui, Vice Chairman of the Law Society's Greater China Legal Affairs Committee, met with the delegation members. A wide

Ms. Tsai Pi Yu, Administrative Deputy Minister, Ministry of Justice, Taiwan presenting a souvenir to Law Society President Ambrose Lam.

台北法務部蔡碧玉常務次長致送紀念品予香港律師會。

President Ambrose Lam extending his warmest New Year wishes to all guests.

會長林新強律師向各來賓致新年賀詞。

range of topics was discussed at the meeting, including the opening of the legal services market of Taiwan to the Hong Kong legal profession.

台北法務部到訪律師會台北法務部代表團在蔡碧玉常務次長及國際

及兩岸司陳文琪司長率領下，於1月24日到訪

律師會。律師會會長林新强律師、副會長蘇

紹聰律師、理事蕭詠儀律師、理事伍成業律

師、大中華法律事務委員會副主席徐奇鵬律

師參與了會面。雙方就多項議題進行討論，

包括開放台灣的法律業務市場予香港法律界。

甲午年新春酒會2月11日，超過200位嘉賓和會員出席律

師會的年度新春酒會，慶祝馬年的來臨。

我們非常榮幸邀得多位嘉賓撥冗出席，包

括律政司司長袁國強資深大律師、教育

局局長吳克儉先生、立法會主席曾鈺成先

生、立法會法律界功能組別議員郭榮鏗先

生，以及個人資料私隱專員蔣任宏先生。

Education Eddie Ng; President of the Legislative Council Jasper Tsang; Mr. Dennis Kwok, Legislative Councillor representing the Legal Functional Constituency; and Mr. Allan Chiang, Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data.

委員於律師資格統一執業試工作小組論壇會長林新強律師（中）、副會

長兼律師資格統一執業試工作

小組主席熊運信律師（左）及

前任會長葉禮德律師為1月28

日舉行的「律師資格統一執業

試會員論壇」(下稱「論壇」)

擔任演講嘉賓。他們在論壇上

解釋律師會進行諮詢的背後理

念，並討論諮詢文件提出的各

項議題。超過130名執業者出

席論壇。

Secretary General Heidi Chu with Mr. Eddie Ng (left), Secretary for Education, and Mr. Cho Yong Chun, Consul General of the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea.

秘書長朱潔冰律師、教育局局長吳克儉先生（左）

與韓國駐港總領事趙鏞天先生合照。



Front row (from left): Council Member Cecilia Wong, Past President Huen Wong, Immediate Past President Dieter Yih, Vice President Stephen Hung, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen, President Ambrose Lam, Vice President Thomas So, Past President Junius Ho, Secretary General Heidi Chu and Deputy Secretary General Christine Chu.Back row (from left): Council Members Charles Chau, Amirali Nasir, Kenneth Ng, Joseph Li, Angela Lee; Past President Michael Lintern-Smith; and Council Member Melissa Pang.

前排（左起）：理事黃吳潔華律師、前會長王桂壎律師、前任會長葉禮德律師、副會長熊運信律師、律政司司長袁國強先生、會長林新強律師、副

會長蘇紹聰律師、前會長何君堯律師、秘書長朱潔冰律師及副秘書長朱穎雪律師。

後排（左起）：理事周致聰律師、理事黎雅明律師、理事伍成業律師、理事李超華律師、理事李慧賢律師、前會長史密夫律師及理事彭韻僖律師。

International Bar Association Annual Conference Boston 2013 I was honoured to attend the International Bar Association Annual Conference 2013 (“IBA 2013”) as a National Representative of the IBA’s Young Lawyers’ Committee.

The delegation from the Law Society also included President Ambrose Lam, Secretary General Heidi Chu, Council members Denis Brock and Michael Lintern-Smith, and two other young lawyers Ms. Jessy Cheung and Ms. Grace Cheng, who were sponsored by the Law Society. Being a repeat participant at an IBA annual conference, I was once more reminded of how useful the event is in terms of providing delegates with the latest in global legal developments, as well as a stellar network of international contacts.

This year, as always, the conference kicked off strongly with former US Secretary of State Madeleine K Albright - the first female in the role - delivering the keynote speech at the opening ceremony. Her impressive vision on human rights set a high note for the rest of the week-long event with over 70 IBA specialist committees packing each day with top-notch programmes.

I found the young lawyers’ programmes to be exceptionally fruitful partly as it allowed me to meet counterparts from

around the world. These programmes were also easy to digest since topics were tailored to suit the needs of young lawyers, such as career advice.

The next IBA annual conference will be held in Tokyo from 19-24 October this year. For all young lawyers out there, do watch this space for news of the Law Society’s young lawyer sponsorship scheme; I strongly recommend that you apply and benefit from the exposure like I have.

Nadine Lai Member, Young Solicitors’ Group

國際律師協會波士頓周年大會2013 本人非常榮幸能夠以國際律師協會年青律

師委員會國家代表的身份，參加2013年

國際律師協會的周年大會。律師會的代表

團成員還有會長林新強律師、秘書長朱潔

冰律師、理事白樂德律師、理事史密夫律

師，以及另外兩名由律師會贊助出席的年

青律師張倩彤律師及鄭子欣律師。這是我

第二度參加國際律師協會的周年大會，讓

我再次體會到大會何等有用，不但讓與會

者獲得全球法律發展的最新資訊，更可建

立巨大的國際人際網絡。

一如既往，本年大會由美國史上首位女國

務卿奧爾布賴特的主題演說揭開序幕。她

在演說中就人權提出的獨特見解，令人印

象非常深刻。接下來一周的議程亦相當精

彩，國際律師協會的70多個專家委員會，

為與會者安排了一連串頂尖級會議，每天

均緊湊非常。

當中有關年青律師的研討會尤令我獲益

匪淺，讓我有機會認識世界各地的年青

律師。這類研討會的主題特別為年青律

師的需要而設，如職業諮詢等，因此較

簡單易明。

下屆國際律師協會周年大會將於本年10月

19日至24日在東京舉行。如欲得知律師

會年青律師贊助計劃的最新消息，請留意

本欄公布。筆者極力推薦各年青律師申請

有關贊助，開拓國際視野。

黎蒑律師年青律師組成員


• March 2014

Congratulations to the Winners of the 2013 Law Society Annual Golf Tournament More than 60 members of the Law Society Golf Team joined in “The Law Society Golf Team – 2013 Annual Award of Presentations” on 9 January, which was also attended by guests including President Ambrose Lam; Former Justice David Yam; Mr. Stephen Wong, Secretary of The Law Reform Commission and Principal Government Counsel; Past Presidents Anthony Chow and Huen Wong; Secretary General Heidi Chu; and Ms. Eliza Chang and Mr. Nick Chan, Chairlady and Vice Chairman of the Recreation and Sports Committee.

Awards were presented over dinner to the following winners:

President’s Cup (Best Gross Score) – Mr. Patrick Burke

Fred Kan & Co Cup (Men Best Net Score) – Mr. Paul Tan

Hasting & Co Cup (Ladies Best Net Score) – Ms. Sam Siu

Mr. Kenneth Lee, winner of the Secretary General’s Cup, receiving the award from Secretary General Heidi Chu.

秘書長盃冠軍李樹發律師從律師會秘書長朱潔冰律師手中

接過獎盃。

Ms. Sam Siu (middle), winner of the Hasting & Co Cup, receiving her award from Ms. Helen Kong and Mr. Yung Ching Tat.

希仕廷律師行盃冠軍蕭韻儀律師（中）從江潤紅律師及容正達律師手中接過

獎盃。

President Ambrose Lam and Secretary General Heidi Chu drawing out the lucky draw winners.

律師會會長林新強律師和秘書長朱潔冰律師為大抽獎抽出幸運兒。

President Ambrose Lam (left) presenting the President’s Cup to its winner Mr. Patrick Burke.

律師會會長林新強律師（左）向會長盃的冠軍畢保麒律師頒

發獎盃。

Former Justice David Yam and Ms. Karan Sit, a winner of the lucky draw.

前高等法院原訟法庭法官任懿君法官與大抽獎的得獎者

薜頴敏律師合照。

Secretary General’s Cup (Senior Best Net Score) – Mr. Kenneth Lee

Mr. Fred Kan, Golf Team Captain, said that the Law Society Golf Team had again performed very well in 2013 and are looking forward to another successful year in 2014.

Mr. Roden Tong, Golf Team Convenor, added that team members have greatly benefited from bi-weekly practice sessions with professional coaching. The new practice location at the South China Athletic Association in Causeway Bay is also proving to be more convenient for members.

Richard KwokMember, Law Society Golf Team

熱烈祝賀「2013年律師會年度高爾夫球錦標賽」各得獎者「律師會高爾夫球隊—2013年年度頒獎

典禮」於1月9日舉行，超過60名高爾夫

球隊隊員參加。大會邀得多位嘉賓出席，

包括律師會會長林新強律師、前高等法院

原訟法庭法官任懿君法官、法律改革委

員會秘書兼首席政府律師黃繼兒律師、同

為前律師會會長的周永健律師及王桂壎律

師、律師會秘書長朱潔冰律師，以及律師

會康樂及體育委員會主席鄭麗珊律師及副

主席陳曉峰律師。

大會在晚宴上頒發獎項，得獎名單如下：

會長盃（最佳總桿）-

畢保麒律師

簡家驄律師行盃（男子最佳淨桿）-

陳傳仁律師

希仕廷律師行盃（女子最佳淨桿）-

蕭韻儀律師

秘書長盃（高級最佳淨桿）-

李樹發律師

高爾夫球隊隊長簡家驄律師表示，律師會

高爾夫球隊在過去一年再次有出色表現，

並期待球隊在2014年再創佳績。

高爾夫球隊召集人湯文龍律師補充，隔周

舉行的專業教練指導課，令隊員獲益良

多。新的練習地點現設於銅鑼灣南華體育

會，對隊員而言更為方便。

郭超和律師律師會高爾夫球隊隊員



Cultivating friendship between Hong Kong and Shenzhen lawyers.

比賽可促進深港律師之間的友誼。

The badminton team at the Dayu Badminton Pavilion in Nanshan, Shenzhen.

律師會羽毛球隊在深圳南山區大羽羽毛球館留影。

Enjoying a hearty post-match meal.

大家於賽後享受一頓盛宴。

The 5th Shenzhen-Hong Kong Lawyers Badminton CupSeventeen members of the Law Society’s badminton team gathered on 11 January for the 5th Shenzhen-Hong Kong Lawyers Badminton Competition. The annual friendly match against our Shenzhen counterparts was held in the Nanshan District of Shenzhen. A total of 11 official matches were played, comprising one men’s singles, one women’s singles, five men’s doubles, two women’s doubles, and two mixed doubles matches. All participants deserve a big round of applause for the team spirit and sportsmanship that were demonstrated throughout the event.

This year, our team earned praise not only for our on-court prowess, but also off-court incidentals such as attractive uniforms (“We really like your team outfit, can we exchange shirts after the games?”), as well as good looks (“Your team has a lot of young and handsome players.”; “Is your team getting younger?”) Suffice to say, we are thankful for any compliments.

We would also like to show our appreciation to a number of strong new players- most of whom are recently-qualified solicitors - who just joined our team this year. Without a doubt they have improved us.

Wilson LoMember, Law Society Badminton Team

第五屆“深港律師杯”羽毛球混合團體賽1月11日，律師會羽毛球隊十七名隊員

參加了第五屆「深港律師杯」羽毛球混

合團體賽，與深圳的同業一較球技。這

項年度友誼賽於深圳南山區舉行，比賽

分為11場賽事，包括一場男子單打、一

場女子單打、五場男子雙打、兩場女子

雙打及兩場混合雙打。活動中所有參賽

者充分表現出團隊和體育精神，值得大

家為之喝采。

今年，我們的隊伍贏得一致好評，除了

球場上的精湛表現外，隊員身上那注目

的隊服(「我們非常喜歡你的裝束，可於

賽後交換球衣嗎？」)及俊朗的外表(「你

們的隊伍不乏年輕俊美的球員」、「你

們的隊伍年輕化了嗎？」)亦令大家眼前

一亮。對於任何讚美之詞，我們卻之不

恭。

今年，我們有不少技術精湛的新隊員加

入，其中大部分剛取得律師資格。我們

藉此向他們致以感謝，他們的加入無疑

令球隊的實力更上一層樓。

盧置豪律師律師會羽毛球隊隊員


• March 2014

YSG: “Meet the Veterinarians” Networking DrinksThe Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) organised its very first joint event with the Hong Kong Veterinary Association on 24 January.

With the increase in numbers of pet owners and animal lovers among our members, the "Meet the Veterinarians" networking drinks was very popular and over-subscribed, with some 80 members, veterinarians and friends attending the event.

Participants enjoyed good food and drinks at the Law Society Clubhouse as they met

YSG committee members with the President of the Hong Kong Veterinary Association, Dr. Tom Mangan. From left: Mr. Sebastian Ko, Dr. Mangan, Ms. Stephanie Lau, Mr. Daniel Shum, and Ms. Serina Chan.

年青律師組委員會成員與香港獸醫學會會長Tom Mangan合

照。左起︰高一鋒律師、獸醫Tom Mangan、劉穎言律師、沈嘉

明律師及陳潔心律師。

2013 “Connected” Closing EventOn 26 January, the “Connected 2013” program, a mentorship and buddy scheme run by the Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) came to a healthy and fun close with an intense afternoon group bowling session-cum-competition at the South China Athletic Association (“SCAA”). This was followed by a speech from President Ambrose Lam, a refreshing tea at the SCAA cafe and a very memorable sharing session by mentors Mr. Nick Chan, Mr. Stanley Chan, Mr. Winchester Chan, Ms. Yoanne Lai and Mr. Simon Yung.

Our thanks go out to over 45 mentors, buddies and mentees who attended the event and of course, the 258 participants who have taken part in “Connected 2013”.

new friends and chatted about pets, animals and much more.

YSG regularly organises networking events with other professional bodies with a view to serve members with different interests.

Stephanie Lau Member, YSG

年青律師組：「認識獸醫」聯誼酒會年青律師組與香港獸醫學會於1月24日

首次攜手舉辦活動。

飼養寵物和愛好動物之會員愈來愈多，大

家對「認識獸醫」聯誼酒會均非常踴躍，

This program would not have been possible without your positive responses and enthusiastic support! We would also like to thank our YSG working group committee members and the Law Society Secretariat for their hard work in making this a huge success.

We hope that through these events and those organised by individual mentorship groups, everyone has had been able to "connect" with practitioners of differing seniority and gained something in the process. We also thank everyone for your constructive comments and feedback. Hopefully, you will see some of these suggestions reflected in “Connected 2014”. On a related note, please keep an eye out for “Connected 2014” application forms! We hope to see you again soon!

Vicky ManCommittee Member, YSG

2013「法友聯盟」閉幕活動由年青律師組籌辦的師友計劃「法友聯盟

2013」步入尾聲，大會於1月26日下午

假南華體育會(下稱「南華會」)舉行保齡

球活動暨比賽作閉幕，讓大家舒展身心。

比賽結束後，先由會長林新強律師致辭，

之後大家到南華會咖啡廳茶聚，再由陳曉

峰律師、陳永良律師、陳永泉律師、黎曼

儀律師及翁宗榮律師這幾位良師與大家分

享難忘點滴。

我們衷心感謝出席是次活動的超過45名

師友及實習律師，同時非常感謝「法友

聯盟2013」的258名參加者。計劃得以

成功推行，全賴你們的積極參與和熱烈支

持！此外，我們非常感激年青律師組工作

小組各委員，以及律師會秘書處的努力，

令計劃圓滿成功。

我們希望通過計劃的活動以及由個別師友

小組舉辦的聚會，讓各參加者與不同年

資的「法友」結成「聯盟」，並在過程中

有所得著。此外，我們感謝大家提供的

寶貴意見，並儘量將其採納於「法友聯盟

2014」中。順帶一提，「法友聯盟2014

」的申請表快將推出，請踴躍支持！

文穎翹律師

年青律師組委員會成員

報名人數更超出預設名額，參與是次活動

的會員、獸醫和友人達八十多人。

活動於律師會會所舉行，參加者一邊享用

美酒佳餚，一邊與新認識的朋友暢談寵

物、動物等各式各樣的話題。

年青律師組定期與其他專業團體合辦聯誼

活動，致力滿足有不同興趣的會員。

劉穎言律師年青律師組委員會成員

0

5

25

75

95

100

THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL – Reflections on Decision Making and Process

By The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

撰文律師紀律審裁組


• March 2014

Members of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Clerks and others interested in the disciplinary process gathered on 23 October 2013 at which the Tribunal Convenor Albert T da Rosa Jr., Deputy Convenor Alan Linning and Mr. Justice Frank Stock delivered addresses. This article highlights some of the views expressed.

律師紀律審裁組– 對裁決及相關過程的檢討

THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL – Reflections on Decision Making and Process

March 2014 • PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 專業實務


Where is Hong Kong relative to other jurisdictions?The Tribunal Convenor introduced the session and examined where Hong Kong is placed relative to some other jurisdictions. He cited textbooks from:

Australia: “We must certainly all hope that the basic ideal of the legal profession, as one of service beyond pure economic self interest, will survive. But whether it survives or not is up to the lawyers of today. They should do what they can … … to enforce those ideals strictly where there is a default. But will they heed this call or dismiss it with a yawn and return to billable hours?”(See Former Justice Michael Kirby of Australian High Court, Billable Hours in A Noble Calling? ((1996) 30(2) Melbourne University Law Review, 261) cited in Adrian Evans, Assessing Lawyers’ Ethics --- A Practitioners’ Guide (UK:

Cambridge University Press, 2011) at pg. 13)

USA: “[Study] after study has shown that the current rules of professional conduct are not enforced. Misconduct is rarely perceived. If perceived, it is not reported. If reported, it is not investigated. If investigated, violations are not found. If found, they are excused. If they are not excused, penalties are light. And if significant penalties are imposed, the lawyer soon returns to practice …. Lawyers can hardly present their travesty of a penal system as an effective deterrent” (See Richard L. Abel, Why Does the ABA

Promulgate Ethical Rules?, (59 Tex. L Rev. 693 (1981)) cited in Deborah L. Rhode, Professional Regulation and Public Service --- An Unfinished Agenda in Scott L. Cummings ed., The Paradox of Professionalism (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011) pg. 161) “[H]owever, many lawyers believe just the opposite --- that discipline is unfair, oppressive, and counterproductive.” (See Ibid pg. 162)

As to Hong Kong, the Tribunal Convenor cited a previous interview in which he said “There is … the cost consideration, given that there are about 7,500 solicitors in Hong Kong and, for example, about 120,000 in the UK. The question then is: what is the more efficient model to do the same thing? …

… In Hong Kong we have a hybrid model, in the sense that investigation and prosecution lie with the Law Society, adjudication with the SDT, an independent body, plus the supervision of the courts. If there is a complaint and the Law Society does not take action, then the chief judge of the High Court can direct the Law Society to bring [the case for SDT adjudication]. The SDT can also count on lay members (to provide external views).” (See The Law Society of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Lawyer, (Hong Kong: Thomson Reuters, May 2013) pg. 21)

Mr. Justice Stock said the Tribunal played a vital public function, because the courts and the public as a whole relied on the trust placed in solicitors. Maintaining high standards was not just some catchphrase but was central to the rule of law.

The ChairmanshipEach Tribunal consists of three persons, two of whom are solicitors. The convention has always been that the first named solicitor member will take up the yoke of calling the first meeting

and proceed with the election of the chairman. Section 9B(2) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) (“LPO”) provides that the Chairman of a particular SDT is to be elected by the members of the Tribunal itself from among the 2 solicitor members. The Tribunal Convenor must therefore ensure that at least one solicitor is prepared to take the chair. Some senior members expressed reluctance to take the chair but the Convenor pointed out that SDT proceedings are not fundamentally different from any litigation before other courts or tribunals and therefore solicitors with sufficient litigation experience should be able to read up on the relevant statutory provisions and cases to take up chairmanship irrespective of whether they have actual SDT experience.

The Chairman of each Tribunal has a casting vote and can represent the SDT to outsiders because this is provided for by Sections 52(2) and (3) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1). There is nothing in the ordinance or the rules to require a decision of the Tribunal to be written up only by the chairman. This should always be a collaborative effort of all members of the Tribunal.

Conflict of interestsMany frequently query whether a Tribunal member’s mere acquaintance with a party or a witness calls for recusal. The House of Lords in PortervMagill[2002]1 All ER 465 said “The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.”

In JohnsonvJohnson Kirby J said “… a reasonable member of the public is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious.” ((2000)200 CLR 488, 509, at para. 53)


• March 2014

The English Court of Appeal in Locabail(UK)Ltd.vBayfieldPropertiesLtd. said “… the judge should recuse himself … if, for solid reasons, the judge feels personally embarrassed in hearing the case.” ([1999] EWCA Civ 3004, at paras. 20-21)

The Tribunal Convenor said because the solicitors community is small, if mere acquaintance is a bar, we would probably not be able to form a tribunal and have any cases against a senior member of the profession.

Tribunal Makes Independent DecisionThe Convenor reiterated the need for the Tribunal to arrive at its decision independently. “It is difficult to see how a tribunal could satisfy the requirements of competence, independence, and impartiality if a non-member participated in the deliberative process by which it formed its views on the issues that it had to resolve.” (See Mr. Justice Bokhary PJ (as he then was) delivering the judgement which all other members of the Court agreed in The Court of Final Appeal in MedicalCouncilofHongKongvHelenChan [2010] 3 HKLRD 667 at para. 45 [9], (2000) 200 CLR 488, 509, at para. 53)

“Natural justice dictates that there must not be any observations made to the Tribunal in the absence of the parties that might influence their decision.” (See Rogers VP (as he then was) inAuWingLunvSolicitorsDisciplinaryTribunal[2002] HKCA 418 (unreported) at para. 12)

The Deputy Convenor reminded that the Court of Appeal had made observations in several cases on the participation of the Clerk in SDT proceedings. As a guiding principle the Clerk has a purely administrative and clerical role. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has a broad discretion as to the administrative

functions that the Clerk can usefully perform.

The Clerk can be present during deliberations of the Tribunal if there is some clerical or administrative function that calls for his presence, such as making a note of deliberations or looking up a reference for members. However, the Clerk is not a Member and cannot participate in the decision-making process or discuss merits of the case with members of the Tribunal. In any event, it would inappropriate for the Clerk to produce a draft of the decision after the deliberations of the Tribunal since that would likely damage the fairness, independence and impartiality of the disciplinary process. However the Clerk may draw attention to typographical or clerical errors in a written draft, but must not edit, alter or amend the draft decision.

The Tribunal can properly direct the Clerk to perform administrative functions such as inserting in to a draft decision figures, dates, cross references or citations, provided these are reviewed and approved by the Tribunal members. However, it is not appropriate for the Clerk to conduct legal research for the Tribunal members. The Tribunal should conduct its own research on the law and on past sentencing cases.

Duty of disclosure to RespondentThe basic/minimum procedural requirements are contained in the Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings Rules. Under Rule 9, the Prosecutor must make disclosure of all documents relied upon not less than 14 days before the hearing. Disclosed documents must be available for inspection within 7 days: see Rule 10(1). However, the rules are silent on disclosure of unused materials – but gaps can and ought to be filled by the Tribunal. At all stages, it is vital to

emphasise the fundamental importance of due process/ natural justice.

The Role of the ProsecutorDuty to act fairly

The Prosecutor has a paramount duty to ensure procedural effectiveness (even though Tribunal not a Court of law). “If a solicitor is going to be struck off the Role for acts of dishonesty or gross recklessness, he is entitled to a fair process and a fair hearing before that decision is reached.” (See per Lord Jackson in BimalThakervSRA (2011)) Proceedings should not be instituted absent most careful and rigorous consideration (See ASolicitor (274/06) per Stone J).

It is for the Prosecutor to assist the Tribunal to decide whether a prima facie case for disciplinary action is made out: see Rule 6.

During the course of the hearing, the Prosecutor should adopt an inquisitorial, rather than an adversarial role. The Tribunal has wide powers to admit/receive evidence, whether or not admissible in conventional court proceedings (subject only perhaps to the requirement of relevance and fairness).

The Prosecutor has to apply the applicable standard and burden of proof. There is no power to compel the Respondent to attend the hearing or give evidence. The Tribunal has the right to make findings based on affidavit evidence alone (See Rule 14) (but this right should be exercised exceptionally if the Respondent unable to attend through no fault of his own). The Tribunal is not entitled to draw adverse inferences from a Respondent’s absence, or if the Respondent decides to not give evidence. The Prosecutor must therefore exercise extra care to lead evidence fully (and not conceal weaknesses).



REUTERS/Adam Hunger

(i) Pre-hearing preparations

Mr. Justice Stock suggested that it is useful for Tribunal Members to discuss a case among themselves beforehand in order to identify matters that trouble them, and so as to identify the real issues. Members can also discuss what obviously relevant material appears to be omitted from the papers presented and what issues they may wish to press or probe.

(ii) During the Hearing

He also pointed out the importance of Tribunal Members not being shy about admitting to not following a submission or a piece of evidence. Therefore it is only fair to the parties that are affected for a member to tell them he does not understand something and that it needs explaining.

The Tribunal should always insist on clarity on the part of people presenting

Remarks made by

Mr. Justice Stock relating to the decision-making process

Investigative Powers of the TribunalShould a Tribunal adopt an investigatory or adversarial approach? Under section 9B of the LPO, a tribunal is constituted to “enquire and investigate into the matter.” In JamesManuelHo&AnothervGrandPacificVacation(HongKong)Ltd.,Chung J (as he then was) cited nine different decisions including,

“(f) … the duty to inquire does not mean the Tribunal should take over the role of an advocate for a litigant. The Tribunal must remain neutral and impartial. Thus, litigants must still be allowed to cross-examine witnesses for the other side, and litigants cannot be compelled to testify against their wishes. But the Tribunal has a duty to invite litigants to consider giving evidence when it is apparent he could give evidence on important matters in issue;

(g) the duty to inquire can include the Tribunal inviting the parties to comment on matters, or, if necessary, directing them to produce evidence or documents, relating to matters which the Tribunal discerns to be important.”

ConfidentialitySection 9B(1A)(4) of the LPO provides that the Tribunal shall sit in camera. Furthermore, section 11(4) of the LPO reads: “All proceedings of a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and any order made in accordance with the provision of section 10 shall be privileged.” Therefore, special care is necessary when electronic communication is used for communication amongst tribunal members and with their clerk. Parties should not be identified in the subject field. It may be necessary to use passwords and encryption in communication. n


• March 2014

cases, and insist on ascertaining what the real issues are between the two sides, what is conceded and deciding what is irrelevant. If there is difficulty in any of these, the parties or counsel can be requested to reduce to on one piece of paper what the issues are. This will prove useful in deciding on the issues.

The judge also pointed out how vital it is for all in the process to extend courtesy to one another. Allowances should be made for lay persons and those who are facing complaints to be nervous. In any event, the Tribunal should not tolerate any bullying of witnesses. Courtesy breeds courtesy and it also breeds sensible and mature decision making. Tribunals who see discourteous behavior should quietly insist on courtesy.

(iii) Fair questioning

When a witness is asked questions, the Tribunal should make sure a question is fair. Very often two or three questions are rolled into one and a witness is picked up as if he were answering all three when in fact he has only answered one. The Tribunal should stop advocates from doing that.

The other facet of questioning that is objectionable is demanding a yes or no answer. Sometimes the question allows of a yes or no answer, but very often it allows of neither. It often allows of a “yes, but …”, a “no, but …”, or it allows a ‘I can’t remember’. Always allow people to finish what they are saying. The Tribunal should stop the representative from going onto the next question until the person has given himself a chance to explain himself or answer the question fully if he or she wishes to answer it.

The Tribunal Members can also ask questions of witnesses at the end of questions by one side and then the other to clarify points that are obscure. In some circumstances, there’s an

obligation on the Tribunal to ask the question. For example, if there is a matter which is condemnatory of a person under investigation, which the Tribunal might use as a reason against him, which has not been put to him by the prosecutor, the Tribunal needs to bring that up. If the point becomes a material part of the Tribunal’s reasoning and the witness or the complainees have not been given the opportunity of dealing with it, then that is not fair. That’s a breach of natural justice.

(iv) Truth

Relying on demeanor as a measure of making decisions is a matter on which people differ. Mr. Justice Stock personally considers that there is far too much emphasis based on demeanor: “I don’t think you can tell much by a person’s demeanor. You get people who are confident, but lying. You get people who are nervous but who are telling the truth.”

“So I don’t think that demeanor tells you very much at all. When I see demeanor as a reason for belief and disbelief and nothing else, I scratch my head and think this is not very satisfactory. It’s not a very good reason.”

The other thing that is over played a lot is inconsistencies, but only to a degree. Mr. Justice Stock said: “If somebody gives an account which is inconsistent with contemporaneous documentation and doesn’t give a proper explanation for it, that’s a material inconsistency.”

“But what we see far too often and what I suspect happens at a tribunal setting as well, is that the representatives of the parties become obsessed with inconsistency between what some body has said five months ago or a year ago or what he’s saying in court. If it’s a major inconsistency, fine.” But the Tribunal must take care to be realistic in this regard.

“One of the things to remember when

dealing with a case where parties are being examined”, Mr. Justice Stock added, “we are often addressing one issue or one event or one series of events as if it is the only thing that’s ever happened in that person’s life, because you’re concentrating on it.”

“But the Tribunal needs to remember that people, solicitors and business people have very busy days. They might do 20 different things in a day under examination for one thing that was done. So the fact that somebody says something 15 months ago and he says another shade of it in court, you must make some allowances for the fact that the person is being asked to remember something in the context of a very busy life. Very often we find or I find, counsel being unrealistic in that regard.”

A fair cross-examination, a fair decision making is a realistic one which makes allowances for context, the passage of time and people’s natural frailties. What are the really useful guides to ascertaining what happened and a witness telling the truth? Mr. Justice Stock suggested that there are two main ones on which far too little emphasis is placed by decision makers and by cross-examiners.

One, cross-examiners should focus more on inherent probabilities and improbabilities; so the questioner should put himself in the shoes of the person who is telling the story and in order to test whether the story he is telling is or is likely to be true, ask himself what an honest person faced with that situation would likely have done in the circumstances. Did the person being questioned act in that way and if not, why not? In considering inherent probability and improbabilities, always make allowance for exceptions, special explanations as to why someone did not do what one would expect the honest person to do. Subject to that allowance, inherent



probability and improbabilities are a strong guide to the truth.”

The second major guide to the truth is contemporaneous documentation or the absence of it where one would have expected it.

In weighing the evidence, Mr. Justice Stock suggested: “Tribunal members should ask whether the witness is on the face of the matters to be trusted; is he a person of apparently good character? Does he have a motive to lie? But it is also important to differentiate between dishonesty on the one hand, and on the other hand mere incompetence or even stupidity.”

“Very often incompetence and stupidity can take the appearance of dishonesty. So when we have cases involving solicitors or other professional people we must consider whether it’s possible that it’s not dishonesty but it was incompetence or stupidity, in which case you need to give the person benefit of the doubt.”

Lies don’t necessarily mean the person has committed the disciplinary offence that is being investigated. It might support the case against him. But the Tribunal must remind itself that there’s a difference between a lie and a mistake. And even if somebody lies, it may not be probative of the matter of which the person is accused but may be because that person does not want to admit something because he thinks it will make his conduct look worse. Remember also that a witness may be unreliable even as to memory in one aspect of his evidence but that does not mean all his evidence is unreliable.

Sometimes when the members of the Tribunal are having trouble in making a decision, it helps for somebody to play devil’s advocate, particularly if any one of them is minded to find against a practitioner. In cases where there are difficulties, somebody playing the devil’s

advocate on behalf of the accused person is quite a useful exercise.

(v) The Giving of Reasons

Mr. Justice Stock said that the Tribunal should set out its reasons in giving its decision. “Not only does the giving of reasons tend to betray whether the decision making process has been an acceptable one, from experience, it actually helps the decision making process. In the process of writing reasons for a decision, there is an opportunity to reflect on whether the writing is intellectually honest and whether it’s sensible and sticks together,” he said.

In practice, judges decide among themselves who will write the judgment, assuming they are unanimous on the outcome, and the draft is then circulated among the others for discussion, comment and suggestions. Writing out reasons is therefore an integral part of the decision making process and a useful exercise.

For whom does the Tribunal write reasons? Primarily, these would be the parties of the proceedings, particularly the losing side. The losing side needs to know with clarity, why the Tribunal has decided that way.

Mr. Justice Stock said “Do not write reasons for fear of the appeal process. It helps the appeal tribunal immensely to know with clarity that the Tribunal recognises the issues, that it recognises what are not the real issues and that it is providing rational reasons for the decision. But the people who are primarily concerned are the parties themselves.”

PenaltyThere are four basic penalties if a solicitor is found guilty: reprimand, fine, suspension and striking-off. There is a disparity in seriousness between the range of penalties and striking-off

and suspension is reserved for cases involving dishonesty. (See ASolicitorvHKLawsoc[2003] 4 HKC 229)

The Prosecutor has a duty to assist the Tribunal in deciding on the penalty. In particular, the Prosecutor should point out cases where a mandatory penalty is provided by statute (eg. see Sections 53(2) and (5), LPO; penalty for a solicitor that knowingly employs a clerk prohibited from engaging working with a solicitor is that he must be struck off).

The Prosecutor must also assist the Tribunal on understanding the relevance of evidence of past misconduct.

CostsUnder Section 10(2)(e) of the LPO, the Tribunal has the power to order payment by any party of the costs “of and incidental to the proceedings of the Tribunal”. This covers the costs of the Clerk’s work provided that the work was lawfully done and the sums charged are reasonable and proportionate. The Tribunal should therefore monitor the activities of the Clerk and in particular the costs of the Clerk both before and after making their decision.

By way of recommendation, the Tribunal can inform the Clerk and the parties of the maximum amount of work it would normally expect the Clerk to carry out on a case, and require the Clerk to seek specific authorization in advance before carrying out additional work. In the event that additional administrative work beyond the norm is performed by the Clerk, it is suggested the Tribunal explain why it considers such work was necessary when ordering payment of the Clerk’s costs.

Conversely, the Tribunal should explain what items of the Clerk’s costs are not recoverable if extra work has been undertaken without prior instruction or approval by the Tribunal. n


• March 2014

律師紀律審裁組的成員、書記，以及其他對紀律處分

程序有興趣的人士，於2013年10月23日聚首一堂，

聆聽審裁組召集人 Albert T da Rosa Jr、副召集人

Alan Linning及司徒敬法官向在場人士發表

演講。本文節錄當天各位講者所發表

的部分重要內容。

相比於其他司法管轄區，香港的實際情況如何﹖

首先由審裁組召集人講解是次研討會的

內容，並探討香港相比於其他司法管轄

區，其實際情況如何。以下是他對一些

著作章節的引述﹕

澳大利亞﹕「肯定地說，我們所有人都

希望法律專業的根本理想能夠不斷綿延

下去，這理想就是將法律視作並非單純

以自身經濟利益為出發的服務。但它是

否能夠綿延下去，取決於今天的律師作

出如何的取捨。律師應當盡其所能……

當有違責情況發生時，應嚴格恪守這一

理想。但律師願意聽從這一呼籲，還是

不屑一顧，繼續鑽營於利潤的追求上

呢﹖」(參見Adrian Evans, Assessing

Lawyers’Ethics — A Practitioners’ Guide

(UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011)

第13頁所引述的，關於澳大利亞高等法

院前大法官Michael Kirby在Billable Hours in

A Noble Calling?((1996) 30(2) Melbourne

University Law Review, 261)一文中所作

的評論)

美國﹕「[一再進行的]研究顯示，現行

的專業操守規則並未獲得大家的切實遵

守。絕少人察覺到有不當行為的發生﹔

即使察覺到，也沒有人舉報﹔即使有人

舉報，也沒有人進行調查﹔即使有人進

行調查，也察覺不到違規情況的出現﹔

即使察覺到違規情況的出現，違規者依

然會得到開脫﹔違規者即使無法開脫，

其所受的懲罰也只是微不足道﹔即使作

出了嚴厲的懲罰，涉事的律師不久後還

是會回到其執業崗位上來….律師對於

懲罰制度具有阻嚇力量之說，實不以為

然。」(參見Richard L. Abel, Why Does

the ABA Promulgate Ethical Rules?, (59

Tex. L Rev. 693 (1981))，於Deborah

L. Rhode, Professional Regulation and

Public Service -- An Unfinished Agenda

in Scott L. Cummings ed., The Paradox of

Professionalism (UK: Cambridge University

Press, 2011)第161頁中的引述)「許多

律師所相信的卻是恰恰相反—紀律處分

並不公平、具壓迫性，效果卻是適得其

反。」(參見同上第162頁)

至於香港的情況，審裁組召集人引述先前

所作的一次訪談，而在該次訪談中他指

出﹕「當中…存在對成本的考慮，因為香

港的律師人數大約有7500名，但舉例來

說，英國的律師人數大約有12萬名。因

此問題在於﹕在處理同一事情上，哪一種

模式會較為有效﹖…

…香港實行的是混合模式，意思是調查

與檢控權力均由香港律師會行使，裁決

由獨立行事的律師紀律審裁組作出，而

法院只負責監督。如果有人作出投訴，

但香港律師會沒有採取相應的行動，高

等法院首席法官便有權指示香港律師會

[將個案提交律師紀律審裁組審理]。此

外，律師紀律審裁組也可以借助於非法

律專業人士 (以提供外界的觀點) 。」(參

見The Law Society of Hong Kong, Hong

Kong Lawyer, (Hong Kong: Thomson

Reuters, May 2013) 第21頁)

司徒敬法官指出審裁組所擔當的，是一項

非常重要的公共職能，因為法院及公眾人

士都對律師寄予信任。因此，維持律師服

務於一個高水平，並非單線是一句口號，

而是法治的核心。

審裁組主席一職

審裁組由三名人士組成，而其中兩人須為

律師。習慣上，一個審裁組成立後，排名

首位的律師須負責召開首次會議，並進行

主席選舉。《法律執業者條例》(第159



章)第9B(2)條訂明，律師紀律審裁組須

在兩名律師成員中選出一人作為主席。

因此，審裁組召集人須確保兩名律師當

中，至少有一人願意擔任主席一職。一

些資深成員表示不願意擔任審裁組主

席，但召集人指出，律師紀律審裁組的

法律程序，與在法院或其他審裁庭席前

進行的訴訟並無根本不同，因此具有充

足訴訟實務經驗的律師，應當具備充足

能力研讀有關的法定條文和案例，以擔

任審裁組主席的工作，而不論其曾否在

審裁組中有實際案件審理經驗。

審裁組主席有權投下決定性的一票，並

可對外代表審裁組，因為在《釋義及通

則條例》(第1章)中已有所訂明。香港並

無任何條例或規則規定，審裁組的裁決

必須由主席負責撰寫，故審裁組的裁決

應為所有成員的共同努力成果。

利益衝突

許多人常有一個疑問﹕審裁組成員如認

識某一當事方或是證人，他在有關聆

訊中是否應當避席﹖上議院在Porter v

Magill [2002]1 All ER 465一案中指出﹕

「所須審視的，是一名公正和知情的觀

察者在對相關事實作出考慮後，會否得

出結論認為審裁組存在真正的偏袒可

能。」

Kirby J在Johnson v Johnson一案中

稱﹕「…一名合理的公眾人士，是既

不自滿也不過分敏感或懷疑的人。」

((2000)200 CLR 488, 509, at para. 53)

英國上訴法院在Locaba i l (UK) Ltd . v

Bayfield Properties Ltd. 一案中稱﹕「若

基於可靠的理由，法官於審理某宗案件

時會令他個人感到尷尬…他便應該在該

項聆訊中避席…。」([1999] EWCA Civ

3004, at paras. 20—21)

審裁組召集人稱，律師並非一個龐大的

群體，如果僅因認識某人便須為此避

席，審裁組勢將難以組成，也無法對業

內的資深會員採取任何紀律處分行動。

審裁組獨立作出裁決

召集人強調，審裁組必須獨立作出裁決。

「在審裁組就所須解決的問題而形成其

觀點的審議過程中，如有非審裁組成員參

與，我們很難期望它能符合勝任、獨立、

公正等要求。」(參見終審法院常任法官

包致金(其當時職務)在Medica l Counci l

of Hong Kong v Helen Chan [2010] 3

HKLRD 667 at para. 45 [9], (2000) 200

CLR 488, 509, at para. 53一案所作的判

決，該判決獲審理該案的其他終審法院法

官一致贊同。)

「根據自然公義原則，如當事方不在場，

便不得向審裁組表達任何能影響審裁組所

作決定之觀點。」(參見上訴法庭副庭長

羅傑志 (其當時職務) 在Au Wing Lun v

Sol ic i tors Disc ip l inary Tr ibunal [2002]

HKCA 418 (unreported) at para. 12 一案

中所作的評論)

副召集人提醒大家，上訴法庭在數宗案

件中，曾就書記在審裁組法律程序中的

參與作出了評論。作為一項主導原則，

書記只應擔當純粹的行政和文書職務。

然而，審裁組對於書記通常可履行的行

政職能，擁有廣泛的酌情決定權。

假如有任何文書或行政工作需要書記在

場協助(例如為案件的審議過程作記錄，

又或是為審裁組成員搜集參考資料)，

則可容許書記在審裁組審理案件的過

程中在場。不過，由於書記並非審裁組

的成員，故他不可以參與審裁組的裁決

過程，以及就案情的是非曲直與審裁組

成員一起進行討論。書記若在審裁組完

成對有關個案的審理後，提交該案的裁

決擬稿，這在任何情況下都是不合適的

做法，因為此舉可能會有損紀律處分程

序的公平、獨立和公正性。然而，若該

裁決的書面擬稿出現印刷或文書上的錯

誤，書記可以提請各成員關注，但不得

對該裁決擬稿進行編輯、更改或修訂。

審裁組可以就書記履行其行政職能作出

適當的指示，例如將數字、日期、參照

資料或引文加進裁決的擬稿中，但前提

是必須由審裁組成員進行覆檢並獲得他

們的認可。但假如書記為審裁組成員就

法律問題進行查考，這做法是不被允許

的。審裁組應就相關法例及過去所宣判

的案例自行進行查考。

向答辯人作出披露的責任

關於基本／最低限度的程序規定，載於

《律師紀律審裁組法律程序規則》中。

根據第9條規則，檢控員必須至少在聆訊

展開的14天前披露所有他賴以作為依據

的文件，而須予披露的文件，則必須在

7天之內提交以供查閱。然而，該等規則

並無提及未被使用之材料的披露問題—

但審裁組能夠及應當填補此等缺口。無

論在什麼階段，強調程序／自然公義的

根本重要性，都是至關重要的。

檢控員的角色

公正行事的責任

檢控員的一項重要職責，是確保能達致

程序效益(儘管審裁組本身並非法庭)。

「律師若因不誠實或嚴重罔顧後果的行

為，將要面對姓名在律師登記冊上被剔

除的制裁，那麼在這一裁決作出以前，

該律師應享有權利獲得提供公正的法律

程序和聆訊。」(參見Lord Jackson在

Bimal Thaker v SRA (2011)一案中所作

的評論。)假如我們未能對有關案件作出

最嚴謹和縝密的考慮，有關的法律程序

便不應提起(參見石仲廉法官在A Solicitor

(274/06)一案中所作的評論。)

檢控員須協助審裁組確定表面證據是否

成立，以採取必要的紀律處分行動﹕參

見第6條規則。

在聆訊過程中，檢控員所扮演的，應當

是調查、而非辯論對抗的角色。審裁組

在接納／取得證據方面享有廣泛的權

力，而不論根據傳統的法院程序，該等

證據是否可予接納(前提是必須符合相關

性與公平性等要求)。

檢控員必須運用適用的標準和舉證責

任，但他無權強制答辯人出席聆訊或出

庭作供。審裁組有權只根據宗教式誓章

所提出的證據來作出裁斷(參見第14條規

則)(但答辯人在自身並無任何過失情況下

若無法出席聆訊，上述權利只能在例外


• March 2014

司徒敬法官就裁決程序所作的評論

(i) 聆訊前的準備工作

司徒敬法官認為較為有效的做法，是審裁組

成員應就某宗需要審理的個案，預先一起進

行商討，以識別他們特別感到棘手的事宜，

從而確定真正的問題所在。此外，各成員也

可以商討在所呈交的文件中，有什麼相關材

料是明顯被遺漏，以及當中有什麼爭議點，

是他們希望加以強調和研究的。

(ii) 聆訊進行期間

他認為審裁組成員若未能充分理解某份供

詞或某項證據，他們不應羞於承認。審裁

組成員若願意告訴受影響的一方他對案中

的某些事情不大了解，希望能作出解釋，

這對受影響的一方會較為公平。

審裁組應要求案情的陳述者，以清楚明確

的方式陳述其案情，並確定雙方之間的真

正問題所在，以及有何問題已得到承認，

有何事情並不相關。倘若當中存在任何困

難，審裁組可要求各當事方或其代表律師

將有關的爭議點略述於一張紙上，這一做

法在確認爭議點方面會非常有用。

此外，司徒敬法官也指出，在整個審理過

程中，每個人都需要互相尊重，這一點十

分重要。一般人士或被投訴者在此等場合

心情緊張，是十分正常的事情，我們應多

加體諒。然而，審裁組絕對不可容忍任何

威嚇證人的情況發生。尊重可帶來更進一

步的尊重，也可促使作出明智與慎重的裁

決。即使在聆訊過程中出現無禮的行為，

審裁組仍應默默地持守以禮相待的原則。

(iii) 公平的提問

證人在回答問題時，審裁組應確保他所面

對的是公平的提問。一種經常出現的情況

是，某一方提出了一個看似單一的問題，

但事實上當中包含兩至三個問題，而證人

對這一問題所作的回答，常被視作是對全

部三個問題的回答。審裁組應當防止代表

律師以此等方式提問。

另一種令人反感的提問方法，是只要求對方

回答「是」或「不是」。在某些情況下，

有些問題可容許人們回答「是」或「不是」

，但許多時候，不論被問者回答「是」還

是「不是」，都無法提供一個最適切的答

案。在許多情況下，合適的回答是﹕「是

的，不過…」﹔「不是的，不過…」﹔或「

我記不起」。因此，我們必須讓被問者將他

要說的話說完。若被問者未能獲得機會作出

解釋，又或是當他或她欲回答有關問題，但

未能獲得機會作出整全的回答，審裁組便應

先行阻止代表律師提出下一個問題。

當其中一方問完了他的問題，而另一方隨後

也完成了提問，審裁組成員便可以向證人發

問，以澄清一些模糊不清的地方。在某些情

況下，審裁組有責任提出該等問題。例如，

假如有某些可予責難的事情，可以向正接受

調查的人士提出，而審裁組也可據此作為針

對該人的其中一項理由，但檢控員並沒有就

此等事情向該人作出提問，在這情況下，審

裁組便應就此等事情向該人作出提問。假如

該點成為了審裁組裁決理由的關鍵部分，但

該名證人或被投訴者並未獲得給予機會作出

回應，這對他們是不公平的，也違反了自然

公義。

(iV) 事實

觀察一個人的行為舉止，作為判定該人是否

觸犯了法例的一個衡量因素，相信每個人對

此會有不同的看法。司徒敬法官個人認為，

行為舉止這項因素現時實被過份強調。他

說﹕「我並不認為我們能透過一個人的行

為舉止而得知許多事情。有些人表現得很自

信，但事實上他是在說謊﹔有些人表現得很

緊張，但其實他是在說真話。」

「所以，我絕不認為一個人的行為舉止可

以讓你得知許多事情。我見到一些裁決，

單純以人的行為舉止作為相信或不相信某

些證供的依據，我對此感到十分困惑。我

總覺得這並非一個良好的裁決理由，亦令

人難以接受。」

另一種經常被過份強調的情況是「不一

致」(雖然只是在某程度上)。司徒敬法官

說﹕「某人所作的解釋若與當時的文件證

據不符，但卻又未能給予合理的解釋，這

便是重大的不一致。」

「但我發覺經常在法庭上出現的，也懷疑

是否曾在審裁庭上出現過的一種情況，就

是雙方代表律師經常會糾纏於例如某人在

五個月前、一年前，又或是在庭上說過的

話，所出現的前後不一致地方。假如該

等前後不一致的情況事關重大，我們絕對

應當追究下去。」然而，審裁組在這一點

上，必須從現實的角度出發。

的情況下行使)。答辯人若缺席，又或是

答辯人決定不出庭作供，審裁組並不能

據此對其作出不利的推論。因此，檢控

員必須以格外審慎的態度來進行全面舉

證(以及不得將弱點隱藏)。

審裁組的調查權力

審裁組對案件的審理，應當是以調查方

式、還是以辯論對抗的方式來進行呢﹖

根據《法律執業者條例》第9B條，審裁

組的組成，應以「研訊與調查該事宜」

為目的。鍾安德法官 (其當時職務)在

James Manuel Ho & Another v Grand

Pacific Vacation (Hong Kong) Ltd.一

案中，引述了9項不同裁決，其中包括﹕

「(f) … 審裁組雖然肩負調查責任，

但並不意味它所扮演的角色，是作為

訴訟當事人的代訟人。審裁組必須保

持中立和公正。因此，訴訟當事人必

須有權盤問另一方的證人，訴訟當事

人亦不得被強制在違背自己意願的情

況下作供。然而，假如明顯地，訴訟

當事人可以就一些重要爭議事項提供

相關證據，審裁組在這情況下有責任

要求訴訟當事人考慮向審裁組作供。

(g) 調查案件的責任，可以包括審裁

組就其所察覺到的重要事項，要求各

當事方就該等事項表達意見﹔又或

是，假如有此必要，可指示各當事方

提供相關的證據或文件。」

保密

《法律執業者條例》第9B(1A)(4)條訂

明，審裁組須進行非公開形式的聆訊。

此外，《法律執業者條例》第11(4)條

亦規定﹕「律師紀律審裁組的所有法律

程序，以及任何按照第10條條文作出

的命令，均享有特權。」因此，審裁組

各成員之間，或是審裁組成員與書記之

間如以電子方式進行通訊，便務須特別

審慎，尤其是，在主旨一欄中不可透露

當事人的身份。在通訊過程中，如有需

要，可使用密碼及將有關通訊加密。 n



「當我們處理一宗個案，而當事方在接受

盤問時，我們必須謹記一點。」司徒敬法

官補充說。「我們經常會將某一個問題、

某一宗事件，或是一連串的事件，看成是

該名當事人一生中唯一的事情。當中的問

題所在，是我們把注意力都集中在該等事

情上。」

「但審裁組必須謹記，每個人、每個律師

及商界人士，每天都是繁忙地工作。他們

在一天之內，可能處理了20多項各樣不

同的事情，但被查問的，只是其所作的如

此眾多的事情中的一件。所以，某人若在

15個月前提及某些事情，而他在法庭所說

的，與此又有少許出入，我們便必須以寬

鬆的態度來接納。因為他被要求回憶的，

只是在他極度繁忙的生活中，所經歷的某

些片段而矣。我們，或是我個人，總覺得

代表律師在這方面常常是不切實際。」

良好的盤問與裁決，是指符合實際情況，

並對環境、時間流逝、人性弱點等各方面

均作出了適當衡量的盤問與裁決。要確定

發生了什麼事情，而證人的說話又是否真

確，其真正有用的指導是什麼﹖司徒敬法

官認為，這方面有兩項重要的指導，但它

們並未為裁決者與盤問者所重視。

首先，盤問者應把關注點更多放在固有的可

能性與不可能性上﹔因此，提問者應設身處

地，將自己放在與被提問者的同一位置，而

為了測試被提問者的回答是否屬實或相當可

能屬實，提問者應當先問問自己，在該情形

下，一名誠實的人在面對有關情況時，其最

有可能作出的回應是什麼，而被提問者本人

是否作出了如此的回應。若否，原因為何﹖

在考慮可能性與不可能性時，我們應不時考

慮例外的情況，以及考慮就某些人不作出預

期一名誠實的人將會作出之回應而給予的特

別解釋。除了須作出上述的考慮外，固有的

可能性與不可能性，也是對真實情況的強而

有力指導。」

第二項對真實情況的重要指導，是當時的

文件證據，或是並無當時的文件證據(正

如原來所預期的)。

在權衡有關證據時，司徒敬法官認為﹕

「審裁組成員應問道﹕從案件的表面來

看，證人是否可信﹖他是否看來具有良好

的品格﹖他是否有說謊的動機﹖然而，十

分重要的一點，是我們需要將不誠實與不

勝任或什至是愚笨加以區別。」

「很多時候，從表面上看，不勝任與愚笨

好像就是不誠實。因此，當我們處理與律

師或其他專業人士有關的案件時，我們必

須考慮是否有可能他們並非不誠實，而只

是不勝任或愚笨而矣。在這情況下，我們

須將疑點利益歸於該等人士。」

某位正接受調查的人說謊，並非意味他必

定作出了違規的行為。他的說謊舉動，可

用以作為針對他的證據支持，但審裁組必

須警覺的是，說謊與犯錯是兩回事。即使

某人說了謊，但就該宗案件而言，這並非

必然可以作為對他提出指控的證據。一種

可能的情況是，他不願意作出承認，是因

為他擔心人們會對他產生更壞的印象。另

一點我們需要謹記的是，基於人的記憶力

有限，儘管證人的某些證供看來可能不大

可靠，但我們不能因此斷定他的證供是完

全不可靠。

有些時候，審裁組成員會對某宗案件感到

難以作出決定，這時我們可嘗試安排某個

成員來針對案情故意唱反調，而這將會對

如何作出適當的裁決提供幫助，尤其是當

審裁組成員中有人傾向裁定對某一執業者

所作的投訴成立時。假如在裁決上遇到困

難，我們可安排某成員代表被控人，並故

意提出相反的論調，這是一個頗為有效的

做法。

(v) 提供理由

司徒敬法官稱，審裁組應在作出裁決時陳

述其理由。他說﹕「提出理由，不單能顯

示有關的裁決過程是否恰當，而根據經

驗，它確能為裁決過程提供實際的幫助。

審裁組成員在撰寫裁決理由的過程中，

有機會反思其所陳述的理由是否為他本人

所確信，以及它們是否合情合理和相互一

致。」

在實際案件中，法官們會指定一人負責撰

寫有關的判案書，並(假定他們對裁決結果

一致贊同) 相互傳閱該判案書的擬稿以供作

討論、評論和提出意見之用。因此，撰寫

裁決理由，是裁決過程的一個不可分割部

分，而且也是一項非常有用的舉措。

審裁組的裁決理由是為誰而寫呢﹖基本

上，它是為紀律處分程序的各當事方而

寫，尤其是敗訴的一方，因為該方有需要

明確知悉審裁組如何達致該項裁決。

司徒敬法官說﹕「不要為了擔心上訴過程

而撰寫裁決理由。裁決理由能大大有助上

訴審裁庭明確知悉審裁組了解問題所在，

了解到哪一些並非真正的問題，而它是正

在為有關裁決提供合理的理由。但最終需

要關注的，還是各當事方本身。」

懲處

律師若被裁定違反了規定，他所面對的懲

處基本上有四種﹕受譴責、罰款、暫時吊

銷執業資格、以及姓名從律師登記冊上剔

除。至於審裁組會向其作出哪一種懲處，

主要視乎違紀的嚴重程度而定，而將姓

名從律師登記冊上剔除及暫時吊銷執業

資格等懲處，只在涉及不誠實的情況下才

會作出。(參見A Solicitor v HK Lawsoc

[2003] 4 HKC 229)

檢控員有責任就懲處的作出向審裁組提供

協助。尤其是，檢控員應指出哪些是法例

中訂明須作出強制性懲處的案例(例如，參

見《法律執業者條例》第53(2)及(5)條﹔

律師若明知但卻僱用禁止受僱於律師行的

人當文員，他必須面對其姓名從律師登記

冊上剔除的懲處)。

此外，對於涉及過去之不當行為的證據，

檢控員也必須協助審裁組了解其相關性。

費用

根據《法律執業者條例》第10(2)(e)條的

規定，審裁組有權命令任何一方支付「審

裁組的法律程序的事務費及附帶事務費」

。這包括書記所提供服務之費用，但該

等服務必須是合法地提供，而所收取的款

項，也必須是合理和相稱。因此，審裁組

在作出裁決之前及之後，均須對書記的工

作進行監察，尤其是有關書記的費用方

面。

透過提出建議，審裁組應告知書記及各當

事方，審裁組一般預期書記在該案件中的

最高工作量，並要求書記在進行額外工作

前，應先取得審裁組的核准。書記若承擔

了超過一般規定的額外行政工作，審裁組

在下達支付書記費用的命令時，應解釋為

何審裁組認為該等工作是有此必要。

相反，假如審裁組並無作出事先指示，又

或是書記在未獲審裁組事先核准的情況下

進行了額外工作，審裁組應當解釋在書記

所收取的費用中，有哪些項目是他不應獲

得支付。 n

THE NEW COMPANIES ORDINANCE - Highlights of Some Major Changes (a Companies Registry series)

新《公司條例》—主要改變概要(公司註冊系列）

By Ada Chung, Registrar of Companies Companies Registry of the Government of the HKSAR Karen Ho, Deputy Principal Solicitor Companies Registry of the Government of the HKSAR

作者鍾麗玲太平紳士，公司註冊處處長香港特區政府公司註冊處

何劉家錦副首席律師香港特區政府公司註冊處


• March 2014


The New Ordinance replaces those provisions in the old Companies

Ordinance, Cap. 32 (“Cap. 32”) governing the formation and operation of companies, which are repealed upon the commencement of the New Ordinance. The provisions of the old Ordinance which are not repealed and which relate mainly to prospectuses and insolvency remain in Cap. 32, which is renamed the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance.

This article, the first in a series, aims to set out some of the major changes introduced by the New Ordinance to modernise the law and enhance corporate governance. The next article will highlight the major changes introduced to achieve other main objectives.

I. Modernising the LawTo modernise the law, various initiatives have been introduced:-

Rewriting the law in simple and plain language

We have modernised the language and re-arranged the sequence of some of the provisions in a more logical and user-friendly order, so as to make the New Ordinance more readable and comprehensible. Under the current drafting convention, the New Ordinance is written in simple and plain language.

Abolishing the memorandum of association

The memorandum of association has been abolished for all companies. For

existing companies, the conditions in the memorandum are deemed to be contained in the articles of association, except for conditions relating to authorised share capital and par value, which are regarded to be deleted for all purposes. For companies which apply to be incorporated under the New Ordinance, they need to submit their incorporation form and articles of association only. In addition to the mandatory articles required for every company, companies may choose to adopt all or any of the provisions of the Model Articles prepared for the type of companies to which they belong. These Model Articles are set out in the Companies (Model Articles) Notice (Cap. 622H).

Abolishing par value

In line with international trends, the opportunity has been taken to migrate to a mandatory no-par regime for all companies. As a result, relevant concepts such as “authorised share capital”, “share premium” and “nominal value” no longer exist. Retiring the concept of par value creates an environment of greater certainty, simplifies accounting entries and gives companies greater flexibility in structuring their share capital.

Streamlining the types of companies

The types of companies that can be formed under the New Ordinance are streamlined:-

• Unlimited companies without share capital are abolished

• Companies limited by guarantee,

whether private or non-private, are categorised as a separate type of companies

• a definition for “public company”, i.e. a company other than a private company or a company limited by guarantee, is introduced

The 5 types of companies that can be formed under the New Ordinance are:-

• Public company limited by shares

• Private company limited by shares

• Company limited by guarantee without share capital

• Public unlimited company with share capital, and

• Private unlimited company with share capital

Clarifying the rules on indemnification of directors

Under the old law, there were no provisions regulating a director’s right to be indemnified against liabilities to third parties. To clarify the scope of the right of directors to be indemnified against liabilities to third parties, the relevant rules on indemnification are provided for under the New Ordinance. With the exception of certain liabilities and costs (such as fines and penalties), a company is permitted to indemnify a director against liabilities to a third party if the specified conditions are met.

II. Enhancing Corporate Governance

With the aim of enhancing corporate governance, the New Ordinance introduces the following major initiatives:-

The first quarter of 2014 heralds a new era for Hong Kong’s company law with the commencement of the new Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) (“the New Ordinance”) on 3 March 2014. The New Ordinance aims to achieve four main objectives, namely, enhancing corporate governance, facilitating business, ensuring better regulation and modernising Hong Kong’s company law.

March 2014 • COMPANIES 公司

THE NEW COMPANIES ORDINANCE - Highlights of Some Major Changes (a Companies Registry series)


Strengthening the accountability of directors

There were provisions in the old law prohibiting all public companies, as well as private companies which are members of a group of companies of which a listed company is a member, from appointing a body corporate as their director. There was no restriction for other private companies. The New Ordinance requires, on top of these restrictions, that private companies must have at least one director who is a natural person.

There are no provisions on directors’ duty of care, skill and diligence in Cap. 32 and the common law position in Hong Kong in this respect is not entirely clear. The standard of the duty in old case law, which focuses on the knowledge and experience which a particular director possesses (the subjective test), is considered too lenient nowadays. In the light of overseas developments, the New Ordinance introduces a statutory statement to provide clear guidance to directors. The new provision stipulates that a director must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence, and sets out a mixed objective and subjective test in the determination of the standard. The objective tests looks at the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the functions of the director in question.

Enhancing shareholder engagement in the decision making process

The old Companies Ordinance provided that anything which might be done by a company by resolution

in a general meeting might be done by a written resolution signed by all members without convening a meeting. However there were no statutory rules on proposing or passing a written resolution. The New Ordinance provides the procedures for proposing, passing and recording written resolutions. A company’s articles may set out alternative procedures for passing a resolution without convening a meeting, provided that the resolution is agreed to by the members unanimously.

To enhance the right of shareholders, the expenses of circulating members’ proposed resolutions for annual general meetings (“AGMs”), and members’ statements relating to the proposed resolution or other business to be dealt with at AGMs, will be borne by the company if the required threshold for requests are met and the requests to circulate such documents are received in time for sending with the notice of the relevant meeting.

Under Cap. 32, a poll would be called for if the demand is made by not less than 5 members, members representing not less than 10% of the total voting rights, or members holding not less than 10% of the total paid-up share capital of the company carrying the right to vote at the meeting. The threshold for demanding a poll is lowered from 10% to 5% of the total voting rights under the New Ordinance. The threshold of 5 members is retained but the threshold based on the total paid-up capital is removed.

Modifying the “headcount test”

The “headcount test”, pursuant to which a majority in number of the members

present and voting is required to pass a resolution to approve a scheme involving a takeover offer or general offer to buy back shares (including a privatisation scheme), is replaced under the New Ordinance by a new requirement that the number of votes cast against a resolution to approve such a scheme must not be more than 10 percent of the votes attached to all disinterested shares. “Disinterested shares” basically means shares held by non-interested parties. For other members’ schemes, the headcount test is retained, with a new provision giving the Court a discretion to dispense with the test where appropriate. To address the concern that minority shareholders are reluctant to challenge a scheme in Court because of the potentially substantial legal costs, it is provided that a dissenting member might be ordered to pay legal costs only if his or her opposition to the scheme is frivolous or vexatious.

Improving the disclosure of corporate information

The New Ordinance requires public companies and companies not qualified for simplified reporting (details of simplified reporting will be given in the next article) to prepare a more comprehensive directors’ report which includes an analytical and forward-looking “business review”, whilst allowing private companies to opt out from the requirement by a special resolution. The review should contain, for example, information relating to environmental and employee matters that have a significant impact on the company. The new requirement is in


• March 2014

line with the international trend on integrated reporting.

Fostering shareholder protection

The scope of the unfair prejudice remedy is extended to cover proposed acts and omissions, so as to remove the uncertainty as to whether a member can bring an action for unfair prejudice where a course of action is only at the proposal stage, or where there is only a threat to do or not to do something. The remedies that may be granted by the Court are also extended to cover an order restraining the proposed act or requiring the doing of an act that the company has proposed not to do.

To avoid potential conflict of interests, the old law prohibited a company from entering into loans or other similar transactions with a director. For a listed company or a private company that is within the same group as a listed company, the reference to “director” was extended to cover persons or corporations closely associated with a director. The New Ordinance expands the prohibition to cover a wider category of entities connected with a director. In the case of a “specified company”, i.e. a public company or a private company or company limited by guarantee that is a subsidiary of a public company, the prohibition also covers, among others, an adult child, a parent, a cohabitee, a minor child of the cohabitee who lives with the director and an associated body corporate.

The New Ordinance also introduces a requirement for members’ approval of any long-term employment of a director, so as to minimise the risk

that a director may entrench himself in office. It provides that the approval of members must be obtained for any contracts under which the guaranteed term of employment of a director with the company exceeds or may exceed 3 years.

Except for some specified transactions (most of which relate to the purchase or redemption of a company’s own shares), there was no provision in Cap. 32 restricting members’ rights to vote or requiring members to abstain from voting on transactions in which they have an interest. In the New Ordinance, there is a new requirement for disinterested members’ voting for connected transactions, namely, in considering if the relevant resolution is passed, every vote in favour of the resolution cast by interested members would be disregarded. The requirement is applicable to a “specified company” for various prohibited transactions.

Strengthening auditor’s rights to information

To ensure that an auditor will be in a position to perform his oversight functions in an effective manner, the New Ordinance empowers auditors to require a wider range of persons, including persons holding or accountable for any of the accounting records of the company or its Hong Kong incorporated subsidiary, or any such persons at the time to which the information or explanation relates, to provide them with the information and explanation that they reasonably require for the performance of their duties. In particular, the auditor of a holding company may also require the company

to obtain information or explanation from the auditor of its subsidiary undertaking that is not a Hong Kong incorporated company and persons holding or accountable for any of the accounting records of such a subsidiary undertaking.

III. Implementation of the New Ordinance

The New Ordinance brings the legal framework for the incorporation and operation of companies in Hong Kong in line with modern international standards, and ensures that the infrastructure of Hong Kong’s company law will continue to best serve the needs of Hong Kong as an international commercial and financial centre. It also reinforces Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a place to do business.

To prepare all for the change, the Companies Registry has sent circular letters to over one million companies on the register to announce the commencement of the New Ordinance, highlighting the major changes. From January 2014, a dedicated hotline has been set up for answering enquiries relating to the New Ordinance. Comprehensive information about the New Ordinance is available at the “New Companies Ordinance” section on the Companies Registry’s website at www.cr.gov.hk. Briefing materials, highlights of major changes, answers to Frequently Asked Questions and derivation/destination tables have been uploaded on the website. Our aim is to make the transition to the new regime as smooth as possible for all concerned. n



新條例取代舊有《公司條例》(香港

法例第32章)（下稱「第32章」)

關於公司的成立及運作的條文，該等條文

由新條例開始實施後廢除。舊有條例中不

被廢除的條文，即主要為關於招股章程和

公司無力償債的條文，則保留在第32章

內。新條例實施後，第32章改稱為《公

司(清盤及雜項條文)條例》。

本文旨在載列新條例為使法例現代化及加

強企業管治所引入的主要新猷。本系列的

下一篇文章將講述為達致其他兩個主要目

的的修改。

I. 使法例現代化

為使法例現代化所訂立的一些新措施包

括：

本文旨在載列新條例為使法例現代化及加

強企業管治所引入的主要新猷。本系列的

下一篇文章將講述為達致其他兩個主要目

的的修改。

以淺白的語文重寫法例

按照目前草擬法例的一貫做法，新條例以

淺白的語文編寫。一些條文亦重新排列，

使其先後次序更符合邏輯和便於使用，從

而令新條例更易於閱讀和理解。

廢除組織章程大綱

新條例之下，所有公司的組織章程大綱予

以廢除。載於原有公司的章程大綱的條文

(除了刪除關於法定股本及面值的條文外)

，會被視為公司章程細則的條文。根據新

條例註冊成立的公司，只需提交法團成立

表格及章程細則，後者須包括新條例所

指明的條文，除此之外，公司可選擇採納

所屬類別的章程細則範本的所有或任何條

文。該等章程細則範本載於《公司(章程

細則範本)公告》(第622H章)。

廢除股份面值

為符合國際趨勢，新條例強制所有公司採

用無面值股份制度。因此，相關的概念如

「法定股本」、「股份溢價」及「面值」

等將不復存在。廢除面值概念可締造更明

確的營商環境、簡化會計記項，及讓公司

在改動股本結構方面有更大靈活性。

簡化公司類別

新條例簡化可組成的公司類別：

• 取消無股本的無限公司；

• 擔保有限公司(不論是私人或非私人公

司)成為獨立的公司類別；

• 界定「公眾公司」，即私人公司或擔

保有限公司以外的公司。

在新條例下可組成的五類公司為：

• 公眾股份有限公司；

• 私人股份有限公司；

• 無股本的擔保有限公司；

• 有股本的公眾無限公司；

• 有股本的私人無限公司。釐清彌償董

事的規則

舊有《公司條例》並沒有有關彌償董事對

第三者的法律責任的條文。就此，新條

例釐清彌償董事的規則。除了某些法律責

任及費用 (例如罰款及罰則) 的例外情況

外，公司可在符合指明條件下，就董事對

第三者的法律責任提供彌償。

II. 加強企業管治

為加強企業管治，新條例下的新猷包括：

加強董事的問責性

舊法例禁止所有公眾公司及與上市公司屬

同一集團的私人公司委任法人團體為董

事。其他私人公司則無此限制。新條例規

定，除了以上的限制之外，私人公司須有

最少一名個人出任為董事。

第32章亦沒有關於董事須以謹慎、技巧

及努力行事的條文，而香港普通法在這方

面亦非清晰。舊案例中採納主觀準則，把

重點放在董事本身具備的知識和經驗上，

現今被視為過於寬鬆。鑑於海外的發展，

新條例訂明董事須以合理水平的謹慎、技

巧及努力行事，並就有關標準定出一套混

合的客觀及主觀準則。客觀準則乃任何人

在執行有關董事的職能時可合理預期會具

備的一般知識、技巧及經驗。

提高股東在決策過程中的參與程度

舊有條例訂明，如公司可藉在成員大會

上的決議作出某項事情，則該項事情可

在沒有舉行會議的情況下，藉一項由公

司全體成員簽署的書面決議作出，但並

沒有規管提出和通過書面決議的法定規

則。新條例訂明提出、通過及記錄書面

決議的程序。公司的章程細則可載列在

不舉行會議的情況下，全體成員一致通

過決議的其他程序。

為加強股東的權利，成員就周年大會提出

的決議，以及成員就周年大會上將會處理

的決議或其他事務所作的陳述書，如公司

及時收到足以令公司須傳閱該等文件的要

求，使公司在發出有關大會的通知時可同

時送交該等文件，則公司須承擔傳閱文件

的費用。

根據舊有條例，如提出要求以投票方式進

行表決的人數不少於5名成員；或佔總表

決權不少於10%；或持有公司已繳款並

帶有表決權的股本總額不少於10%，便

須以投票方式進行表決。新條例將最低人

數的規定，由佔總表決權的10%下調至

5%。新條例亦保留5名成員的最低人數

規定，但根據已繳款股本總額而定出的人

數規定則被取消。

新《公司條例》(香港法例第622章)(下稱「新條例」)

於2014年3月3日開始實施，標誌着香港公司法踏進

新紀元。新條例旨在達致的四個主要目的，是加強企

業管治、方便營商、確保規管更為妥善及使公司法例

現代化。


• March 2014

修訂「人數驗證」

「人數驗證」，概括來說，即要求大多數

出席會議且有投票的成員通過決議，同意

一項計劃的規定。在新條例下，凡涉及收

購要約或回購股份而作出的公開要約的計

劃（包括私有化計劃），新規定將取代「

人數驗證」。新規定述明，反對通過有關

計劃的決議的票數，不得超過附於所有無

利害關係股份的表決權的10%。「無利害

關係股份」基本上是指由無利害關係各方

所持有的股份。至於其他成員計劃則保留

人數驗證，新增條文亦賦予法院酌情權，

在合適的情況下，可不施行驗證。為顧及

少數股東或會因為可能須要支付高昂的訟

費而不願在法院反對計劃，新條例訂明反

對計劃的成員只會在所提出的反對屬瑣屑

無聊或無理纏擾的情況下，方可被飭令支

付訟費。

改善公司資料的披露

鑑於國際間有關綜合報告的趨勢，新條例

規定公眾公司及不符合擬備簡明報告資格

的公司（簡明報告的詳情將載於下一篇文

章）須擬備更全面的董事報告，當中須包

括具分析性及前瞻性的「業務審視」，以

便披露例如對公司有重大影響的環境事務

和僱員事務的資料。私人公司股東可藉特

別決議選擇不擬備業務審視。

加強對股東的保障

新條例擴大不公平損害補救的範圍，以

涵蓋「擬作出或不作出的作為」，藉此

釐清現行條例不清晰之處。法院的濟助

的範圍亦擴至包括作出命令，禁制公司

擬作出的作為，或規定公司作出其擬不

作出的作為。

為避免出現利益衝突，舊法例禁止公司貸

款予董事或作出其他類似交易。就上市公

司或與上市公司隸屬同一集團的私人公司

而言，限制引伸至包括與董事有密切聯繫

的人士或公司。新條例擴闊相關限制，以

涵蓋更多與董事有關連的實體。就公眾公

司，或附屬公眾公司的私人公司或擔保有

限公司（即「指明公司」），禁止範圍涵

蓋至成年子女、父母、同居者、同居者的

未成年子女，及有聯繫的法人團體。

新條例亦規定公司須獲成員的批准，才可

訂立董事受僱於公司的保證年期超過或可

超過三年的合約。

除一些指明交易外(大部份涉及公司回購

或贖回本身股份)，第32章並沒有條文限

制成員就其有利益關係的交易表決的權

利，或規定成員須就有關交易放棄表決。

新條例就有關連交易引入無利益關係成員

表決的新規定，即在考慮有關決議是否通

過時，不理會有利益關係成員對決議所投

的贊成票。該規定適用於「指明公司」的

多項受禁交易。

加強核數師獲取資料的權利

為確保核數師可有效地履行其監察職能，

新條例賦權核數師可要求更廣泛類別的

人士，提供核數師為履行職責而合理所需

的資料或解釋，這些人士包括持有該公司

(或在香港成立的附屬公司)的會計紀錄或

須就該等紀錄負責的人士。控權公司的核

數師，更可要求公司向其非在香港成立為

法團的附屬企業的核數師及持有該附屬企

業會計紀錄或須就該等紀錄負責的人，取

得該等資料或解釋。

III. 實施新條例

新條例為在香港成立及營運公司提供了一

個符合現代國際標準的法律框架，並確保

公司法繼續切合香港作為國際商業及金融

中心的需要，亦提升了香港作為營商地的

競爭力。

為令大家作好準備，公司註冊處已發信給

登記冊上超過一百萬間公司，公布實施

新條例的日期及概述主要的改變，並自

2014年1 月開始設立熱線解答有關新條

例的查詢。有關新條例的全面資訊，包括

簡介資料、主要修改概要、常見問題的答

案及條文來源/對照表，亦已上載公司註

冊處網頁(www.cr.gov.hk)內「新《公司條

例》」一欄。我們的目標是希望所有相關

人士能順利過渡至新制度。 n



Ship Collision Liability in Hong Kong -Dawn of a New Era?

與船舶碰撞法律責任有關之香港法例的新紀元？

The recent High Court judgment in Sungleam Maritime Limited v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “He Da 98” and Sister Ship “Shuncheng” (“The He De 98”) [2011] 5 HKLRD 126 decided that the Defendants’ vessel, He Da 98, was wholly to blame for the collision with the Plaintiffs’ vessel Pontodamon.

The authors explore the first-ever ship collision case in Hong Kong in which the Court awarded 100% liability to the Plaintiff, which might be significant given the occurrence of such high-profile incidences in recent years.

By Ernest Yang, Partner DLA Piper Hong Kong Xiaoshan Chen, Registered Foreign Lawyer DLA Piper Hong Kong Eric Woo, Senior Associate ONC Lawyers

作者楊大明合夥人歐華律師事務所陳曉山註冊外地律師歐華律師事務所胡慶業律師柯伍陳律師事務所


• March 2014

Rescuers approach a partially-submerged boat after two vessels collided in Hong Kong October 1, 2012.

香港2012年10月1日，兩艘船相撞後，救援人員接近一淹沒的船。

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

5.1

(1:400)

-3 -4 -5 -7 -8 -9 -3 LONG 122º LA -31º-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 38-037-0

LONG 6.7

March 2014 • ADMIRALTY 海事法

REUTERS/ Tyrone Siu

On 30 November 2007, the Plaintiffs’ vessel Pontodamon collided with the Defendants’ vessel HeDa98 in the port area of Shanghai.

Pontodamon is a Panamax-sized bulk carrier of 38,684 gross tonnes. She is 224.95 meters in length with a beam of 32.24 meters. At the material time, she was leaving the Shanghai port and heading eastwardly direction at a speed of about 16 knots. HeDa98 is a cargo vessel of 4,083 gross tonnes. She is 98.5 metres in length with a beam of 16.8 metres. At the relevant time, she was heading in a south-westerly direction at a speed of six to seven knots.

Had both vessels proceeded along the directions and at the speeds mentioned above, there would have been no collision. Unfortunately, approximately two minutes before the collision, Pontodamon turned to port (ie. left), and at almost the same time HeDa98 turned to starboard (ie. right).

The collision occurred when the port bow of HeDa98 made contact with the starboard side shell plating of Pontodamon. Both vessels were then oriented in a roughly northern heading with an angle of about 45 degrees between them.

He Da 981 Pontodamon Shanghai VTS


The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (“COLREGS”) (as promulgated in Cap. 369N) govern the manner in which vessels should navigate to avoid collisions. There is no dispute that He Da98 was more maneuverable than Pontodamon. There is also no dispute that according to COLREGS, HeDa98 was the vessel to give way while Pontodamon had the right of way.

Claimants’ case The Claimants’ case is that Pontodamon maintained her course and speed initially. When the crew on board Pontodamon observed that HeDa98 did not take action to avoid collision, Pontodamon tried to call her on VHF radio and making the light and whistle signals but HeDa98 did not respond.

Thereafter, Pontodamon continued to maintain her course and speed until she observed HeDa98 right ahead and crossing her bow. She then turned to port and reduced speed to avoid collision. The crew on board Pontodamon then observed HeDa98 suddenly turned to starboard, causing the captain of Pontodamon to decide turning hard on port. However, it was not sufficient to avoid collision.

Defendants’ caseThe Defendants’ case is that Pontodamon was travelling at an excessive speed in circumstances where she was navigating within a traffic separation scheme, within a designated anchorage where there were fishing vessels / anchored vessels nearby, and was steaming towards oncoming traffic properly navigating along a traffic lane. Pontodamon failed to abide by the traffic separation scheme in that she did not travel within the appropriate traffic lane and was travelling against the flow of traffic.

As a stand on vessel, Pontodamon

should maintain her course and speed. Instead, she turned port (without sounding two short whistle blasts to signal HeDa98) while HeDa98 was turning starboard, which eventually caused the collision.

Decision of the CourtThe Court decided that HeDa98 was wholly to blame for her failure to turn starboard at an earlier stage to avoid collision and that she only turned to starboard after crossing the bow of Pontodamon, which was too late. On the other hand, the Court said that Pontodamon was not at fault by turning port to avoid the collision because at that time HeDa98 had crossed Pontodamon’s bow and 25% of He Da98 was to the starboard side of Pontodamon. The Court also found the fact that Pontodamon failed to abide by the traffic separation scheme and proceeding at a speed of 16 knots was not causative of the collision, and that the failure of Pontodamon to sound two short whistle blasts before turning to port does not constitute a source of blame.

The Court’s decision suggests that there was no fault created by Pontodamon which may constitute a source of blame and that the actions of Pontodamon are justified because of the faults created by HeDa98. However, it is rarely the case that when two moving vessels collided with each other, only the actions of the one vessel are to be blamed. In particular, the Court does not regard Pontodamon’s breach of COLREGS as a source of blame, which is inconsistent with the approach adopted by the English Court.

The Position in England and WalesThe law of tort is generally applicable to collisions at sea. To enable the claimant in a ship collision action to recover damages, he must prove that

his loss was caused by negligence of the defendant, and that such collision and the damage resulting from it would not have happened but for the defendant’s fault. If the claimant also found to be negligent, the liability will be apportioned according to degree of fault of each party.

The requirement to apportion liability is expressly provided for in Section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which provides that:

“(1) Where, by the fault of two or more ships, damage or loss is caused to one or more of those ships … the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each ship was in fault.

(2) If, in any such case, having regard to all the circumstances, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally…”

The Court is bound to apportion liability unless it was impossible to do so (TheAnneliese[1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 355, CA), and the Court will look at the degree in which the respective faults of the vessels in fault have contributed to the collision (TheBuccinum(1936) 55 L1.L.Rep.205 at 218, CA). Whether the Court should attach more blame to any deliberate act should depend upon all the circumstances (TheSavina[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 123 at 133, 134, HL). The ground for differentiating liability of each vessel must be supported by evidence and it is not enough that the Court should have a general leaning in favour of one side rather than the other (TheLucileBloomfield[1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 at 350, CA).

In recent English cases, the Court’s apportionment of liability ranges from 50/50 to 85/15. The extent of liability depends upon which vessel carries more blame for the collision:


• March 2014


In SamcoEuropeandTheMSCPrestige[2011] EWHC 1580 QB, the Court regarded the plaintiff vessel’s failure to announce her alteration to port by appropriate sound and light signals as a source of blame and the Court eventually held that the plaintiff vessel was 40% responsible for the collision. In TheHagieniandTheBarbarossa[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 QB, the Court regarded the defendant vessel’s failure to proceed in her own traffic lane as part of the blame for the collision and eventually held that the defendant vessel was 80% responsible. Further, in TheBritishAviator [1965] 1 Lloyd’s

Rep. 271 CA, the Court found that the parties’ vessels were travelling at excessive speed and eventually held that both vessels were equally to blame.

There is only one recent English case TheOwnersandBareboatCharterersoftheVessel“GlobalMariner”vTheOwnersandBareboatCharterersofthevessel“AtlanticCrusader [2005] EWHC 380 in which the Court awarded 100% liability to the Plaintiff. However, in that case, the defendants’ vessel was solely to blame for the collision because it struck the Plaintiff’s vessel while the vessel was at anchor.

Implication of The He Da 98 to Ship Collision Liability in Hong Kong The position in Hong Kong should be similar to England given that the requirement to apportion ship collision liability is also expressly provided for in Section 3 of the Merchant Shipping (Collision Damage Liability and Salvage) Ordinance (Cap 508), the contents of which is almost identical to section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

To date, there is no reported judgment in Hong Kong which has considered the implications of TheHeDa98. However, it is submitted that the Court’s approach in the apportionment of liability in TheHeDa98 is inconsistent with the approach of the English Court and should not be followed. This is because according to the English law, the Court should look at the degree in which the respective faults of the vessels have contributed to the collision and apportion liability accordingly. The Court should not consider whether the faults of one vessel are justified by the actions of the other as adopted in TheHeDa98.

It is interesting to note that after the Defendants in TheHeDa98filed an appeal against the Court’s decision, the parties themselves agreed to re-apportion the liability to 75% for HeDa98 and 25% for Pontodamon. It appears that even the parties are of the view that the Court should not have decided that the Defendants were wholly liable to the collision. Therefore, litigants involved in a ship collision dispute in Hong Kong would be well advised to treat The HeDa98 decision with caution. n

MessrsDLAPiperHongKongwasinstructedtorepresenttheDefendantsandprepareforathree-daytrialhearingaftertakingoverthecasefromtheDefendants’previouslegalrepresentativeson12August2011,fourdaysbeforethehearing. Messrs.Ince&CowasinstructedtorepresentthePlaintiffs.


Apportionment of Liability

Case

50/50 1. TheMalojaII [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 QB2. TheBritishAviator [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 271 CA3. MIOM1LtdvSeaEchoENE [2010] EWHC 31804. TheBowSpringandTheManzanilloII [2004] EWCA Civ 10075. TheSanwaandTheChoyangStar [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 283

60/40 1. TheSamcoEuropeandTheMSCPrestige [2011] EWHC 1580 QB2. TheAleksandrMarineskoandTheQuintStar [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.

265 QB3. TheSkyronandTheHel [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 254 QB4. ThePelopidasandTheTRSLConcord [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm)

737

66.7/33.3 1. TheOwnersand/orDemiseCharterersofthem/v“Eleftheria”vTheOwnersand/orDemiseCharterersofthem/v“HakkiDeval” [2006] EWHC 2809 (Comm)

2. ThePuritanandTheNaviosEnterprise [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 16

70/30 1. TheAngelicSpiritandtheYMariner [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 595 QB2. TheOwnersoftheCargoLatelyLadenonBoardtheM.V.SunCrossvTheOwnersand/orDemiseCharterersoftheM.V.RickmersGenoa [2010] EWHC 1949

3. TheKrysia [2008] EWHC 15234. TheAlexiaandTheEnif [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643

75/25 1. TheDevotionandTheGoldenPolydinamos [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 464 QB

2. TheSitaremandTheSpirit [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 837

80/20 1. TheMineralDampierandTheHanjinMadras [2002] C.L.C. 11 CA2. TheHagieniandTheBarbarossa [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 QB3. TheTopazandTheIrapua [2003] EWHC 320

85/15 1. OwnersoftheShipBulkAtlantavOwnersoftheShipForestPioneer [2007] EWHC 84

2. TheMaerskColombo [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 491

在近期的Sungleam Maritime Limited v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “He Da 98” and Sister Ship “Shuncheng”(“The He De 98”)[2011] 5 HKLRD 126一案中，被告人一艘名為「He Da 98」的船隻，與原告人的貨船Pontodamon相撞，高等法院裁定被告人須對是次意外負全部責任。

作者探討了香港有史以來的第一宗，法庭裁定被告人須負全部法律責任的船舶相撞案件。鑒於近年香港所發生的備受社會矚目事件，該案因而具有相當重大的意義。

2007年11月30日，原告人的船隻

Pontodamon與被告人的船隻「He Da

98」在上海港口範圍發生碰撞。

Pon todamon是一艘巴拿馬型散裝貨

輪，總噸位38,684噸，長224.95米，寬

32.24米。事發時，該貨輪正在離開上海

港口，並以大約16海里的時速向東面航

行。「He Da 98」是一艘貨船，總噸位

4,083噸，長98.5米，寬16.8米。事發

時，該船正以6至7海里的時速向西南方

航行。

該兩艘船隻假如能維持上述的方向和

速度航行，碰撞是絕無可能發生的。

不幸的是，在事故發生之前大約兩分

鐘，Pontodamon在航道上向左轉，而

「He Da 98」幾乎在同一時間向右轉。

當「H e D a 9 8」的左舷船頭碰到

Pontodamon的右舷船殼板後，兩船便告

相撞。事故發生後，兩艘船的船頭大致朝

向北方，而雙方之間形成一個大約45度

角。

《1972年國際海上避碰規則》(下稱

「 COLREGS 」)(如第369N 章所頒布的)

是為規管船舶的航行方式而制定，避免船

隻碰撞事故發生。與Pontodamon相比，

「He Da 98」在當時毫無疑問處於較為

可操控的狀態。此外，根據COLREGS的

規定，Pontodamon在當時是享有優先通

行權，故「He Da 98」應讓Pontodamon

先行。這一點雙方並無爭議。

申索人的案情

申索人的案情是﹕Pontodamon一直保持

著最初的航向和速度。當Pontodamon上

的船員發覺「He Da 98」並無採取必要行

動以避免船隻的碰撞發生，他們嘗試

透過VHF無線電及發出閃燈和鳴笛來

引起「He Da 98」的注意，但對方並無作

出回應。

之後， Pontodamon繼續保持其航向和速

度，但不久發現「He Da 98」就在其正前

方，並且正在橫越其船頭。Pontodamon

於是向左轉和減速，試圖避免雙方發生

碰撞。此時，Pontodamon上的船員察覺

「He Da 98」突然轉右，Pontodamon的

船長於是急向左轉，但最終無法避免兩船

相撞。

被告人的案情

被告人的案情是﹕事發時，Pontodamon

正以超過限制的速度航行，而在當

時，她是需要按照分道航行制的規定航

行，並需要按指定的地點停泊。當時在

Pontodamon的附近範圍，還有漁船和

其他下錨停泊的船隻，而她的航向，是

對著從正確航道迎面駛來的船隻。由於

Pontodamon沒有依從適當的航道航行，

並且其航向是與規定的方向相反，因此乃

違反分道航行制的規定。

Pontodamon作為航道上的直航船舶，理

應一直維持其自身航向和速度。但情形

恰好相反，當「He Da 98」向右轉時，她

卻決定向左轉(且沒有發出兩短的號笛給

「He Da 98」作出預警)，最終釀成事故。

法庭裁決

法庭裁定，事故的發生，是由於

「H e D a 9 8」未能及時右轉所致。

在事件中，「H e D a 9 8」是在越過了

Pontodamon的船頭之後才右轉，但是

為時已晚。因此，「He Da 98」須為這次

意外的發生負完全的法律責任。另一方

面，法庭認為 Pontodamon決定向左轉

以避免碰撞發生，此中並不存在任何過

失，因為「He Da 98」在當時已經越過了

Pontodamon的船頭，其船身已有百分之

二十五是在Pontodamon的右舷一邊。此

外，法庭亦裁定，Pontodamon雖然沒有

遵守分道航行制的規定，並以時速16海

里的速度航行，但這種種情況，皆並非導

致兩船相撞的原因。雖然在Pontodamon

向左轉之前，她並沒有發出兩短的號笛以

作出預警，但這並不促使她需要對意外的

發生負責。

法庭的判決指出，就該意外事故而

言，Pontodamon並沒有觸犯任何導致該

意外發生的過失﹔另一方面，由於「He

Da 98」所犯的過失，Pontodamon在當

時所採取的應變行動是可以理解的。然

而，當有兩艘船在航行途中相撞，最終卻

只有其中一艘船需要為事故的發生負責，

這種情況是十分罕見的。尤其是，法庭

認為Pontodamon即使違反了COLREGS

的規定，但那並非導致撞船意外發生的

原因。此舉與英國法院的取向並不一致。

英格蘭與威爾士的情況

侵權法一般適用於海上船隻的碰撞事故。

在船舶碰撞的訴訟中，申索人如要獲得賠

償，便必須證明他所蒙受的損失，是因被

告人的過失所導致，而且，若非被告人的

過失，便絕對不會發生船隻的碰撞事故和

造成損害。申索人如被法庭裁定同樣犯

有疏忽，則原告人與被告人須按各自所犯

過失的程度來承擔法律責任。

英國的Merchant Shipping Act 1995第

187條就法律責任的分攤作出了規定：

「(1) 凡因2艘或多於2艘船隻的過

失而對該等船隻中的一艘或多於一艘

......造成損害或損失，則對該等損害或

損失作出補救的法律責任須與每艘船

隻的過失程度相稱。

(2) 如在考慮有關個案的一切情況

後，仍無法確定過失的程度，則有關

法律責任須平均分攤......」


• March 2014


除非實際上不可行，否則法庭必須對案件所涉及的法律責任進行分攤(The Anneliese

[1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 355, CA)，並根據發生船隻碰撞的實際情況，決定雙方所

犯過失的程度(The Buccinum (1936) 55 L1.L.Rep.205 at 218, CA)。然而，對於蓄

意導致意外發生的行為，法庭是否應對其施加重罰，須視整體情況而定 (The Savina

[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 123 at 133, 134, HL)。涉案船舶究竟應承擔多大程度的法

律責任，必須根據所掌握的證據來衡量，而法庭不應偏重任何一方的利益(The Lucile

Bloomfield [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 at 350, CA)。

在近期的英國案例中，法庭分攤法律責任的範圍是在50/50至85/15之間。肇事船舶

所須承擔法律責任的程度，取決於哪一艘船在事故中犯了較嚴重的過失：

在Samco Europe and The MSC Prestige [2011] EWHC 1580 QB一案中，法

庭認為原告人的船舶並沒有發出適當的號笛和閃燈以作為訊號，讓其他船隻曉得她計

劃改變航道，因此原告人須為此承擔法律責任。最後，法庭裁定原告人的船舶在有關

事故中，所須承擔的法律責任程度為百分之四十。在The Hagieni and The Barbarossa

[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep一案中，法庭認為被告人的船隻並沒有保持在自身的航道上航

行，而那是導致意外發生的其中一個原因。最後，法庭裁定被告人的船隻須就有關事

故承擔百分之八十法律責任。此外，在The British Aviator [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.

271 CA一案中，法庭裁定於案發時，當事雙方的船隻都以超過限制的速度航行，因

此雙方須平均分攤法律責任。

在近期的英國案例中，只有The Owners and

Bareboat Charterers of the Vessel “Global

Mariner” v The Owners and Bareboat

Charterers of the vessel “Atlantic Crusader

[2005] EWHC 380一案，是關於法庭裁定被

告人須承擔全部法律責任。然而，由於在該

案中被告人的船隻所撞到的，是原告人已拋

錨停泊的船隻，因此被告人的船隻在事故中

須承擔全部法律責任。

He Da 98一案對香港船舶碰撞法律責任之影響

香港的《商船(碰撞損害法律責任及救助)條

例》(第508章)第3條，由於也就船舶碰撞事

故的法律責任分攤作出了明確的規定，而該

條與英國的Merchant Shipping Act 1995第

187條幾乎如出一轍，因此香港在這方面的

法律規定，與英國的應該類似。

迄今為止，香港仍然沒有任何經彙報判決論

及「He Da 98」一案所產生之影響。但是，

個人認為香港法庭在「He Da 98」一案中對

法律責任分攤的處理方法，與英國法院向來

的做法不符，因此不應將其視作準繩。根據

英國法律，法庭應首先察看各船隻在碰撞事

故中所犯過失的程度，並據此作出相應的法

律責任分攤。法庭不應當考慮一艘船在事故

中所犯的過失，會否因另一艘船作出了不當

行為而獲得網開一面，正如「He Da 98」一

案的情況般。

有趣的是，自「He Da 98」一案的被告人

就法庭所作的裁決提出上訴後，事故雙方

同意自行對該案的法律責任再作分攤，由

「HeDa98」承擔百分之七十五，其餘的百分

之二十五則由Pontodamon承擔。如此看來，

事故雙方也認為，法庭裁定被告人須為碰撞

意外的發生負全責是不恰當的做法。因此，

律師在為涉及香港船舶碰撞糾紛的訴訟人提

供法律意見時，應提醒他們對「He Da 98」

一案的裁決結果採取審慎的態度。 n

歐華律師事務所於2011年8月12日，即在聽

證會四天前接受被告委托從被告先前的律師

接手本案，並準備一個為期三天的審判聽證

會。英士律師事務所奉命代表原告。


法律責任的

分攤

案例

50/50 1. TheMalojaII [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 QB2. TheBritishAviator [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 271 CA3. MIOM1LtdvSeaEchoENE [2010] EWHC 31804. TheBowSpringandTheManzanilloII [2004] EWCA Civ 10075. TheSanwaandTheChoyangStar [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 283

60/40 1. TheSamcoEuropeandTheMSCPrestige [2011] EWHC 1580 QB2. TheAleksandrMarineskoandTheQuintStar [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.

265 QB3. TheSkyronandTheHel [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 254 QB4. ThePelopidasandTheTRSLConcord [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm)

737

66.7/33.3 1. TheOwnersand/orDemiseCharterersofthem/v“Eleftheria”vTheOwnersand/orDemiseCharterersofthem/v“HakkiDeval” [2006] EWHC 2809 (Comm)

2. ThePuritanandTheNaviosEnterprise [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 16

70/30 1. TheAngelicSpiritandtheYMariner [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 595 QB2. TheOwnersoftheCargoLatelyLadenonBoardtheM.V.SunCrossvTheOwnersand/orDemiseCharterersoftheM.V.RickmersGenoa [2010] EWHC 1949

3. TheKrysia [2008] EWHC 15234. TheAlexiaandTheEnif [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643

75/25 1. TheDevotionandTheGoldenPolydinamos [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 464 QB

2. TheSitaremandTheSpirit [2001] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 837

80/20 1. TheMineralDampierandTheHanjinMadras [2002] C.L.C. 11 CA2. TheHagieniandTheBarbarossa [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 QB3. TheTopazandTheIrapua [2003] EWHC 320

85/15 1. OwnersoftheShipBulkAtlantavOwnersoftheShipForestPioneer [2007] EWHC 84

2. TheMaerskColombo [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 491

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS業界透視

Administrative 行政

Cross-border school rush stokes tensionsFifteen years after the right of abode issue led to two landmark Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) judgments, it now appears the Hong Kong education sector’s turn to handle the repercussions.

One recent wintry dawn, more than 100 Mainland Chinese parents started lining up outside a primary school in Hong Kong to try to clinch Grade One places for their children. They were among 700 parents competing for 550 school spots in an area near the border with the mainland that has become a magnet for people in Shenzhen and nearby cities who want their Hong Kong-born children educated in the financial hub.

Since Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997, both sides have integrated more closely and Hong Kong has benefited from economic benefits such as visiting mainland tourists and trade agreements.

But the influx has also caused resentment in the city of seven million people, from crowded maternity wards to soaring apartment prices, and now, with the children growing up, the scramble for schools.

Roughly a quarter of births in Hong

Kong between 2002 and 2012 - or more than 200,000 babies - were to couples who both came from Mainland China. Birth in Hong Kong secured residency for the children and accompanying benefits, including free education.

The CFA judgements - NgKa-lingandothersvsDirectorofImmigration [1999] 1 HKLRD 315 and ChanKam-ngavsDirectorofImmigration[1999] 1 HKLRD 304 - confirmed the right of abode in Hong Kong for almost 1.7 million persons born in the mainland, though this was deemed impractical by many in Hong Kong in terms of available resource. The Hong Kong government has been looking into how it can alleviate the general situation and assuage local concerns.

- Hong Kong Lawyer and Reuters News

跨境學額緊張加劇兩地矛盾

十五年前，居港權的問題令終審法院作

出兩項意義重大的判決，如今似乎輪到

香港的教育界面對這個問題的反響。

近日，本港一所小學外有過百名內地家

長冒著嚴寒，清早開始排隊輪候，目的

是為子女爭得一個小一學位。這批家長

是700名爭奪北區550個學額的家長之

一。由於不少深圳和鄰近地區的家長均

希望其港生子女能夠在香港這個金融中

心就學，邊境附近地區的學額因而變得

非常緊張。

自1997年回歸以來，中港兩地關係越趨

緊密，自由行及貿易協定等措施為香港

帶來經濟上的得益。

但內地人大量湧港，亦令這個700萬人

口的城市怨聲載道，例如產科床位不敷

應用、樓價飆升，現在隨著雙非兒童逐

漸長大，又再引起爭奪學位的問題。

2002年至2012年間在本港出生的嬰兒

中，約有四分之一即超過20萬為雙非

兒童。港生兒童除了可取得居留權外，

亦可獲得附帶福利，其中就包括免費教

育。

終審法院在Ng Ka- l ing and others

vs D i rector of Immigrat ion [1999]

1 HKLRD 315及Chan Kam-nga vs

D i rector of Immigrat ion [1999] 1

H K L R D 3 0 4 兩案的判決中確定，近

170萬名在內地出生的人士擁有居港

權，但不少港人就認為本港的資源不勝

負荷，裁決是不切實際的。香港政府一

REUTERS/Bobby Yip


• March 2014

直研究如何緩解現時的局面及減輕港人

的憂慮。

-《香港律師》及路透社新聞

Banking 銀行

“Cleaning up the paperwork” This is not a euphemism for a party’s reluctant approach to discovery. Rather, it is an observation by the Singapore Court of Appeal in its judgment in DeutscheBankAGvChangTseWen[2013] SGCA 49.

Readers may recall that in the Chang case (“Industry Insights”, April 2013), the Singapore High Court allowed Chang’s claim, primarily on the basis that it found the bank: (i) had assumed a pre-contractual duty to advise Chang as to his wealth management; and (ii) had breached that duty by reference to Chang’s trading in forward accumulator share trades.

That judgment raised a few eye-brows because the duty to advise was found to arise despite the client service agreement confirming that the bank was providing execution only services and there being no advisory agreement.

The bank’s confidence in its appeal was well founded when the Singapore Court of Appeal last year overturned the judgment. Some brief take-away points include:

• when considering whether a pre-contractual duty of care arises, common law courts will usually have regard to the whole “factual matrix”;

• the absence of a written advisory agreement points to there being no duty to advise;

• the line between advisory or non-advisory services can be a fine one. However, merely introducing

investment products and opportunities in a private banking context does not (of itself) constitute investment advice;

• even if the bank owed an advisory duty, it was not in breach by failing to warn Chang of risks associated with accumulators because he could have calculated those risks as a matter of simple arithmetic (KwokvHSBCPrivateBank(Suisse)SA [2012] HKEC 903, considered);

• given that no advisory duty was found to exist, it was unnecessary to consider the judge’s finding that the bank could not rely on contractual disclaimers because Chang was unaware of them. However, the Singapore Court of Appeal doubted the judge’s analysis of the state of the law on contractual estoppel.

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s judgment is consistent with similar cases in other common law jurisdictions (in particular, Hong Kong). While banks may rest easier, there are lessons to be learned. For example, while expressing some sympathy for Chang, the Singapore Court of Appeal suggested that banks would do better by:

• communicating with customers clearly as to what services are and are not being provided;

• “cleaning up the paperwork”;

for example, by ensuring that contractual disclaimers are brought to customers’ attention before signature and being able to document that.

- Jonathan Cary, Partner, RPC

「整理文書工作中」

這不是與訟一方在披露過程中採取不合

作態度時的委婉之詞。相反，這是新加

坡上訴庭對Deutsche Bank AG v Chang

Tse Wen [2013] SGCA 49一案所持的

看法。

讀者也許記得，新加坡高等法庭在Chang

一案(載於2013年4月「業界透視」一欄)

判Chang勝訴，主要的理由是法庭認為涉

案銀行：(i)有責任於立約前向Chang提供

財富管理方面的建議；及(ii)因建議Chang

進行遠期累計股票期權買賣，違反了該

責任。

儘管案中的客戶服務協議確認該銀行只

會提供執行服務，而且雙方並無訂立顧

問協議，但法庭仍然裁定該銀行負有提

供建議的職責，這令人相當意外。

銀行不服提出上訴，去年最終獲新加坡

上訴庭推翻該裁決。讀者應注意以下事

項：

• 普通法法院在考慮立約前謹慎責任是

否存在時，通常會顧及整體案情；

March 2014 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視


• 沒有訂立書面顧問協議即代表沒有提

供建議的責任；

• 諮詢服務與或非諮詢服務之間的界線

可以相當模糊。然而，僅僅在私人銀

行業務層面介紹投資產品和機會，這

（本身）並不構成投資建議；

• 即使銀行有責任提供建議，但未有

提醒Chang累計股票期權的相關風險

一事，並不構成違反該責任，因為這

涉及的是簡單的算術，Chang本可計

算出這些風險(Kwok v HSBC Private

Bank (Suisse) SA [2012] HKEC 903

一案曾對此予以考慮)；

• 由於案中不存在提供建議的責任，因

此並沒有必要考慮原審法官的裁決，

即Chang不知悉合約中的免責條款，

故銀行不能倚仗這些條款。然而，新

加坡上訴庭對原審法官就合約不容反

悔法狀況所作的分析提出質疑。

新加坡上訴庭的判決與其他普通法司法

管轄區（特別是香港）對類似案件作出

的判決一致。雖然銀行可鬆一口氣，但

應汲取當中的教訓。例如，新加坡上訴

庭對Chang的情況寄予同情，不過建議銀

行作出以下改善措施：

• 清楚向客戶交代銀行提供及不提供哪

些服務；

•「整理好文書工作」，例如確保客戶

在簽署合約前注意到當中的免責條

款，並將此記錄在案。

- RPC合夥人Jonathan Cary

Civil Procedure 民事訴訟程序

Update on some history of “sleeping dogs”With a “neuter and release” programme for stray dogs in the headlines in Hong Kong it is, perhaps, an opportune time to revisit the not unrelated issue of strike out of “sleeping dogs”; namely, “stale” claims that have been inactive (“asleep”) for years.

Readers may recall the Court of Final Appeal’s landmark judgment in reWingFaiConstructionCo.Ltd(inliquidation)[2012] 1 HKLRD 589, that (among other things): (i) confirmed the test for dismissal for want of prosecution is rooted in abuse of process; (ii) laid an onus on all parties (including defendants) to case manage cases; and (iii) disapproved of a strategy of “letting sleeping dogs lie”.

Since that landmark judgment, it is fair to suggest that a number of brave defendants have sought to test the ambit of the courts’ powers to dismiss for abuse of process but (to date) most have been disappointed. For example, see “Industry Insights” for May 2013 (“Dismissal of dormant claims”), July 2013 (“Time for the Dog Whisperer”) and September 2013 (“Preparing to fight sleeping dogs”).

The recent case of GranadexSAvBangkokBankPCL [2014] HKEC 79 is a fairly rare example of a successful application to strike out a plaintiff’s inactive claim. As if to emphasise just how “last resort” dismissal of stale claims is in practice (for now), the defendant’s application to strike out succeeded because:

• the plaintiff’s action had commenced as far back as 1993 (HCCL No. 187 of 1993);

• the action had been dormant for sixteen years;

• the plaintiff company had been subject to liquidation

proceedings since 2002;

• the other corporate defendant had been dissolved in 2001, such that the defendant had lost any opportunity to claim a contribution;

• other key players in the case were either dead or had vanished and no one appeared to object to the strike out.

Indeed, the court recognised that the decision to dismiss was “very easy” in these circumstances.

However, how did dismissal for abuse of process (for example, “want of prosecution”) become so difficult, absent such exceptional circumstances? As Lord Cornwallis, a noted a dog-lover, is reputed to have said at the “Battle of Yorktown” in 1781 (signalling the end of the American War of Independence) - “How did it come to this?”.

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

「沉睡中的狗兒」最新進展

隨著流浪狗絕育計劃成為近日香港頭

條，也許是時候重新探討不無關係的

「沉睡中的狗兒」問題，亦即是全無行

動(「沉睡」)多年的「陳舊」申索。

讀者也許記得，終審法院在re Wing Fai

Construction Co. Ltd ( in l iquidation)

[2012] 1 HKLRD 589一案作出意義

深遠的裁決，其中包括：(i)確定以訴訟

程序中無人作出行動為理由撤銷申索的

驗證準則源於濫用程

序；(i i )奠定與


• March 2014


訟各方 (包括被告人)有責任以案件管

理方式管理案件，及(iii)不贊同採取「別

招惹沉睡中的狗兒」(即「別惹事生非」)

的策略。

客觀而言，這項意義深遠的裁決出現

後，曾有些被告人勇敢地一試，以濫用

程序為理由向法院申請撤銷申索，惜(至

今)大多無功而還。例子詳見「業界透

視」一欄，包括2013年5月號的《撤銷

暫擱訴訟》、2013年7月號的《別招惹

沉睡中的狗兒》及2013年9月號的《作

好準備迎戰沉睡中的狗兒》。

近期Granadex SA v Bangkok Bank PCL

[2014] HKEC 79一案，被告人成功把原

告人全無行動的訴訟剔除，成為少數的

成功例子。裁決彷彿要強調剔除陳舊申

索實際上(現在)是多麼「不得已」，被告

人申請剔除獲批的理由如下：

• 原告人的訴訟早在1993年(HCCL No.

187 of 1993)展開；

• 訴訟處於不活動狀態已達16年；

• 2002年，原告公司被入稟申請清盤；

• 由於另一公司身份的被告人已於2001

年解散，被告人已無法要求它分擔款

項；

• 案中其他關鍵人士均已死亡或失去蹤

影，而且看來沒有任何人反對剔除有

關申索。

事實上，法院認為在這種情況下作出撤

銷的決定是「非常容易」的。

然而，為何不在這種特殊情況下，以濫

用程序為理由撤銷申索(例如「訴訟程序

中無人作出行動」)，竟變得如斯困難？

引用同屬愛狗之士的Cornwal l is勳爵在

1781年(標誌美國獨立戰爭結束的)「約

克鎮戰役」的名句–「何以事情發展到

如此地步？」

- Warren Ganesh高級顧問，

Smyth & Co與RPC聯營

Company 公司

Shining a light on shadow companiesRe USAExxonMobilOilLtd [2014] HKEC 80 and re PowerDekor(HK)Ltd [2014] HKEC 42 are but two recent examples of cases in Hong Kong in which the High Court has expressed concern about the practice of “shadow companies” being registered in Hong Kong in order to pass themselves off as the real thing.

Shadow companies share a number of traits. For example:

• the use of an identical or similar corporate name to that of a reputable company and its business and trademark(s);

• company officers who reside outside the jurisdiction (often across “the border”);

• a registered office in Hong Kong that is the same as that of the company providing secretarial services;

• the use of incorporation documents in Hong Kong to pass off the shadow company’s “services” as that of the real company, including infringement of intellectual property rights.

In both cases orders were granted (among other things) requiring the

shadow company to change its name. Often in such cases, the real company and intellectual property owners are left chasing unscrupulous individuals across “the border” who will have achieved their short term objectives by forming a shadow company in Hong Kong in order

to deceive potential customers.

Sections 20 - 22 of the outgoing Companies Ordinance deal with the registration of corporate names. These are in large part reflected in (among others) Sections 108-110 of the new

Companies Ordinance.

As noted by the judge in both cases, these provisions could go further. While they empower the Registrar of Companies (among other things) to direct that a company changes a corporate name that is the “same as or too like” a name in the index of company names, they do not specifically entitle the Registrar to refuse to register a company with a name that is the “same

as or too like” another.

The judge concluded by stating that (re

PowerDekor, para.6):

“It seems that greater scrutiny needs to be employed in the approval process to ensure that a company name will not be accepted for registration if it is the same or very similar as a name appearing


in the Registrar’s index of company names”.

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

揭開影子公司的面具

高等法院曾於一些案件中，對有人在香

港註冊「影子公司」以偽冒其他公司的

情況表示關注，近期 re USA Exxon

Mobil Oil Ltd [2014] HKEC 80 及re

Power Dekor (HK) Ltd [2014] HKEC

42兩案正是例子。

影子公司有一些共同特徵，例如：

• 採用的公司名稱與另一間知名企業的

名稱、業務和商標相同或類似；

• 公司主要人員居於香港境外(通常為內

地)；

• 香港的註冊辦事處與秘書服務公司的

辦事處相同；

• 以影子公司的香港註冊文件冒充真正

的公司提供「服務」，包括侵犯知識

產權。

兩案中，法庭均頒令(除其他事項外)要求

影子公司更改名稱。在這類案件中，不

法之徒往往透過在港成立的影子公司欺

騙潛在客戶，達到他們的短期目的後逃

去，最終剩下真正的公司和知識產權擁

有者向這些境外的不法之徒追究。

在即將被取代的《公司條例》中，第20

至22條負責公司名稱的登記事宜，而在

新《公司條例》中，大部分相關條文載

於第108至110條。

正如審理該兩案的同一名法官所指，這

些條文可更進一步。雖然這些條文賦予

公司註冊處處長多項權力，包括在某公

司名稱與公司名稱索引中的另一名稱「

相同或過分相似」時，指示該公司更改

公司名稱，但條文並沒有明確賦權處長

拒絕註冊一間名稱與另一名稱「相同或

過分相似」的公司。

該法官總結如下(Power Dekor 一案第6

段)：

「看來審批過程中需要採取更嚴格的審

查措施，以確保當某公司名稱與載於處

長公司名稱索引的另一名稱相同或非常

相似時，該公司名稱將不獲註冊。」

- 夏禮豪合夥人，


Criminal 刑法

Property tycoons hit with additional charges in bribery caseThomas and Raymond Kwok, the billionaire co-chairmen of Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd, had additional charges filed against them last month in a bribery investigation surrounding Asia’s largest developer, the company said.

The Sun Hung Kai probe, Hong Kong’s biggest corruption case since its anti-graft agency was formed nearly 40 years ago, involves one of Asia’s most powerful families and the world’s second-largest property company with a market capitalisation of US$33 billion (HK$256 billion).

Thomas Kwok received an additional charge under the anti-graft law, while two additional charges for conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office

were laid against Raymond Kwok, the company said in a statement on the Hong Kong stock exchange.

The case will not affect its business and operations, the company said. The Kwok brothers and Rafael Hui, Hong Kong’s former Chief Secretary for Administration, were charged in August 2012 for offences linked to bribery and misconduct in public office.

Two others have also been charged in the case including Thomas Chan, the board member in charge of land purchases at Sun Hung Kai Properties, and Francis Kwan, a former banker.

- Hong Kong Lawyer and Reuters News

新地郭氏兄弟被加控罪

捲入涉賄案的亞洲最大地產發展商之一

的新鴻基地產上月發出公告，指其聯席

主席郭炳江和郭炳聯再被加控控罪。

此案是本港廉正公署自成立近40年來最

大宗的涉貪案，涉案郭氏家族是亞洲最

富有的家族之一，旗下的新鴻基地產是

全球第二大地產商，市值330億美元(約

2560億港元)。

該公司在港交所公告中表示，郭炳江被

多加一項觸犯防止賄賂條例的控罪，而


• March 2014


郭炳聯則被多加兩項串謀觸犯公職人員

行為失當的控罪。

此外，公告亦表示案件不會影響集團的

正常業務及運作。郭氏兄弟及香港前政

務司司長許仕仁在2012年8月被落案起

訴觸犯與行賄和公職人員行為失當罪行

有關的罪行。

另外兩名同被起訴的人士為新鴻基地

產董事陳巨源及港交所前高級副總裁

關雄生。

-《香港律師》及路透社新聞

Environment 環境

China considers new powers for pollution watchdog as part of government shakeupChina could grant its undersized environment ministry new powers over resources, possibly allowing it to veto future projects, and more muscle to punish polluters as part of a government shake-up to tackle decades of unchecked growth.

Sources with ties to the leadership told Reuters that the government was considering a sweeping reorganisation of cabinet ministries next month that will dissolve the Ministry of Land and Resources and transfer some powers to the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), long regarded as too weak to punish law-breaking polluters.

Amendments to China’s 1989 environmental law, likely to be rubber-stamped at the annual session of the country’s legislature next month, are expected to also give the environment ministry the powers to impose unlimited penalties on firms that fail to rectify problems and allow regulators to suspend or shut down persistent offenders.

A nationwide monitoring system will be established to force industries to disclose exactly how much pollution they cause, and it will become a criminal offence to misuse or switch off pollution control technology and misreport emission levels.

China’s big polluters routinely exceed government emissions limits, say environmentalists, and high pollution levels have sparked widespread social

unrest, which is a major concern for China’s leadership.

- Reuters News

內地考慮擴大環保部權力

為解決日益嚴重的污染問題，內地政府

考慮改組架構，其中有機會擴大環境保

護部在資源方面的權力，讓該部門取得

將來相關項目的否決權，並在處罰污染

者方面獲更大權限。

有熟悉政府領導層的人士向路透社透

露，中央正考慮下月進行大規模部委重

組，包括解散國土資源部，及將部分權

力轉移至環保部。長久以來，外界一直

認為環保部權力不彰，難對污染環境的

違法者作出懲處。

對1989年《環境保護法》作出的建議

修訂大有可能在下月舉行的全國人大會

議上通過。預計相關修訂將賦權環保部

對無法糾正問題的企業施以不設限的懲

罰，並允許監管機構暫停或關閉屢犯的

企業。

此外，當局將設立全國監管系統，強制

各產業公開其造成的確實污染量，而濫

用或關閉污染控制技術，以及不實申報

REUTERS/Suzie Wong


排放等級，將被列為刑事罪行。

有環保人士指，產生大量污染的內地企

業經常超出政府設立的排放量上限，而

且嚴重污染已經造成社會不安，引起中

央領導層高度關注。

- 路透社新聞

IPO 首次公開招股

China firms head for US IPOs, not fussed by accounting flapChinese companies are flocking to the US IPO market in their biggest numbers since 2010, drawn by soaring valuations for tech start-ups and undeterred by a flare-up in an accounting row between Washington and Beijing.

Some 30 Chinese companies could list in the US this year, according to investment bankers interviewed by Reuters. That includes JD.com Inc, China’s second-biggest e-commerce firm after Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. It said last month it is seeking to raise US$1.5 billion (HK$11.4 billion), in what may be the second-biggest US IPO by a Chinese company.

The return to US shores comes on the back of renewed investor enthusiasm for China plays, particularly for Internet stocks. The country’s online retail market by transaction volume jumped 42% last year to 1.85 trillion yuan (HK$1.37 trillion) and is expected to almost double in size by 2016, according to figures from iResearch.

That has trumped lingering concerns about accounting irregularities and corporate governance issues that have forced many US-listed Chinese firms to be delisted since 2011.

- Reuters News

中資企業赴美上市熱潮重臨

中資企業正紛紛湧向美國上市，數量之

多料創2010年以來的紀錄。初創科技企

業的估值大幅上升，是吸引這些企業赴

美上市的原因，而早前中美之間的審計

爭議並未對熱潮構成阻礙。

據接受路透社訪問的投資銀行人士指，

本年可能有30多家中資企業在美國上

市，其中包括京東商城。該公司為內地

第二大電子商務企業，僅次於阿里巴

巴。上月京東商城表示，尋求集資額達

15億美元(約114億港元)，有望成為第二

大規模的中資企業赴美招股活動。

投資者對中國概念股的熱情再現，特別

是互聯網相關股。根據艾瑞諮詢集團數

據，以交易量計算，中國網上零售市場

去年大幅上升42%至1萬8500億人民幣

(約1萬3700億港元)，預計到2016年將

再增長近一倍。

這些利好因素蓋過了投資者對會計違規

行為及企業管治問題上的疑慮。自2011

年起，這些問題已迫使多間在美上市的

中資企業除牌。

- 路透社新聞

Regulatory 監管

US court judgment ups stakes on China auditsIn its “Initial Decision” No. 553 (22 January 2014), a US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) administrative law court decided that the Chinese affiliates of five international accounting firms breached Section 106 of the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, in failing to comply with SEC requests for audit documents relating to Chinese companies listed in the US.

In short, the court found that the accounting firms breached Section 106(e) of the Act by apparently “wilfully

refusing” to comply with SEC requests for audit papers relating to the firms’ audits of 10 Chinese companies listed in the US.

The Big Four firms have announced they will challenge the Initial Decision. The court’s decision to suspend the right of the Chinese affiliates of the “Big Four” accounting firms to issue audit reports for US-listed clients for six months does not take effect until the appeal process has concluded (and assuming the appeal is unsuccessful). That could take years.

In the meantime, it is important to keep in mind the following points:

•an appeal should have reasonable prospects of success. First, the court accepted that the statutory meaning of “wilful refusal” was not simple. Second, the court dismissed difficult issues concerning “conflict of laws”; for example, the accounting firms’ argument that to comply with the SEC’s Section 106 requests could put them in breach of China’s national security laws (protecting, among other things, “state secrets”). Third, the judge accepted that supplementary evidence filed by the accounting firms after the court hearing was “potentially exculpatory”;

• an issue arises as to whether a suspension is in the public interest, all things considered; for example, the effect it could have on audit clients and investors, not to mention who will perform the audits if the suspension takes effect;

• for now, the Initial Decision should not affect the accounting firms’ audits for the current financial year;

• as readers may recall, in May 2013 the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC”) and the Chinese Ministry of Finance


• March 2014


entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on Enforcement Cooperation, providing for mutual assistance and the exchange of information to secure compliance with their respective securities laws. It is feasible that the SEC and the CSRC will cooperate further as regards the SEC’s requests in this case;

• there are already some signs that diplomacy may save the day. In the week after the Initial Decision and after various documents were produced by the CSRC, the SEC agreed to withdraw its action against Deloitte for alleged failure to comply with a subpoena in connection with its work relating to Longtop Financial Technologies Ltd.

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

四大會計師事務所中國分部遭美國法院罰暫停審計

美國證券交易委員會(下稱「美證監」)的

行政法庭在第553號「初步裁決」(2014

年1月22日)中，裁定五間國際會計師

事務所的中國分部未有遵照美證監的

要求，交出在美上市中資企業的審計文

件，違反了美國《2002年沙賓法案》第

106條。

簡言之，法院認為該等會計師事務所顯

然是「故意拒絕」遵守美證監的要求，

交出它們為十間在美上市中資企業進

行審計的相關文件，違反了該法案第

106(e)條。

四大會計師事務所已宣布會就「初步裁

決」提出上訴。法院裁定暫停「四大」

中國分部為在美上市客戶進行審計的權

利，為期六個月，但這項裁決待上訴過

程結束(並假設上訴失敗)才會生效，可能

需時數載。 ForfullReutersreports,pleasevisitreuters.com 如欲查閱路透社的完整報導，請瀏覽 reuters.com

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]

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。

在此期間，讀者應緊記以下各點：

• 上訴有合理勝算。首先，法院已認同

「故意拒絕」的法定含義並不簡單。

其次，法院駁回關於「衝突法」的

棘手問題，例如該等會計師事務所曾

指出，若遵守美證監根據第106條提

出的要求，有機會導致它們違反中國

(保護「國家機密」等的)《國家安全

法》。其三，法官已認同該等會計師

事務所於法庭聆訊後提交的補充證據

「有可能為它們開脫罪責」；

• 引申一個問題，就是經考慮所有情

況，暫停「四大」進行審計的權利是

否符合公眾利益。例如，對客戶和投

資者有何影響，而且暫停一旦生效，

又由誰來執行審計；

• 就目前而言，「初步裁決」應該不會

影響「四大」今個財政年度的審計；

• 讀者也許記得，美國上市公司會計監

管委員會與中國證券監督管理委員

會(下稱「中證監」)及中國財政部於

2013年5月簽署了《執法合作備忘

錄》，訂下跨境互助及資料互換的基

礎，以確保有關企業符合兩地的證券

法。兩地證監有機會就美證監在此案

的要求進一步合作；

• 有跡象顯示，外交方法或可令局面有

轉機。「初步裁決」發出一周後，中

證監提供各種文件，美證監之後同意

撤回對德勤的起訴，該案指德勤未有

遵守傳票，提供與東南融通相關的審

計文件。

- 施德偉高級合夥人，



CASES IN BRIEF案例撮要

ADMINISTRATIVE 行政

Zitta Investments Ltd [2013] 5 HKLRD 32

Court of First Instance

Constitutional and Administrative Law List No 89 of 2013

Godfrey Lam J

24 September, 11 October 2013

Compensation for resumption of land — Lands Tribunal proper forum for resolving dispute on amount payable

X was the former owner of part of a property which was resumed for redevelopment by the Government, following which X’s rights in and over the property absolutely ceased pursuant to Section 5 of the Lands Resumption Ordinance (Cap. 124) (“LRO”). X sought leave to apply for judicial review concerning an offer of resumption compensation by the Director of Lands, arguing that interalia the offer made was not a fair and reasonable assessment.

Held, dismissing the application, that, inter alia:

The proper forum for X to ventilate his arguments was in the Lands Tribunal and not the High Court on an application

for judicial review. The property having been resumed, X had no further interest in it. X’s only right and interest was in obtaining proper compensation for the resumption of its property, which was protected by the detailed provisions of the LRO concerning the right enshrined in Article 105 of the Basic Law.

Where X and the Government could not agree on the proper amount of compensation payable, the LRO sets out the machinery for the amount of compensation payable to be determined by the Lands Tribunal applying the LRO. Where a comprehensive system of determination and appeals procedure existed, leave for judicial review would not be granted save in exceptional circumstances.

原訟法庭

憲法及行政訴訟2013年第89號

高等法院原訟法庭法官林雲浩

2013年9月24日、10月11日

收回土地補償—土地審裁處是適當

的訴訟地解決應付金額的爭議

X原為某物業其中一部分的業主，其後政

府收回該物業重新發展。根據《收回土

地條例》（第124章）第5條，X就該物

業或在該物業上所擁有的權利，已於政

府收回該物業後絕對終止。X就地政總署

署長提出的收回補償建議提出司法覆核

許可申請，理由之一是該建議中的評估

並不公平合理。

裁決 - 駁回申請，除其他事項外：

X提出申辯的適當訴訟地是土地審裁處，

而不是向高等法院提出司法覆核申請。

該物業已被收回，因此X已不再擁有該

物業的任何權利。X的唯一權利及權益是

就該物業被收回而獲取適當補償，這權

利受《收回土地條例》的詳細條文所保

障，而該等條文表明了《基本法》第105

條所賦予的權利。

倘若X與政府未能就適當的應付補償額達

成共識，則《收回土地條例》已訂明相

應機制，就是交由土地審裁處根據《收

回土地條例》裁定須支付的補償額。如

果目前已有一套全面的釐定制度及上訴

程序，除非情況非常特殊，否則法庭不

會給予司法覆核許可。


• March 2014

March 2014 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

ADMIRALTY 海事法

Fearless I [2013] 5 HKLRD 48


Admiralty Action Nos 197 & 198 of 2012

Peter Ng J

2, 16 October 2013

Action in rem —nothing inequitable about wrongful arrestor bearing legal and financial consequences of own actions

Two vessels were first arrested by C in previous admiralty proceedings (the “Previous Proceedings”), in which the judge held that C’s claims as the assignee of the wages of the masters and crews of the vessels owned by the defendants (“Ds”) did not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction under Section 12A(2)(n) of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4) and set aside the writs inremand warrants of arrest obtained by C against those vessels (see [2013] 2 HKLRD 620). In the meantime, the masters and crews, plaintiffs (“Ps”) in the present actions, issued admiralty writs inremagainst the vessels in respect of their claims against the defendants (“Ds”) for wages for a different period.

P also obtained warrants of arrest. Ps subsequently entered judgment in default and obtained orders for the sale of the vessels, and the proceeds of sale were paid into court. C now sought, as intervener, reimbursement of its costs and arresting the vessels in the Previous Proceedings out of the sale proceeds in priority to all claims save those of the Chief Bailiff. C argued that, although it had no valid claims inrem against the vessels, it was the first arresting party and the producer of the sale proceeds for the benefit of all the creditors.

Held, dismissing the applications, that, inter alia:

C’s claim as assignee of the master and crew’s wages could only be brought as an inpersonam action by issuing and serving an inpersonamwrit on Ds. C had no right to apply for a warrant of arrest against the vessels and no right to participate in the sale proceeds paid into court.

None of the authorities relied on by C supported its position that even a wrongful arrestor was entitled to his costs and expenses in arresting and maintaining the ship, so long as all the creditors derived some de facto benefit from the arrest was rejected. Further, the threshold for a shipowner of obtaining damages for wrongful arrest was notoriously high, namely crassanegligentia or gross negligence, implying malice or its equivalent.

原訟法庭

海事訴訟2012年第197及198號

高等法院原訟法庭法官吳嘉輝

2013年10月2、16日

對物訴訟—由不當扣押者承擔其訴

訟引起的法律和財務後果並無不

公平之處

涉案兩艘船隻最先被C在先前的海事訴訟

(「先前訴訟」)中扣

押，後來法官在先前

訴訟中裁定，C以該

兩艘船隻的船長和船

員工資的承讓人身份

提出的申索，並不屬

於《高等法院條例》

(第4章)第12A(2)(n)

條的海事管轄範圍

內，並將有關對物訴

訟令狀及C早前就該

等船隻取得的扣押令

(見[2013] 2 HKLRD

620一案)作廢。與此同時，本案原告

人，即船長和船員，針對該等船隻發出

對物訴訟令狀，向被告人等追討另一段

時期的欠薪。

原告人亦取得扣押令，並於其後登錄因

欠缺行動而作出的判決，以及取得出售

該等船隻的命令，而售賣所得收益已繳

存法庭。C現以介入人的身份要求優先於

所有其他申索(除首席執達主任的申索外)

，從售賣所得收益中付還它在先前訴訟

中扣押該等船隻所招致的費用。C辯稱，

雖然它就該等船隻並無任何有效的對

物申索，但它是首個作出扣押的一方，

令售賣所得收益產生，使所有債權人受

惠。


C以船長和船員工資的承讓人身分提出的

申索，只能夠透過向被告人等發出及送

達對人令狀以對人訴訟方式提出。C既無

權申請針對該等船隻的扣押令，亦無權

瓜分已繳存於法庭的售賣所得收益。

C的立場是，只要全部其他債權人事實

上受益於有關扣押，不當的扣押者亦有

權取回扣押和保管船隻的費用及開支，

但它引述的依據均未能支持此立場。

此外，船主若要就不當扣押取得損害

賠償，須符合極高的門檻，就是嚴重疏

忽，而這意味當中須存有惡意或相等的

因素。


CIVIL PROCEDURE 民事訴訟程序

Sealegend Holdings Ltd v China Taiping Insurance (HK) Co Ltd [2013] 4 HKLRD 508


Admiralty Jurisdiction Action No 95 of 2012

Godfrey Lam J in Chambers

11 September 2013

Writ — validity — court should not more readily grant applications for extension post-CJR

The plaintiff (“P”) was a BVI company and the registered owner of a vessel, which was insured by four defendants (“D1–4”) under two policies. On 18 May 2012, P issued a writ in respect of an insurance claim it had made, but subsequently withdrawn, relating to damage to the vessel’s engine sustained in July 2006. A year later, P served an amended writ on D1, D2 and D4 in Hong Kong and sought leave to extend the validity of the amended writ under Order 6 Rule 8(2) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub. Leg.) (“RHC”), so as to serve it on Taiwan-incorporated D3 out of time. D3 had been notified in January 2007 that P wished to reopen the claim, but heard nothing further until 13 May 2013, when P asked whether it would appoint solicitors in Hong Kong to accept service of the writ.

Held, dismissing P’s application, but granting D1–2 and D4’s application for security for costs, that, inter alia:

The discretion to extend the validity of a writ did not arise unless the plaintiff first established good reason, including one which supported deliberate non-compliance with the time limit involved. The authorities which predated the changes to the RHC introduced by

Civil Justice Reform continued to apply and the court should not more readily grant applications for extension. The law concerning the validity of a writ and its extension was no mere formal procedural rule. Underlying it was the policy of the law that promoted finality of litigation, the prevention of stale claims, and the protection of a defendant from having a claim hanging over his head indefinitely.

原訟法庭

海事訴訟2012年第95號

高等法院原訟法庭法官林雲浩(內

庭聆訊)

2013年9月11日

令狀 —有效期 —民事司法制度改

革後，法院不應更輕易批准延

期申請

原告人為一間英屬維爾京群島公司兼

某船隻的登記船主，該船的兩份保單

由四名被告人(即第一至第四被告人)承

保。2012年5月18日，原告人就其提出

的一項保險索賠發出令狀，但隨後將令

狀撤回。該保險索賠是關於該船隻引擎

於2006年7月所遭受的損毀。一年後，

原告人在香港向第一、第二及第四被告

人送達經修訂令狀，並根據《高等法院

規則》(第4A章，附屬法例)第6號命令第

8(2)條規則向法庭提出延展經修訂令狀

有效期的許可申請，以在時限過後向在

台灣成立的第三被告人送達該經修訂令

狀。第三被告人早在2007年1月已獲告

知原告人有意重新展開有關申索，但之

後再沒有收到任何消息，直至2013年5

月13日，原告人詢問第三被告人會否在

港委任律師以接受令狀的送達。

裁決 - 駁回原告人的申請，但准許第一、

第二及第四被告人的訟費保證金申請，

除其他事項外：

除非原告人先確立充分理由，包括為蓄

意不遵守相關時限的理由，否則延展令

狀有效期的酌情權便不會產生。民事司

法制度改革對《高等法院規則》作出修

改，但之前的典據仍繼續適用，故法

庭不應該更輕易便批准延期申請。有關

令狀有效期及其延展的法律，絕非只是

形式上的程序規則。有關法律的基礎政

策，是促進訴訟的終局性、防止陳舊的

申索，以及保障被告人免被申索無限期

纏繞。

COMPANY 公司

Re Sun Light Elastic Ltd [2013] 5 HKLRD 1


Companies (Winding-up) Proceedings No 302 of 2012

Harris J in Chambers

27 September 2013

Unfair and prejudicial conduct — prayer for winding-up order struck out for having no realistic prospect of success

The plaintiff (“P”) and respondent (“R”) held the majority of shares in company C. P issued a petition under Section 168A of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) alleging unfair prejudice against R, seeking a buyout order and, in the alternative a winding-up order. R then applied to strike out the prayer for the alternative relief of winding up C (the “Prayer”) arguing that it was bound to fail.

Held, granting the application, that, inter alia:

There was a difference in approach in practice with some decisions placing more weight on the undesirability of having an unnecessary winding-up petition hanging over a company on the one hand, and on the other, on the difficulty of concluding with sufficient certainty at the early stage of


• March 2014


proceedings that a winding-up order would never be the appropriate remedy for the court to grant.

The way to resolve this difference was to exercise the court’s jurisdiction to strike out very sparingly and only on the clearest grounds. A petitioner was entitled to have adjudicated the merits of the claim, unless the court was satisfied that the claim could not succeed.

The court would only grant a winding-up order, especially in the alternative, rather than relief under Section 168A of the Ordinance if there was a particular reason for doing so. The petitioner must be able to point to particular matters he was concerned might make a winding-up order the appropriate or only practical relief.

Here, there was no realistic prospect of a winding-up order being made and that the Prayer would be struck out. On the available facts, it could not be fairly concluded that R would be unwilling or unable to buy P’s shares if he were unsuccessful after trial. A further indication that the inclusion of the Prayer had not been properly considered was that not all the shareholders had been joined.

原訟法庭

高等法院公司(清盤)案件2012年第

302號

高等法院原訟法庭法官夏利士(內

庭聆訊)

2013年9月27日

不公平及損害行為—因實際上沒有

機會成功而把清盤令的請求剔除

原告人和答辯人持有C公司的大多數股

份。原告人根據《公司條例》(第32章)

第168A條提出呈請，指答辯人作出不公

平損害，尋求法庭作出收購命令，或清

盤令作替代。答辯人其後向法庭申請將

C公司清盤的替代補救請求(下稱「該請

求」)剔除，理由是該請求注定會失敗。

裁決 - 准許申請，除其他事項外：

實際上，過往的裁決做法迥異，有些裁

決較為不願意令公司被不必要的清盤呈

請纏繞，另一些裁決則認為難以在訴訟

初段便有足夠把握確定法院絕不會批准

清盤令作為合適的補救措施。

要解決此分歧，方法是運用法院的管轄

權進行剔除，但務必非常謹慎及理據非

常充分。除非法院信納有關申索無可能

成功，否則呈請人有權獲法院裁定該申

索有可取之處。

只有在具特定理由的情況下，法院才會

作出清盤令，而不作出《公司條例》第

168A條的補救措施，尤其當清盤令是替

代補救。呈請人必須指出是甚麼特定事

宜令他認為清盤令可能是適當或唯一可

行的補救措施。

本案中，法庭實際上沒有可能會作出清

盤令，因此該請求會被剔除。根據現有

事實，若下定論說答辯人經審訊被判敗

訴，將不願意或無能力購買呈請人的股

份，是不公平的。另一點亦顯示納入該

請求並未經過深思熟慮，就是並非所有

股東都已加入其中。

CONTRACT 合約

Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd v Tsang Sheung Bun [2013] 5 HKLRD 62

Court of Appeal

Civil Appeal No 7 of 2013

Yuen, Kwan and Chu JJA

16, 22 October 2013

Where no undue influence, no constructive notice of impropriety on bank

In 1997, the plaintiff bank (“P”) approved further facilities to the borrower, secured by a legal charge (the “Charge”) over the defendant’s (“D”) property (the “Property”). D was friends with the borrower’s shareholders (“SH”). The Charge contained a joint and several covenant of D and the borrower to repay all monies due to the bank whether past present or future. P claimed under the Charge vacant possession of the Property and monies due by the borrower. D counterclaimed that the Charge was null and void on the basis of nonestfactum, misrepresentation, undue influence and unconscionable bargain. The judge held that D knew that he was signing the Charge which was explained to him and there was no undue influence by SH. D appealed.


REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

Held, dismissing the appeal, that, inter alia:

The Court of Appeal would only reverse a finding of primary fact if it was satisfied that the finding was plainly wrong. If not satisfied, it should defer to the trial judge’s conclusion even if in some doubt as to its correctness. The rationale for such deference was not limited to the superiority of the trial judge’s position to make determinations of credibility and his familiarity with the evidence. The parties to a case on appeal had already been forced to concentrate on persuading the trial judge that their account of the facts was the correct one. Requiring them to persuade three more judges at the appellate level was requiring too much. The trial on the merits should be “the main event” rather than “a tryout on the road”

The defence of undue influence must fail on the evidence. As such, it could not be said that P would have constructive notice of any alleged impropriety in relation to the transaction or that it should have been put on inquiry such that it could not rely on D’s apparent consent to the transaction. Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider if P had taken reasonable steps to dispel constructive notice.

上訴法庭

高等法院民事上訴2013年第7號

高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧、

關淑馨及朱芬齡

2013年10月16、22日

如沒有不當影響，則不構成銀行

對不正當行為具有法律構定的知

悉

1997年，原告銀行(下稱「原告人」)向

借款人批出其他信貸融通，這些融通以

被告人物業(下稱「該物業」)的法定押記

(下稱「該押記」)作為保證。被告人與借

款人的股東(下稱「該等股東」)為朋友。

該押記載有一項被告人及借款人須向銀

行償還所有過去、現在或將來應付款項

的共同和各別契諾。原告人根據該押記

提出申索，要求被告人交出該物業的空

置管有權及支付借款人欠下的款項。被

告人反訴，指該押記基於「否定曾經訂

約原則」、失實陳述、不當影響及不合

情理談判而無效。原審法官裁定，被告

人知道他當時簽署的是該押記，相關人

士已向他作出解釋，而且該等股東並沒

有作出不當影響。被告人提出上訴。

裁決 - 駁回上訴，除其他事項外：

上訴法庭只會在信納基本事實的裁斷

存在明顯錯誤的情況下，才會推翻該

裁斷。如上訴法庭不信納當中存在明顯

錯誤，即使對其是否正確存有某程度疑

問，亦應遵從原審法官的定論。遵從原

審的做法並不只是因為原審法官可就可

信度作出凌駕性的決定，以及他熟悉案

中證據。涉及上訴案件的當事人已被迫

集中精力說服原審法官，他們敍述的事

實才是正確的。若要求他們再於上訴階

段說服多三位法官，則是要求太多。對

案情的審理應該是「重頭戲」，而不是

「試演」。

根據相關證據，不當影響的抗辯理由定

必失敗。故此，法庭不能說原告人會對

任何指稱有關該交易的不正當行為有法

律構定的知悉，又或者說原告人應提出

查詢以致原告人不能依賴被告人對該交

易作出的明顯同意。因此，法庭無必要

考慮原告人有否採取合理步驟消除法律

構定知悉。

CRIMINAL 刑事

Secretary for Justice v Wong Ka Yip Ken [2013] 4 HKLRD 604


Magistracy Appeal No 77 of 2013

Barnabas Fung J

12, 29 April 2013

Obtaining access to computer with view to dishonest gain — meaning of “computer” included “smartphone” mobile phone

The defendant (“D”) was acquitted of obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another. D set his smartphone at a vantage point to record via video a toilet in the ladies’ washroom of his office. The phone was discovered and D admitted that he had intended to film a female colleague secretly with it. The term “computer” is not defined in the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) (the “CO”). The prosecution tendered expert evidence that the smartphone could perform all the functions of a computer and was a “computer” pursuant to the CO as defined under Section 22A(12) of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 8) (the “EO”), Section 26A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) (the “IRO”) and Section 19 of the Business Registration Ordinance (Cap. 310) (the “BRO”). The Magistrate held in his findings, including a dictionary consideration of the word “computer”, that D’s smartphone was not proven as such under CO Section 161(1)(c). The Secretary for Justice appealed against the acquittal.

Held, finding D guilty as charged, that:

The Legislative Council left the term “computer” undefined in Section 161 of the CO because, with rapid developments in scientific technology, the definition of “computer” was broad, evolving and non-exhaustive. The court should consider expert opinion and decide whether a device in question was a computer.

On a proper interpretation, the dictionary meaning of “computer” applied to Section 161 of the CO and included D’s smartphone. This was in line with the definition of “computer”


• March 2014


as a device for electronic data storage, processing and retrieval adopted internationally, and was consistent with the statutory provisions and judgments in other jurisdictions. This interpretation would not result in any absurdity or manifest injustice.

原訟法庭

高院裁判法院上訴案件2013年

第77號

高等法院原訟法庭法官馮驊

2013年4月12、29日

目的在於不誠實地獲益而取用

電腦 —「電腦」一詞的定義包括

「智能」手機

被告人被裁定一項「目的在於使其本人

或他人不誠實地獲益而取用電腦」罪不

成立。被告人在公司女廁的有利位置架

設智能手機進行錄影。電話被發現後，

被告人承認意圖以該智能手機偷拍一名

女同事。《刑事罪行條例》(第200章)

並沒有就「電腦」一詞作出釋義。控方

提出專家證據，指該智能手機能執行電

腦所擁有的所有功能，而且根據《證據

條例》(第8章)第22A(12)條、《稅務條

例》(第112章)第26A條及《商業登記條

例》(第310章)第19條對「電腦」的定

義，該智能手機屬於《刑事罪行條例》

所指的「電腦」。裁判官考慮過字典對

「電腦」一詞的解釋等各項因素後，裁

定控方未能證明被告人的智能手機是《

刑事罪行條例》第161(1)(c)條所指的「

電腦」。律政司司長就無罪裁決提出上

訴。

裁決 - 裁定被告人罪名成立：

立法會對《刑事罪行條例》第161條之

「電腦」一詞不作出定義，是因為科技

發展迅速，「電腦」的定義廣闊、不斷

演變，且不能盡錄。法庭應考慮專家意

見，裁定有關的器材是否電腦。

適當的解釋應該是，字典對「電腦」作

出的定義適用於《刑事罪行條例》第161

條，並包括被告人的智能手機。這符合國

際間對「電腦」作為一個電子數據儲存、

處理及重新獲取的裝置的定義，並與其他

國家的條文及判決相符。這個解釋並不會

引致任何荒謬或明顯不公義之處。

HKSAR v Wong Lau Hing [2013] 5 HKLRD 85

Court of Appeal

Criminal Appeal No 374 of 2011

Stock V-P, Macrae JA and McWalters J

17 October 2012, 14 May, 29 October 2013

Murder — “last straw” direction

The defendant (“D”) was convicted of murder, having offered to plead guilty to manslaughter on the basis of provocation by elderly co-tenants who lived in opposite cubicles. D claimed that the victim (“V”) and his wife went out of their way to annoy him, particularly by banging the corridor window while he was sleeping or trying to sleep. On the night in question, D killed V allegedly under provocation. At trial, D’s evidence differed materially from his statement. At issue was whether the judge: (a) having issued the standard second limb of the good character direction, should have then reminded the jury that “a man

of good character might be unlikely to indulge in very serious violence without first being provoked” (“Paria direction”, after Paria v TheState [2003] UKPC 36); and (b) gave disproportionate attention to the irritating behaviour of V and his wife as background of provocation.

Held, dismissing the application, that, inter alia:

In respect of the character direction, the question whether there was provocation by V was not really in issue; so a Paria direction would not have taken matters further and the direction given was adequate to the case. The standard directions on good character and propensity in murder/provocation cases had not been changed for judges in England and Wales, and would normally convey to the jury the key message that a defendant, by virtue of his good character, was less likely to be guilty of an unprovoked killing with intent. As for the “last straw” direction, the very extensive attention given by the judge to the irritating behaviour had not risked moving the jury away from the importance of the defence of V’s provocation.

上訴法庭

高等法院刑事上訴2011年第374號

高等法院上訴法庭副庭長司徒敬及

高等法院上訴法庭法官麥機智及高

等法院原訟法庭法官麥偉德

2012年10月17日、2013年5月14

日、10月29日

謀殺—「最後挑舋」指引

被告人被裁定謀殺罪名成立。他曾承認

誤殺，理由是被居於對面板間房的長者

租客激怒。被告人聲稱受害人和其妻子

特意激怒他，尤其是趁他正在睡覺或想

睡覺時敲打走廊的窗戶。案發當晚，被

告人殺死受害人，他指稱是受到激怒所

致。在審訊中，被告人所作的證供與其


陳述書有很大差別。本案的爭論點是，

原審法官：(a)在作出良好品格指引的第

二項標準因素後，應否提醒陪審團「具

有良好品格的人於沒有先被激怒的情況

下，或不太可能沉迷於非常嚴重的暴力

行為」(即「Paria 指引」，這以Paria v

The State [2003] UKPC 36一案命名)；

及 (b) 是否對受害人及其妻的惱人行為作

為激怒背景給予不符比例的關注。


品格指引方面，受害人有否作出激怒並

不是問題，故Paria 指引並不會對事情有

何幫助，因此原審法官作出的指引是足

夠的。英國法官在謀殺/激怒案件中就良

好品格和傾向所採用的標準指引並未曾

改變，而且該標準指引通常向陪審團傳

達一個關鍵信息，就是由於擁有良好品

格，被告人無緣無故蓄意殺人的可能性

較低。至於「最後挑舋」指引，原審法

官以大篇幅講述相關惱人行為，並不會

令陪審團減低對受害人作出激怒行為這

個抗辯理由的重視程度。

FAMILY 家庭

SLA neé S v HKL (No. 2) [2013] 5 HKLRD 125

District Court

Matrimonial Causes No 7500 of 2010

Deputy Judge Carlson in Chambers

20–22, 26 March, 5, 12, 18 April, 19 July 2013

Divorce — Distribution of matrimonial assets

A Hong Kong-based couple ended their marriage after 17 years. Following the break-up, the wife (“W”) returned to Sweden to live with the only child of the marriage and filed a divorce petition two years later. There were no assets in Hong Kong to speak of save for the Finnish husband’s (“H”) company (“C”) and C’s bank account.

The Court held previously that H had always been and remained the beneficial owner of C and that the current value of H’s shareholding in C formed part of the asset pool for distribution between the parties.

At the time of the trial, neither party resided in Hong Kong since H had moved to Taiwan purportedly for his work, travelling to Hong Kong occasionally. W had flown back for the trial. On the eve of the trial, H wrote to the Court with a medical note from a Hong Kong doctor stating that due to heart and blood pressure problems, he would not be able to attend.

Held, making ancillary relief orders and ruling that, inter alia:

The Court would proceed with the trial in the absence of H. There had been a history of H being tardy and difficult about disclosure of documents plus in the interest of justice, the Court should press on with matters. H’s medical condition was not acutely serious; if he had turned up, the Court would have taken frequent breaks.

Any assets held by C were held on trust for H who was the beneficial owner of all of its shares. Following PrestvPetrodelResourcesLtd [2013] 3 WLR 1, the Court was satisfied that C’s assets were amenable to any order that it made against H in respect of his beneficial ownership of its assets, the company being the legal owner of those assets as his trustee. Still, it was not open to the Court to say however, that C should have concurrent liability with H for the lump sum payment which the Court awarded to W. This was H’s personal liability.

區域法院

婚姻訴訟2010年第7500號

區域法院暫委法官郭靄誠

(內庭聆訊)

2013年3月20-22、26日、4月5

日、12、18日及7月19日

離婚 — 婚姻資產分配

一對居於香港的夫婦結束他們17年的

婚姻。分開後，妻子返回瑞典與兩人唯

一的兒子居住，並於兩年後提出離婚呈

請。除了芬蘭籍丈夫的公司（下稱「該

公司」）及該公司的銀行賬戶，兩人在

香港並沒有其他資產。

法庭早前裁定，丈夫過往一直是並將繼

續是該公司的實益擁有人，並且丈夫擁

有的該公司股權的現時價值構成雙方之

間可作分配的資產一部分。

在審訊時，雙方均不居於香港，丈夫據

稱已因工作關係遷往台灣，只偶爾回

港。妻子為審訊而返回香港。在審訊前

夕，丈夫致函法院，並附上一份由香港

醫生發出的醫療報告，指丈夫因心臟和

血壓問題，將無法出席審訊。

裁決 -作出附屬濟助命令，並裁定

(除其他事項外)：

法院會在丈夫缺席的情況下展開審訊。

丈夫在披露文件方面曾有遲緩和不合作

的前科，加上為秉行公義，法院應加緊

進程。丈夫的健康狀況並非異常嚴重，

若他出席審訊，法院會給予頻密的小休

時間。

任何由該公司持有的資產，均是以信託

方式為丈夫持有，而丈夫乃該公司所有

股份的實益擁有人。按Prest v Petrodel

Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1一案，

法院信納，由於該公司是以丈夫的受託

人身份作為該等資產的法定擁有人，因

此若法院對丈夫於該公司資產的實益擁

有權作出命令，則該公司的資產將受該


• March 2014


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》。

命令管轄。不過，法院並不能說該公司

與丈夫應同時承擔法院判給妻子那一整

筆款項的法律責任，因此乃丈夫的個人

法律責任。

LAND 土地

Liu Wai Keung v Liu Wai Man [2013] 5 HKLRD 9


High Court Action No 1106 of 2011

Godfrey Lam J

16–19, 22–23 April, 30 September 2013

Beneficial ownership —common intention constructive trust established

The plaintiff (“P”) and defendant (“D”) were siblings. P set out that their family decided in June 1981 to buy a new family home (the “Property”) and agreed that P would pay for the purchase and the Property would belong to him. P gave a large proportion of his salary to his parents towards this purpose. The Property was then purchased with a mortgage taken out on preferential terms that were available to D, who then worked in a bank; D became the registered owner. P funded the monthly mortgage instalments and an early partial repayment of the loan in 1983. From mid-1987, P lived there with his wife and their children, and paid all outgoings until 2012 when the Property was sold for redevelopment in early 2013.

D had also lived in the Property since late 1987, but in 1992, she and her son moved out into rented accommodation. In 2011, P brought proceedings against D claiming she held the Property on a constructive trust for him absolutely. D asserted that the Property was hers as she, and not P, had funded it, and she

and their father had decided to buy it without P’s involvement. Plus, since P had asked her to assign the title to the Property to him in about 1998–1999, the action was time-barred.

Held, giving judgment to P, that, inter alia:

On the evidence, there was a common understanding and intention formed by the family that a property would be purchased, with the down payment to be funded by P’s savings and a mortgage loan from the bank on preferential terms available to D. On the basis of this understanding and intention, P financed the purchase of the Property and had been in continuous occupation of it and paid all outgoings until 2012. Accordingly, P had altered his position in reliance on the common intention, and it would be unconscionable for D to assert her legal title to the Property against him.

P’s action was not time-barred. Where the legal estate was vested in the trustee, the relevant property was “in [his] possession”. He held the legal estate quatrustee with the equitable estate being vested in the beneficiary.

原訟法庭

高等法院民事訴訟2011年第1106

號

高等法院原訟法庭法官林雲浩

2013年4月16-19日、22日-23日

及9月30日

實益擁有權 — 確立共同意圖的法

律構定信託

原告人與被告人為兄妹。原告人表示，

其家人在1981年6月決定購買新的家

庭住所（下稱「該物業」），並且同意

由原告人出資購買，而該物業將屬他所

有。原告人為此把大部分工資給予其父

母。被告人當時於銀行工作，於是購買

該物業時便以她可取得的特惠條件申請

按揭貸款，而被告人亦成為該物業的註

冊業主。原告人支付每月的按揭供款，

並於1983年提早償還某部分貸款。原告

人自1987年年中，一直與妻子和子女居

於該物業並支付所有開支，直到2012

年為止。該物業於2013年初因重建而出

售。

被告人自1987年後期起亦居於該物業，

但她和兒子在1992年遷出並租住另一居

所。2011年，原告人向被告人提出法

律程序，指她是以絕對法律構定信託代

他持有該物業。被告人則堅稱出資的是

她，而不是原告人，而且是她和父親決

定購買該物業，原告人並不參與其中，

故此該物業屬她所有。此外，原告人約

在1998至1999年曾要求她將該物業的業

權轉給他，因此有關訴訟已喪失時效。

裁決 - 判原告人勝訴，除其他事項外：

證據顯示，這家庭有一個相同的意圖和

共識，就是會購買一所物業，首期以

原告人的儲蓄支付，並以被告人可向銀

行取得的特惠條件進行按揭貸款。基於

此共識和意圖，原告人為購買該物業

出資，並一直佔用該物業及支付所有開

支，直到2012年為止。因此，原告人已

基於此共同意圖而改變其立場，而被告

人堅稱擁有該物業的法定所有權是不合

情理的。

原告人的訴訟並未喪失時效。凡法律上

的產權已歸屬於受託人，則有關物業乃

「由[他]管有」。他以受託人的身份持有

法定產業權，而衡平法產權則歸屬於受

益人。


PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

Newly - Admitted Members 新會員

CHAN CHUN KIT 陳俊傑

FRESHFIELDSBRUCKHAUSDERINGER富而德律師事務所

CHAN PUI LAM PETER 陳沛林

YOUNG&CO.,ROWDGETW.楊振文律師行

CHANG KWOK WEI WILLIAM 張國威

LI & PARTNERS

李偉斌律師行

CHIU HANG KATY 趙珩

CHUNG GARRICK BARRY 鍾嘉偉

COMTOIS FRANCIS

FUNG WAI CHUN VINCENT 馮崴駿

CHEUNG&CO.,KELVIN張嘉偉律師事務所

GAN LIU 甘柳

HUYNH WILLIAM 黃國威

KAM WAN KEI 甘韞琦

CLIFFORDCHANCE高偉紳律師行

LAU YIN KA BIANCA 劉姸嘉


LEE CHEUK FUNG NICKY 李卓峯

LEUNG FU HANG 梁富衡

LI JIA 李佳

LIN K Y BENJAMIN林耕宇

DAVISPOLK&WARDWELL

NG WING YIN CLAUDIA 伍穎姸



• March 2014

CHAN ADALIA CELESTE 陳汶軒

CHAU&CO.,K.B.周啟邦律師事務所

CHAN KA YING KAREN 陳家盈

ALLEN&OVERY安理國際律師事務所

CHAN HOI NAM STEPHEN 陳凱南

CHAN WAI TUNG 陳煒彤


CHAN YEE TING 陳苡婷


HO HOI FAI 何海輝

HO KIT YING SALLY 何潔盈

YUNG,YU,YUEN&CO.翁余阮律師行

HO PO WAN 何寶雲

HO SI LANG VIVIAN 何思朗

CHEUNG&CHOY張世文蔡敏律師事務所

LAI TING KWAN CHARLES 雷霆鈞

LAU SZE YAN ALLISON 劉斯欣

LAU KAREN 劉珈綸

STEPHENSONHARWOOD羅夏信律師事務所

LAU SI WING CINDY 劉思穎

BAKER&MCKENZIE貝克• 麥堅時律師事務所

LEE HO YI 李皓怡

LEUNG PUI HANG 梁珮珩

HOWSEWILLIAMSBOWERS何韋鮑律師行

LEUNG SUET YING RACHEL 梁雪凝


LI WAI TAK JANE 李慧德

LO KAI FUNG CALVIN 羅啟

LO SUET WING CHERYL 勞雪穎

MAK YAN KEI 麥昕琦

KIRKLAND&ELLIS凱易律師事務所

MORRIS HELEN ALEXANDRA

NAKAI MASAYUKI 中井雅之

LEEROBERTLAWOFFICES

李慕白律師事務所

NG HONG JING BRIAN 吳康政

NG CHING YEE 吳青怡

BAKER&MCKENZIE貝克• 麥堅時律師事務所

NG WING CHONG CYNTHIA 伍穎莊


SHI CHAO 施超


SUEN KAI HON SAMSON 孫棨漢

TAM WING SEE 譚穎思

BIRD&BIRD鴻鵠律師事務所

March 2014 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

POON WING KI 潘穎琪


TSANG CHEUK CHI 曾卓之

TSAO JIN WEI CHRISTOPHER 曹晉瑋

BAKER & MCKEN-ZIE

貝克• 麥堅時律師事務所

WANG LUYING STACEY 王露影

WONG CHUK KWUN JACQUELYN 黃筑筠

DEACONS的近律師行

YIP WILLIAM 葉劍廉



• CHAN KAM SHING ceased to be a consultant of

Donald Yap, Cheng & Kong as from 15/01/2014, and commenced practice as the sole practitioner in the name of Gilbert Chan & Co., Lawyers as from 16/01/2014.

陳錦成

自2014年1月15日辭去葉鄭江律師行顧

問一職，並於2014年1月16日獨資經營

陳錦成律師事務所。

• CHAN KIN TIN commenced practice as the sole

practitioner of K.T. Chan & Co. as from 10/01/2014 and ceased to be a consultant of Christine Tsang and Company, Solicitors as from 30/01/2014

陳建田

自2014年1月10日獨資經營陳建田律師

行，並於2014年1月30日辭去曾少英律

師事務所顧問一職。

• CHAN SIU WING SELWYN ceased to be a partner of Alan Lam,

Yam & Pe as from 10/02/2014.

陳兆榮

自2014年2月10日辭去林、任、白律師

行合夥人一職。

• CHAN WAI LING became a partner of Winnie Leung &

Co. as from 13/01/2014.

陳慧齡

自2014年1月13日成為梁鳳慈律師行合

夥人。

• CHAN YUK FAI commenced practice as the

sole practitioner in the name of Brian Chan & Associates as from 09/01/2014.

陳旭輝

自2014年1月9日獨資經營陳旭輝律師

行。

Partnerships and Firms 合夥人及律師行變動 changes received as from 1 January 2014

取自2014年1月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

TONG KAI YIN JAMES 唐啟賢


WONG HON YAN LORRAINE 王瀚恩

WONG CHEUK CHUN RICHMOND 黃卓雋

WONG TSIT WENDY 黃婕

WONG YAT LAM 黃逸琳


WU WEIJING 吳偉靜

XU HUICHAO 徐慧超


YAN WING TUNG 甄穎彤

LINKLATERS年利達律師事務所

YAU YIU SHUN ERWIN 邱耀信

DAVISPOLK&WARDWELL

YIM HO 嚴灝


YIP CHUN WAH 葉振華


YIU CHI MUN OLIVIA 姚智敏


YU SIU WAN 余小雲

TSUN&PARTNERS秦覺忠律師行

ZHOU XIAOLIN 周曉琳

• CHEUNG CHUN PUN became a partner of Orrick, Herrington &

Sutcliffe as from 31/01/2014.

張俊斌

自2014年1月31日成為奧睿律師事務所合

夥人。

• CHIU CHI KONG ceased to be a partner of Li & Partners

as from 28/01/2014.

趙志剛

自2014年1月28日辭去李偉斌律師行合夥

人一職。

• CHU CHING MAN ROSSANA joined Troutman Sanders as a partner as

from 13/01/2014.

朱靜文

自2014年1月13日成為長盛國際律師事務

所合夥人。

• CHU DAVID CHARLES ceased to be a partner of Dechert as

from 23/01/2014, and joined Proskauer Rose as a partner as from 24/01/2014.

朱卓偉

自2014年1月23日辭去德杰律師事務所合

夥人一職，並於2014年1月24日加入普洛

思律師事務所成為合夥人。

• CHU WEN MAN KATHERINE joined Henry H.C. Wong & Co. as a

partner as from 05/02/2014.

朱蘊雯

自2014年2月5日加入黃浩翔律師行為合夥

人。

• CHUI KA YIN ceased to be a partner of Robin Bridge &

John Liu as from 25/01/2014.

趙家妍

自2014年1月25日辭去喬立本廖依敏律師

行合夥人一職。

• DE’ATH LISA JOANNE ceased to be a partner of Howse

Williams Bowers as from 01/02/2014. 自2014年2月1日辭去何韋鮑律師行合夥人

一職。


• March 2014

• FAIRBAIRN MARK GERARD ceased to be a partner of O’Melveny &

Myers as from 23/01/2014, and joined DLA Piper Hong Kong as a partner as from 24/01/2014.

自2014年1月23日辭去美邁斯律師事務

所合夥人一職，並於2014年1月24日加

入歐華律師事務所為合夥人。

• GU RENFANG joined Fitzgerald Lawyers as a partner

as from 02/01/2014.

顧仁芳

自2014年1月2日加入德龍律師事務所合

夥人。

• HEATON GREGORY TAVIS joined K&L Gates as a partner as from

17/01/2014. 自2014年1月17日加入高蓋茨律師事務

所為合夥人。

• KWAN SUET MAN became a partner of Chung & Kwan as

from 01/01/2014.

關雪雯

自2014年1月1日成為鍾沛林律師行合夥

人。

• LAM BIK KWAN MARGARET ceased to be a partner of Szwina

Pang, Edward Li & Company as from 31/01/2014, and joined Winnie Mak, Chan & Yeung as a partner as from 07/02/2014.

林碧君

自2014年1月31日辭去李國強、彭書幗

律師行合夥人一職，並於2014年2月7日

加入麥陳楊律師事務所為合夥人。

• LAM KING HO HOWARD ceased to be a partner of Freshfields

Bruckhaus Deringer as from 18/01/2014, and became a partner of Latham & Watkins as from 01/02/2014.

林敬豪

自2014年1月18日辭去富而德律師事務

所合夥人一職，並於2014年2月1日成為

瑞生國際律師事務所合夥人。

• LEUNG HO YAN joined Robin Bridge & John Liu as a


梁可欣

自2014年2月10日加入喬立本廖依敏律

師行為合夥人。

• LEUNG SZE MAN ANITA joined John C H Suen & Co as a


梁思敏

自2014年1月29日加入JOHN C H

SUEN & CO為合夥人。

• MAK LAI CHUN PRUDENCE joined Henry H.C. Wong & Co. as a


麥麗春

自2014年2月5日加入黃浩翔律師行為合

夥人。

• MC DAID JAMES DECLAN ceased to be a partner of Deacons as

from 01/02/2014.

馬德能

自2014年2月1日辭去的近律師行合夥人

一職。

• MOORE JOHN DOUGLAS ceased to be a partner of Morrison

& Foerster as from 31/01/2014, and joined Slaughter and May as a partner as from 10/02/2014.

莫德華

自2014年1月31日辭去美富律師事務所

合夥人一職，並於2014年2月10日加入

司力達律師樓為合夥人。

• PARSONS MARK DAVID RICHARD ceased to be a partner of Freshfields

Bruckhaus Deringer as from 01/02/2014, and joined Hogan Lovells as a partner as from 10/02/2014.

自2014年2月1日辭去富而德律師事務所

合夥人一職，並於2014年2月10日加入

霍金路偉律師行為合夥人。

• ROMPOTIS PHILLIP became a partner of Stephenson

Harwood as from 28/01/2014.

龍菲臘

自2014年1月28日成為羅夏信律師事務

所合夥人。

• SILLI REBECCA joined Minter Ellison as a partner as

from 06/01/2014. 自2014年1月6日加入銘德律師事務所為

合夥人。

• TANG MOON HEY ceased to be a partner of Wong

& Tang as from 05/02/2014, and commenced practice as the sole practitioner in the name of M.H. Tang & Co. on the same day.

鄧滿喜

自2014年2月5日辭去王鄧律師事務所合

夥人一職，並於同日獨資經營鄧滿喜律

師事務所。

• TEH KAREENA POH GAIK ceased to be a partner of Baker &

McKenzie as from 25/01/2014, and joined Dechert as a partner as from 27/01/2014.

自2014年1月25日辭去貝克• 麥堅時律

師事務所合夥人一職，並於2014年1月

27日加入德杰律師事務所為合夥人。

• WALLACE JULIAN RICHARD became a partner of Kennedys as from

24/01/2014.

華祖蔭

自2014年1月24日成為肯尼狄律師行為

合夥人。

• WANG PENG became a partner of Shearman &

Sterling as from 06/02/2014.

王鵬

自2014年2月6日成為謝爾曼•思特靈律

師事務所為合夥人。

March 2014 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向


“When we’re connected to others, we become better people.”Randy Pausch, The Last Lecture


• March 2014

「唯與人聯繫，方能進步。」摘自Randy Pausch 的《最後的演講》

ASIDE 隨筆March 2014 •


The mentorship programme “Connected”, rolled out by the Young Solicitors’ Group of The Law Society of Hong Kong, aims to promote communications and ties among senior practitioners, junior practitioners and trainee solicitors. Winchester Chan and his group demonstrate how the programme allows them to build up friendships and promote idea exchanges between practitioners of different generations.

From left: Mentee Simon, Mentor Winchester and

Buddy Jeff at the Sha Tau Kok Tour in November.

左起︰學員李超亮實習律師、良師陳永泉律師及益友

陳平生律師在11月舉行的沙頭角之旅合照。

Having a Chinese New Year Celebration Dinner on 15 January 2014.2014年1月15日的團年晚宴。

The “Connected” programme held five events since April 2013 - the

kick-off indoor Snowsports event in April, a wine-tasting event in July, a macaron baking event in October, a tour of Sha Tau Kok in November and the closing Bowling event in January 2014.

Group 6 members, in particular their mentor, Winchester Chan, actively participated in all of them. In the kick-off event when all 10 members were present, Group 6 enjoyed the opportunity to mingle with each other and plan their next immediate group event – a dim sum lunch, in May 2013, for individuals in the group to learn more about one another.

Apart from meeting at the “Connected” events, Group 6 had monthly gatherings and would even organise birthday parties for fellow group members. In August, Group 6 celebrated the birthdays of mentor Winchester and mentee, Simon, at the Law Society Clubhouse. In December they organised a Christmas Party where members from other groups were invited as well. And in January, Group 6 had a dinner to celebrate the Chinese New Year.

Aside from gatherings, Group 6 members keep themselves connected with one another via their Whatsapp

group – in which members are free to express their views on current affairs, announce new events or raise any questions. For example, buddies would advise mentees who completed their training contracts on the preparation for their admission papers and how to sail through the difficult times as newly-qualified solicitors. Winchester, as mentor, also provides tips to fellow buddies and mentees on how to brush up on advocacy skills and legal knowledge. Mentees and buddies recall that in one gathering, Winchester brought for the group a copy of Justitia, the University of Hong Kong Law Association Review for the year 1972 – 1973, with contributions of reputable legal practitioners such as Sir TL Yang (the former Chief Justice of Hong Kong from 1988 - 1996), Professor Evans (then Head of the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law), Mr. Justice Ribeiro, Mr. Justice Peter Cheung and Mr. Justice Patrick Chan etc. Young members were taken on a journey into the elite minds of the legal profession, which was indeed an eye-opening experience for all involved!

Though “Connected 2013 – 14” has come to a close, Group 6 members still meet regularly, sustaining their friendship, exchanging ideas and promoting the spirit of being “Connected”. n

自2013年4月起，「法友聯盟」

計劃舉辦了五項活動，包括4月

的室內雪地運動啟動禮、7月的品酒活

動、10月的馬卡龍烘焙班、11月的沙頭

角之旅，以及2014年1月的閉幕保齡球

活動。

第六組表現非常踴躍，尤其良師陳永泉

律師，五項活動皆有參加。啟動禮上，

第六組全數十名組員均有出席，他們不

但趁機相互認識，更計劃於2013年5月

舉辦點心午餐聚會作為下一次活動，讓

組員互相加深了解。

除了在「法友聯盟」的活動上聚首，第

六組每月皆舉行聚會，甚至會為同組成

員籌辦生日派對。去年8月，第六組為良

師陳永泉律師和學員李超亮實習律師在

律師會會所慶祝生日。另外，他們在12

月舉辦聖誕派對，其他小組的成員亦獲

邀參加。而本年1月，第六組各人一起共

晉晚宴，歡度團年。

除了聚會，第六組組員亦透過

WhatsApp群組保持緊密聯繫。各人可

以在群組中自由表達對時事的看法、公

布新活動或提出任何問題。舉例，益友

會向完成實習期的組員就如何準備認許

文件提供意見，亦會提點剛獲認許的律

師如何克服各種困難。而身為良師的

陳永泉律師亦會教授各益友和學員如何

提升訟辯技巧及增進法律知識。各益

友和學員猶記得，陳永泉律師在某次聚

會上，為組員帶來一部1972年至1973

年的《 J u s t i t i a :

t h e U n i v e r s i t y

o f H o n g K o n g

Law Assoc i a t i on

Review》，書中撰

文者均為聲望卓越

的法律界人士，包括

楊鐵樑爵士（1988

年至1996年前香港

首席法官）、Evans教授（時任香港大學

法律學院院長）、李義法官、張澤祐法

官和陳兆愷法官等。這書不但帶領年青

組員走進法律界頂尖智者的思維，更令

所有組員大開眼界！

雖然「法友聯盟2013-14」已告一段

落，第六組各人仍然定期聚首，不忘維

繫友誼、互相交流及推廣「法友聯盟」

的精神。 n

由香港律師會年青律師組推出的「法友聯盟」師友計劃，旨在促進資深律

師、初級律師和實習律師之間的溝通和聯繫。陳永泉律師一組正好說明這計

劃如何讓不同年齡層的執業者建立友誼及促進交流。


• March 2014

Celebrating the birthday of mentor Winchester Chan and buddy Simon Lee at the Law Society Clubhouse.

於去年8月為良師陳永泉律師和學員李超亮實習律師在律師會會所慶祝

生日。

Baking macarons in October.

10月的馬卡龍烘焙班。

Opening Dim Sum Lunch, 16 May 2013.

2013年5月16日舉行首次點心午餐聚會。

An illustration of the word “CONNECTED” containing the names of all 10 members of Group 6.

第6組十名組員全部的英文名字組成「法友聯盟」的英文「Connected」。

ASIDE 隨筆March 2014 •

Cherry

Sim On

KareN

Nic

JoEy

Carol

WinchesTer

JEff

Edmon Dennis


Comments from members of Group 6:

“Everyone in Group 6 is active, enthusiastic, responsive, helpful and caring for each other. Also everyone is ready and willing to solve problems with each other. We are truly a ‘Connected’ group!”

- Winchester Chan, Mentor

“Our group is more like a family. We had monthly gatherings to celebrate group members’ birthdays. They were warm and sweet gatherings in which we could share our views in a casual way and had lots of fun. We had a wonderful time together!”

- Carol Yao, Buddy

“What makes this group special and successful is that everyone is willing to participate, …(and to) take the initiative to plan and make things happen.”

- Dennis Lee, Mentee

第六組組員的後感：

「第六組每位組員都非常積極、熱情、踴躍、樂於助

人和關心對方。此外，大家都樂意為對方解決問題。

我們確實結成一個「法友聯盟」！」

- 良師陳永泉律師

「我們這一組像個大家庭，每月都舉行聚會為組員慶

祝生日。聚會氣氛既溫馨又熱鬧，我們在輕鬆的環境

下互抒己見，而且歡笑聲不絕於耳。每次聚首皆盡興

而歸！」

- 益友姚瑤律師

「大家都熱衷參與......（亦）主動籌劃和付諸實行，這

些正是這一組的特別之處，亦是賴以成功的因素。」

- 學員李銘尉實習律師

Members of Group 6:

Mentor: Winchester Chan

Buddies: Carol Yao, Edmond Lai, Jeff Chan

Mentees: Cherry Ho, Dennis Lee, Joey Wong, Karen Lam, Nic Yau, Simon Lee

第六組組員：

良師：陳永泉律師

益友：姚瑤律師、賴汶徽律師、陳平生律師

學員：何宛螢實習律師、李銘尉實習律師、黃祖詒

律師、林詩琪律師、邱啟雄實習律師、李超

亮實習律師

CAMPUS VOICES

Chinese Law Reform seminar co-organised by The Law Society of Hong Kong and CityUOn 16 January 2014, the Chinese Law Reform seminar was held by the Law Society of Hong Kong and City University of Hong Kong (“CityU”). It was chaired by Professor Wang Guiguo, Chair Professor of Chinese and Comparative Law, CityU Law School, and the Director of Centre for Judicial Education and Research, CityU; as well as Mr. James Wong, Vice Chairman of Greater China Legal Affairs Committee of the Law Society of Hong Kong.

Prof. Wang first introduced the guest speakers, who were also participants in the 8th Chinese Senior Judges Programme. They were Mr. Lu Yanfeng, Deputy President of the Supreme People’s Court of Jilin Province; Mr. Luo Pengxian, Political Officer of the Supreme People’s Court of Qinghai Province; and Mr. Luo Dengliang, Research Officer of the Supreme People’s Court of Sichuan Province. Prof. Wang said that they not only have ample experience in legal practice, but also possess extensive knowledge in Chinese legal problems. This made the event a rare opportunity for Hong Kong lawyers to discuss and analyse issues with such three senior Chinese judges.

Mr. Lu spoke on “Some Thoughts on Enhancing Legal Credibility”, pointing

out that the crux of legal trial lies with the judges: it is important for them to have the ability to judge fairly. Mr. Luo Pengxian then shared his experience at the Supreme People’s Court of Qinghai Province, while explaining the significance of protecting the independence of law in national development. Mr. Luo Dengliang delineated the historical development of the people’s jury system since the beginning of last century in China, and urged that the country’s judicial reform should enhance the practical function of the public jury, while concurrently strengthening the professionalism of judges.

法學院新聞

香港律師會與城大合辦中國司

法改革研討會

2014年1月16日，香港律師會與香港

城市大學(下稱「城大」)聯合舉辦「中

國司法改革」研討會。研討會由城大法

律學院中國法與比較法講座教授暨城大

司法教育與研究中心主任王貴國教授，

連同香港律師會大中華法律事務委員會

副主席黃江天律師主持。

會上先由王教授介紹研討會的三位演

講嘉賓，包括吉林省高級人民法院副院

長呂岩峰、青海省高級人民法院政治部

主任羅鵬先及四川省高級人民法院研究

室主任羅登亮，他們同為第八屆中國高

級法官研修班的學員。王教授表示，這

幾位內地高級法官除了具備豐富司法經

驗，亦對中國法律問題有深入研究，能

夠邀得他們與香港律師共同探討法律問

題，實屬非常難得。

首位發表演講的是呂副院長，題目是

《提高司法公信力的若干思考》。他指

出司法審判的關鍵是法官，法官必須具

備公正判案的能力。其後由羅鵬先主任

分享在青海高級人民法院政治部的工作

經驗，並講解保障法律獨立對推動國家

發展的重大意義。第三位講者羅登亮主

任與大家回顧內地人民陪審制度自上世

紀初至今的發展史，並指出國家的司法

改革除了應加強法官在法律實務方面的

專業能力，亦應擴大人民陪審制度的實

際職能。


• March 2014

March 2014 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

HKU to host “Obligations VII Conference” in July The Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong (“HKU”), in conjunction with Melbourne Law School, will host the “Obligations VII Conference” at the University of Hong Kong from 15–18 July 2014. “Obligations VII” is the seventh in a series of international biennial conferences on the law of obligations, which bring together scholars, judges and practitioners from throughout the common law world. The series has become the leading international forum for discussion between scholars and practitioners in the field.

Over 100 papers will be delivered at the conference. The theme of the conference will be divergence and convergence in the law of obligations in various common law jurisdictions. Of particular interest to practitioners will be the many papers that contain analyses of common law doctrine in key areas of the law of obligations, such as contract, torts, equity and restitution.

Keynote addresses will be delivered by Professor Andrew Burrows, The University of Oxford; Mdm. Justice Dame Sian Elias, Chief Justice of New Zealand; Mr. Justice Paul Finn, The University of Melbourne; former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; Mr. Justice Sir Anthony Mason, Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; Mr. Justice Robert Ribeiro, Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; Professor Robert Stevens, The University of Oxford; and Professor Sarah Worthington, The University of Cambridge.

For further information and to register, please go to www.law.hku.hk/obligationsvii/.

HongKongLawSocietyContinuingProfessionalDevelopment(“CPD”)Accreditation:weintendtoapplyforCPDaccreditation;furtherinformationwillbeavailableinMarch.

港大將於七月主辦

「債權法研討會之第七部」

香港大學法律學院(下稱「港大」)將與

墨爾本法律學院於2014年7月15至18

日假香港大學攜手主辦「債權法研討

會之第七部」。這個國際研討會系列

的主題為債權法，每兩年舉行一次，

匯聚全球的普通法學者、法官和執業

者，本屆已是系列中的第七部。這個

研討會系列已成為此領域學者和執業

者進行交流的頂尖國際論壇。

本屆的主題是債權法在各普通法司法

管轄區的分歧和融合，將有過百篇論文

在會上發表。對主要債權法領域(如合

約法、侵權法、衡平法和復還法等)的

普通法原則進行分析的論文，應該會

令執業者尤感興趣。

是次研討會的主講嘉賓包括：牛津大

學Andrew Burrows教授、新西蘭首席

法官Dame Sian El ias女士、墨爾本大

學及前澳洲聯邦法院法官Paul Finn先

生、香港終審法院法官梅師賢先生、

香港終審法院法官李義先生、牛津

大學Robert Stevens教授及劍橋大學

Sarah Worthington教授。

如欲了解研討會的詳情或報名，請

參閱以下網址：www. l aw .hku .hk/

obligationsvii/ 。

香港律師會專業進修計劃認可：我們

計劃申請專業進修計劃認可，詳情將

於三月公布。


THE LAST WORD 趣聞Quirky points of law courtesy of Westlaw’s Headnote of the Day Do note that these are offered as a diversion and may not necessarily be good law:

1. Members of operating crew of gambling boat were “seamen” within meaning of seaman’s exemption…, even though boat spent at least 90% of its time moored to a pier.

Harkins v. Riverboat Servs., Inc., 385 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2004)

2. Courts in viewing antenuptial contracts will not invariably begin with realisation that between persons in the prematrimonial state there is a mystical, confidential relationship which anesthetises the senses of the female partner.

Potter v. Collin, 321 So. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

3. Where husband regularly delivered his weekly pay check to wife, who used money together with her own earnings and deposited savings therefrom in her individual account, and wife conducted all business dealings of couple and took realty and personal property of parties in her own name, wife’s alleged domineering conduct was acquiesced in by husband and did not constitute cruel and inhuman treatment.

Hannan v. Hannan, 256 S.W.2d 485 (Ky. 1953)

另類法律的新奇觀點（摘錄自West law的每日案例提要）

注意：以下內容純供消遣，所提及的未必是有效法律。

1. 即使賭船至少有九成時間停泊於碼頭......，其操作船

員仍然屬於海員豁免中所指的「海員」。

Harkins v. Riverboat Servs., Inc., 385 F.3d 1099

(7th Cir. 2004)

2. 法庭審視婚前協議時，不會總是一開始便意識到，

處於婚前狀況的兩人之間，有一種神秘保密的關係

令女方失去判斷力。

Potter v. Collin, 321 So. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

App. 1975)

3. 如丈夫定期每周把工資交予妻子，妻子把丈夫的工

資與自己的收入同使用，並把當中的儲蓄存入她的

個人賬戶中，而且妻子為夫婦二人處理所有業務往

來，並把二人的房產和私人財產收歸自己名下，則

這些由妻子作出的涉嫌跋扈行為是獲丈夫默許的，

因此不構成殘忍和不人道待遇。

Hannan v. Hannan, 256 S.W.2d 485 (Ky. 1953)

ForfullReutersreports,pleasevisitreuters.com如欲查閱路透社的完整報導，請瀏覽reuters.com

We are constantly on the look-out for original humour or snippets of interest involving lawyers in Hong Kong, be it in the workplace or outside of it. Simply write in to the editor ([email protected]) when you come across one of these and watch people around you go: “How did they know that?” We promise anonymity.

我們一直在尋找關於香港律師們職場內外的原創幽默或佚事。如果你遇到了這樣的事，請直接發郵件給編輯（[email protected]），並且留意周圍的人說：“他們怎麼會知道的？”我們保證匿名。


• March 2014

COMPANY LAW COLLECTION

Companies oRDinanCe (Cap. 622) subsiDiaRy LegisLation

Pub Date: Nov 2013 ISBN: 9789626615911 List Price: HK$980

LaW oF Companies in Hong KongPub Date: Dec 2013 ISBN: 9789626615829 List Price: HK$4,300

Company LaW in Hong Kong – insoLvenCy (2014 upDate)

Pub Date: Dec 2013 ISBN: 9789626615836 List Price: HK$2,000

Company LaW in Hong Kong – pRaCtiCe anD pRoCeDuRe (2014 upDate)Pub Date: Dec 2013 ISBN: 9789626615812 List Price: HK$2,000

Companies oRDinanCe (Cap. 622)

Pub Date: Jan 2013 ISBN: 9789626615379 List Price: HK$1,200

Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) is NOW in force. Are you ready?

An extensive collection of company law titles covering the regime under the new Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622)

www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk+852 2847 2000

[email protected]

合規行業：現今律師的另一選擇作者法律與合規部經理Oliver Allcock 華德士

企業合規部門

就招聘而言，2013年是合規行業的世界。法律市場凍結

人手，意味著適合律師的空缺來源主要限於企業推出新業

務和填補離職空缺。相比之下，由於證券及期貨事務監察

委員會及香港金融管理局的監管要求愈見嚴格，招聘部門

主管在尋找合規專才上有更大自由度，市場對能夠為企業

增值的專才競爭非常激烈。

在傳統法律業界缺乏職位空缺的情況下，我們見到不少

律師投身合規行業，藉以在商業機構中獲取內部經驗。然

而，長遠而言，他們將來若要重返純法律的環境中並不容

易，不過這將有助於解決目前市場上缺乏具質素合規專才

的問題。毫無疑問，他們將來在合規行業內會會有更多選

擇，因為這行業的前景將持續向好。

合規行業的增長不限於金融服務界，一般貿易和行業亦出

現招聘潮，但合規方面的技能通常與「法律顧問」或「公

司秘書」合併為一個職位。另一個最有可能需要合規或「

監管事務」專才的行業，是醫療保健和製藥。

隨著全球經濟形勢好轉，加上有更多的新企業投向亞洲，

我們預計2014年招聘情況將有所改善。由於所有行業均

面臨日益嚴峻的監管，合規行業將繼續作為帶動招聘市場

的主力。市場對投資銀行的高級合規專才將繼續有特別大

的需求，從銀行業巨頭渣打銀行、匯豐銀行和摩根大通

對前景所抱的樂觀態度便可知一二。儘管市場上求職者相

對匱乏，但這些機構已下定決心擴充合規部門及避免被罰

款，因近年金融機構被罰款的情況相當常見。

企業內部

對於企業法律部的市場，今年將繼續嚴格凍結人手。企

業希望覓得的人才能夠在多方面為公司增值，因此若律師

的職業背景廣泛並具有跨司法管轄區交易的豐富經驗，將

Compliance: an alternative land of promise for the modern day lawyerBy Oliver Allcock, Manager, Legal & Compliance Division Robert Walters

ComplianceIn terms of hiring 2013 was all about compliance. Strict headcount freezes in the legal market meant vacancies for lawyers were primarily restricted to new business launches and replacement staff. In contrast, hiring managers looking for compliance professionals had far more freedom due to strict regulatory requirements by the Securities and Futures Commission and Hong Kong Monetary Authority creating a highly-competitive market for professionals who could add value.

We have seen many lawyers tackle this drought of options in the traditional legal sector by moving into compliance roles where they can gain commercial in-house experience. In the long term however, they may find it challenging to move back into a purely legal environment although this will help to address the current short supply of quality compliance professionals. There is no doubt that they will have further options within the compliance industry in the future as the market shows no signs of slowing growth.

Compliance growth was not only restricted to financial services but has also sparked a hiring spurt within general commerce and industry, albeit these skills are usually combined into the “legal counsel” or “company secretary” roles. Industry areas most likely to require compliance or “regulatory affairs” professionals are healthcare and pharmaceuticals.

As the global economic situation improves and more new businesses move into the region we anticipate increased recruitment in 2014. Compliance will continue to be the main driver of movement as all industry sectors face increasing regulatory pressure. Senior compliance professionals from investment banks will continue to be in particularly strong demand, as shown by the bullish plans of banking giants Standard Chartered Bank, HSBC and JPMorgan. Despite the relative scarcity of candidates these businesses are determined to expand their compliance functions and avoid punishing fines that have been a common sight in recent years.

In-HouseFor the in-house legal market, headcount will remain heavily restricted this year, so lawyers with a broad background and strong

LEGAL MARKET職場資訊


• March 2014

March 2014 • LEGAL MARKET 職場資訊

multi-jurisdictional transactional experience will be hired quickest as companies seek talent who can add value in multiple ways. Ambition and willingness to develop general legal skills, away from the product specific model, will make applicants more employable as they are seen to be able to deal with ad-hoc matters and projects.

In-house hiring continues to be driven by the luxury, retail and apparel sectors. Profiles in demand are for junior to mid senior corporate / commercial lawyers, especially with leasing, tenancy and conveyancing experience. Paralegals are also in demand for drafting and reviewing simple commercial contracts. Chinese conglomerates have been seeking senior lawyers with skills across corporate / commercial, compliance and company secretarial as they plan to expand aggressively in the PRC market.

The recent recovery in the IPO market has led to a surge in company secretarial hiring, both for financial services and general industry. The usual requirement here is for candidates to have Chinese language skills and be HKICS (Hong Kong Institute of Chartered Secretaries) / ICSA (Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators) qualified with prior experience dealing with listed companies.

In terms of financial services hiring it is still challenging for IPO / M&A corporate lawyers to move in-house, simply due to the fact that financial services businesses outsource the majority of this work to the law firms. The skills most in demand are regulatory, funds, derivatives, general commercial and litigation, buoyed by the continued attractive platform Hong Kong provides to new hedge funds, asset managers and private banks. Private equity represents a more niche market but one that will follow the IPO recovery.

Private PracticeLaw firms will continue, as in 2013, focusing on corporate M&A / IPO, general banking, litigation and general commercial hiring. There has been demand across the board, with magic and silver circle firms, US and boutique and local firms all competing for those with strong education and a stable background. Some of the largest firms are increasingly open to commonwealth qualified lawyers who also have experience in US law firms, embracing the strong work ethic and commercial skill-set this instils. Relocating Chinese speakers remains also high in demand, with Mandarin required for approximately 90% of roles.

Where possible though, companies will look internally and train existing staff to absorb new responsibilities before expanding their teams. International mobility and the opportunity to expand current skill sets are now key retention policies as bonuses become less dependable.

As organisations continue to focus on cost-control and consolidation, salaries are unlikely to move significantly in 2014. Instead, hiring managers should focus on retaining their current staff and attracting potential job movers by promoting internal career progression and training prospects. The only people likely to command substantial pay rises or bonuses are experienced compliance professionals (~20-25% increment), with the legal market looking at 5-15% increment for a new role.

很快獲錄用。如求職者能夠展示他們有發展廣泛法律

技能而非專門於某種產品的志向和意願，僱主會認為

他們有能力處理特如其來的事務和項目，因而較為可

取。

企業內部的招聘繼續由奢侈品、零售和服裝行業帶

動。目前市場需要的是初級至中高級的公司/商業律

師，以具有租賃及轉讓經驗的人才尤甚。市場對法律

輔助人員亦有需求，以處理草擬和審閱簡單商業合約

的工作。由於中資集團計劃在中國市場積極擴展，故

一直在尋找集公司/商業、合規及公司秘書各技能於一

身的資深律師。

近期復甦的新股市場，令金融服務和一般行業的公司

秘書職位激增。求職者通常需通曉中文及具備HKICS(

香港特許秘書公會)/ICSA(英國特許秘書及行政人員公

會)的資格，並且擁有上市公司方面的經驗。

金融服務的招聘方面，專於新股上市 /併購的公司律師

若要投身企業的法律部門仍然甚具挑戰，原因非常簡

單，就是金融服務機構將大部份工作外判予律師事務

所。香港這個平台持續吸引新的對沖基金、資產管理

公司及私人銀行，故這行業最需要的是監管、基金、

衍生工具、一般商業及訴訟方面的技能。私募股權投

資是個具優勢的市場，將緊隨新股上市復甦而來臨。

私人執業

律師行的招聘職位在2013年將繼續集中於企業併購/

新股上市、一般銀行事務、訴訟和一般商業事務方

面。無論是英國的五大及其他大型律師行、美國小型

律師行及本地律師行，全都在爭相聘請具有優秀學歷

及工作背景穩定的人才。有些大型律師行日漸樂意僱

用在英聯邦國家取得資格、曾受聘於美國律師行、抱

有強烈職業道德及具備商業方面技能的律師。這市場

對調遷通曉中文的人才仍然有很高的需求，約九成職

位須暗普通話。

然而，如可行的話，企業在擴充團隊之前，會先在內

部尋找現職員工，並加以培訓以肩負起新的職務。由

於豐厚的花紅不再，調派外地及發展現有技能是目前

挽留員工的關鍵。

機構的焦點繼續放在控制成本和整合上，因此2014年

薪金方面未必會有顯著升幅。相反，招聘部門主管應

以促進內部晉升及提供培訓機會，挽留現職人才及吸

引準轉職者。唯一大有可能獲大幅加薪或豐厚花紅的

是資深合規專才(增幅約20-25%)，但法律市場上的新

職位約為5-15%增幅。


Corporate Lawyer › 1 – 5 Years PQE › Leading US Law Firm Our client is looking for a Corporate Lawyer with 1-5 years of post-qualification experience. This role will work closely with the partners to look after transactions in Hong Kong and the United States. Reporting to the partner responsible for the Asia practice, you will work in a team of lawyers focusing mainly on high profile corporate finance, private equity and M&A deals. This is an exciting role with excellent career prospects and the ideal candidate would be qualified in Hong Kong or a common law jurisdiction, and must have obtained solid experience from leading international law firms. You will be proficient in English and Chinese. Candidates based in Hong Kong are preferred. Ref: H2044920

Dispute Resolution Associate › 1 – 5 Years PQE › Prestigious US Law FirmOur client is a top-tier US law firm with a very well-established litigation practice in the Asia Pacific region. They are looking to recruit a dispute resolution associate mainly focusing on financial services litigation as well as contentious regulatory matters. The successful candidate will join their leading practice and will have the opportunity to work alongside leading partners. You will be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with 1-5 years of PQE, having obtained solid training from well regarded international law firms. The ideal candidate should possess excellent communication skills and exposure to high profile disputes is advantageous. Candidate must also be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H1958890

Legal Counsel › 6 – 8 Years PQE › Multinational Automotive Company As the sole legal counsel of the group, you will oversee all legal matters on a global scale. You will report directly to the CEO based in the US and work closely with various internal business managers and external legal counsels to manage M&A, fund raising exercises, general corporate and corporate governance matters, as well as reviewing all legal commercial documents. You are required to provide solutions and legal advice to various business units. The ideal candidate must possess 6-8 years of PQE, be admitted in Hong Kong and have the ability to work independently. Experience in the manufacturing or automotive industry is required. You will be proficient in English and Chinese. Travelling is involved in this role. Ref: H2122230

Senior Legal Manager › 3 – 5 Years PQE › Prominent Shipping GroupAs a junior Legal Counsel, you will focus on regional legal matters and have the opportunity to lead a small team of legal support professionals. You will oversee a wide spectrum of general corporate, commercial contracts, general regulatory matters and employment matters at a regional level. You will identify business risks and advise management on all legal matters, representing the company in dealing with governmental bodies across a variety of jurisdictions. The ideal candidate must possess 3- 5 years of PQE, be admitted in Hong Kong and have prior in-house legal experience. You must be familiar with handling legal related work on a regional or international level. You will be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2074210

M&A Private Equity Lawyer › 5+ Years PQE › Leading Financial Institution Joining a well-established legal team and reporting to the Head of Legal, you will look after a variety of corporate M&A and private equity transactions. You will advise on transactions involving investments in private companies incorporated in the region and companies listed in Hong Kong / abroad. You will advise on the structuring, drafting and negotiating of transaction documents, and maintain regular liaison with business teams as well as external counsels. You must be a common law qualified lawyer with at least 5 years of PQE gained within the private equity and M&A space. Candidates who have experience with leading international law firms would be highly regarded. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2093890

IBD Compliance Lawyer › 4+ Years PQE › Top Tier Investment BankAs the corporate lawyer for the IBD Compliance function, you will work in a team of compliance specialists and ex-lawyers. You will oversee a wide range of compliance and policy related matters, work with the legal team and provide primary compliance input for transactional matters. You will address issues relating to registration, licensing, sanctions, CB+, sanctions, use of finders and stay abreast of changes and developments in these areas. You will coordinate with country compliance officers to ensure advice and support to the business is provided. The ideal candidate must possess strong experience in DCM, ECM and M&A transactions, with a good understanding of regulatory matters. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2117110

Finance Associate › 1 – 4 Years PQE › Magic Circle FirmA prestigious magic circle firm is looking for a finance associate to join their banking and finance practice. The successful candidate will work closely with the partners on a wide range of general banking and finance matters. You must have a solid finance background, including diverse banking and finance experience. Prior experience in project finance, natural resources, acquisition finance, and structured lending will be essential. This is an excellent opportunity for career progression and you must be Hong Kong qualified with 1-4 years of post-qualification experience, with work experience gained from top-tier international law firms in the region. You will be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2133960

M&A Lawyer › 3 – 5 Years PQE › Top-tier US Law FirmA renowned U.S. law firm is looking for a M&A specialist who possesses extensive experience in both public and private M&A and be familiar with the Hong Kong Takeovers Code, IPO and listed company matters. The successful candidate will engage in a full spectrum of corporate finance transactions, private equity matters, M&A as well as joint venture matters. The ideal candidate must have between 3-5 years of PQE gained from leading international law firms and qualified either in Hong Kong, US or UK. This is an excellent opportunity for candidates who are seeking a more diverse scope of work in a truly integrated corporate practice. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2111850

Legal Counsel › 3 – 5 Years PQE › Hong Kong Listed Conglomerate As a Legal Counsel working closely with the Senior Legal Advisor of the Group, you will be responsible for a full range of firm-wide corporate and compliance related matters. You will gain in-house exposure to M&A and regulatory matters by covering corporate legal work, public company regulatory matters and general corporate commercial agreements. The ideal candidate must possess 3- 5 years of PQE and be admitted in Hong Kong. You must also have prior experience with handling M&A and general corporate matters, gained from a prominent local or international law firm. The ideal candidate will have strong drafting experience. In addition, you must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2068730

Senior Counsel › 10+ Years PQE › Multinational CorporationTaking on an independent senior legal counsel role with this MNC and reporting directly to the CFO, you will handle a wide range of matters ranging from corporate transactions to general commercial matters. You will oversee ad hoc matters including employment, financing, loans, general contracts and agreements. The ideal candidate must possess at least 10 years of PQE with corporate M&A background and have experience in in-house corporate commercial role. Candidate must preferably have exposure in the technology / telecommunications / satellite. The ideal candidate must be able to work independently, have a hands-on approach and strong communication skills. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2126530

Derivatives & ISDA Lawyer › 6+ Years PQE › Top Tier Financial InstitutionJoining an extremely reputable financial institution, you will work on a team advising on a range of derivatives and structured products matters including ISDA negotiation and documentation. You will also gain exposure to advisory work on various PRC projects such as NAFMII, clearing of onshore IRS and SAC Master Agreement. You will be a structured products lawyer with at least 5 years of PQE under your belt, and be familiar with ISDA, GMRA, GMSLA and ideally NAFMII documentation across a variety of asset classes in the region. You will be a common law or PRC qualified lawyer, with strong communication skills and ability to work in a team environment. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2114180

Senior Counsel › 8+ Years PQE › Leading US Financial Institution Taking on a senior role within an established team, you will work with the DCM group and trading floor. You will advise the banking and capital markets platform in the region on financial regulatory matters and dealing with various regulators, particularly on regulations affecting the licensing and marketing of products / services, lending products and asset management. The ideal candidate must possess at least 8 years of PQE, with qualifications in common law jurisdictions and experience across capital markets and lending / structured products. You must have experience representing international financial institutions on various issues and transactions in Asia. Strong communication skills required. Ref: H2147040

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

LegalSpecialists in legal recruitment

www.michaelpage.com.hk

We are a specialist legal team within the leading recruitment brand of PageGroup. Our strong client network sees us working closely with international and local law firms, global and local listed and private corporations, financial institutions, as well as Hong Kong regulatory bodies.

#147

24

{SPECIALISTS IN LEGAL RECRUITMENTMICHAEL PAGE LEGAL

Get Connected. Stay Ahead.

PRIVATE PRACTICE IN-HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICESIN-HOUSE CORPORATE

Olga Yung, Director, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4791

Carolyn Woo, Manager, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4793

Samantha Fong, Consultant, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4792

EXCLUSIVE JOB MONTHOF

THE

General Counsel › 12+ Years PQE › Leading Private Equity Fund HouseOur client is looking for a seasoned funds and regulatory lawyer to head up its legal function. Overseeing a team of lawyers, you will lead legal projects in different areas of the business operation which includes wealth & assets management, real estate development, corporate finance, M&A and restructuring. You will provide advice and identify risks on legal matters and draft / negotiate a variety of agreements. The ideal candidate must be a common law qualified lawyer with at least 12 years PQE in the area of funds and regulatory. Experience gained within asset management houses or financial institutions will be highly regarded. You must be proficient in English and Chinese, and capable of liaising with various internal and external stakeholders. Ref: H2133150

Corporate Lawyer › 1 – 5 Years PQE › Leading US Law Firm Our client is looking for a Corporate Lawyer with 1-5 years of post-qualification experience. This role will work closely with the partners to look after transactions in Hong Kong and the United States. Reporting to the partner responsible for the Asia practice, you will work in a team of lawyers focusing mainly on high profile corporate finance, private equity and M&A deals. This is an exciting role with excellent career prospects and the ideal candidate would be qualified in Hong Kong or a common law jurisdiction, and must have obtained solid experience from leading international law firms. You will be proficient in English and Chinese. Candidates based in Hong Kong are preferred. Ref: H2044920

Dispute Resolution Associate › 1 – 5 Years PQE › Prestigious US Law FirmOur client is a top-tier US law firm with a very well-established litigation practice in the Asia Pacific region. They are looking to recruit a dispute resolution associate mainly focusing on financial services litigation as well as contentious regulatory matters. The successful candidate will join their leading practice and will have the opportunity to work alongside leading partners. You will be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with 1-5 years of PQE, having obtained solid training from well regarded international law firms. The ideal candidate should possess excellent communication skills and exposure to high profile disputes is advantageous. Candidate must also be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H1958890

Legal Counsel › 6 – 8 Years PQE › Multinational Automotive Company As the sole legal counsel of the group, you will oversee all legal matters on a global scale. You will report directly to the CEO based in the US and work closely with various internal business managers and external legal counsels to manage M&A, fund raising exercises, general corporate and corporate governance matters, as well as reviewing all legal commercial documents. You are required to provide solutions and legal advice to various business units. The ideal candidate must possess 6-8 years of PQE, be admitted in Hong Kong and have the ability to work independently. Experience in the manufacturing or automotive industry is required. You will be proficient in English and Chinese. Travelling is involved in this role. Ref: H2122230

Senior Legal Manager › 3 – 5 Years PQE › Prominent Shipping GroupAs a junior Legal Counsel, you will focus on regional legal matters and have the opportunity to lead a small team of legal support professionals. You will oversee a wide spectrum of general corporate, commercial contracts, general regulatory matters and employment matters at a regional level. You will identify business risks and advise management on all legal matters, representing the company in dealing with governmental bodies across a variety of jurisdictions. The ideal candidate must possess 3- 5 years of PQE, be admitted in Hong Kong and have prior in-house legal experience. You must be familiar with handling legal related work on a regional or international level. You will be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2074210

M&A Private Equity Lawyer › 5+ Years PQE › Leading Financial Institution Joining a well-established legal team and reporting to the Head of Legal, you will look after a variety of corporate M&A and private equity transactions. You will advise on transactions involving investments in private companies incorporated in the region and companies listed in Hong Kong / abroad. You will advise on the structuring, drafting and negotiating of transaction documents, and maintain regular liaison with business teams as well as external counsels. You must be a common law qualified lawyer with at least 5 years of PQE gained within the private equity and M&A space. Candidates who have experience with leading international law firms would be highly regarded. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2093890

IBD Compliance Lawyer › 4+ Years PQE › Top Tier Investment BankAs the corporate lawyer for the IBD Compliance function, you will work in a team of compliance specialists and ex-lawyers. You will oversee a wide range of compliance and policy related matters, work with the legal team and provide primary compliance input for transactional matters. You will address issues relating to registration, licensing, sanctions, CB+, sanctions, use of finders and stay abreast of changes and developments in these areas. You will coordinate with country compliance officers to ensure advice and support to the business is provided. The ideal candidate must possess strong experience in DCM, ECM and M&A transactions, with a good understanding of regulatory matters. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2117110

Finance Associate › 1 – 4 Years PQE › Magic Circle FirmA prestigious magic circle firm is looking for a finance associate to join their banking and finance practice. The successful candidate will work closely with the partners on a wide range of general banking and finance matters. You must have a solid finance background, including diverse banking and finance experience. Prior experience in project finance, natural resources, acquisition finance, and structured lending will be essential. This is an excellent opportunity for career progression and you must be Hong Kong qualified with 1-4 years of post-qualification experience, with work experience gained from top-tier international law firms in the region. You will be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2133960

M&A Lawyer › 3 – 5 Years PQE › Top-tier US Law FirmA renowned U.S. law firm is looking for a M&A specialist who possesses extensive experience in both public and private M&A and be familiar with the Hong Kong Takeovers Code, IPO and listed company matters. The successful candidate will engage in a full spectrum of corporate finance transactions, private equity matters, M&A as well as joint venture matters. The ideal candidate must have between 3-5 years of PQE gained from leading international law firms and qualified either in Hong Kong, US or UK. This is an excellent opportunity for candidates who are seeking a more diverse scope of work in a truly integrated corporate practice. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2111850

Legal Counsel › 3 – 5 Years PQE › Hong Kong Listed Conglomerate As a Legal Counsel working closely with the Senior Legal Advisor of the Group, you will be responsible for a full range of firm-wide corporate and compliance related matters. You will gain in-house exposure to M&A and regulatory matters by covering corporate legal work, public company regulatory matters and general corporate commercial agreements. The ideal candidate must possess 3- 5 years of PQE and be admitted in Hong Kong. You must also have prior experience with handling M&A and general corporate matters, gained from a prominent local or international law firm. The ideal candidate will have strong drafting experience. In addition, you must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2068730

Senior Counsel › 10+ Years PQE › Multinational CorporationTaking on an independent senior legal counsel role with this MNC and reporting directly to the CFO, you will handle a wide range of matters ranging from corporate transactions to general commercial matters. You will oversee ad hoc matters including employment, financing, loans, general contracts and agreements. The ideal candidate must possess at least 10 years of PQE with corporate M&A background and have experience in in-house corporate commercial role. Candidate must preferably have exposure in the technology / telecommunications / satellite. The ideal candidate must be able to work independently, have a hands-on approach and strong communication skills. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2126530

Derivatives & ISDA Lawyer › 6+ Years PQE › Top Tier Financial InstitutionJoining an extremely reputable financial institution, you will work on a team advising on a range of derivatives and structured products matters including ISDA negotiation and documentation. You will also gain exposure to advisory work on various PRC projects such as NAFMII, clearing of onshore IRS and SAC Master Agreement. You will be a structured products lawyer with at least 5 years of PQE under your belt, and be familiar with ISDA, GMRA, GMSLA and ideally NAFMII documentation across a variety of asset classes in the region. You will be a common law or PRC qualified lawyer, with strong communication skills and ability to work in a team environment. You must be proficient in English and Chinese. Ref: H2114180

Senior Counsel › 8+ Years PQE › Leading US Financial Institution Taking on a senior role within an established team, you will work with the DCM group and trading floor. You will advise the banking and capital markets platform in the region on financial regulatory matters and dealing with various regulators, particularly on regulations affecting the licensing and marketing of products / services, lending products and asset management. The ideal candidate must possess at least 8 years of PQE, with qualifications in common law jurisdictions and experience across capital markets and lending / structured products. You must have experience representing international financial institutions on various issues and transactions in Asia. Strong communication skills required. Ref: H2147040

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

LegalSpecialists in legal recruitment

www.michaelpage.com.hk

We are a specialist legal team within the leading recruitment brand of PageGroup. Our strong client network sees us working closely with international and local law firms, global and local listed and private corporations, financial institutions, as well as Hong Kong regulatory bodies.

#147

24

{SPECIALISTS IN LEGAL RECRUITMENTMICHAEL PAGE LEGAL

Get Connected. Stay Ahead.

PRIVATE PRACTICE IN-HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICESIN-HOUSE CORPORATE

Olga Yung, Director, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4791

Carolyn Woo, Manager, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4793

Samantha Fong, Consultant, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4792

EXCLUSIVE JOB MONTHOF

THE

General Counsel › 12+ Years PQE › Leading Private Equity Fund HouseOur client is looking for a seasoned funds and regulatory lawyer to head up its legal function. Overseeing a team of lawyers, you will lead legal projects in different areas of the business operation which includes wealth & assets management, real estate development, corporate finance, M&A and restructuring. You will provide advice and identify risks on legal matters and draft / negotiate a variety of agreements. The ideal candidate must be a common law qualified lawyer with at least 12 years PQE in the area of funds and regulatory. Experience gained within asset management houses or financial institutions will be highly regarded. You must be proficient in English and Chinese, and capable of liaising with various internal and external stakeholders. Ref: H2133150

SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENTLEGAL PROFESSIONALS

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

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

Ricky Mui +852 2103 5370 [email protected] Oliver Allcock +852 2103 5317 [email protected] Altuve +852 2103 5328 [email protected] Lulu Liu +852 2161 9413 [email protected] Shah +852 2013 5360 [email protected]

FINANCIAL SERVICES

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

PRIVATE PRACTICE

BANKING COUNSELLEADING INVESTMENT BANKOAA/524110

An international investment bank with a strong presence in Asia is looking for a banking lawyer to join its established team of three legal counsels. Providing legal support to the global banking business, this team supports areas including investment banking advisory, equity capital markets, leveraged & acquisition finance, project & export finance, and credit & lending.

Key Requirements:

CORPORATE ATTORNEYUS LAW FIRMTXS/523120

An elite US law firm is looking to grow its internationally recognised corporate team and hire a junior level corporate attorney. This firm offers the right candidate an opportunity to work with a variety of clients on challenging and unique investments as well as international and domestic acquisitions.

Key Requirements:

LEGAL COUNSELGLOBAL FMCG CORPORATIONEQA/524020

This leading FMCG corporation with operations in over 50 countries is looking for an experienced Legal Counsel to join their growing business based in Hong Kong. Reporting to the Vice President, you will be responsible for a broad range of corporate commercial and regulatory matters for the company in Greater China.

Key Requirements:

LEGAL COUNSELMULTINATIONAL LOGISTICS GROUPEQA/520810

This expanding international logistics group in APAC with offices in over 30 countries is now seeking an experienced Legal Counsel to join their team based in Hong Kong. Reporting to the Head of Legal, you will be responsible for a broad variety of corporate commercial legal work.

Key Requirements:

DISPUTE RESOLUTION ATTORNEYINTERNATIONAL LAW FIRMTXS/517890

A renowned international law firm is looking for a seasoned dispute resolution attorney with experience in financial services litigation. This firm acts for major public and private companies, government entities, and renowned financial institutions.

Key Requirements:

SENIOR COMPLIANCE ADVISORTOP TIER INVESTMENT BANKLQL/524810

This established private wealth management function of a leading international banking group is looking to hire an experienced compliance professional to join their team in Hong Kong. Reporting to the Head of Compliance, you will be responsible for interpreting regulations and providing guidance to different business units.

Key Requirements:

■ a minimum of four years’ PQE; Hong Kong, PRC or Commonwealth qualified, ideally from a leading law firm or similar in-house institution

■ strong background in banking products such as bilateral, syndicated and secondary loans

■ fluency in Cantonese and Mandarin is beneficial but not essential

■ a minimum of one to three years’ PQE; Hong Kong qualified■ experience in mergers and acquisitions, or private equity■ strong academic background; Recipient of Bachelor’s, Master’s, or Juris

Doctor degree from Australia, Canada, UK, or US is advantageous ■ fluency in English and Mandarin is essential

■ a minimum of five years’ PQE, ideally from international law firms or multinational corporations

■ solid experience in PRC matters with an emphasis on general commercial, human resources, and employment matters

■ fluency in Mandarin and English is essential

■ a minimum of three years’ PQE; Commonwealth qualified, ideally from an international law firm or multinational corporation

■ solid experience working on a variety of commercial contracts, and/or experience in corporate M&A will be advantageous

■ relevant in-house industry experience preferred■ fluency in English and Mandarin is essential

■ a minimum of five years’ PQE; Australia and Hong Kong qualified■ solid experience in financial institutions litigation and regulatory matters■ fluency in Cantonese and Mandarin is beneficial but not essential

■ a minimum of eight years’ compliance experience within a financial institution or regulator, preferably with prior experience in private banking compliance

■ extensive knowledge in securities laws, regulations, directives, and expectations


SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENTLEGAL PROFESSIONALS

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

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

Ricky Mui +852 2103 5370 [email protected] Oliver Allcock +852 2103 5317 [email protected] Altuve +852 2103 5328 [email protected] Lulu Liu +852 2161 9413 [email protected] Shah +852 2013 5360 [email protected]

FINANCIAL SERVICES

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

PRIVATE PRACTICE

BANKING COUNSELLEADING INVESTMENT BANKOAA/524110

An international investment bank with a strong presence in Asia is looking for a banking lawyer to join its established team of three legal counsels. Providing legal support to the global banking business, this team supports areas including investment banking advisory, equity capital markets, leveraged & acquisition finance, project & export finance, and credit & lending.

Key Requirements:

CORPORATE ATTORNEYUS LAW FIRMTXS/523120

An elite US law firm is looking to grow its internationally recognised corporate team and hire a junior level corporate attorney. This firm offers the right candidate an opportunity to work with a variety of clients on challenging and unique investments as well as international and domestic acquisitions.

Key Requirements:

LEGAL COUNSELGLOBAL FMCG CORPORATIONEQA/524020

This leading FMCG corporation with operations in over 50 countries is looking for an experienced Legal Counsel to join their growing business based in Hong Kong. Reporting to the Vice President, you will be responsible for a broad range of corporate commercial and regulatory matters for the company in Greater China.

Key Requirements:

LEGAL COUNSELMULTINATIONAL LOGISTICS GROUPEQA/520810

This expanding international logistics group in APAC with offices in over 30 countries is now seeking an experienced Legal Counsel to join their team based in Hong Kong. Reporting to the Head of Legal, you will be responsible for a broad variety of corporate commercial legal work.

Key Requirements:

DISPUTE RESOLUTION ATTORNEYINTERNATIONAL LAW FIRMTXS/517890

A renowned international law firm is looking for a seasoned dispute resolution attorney with experience in financial services litigation. This firm acts for major public and private companies, government entities, and renowned financial institutions.

Key Requirements:

SENIOR COMPLIANCE ADVISORTOP TIER INVESTMENT BANKLQL/524810

This established private wealth management function of a leading international banking group is looking to hire an experienced compliance professional to join their team in Hong Kong. Reporting to the Head of Compliance, you will be responsible for interpreting regulations and providing guidance to different business units.

Key Requirements:

■ a minimum of four years’ PQE; Hong Kong, PRC or Commonwealth qualified, ideally from a leading law firm or similar in-house institution

■ strong background in banking products such as bilateral, syndicated and secondary loans


■ a minimum of one to three years’ PQE; Hong Kong qualified■ experience in mergers and acquisitions, or private equity■ strong academic background; Recipient of Bachelor’s, Master’s, or Juris

Doctor degree from Australia, Canada, UK, or US is advantageous ■ fluency in English and Mandarin is essential

■ a minimum of five years’ PQE, ideally from international law firms or multinational corporations

■ solid experience in PRC matters with an emphasis on general commercial, human resources, and employment matters

■ fluency in Mandarin and English is essential

■ a minimum of three years’ PQE; Commonwealth qualified, ideally from an international law firm or multinational corporation

■ solid experience working on a variety of commercial contracts, and/or experience in corporate M&A will be advantageous

■ relevant in-house industry experience preferred■ fluency in English and Mandarin is essential

■ a minimum of five years’ PQE; Australia and Hong Kong qualified■ solid experience in financial institutions litigation and regulatory matters■ fluency in Cantonese and Mandarin is beneficial but not essential

■ a minimum of eight years’ compliance experience within a financial institution or regulator, preferably with prior experience in private banking compliance

■ extensive knowledge in securities laws, regulations, directives, and expectations


your professionour passion

hays.com.hk

for more information about these opportunities, contact a Hays Legal expert:

Daryl Hodes - in-house (financial services) opportunities e: [email protected]

Daryl Lee - law firm opportunities e: [email protected]

Heidi Hui – in-house (commerce & industry) opportunities e: [email protected]

or +852 2521 1460. unit 5805-07, 58/f, The Center, 99 Queen’s road Central, Hong Kong.

Banking associate Hong Kong. 4-7 pQe.

A Magic Circle firm seeks a mid-senior lawyer to join its Hong Kong office. You should be comfortable working within a large team. The banking and finance team covers Greater China as well as the Asia Pacific region. You should have strong drafting skills and a mix of experience in respect of both transactional and regulatory works in Hong Kong. ref: DL 1048453

ip/iT associate Hong Kong. 3-5 pQe (HK/uK/au).

This global firm seeks a fluent English speaking TMT lawyer with strong experience in drafting complex (outsourcing, licensing and service) agreements for technology driven industries. You will have experience with a broad variety of IP related transactions in a client facing role and enjoy business development. ref: DL 1047957

Corporate associate Hong Kong. 2-5 pQe.

An international law firm with a large corporate practice seeks a junior to mid level associate. You will have solid IPO experience, as well as experience with M&A. The firm has a strong Greater China corporate team. You should be fluent in Mandarin. ref: DL 1048629

Commercial/projects Lawyer Hong Kong. 3-5 pQe.

Expansion in the core operations of one of the world’s leading building consulting and management services companies has created an opportunity for a projects lawyer. You will ideally have experience in service industry related commercial contracts. This is an exceptional opportunity for someone who is eager to develop personally and professionally. ref: HH 1048428

senior Legal Counsel, property Hong Kong. 8+ pQe.

A major property developer/manager currently seeks an experienced lawyer to support its real estate division on core legal matters across HK and the PRC. Hong Kong qualification and solid experience dealing with legal documents relating to property are essential. Attractive remuneration and benefits are on offer here. ref: HH 1047877

Litigation Lawyer Hong Kong. 3+ pQe.

A Hong Kong statutory body needs a locally qualified litigation lawyer to join its team, ideally someone with regulatory experience. This role will expose you to a wide remit including non-contentious advisory work. You will need excellent analytical skills and the ability to give practical, well reasoned legal advice. Proficiency in written and spoken Chinese is essential. ref: HH 1047613

senior Legal Counsel, Construction paris. 8+ pQe.

A world leading construction company seeks a common law qualified, specialist civil construction lawyer with extensive in-house experience. Handling international matters from the company’s Europe headquarters, you will ideally have solid experience with large (energy or environmental infrastructure) projects and be familiar with FIDIC contracts. ref: HH 1047270

senior Legal Counsel (Banking) China. 12+ pQe.

A global commercial bank with a dynamically growing Asian footprint will spin off leadership of Greater China legal work to a professional based in either the PRC or Hong Kong. A person with both China facing M&A, as well as wholesale or commercial banking legal experience will be ideal for this role. ref: DH 1048065

Legal Counsel (insurance) Hong Kong. 5-8 pQe.

This European life insurer has a glowing reputation for treatment of both customers and employees. It has created a new position in its Hong Kong office for a manager level legal counsel. Strong drafting skills, English and Chinese fluency, and good familiarity with financial products and the SFO and related compliance are all essential for this role. ref: DH 1048641

Legal & Compliance Counsel (asset Management) Hong Kong. 5-10 pQe.

Mandarin (and written Chinese) fluency is a requirement for this China facing role with a financial house. You will need a background in the launch and management of asset management funds, as well as good knowledge of QFII and related regulations. A Hong Kong qualified lawyer who also understands local regulatory requirements is strongly preferred. ref: DH 1047099

Legal Counsel (financial products) singapore or Hong Kong. 3-6 pQe.

A derivatives and financial products savvy lawyer is needed to join an expanding blue chip financial services organisation. You may be a PRC national with overseas education, training and/or experience, or a Hong Kong or Singapore originated lawyer with significant China facing skills and experience. This is an exciting opportunity with great work conditions. ref: DH 1046931

trust | honesty | integrity | partnership

This is a selection of our current vacancies; please visit our website for more opportunities, or for more information in

complete confidence, please call us on +852 2503 2500 or contact

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] or [email protected]

www.atticuslegal.com.hk

ASIA

Commercial Litigation NQ-3PQE Hong Kong

This renowned litigation team within a top

tier international firm is currently seeking an

experienced litigator to handle their complex

commercial disputes. International law firm

experience and Mandarin is required. HKL3474

Medico-legal Litigation 2+PQE Hong Kong

Exciting opportunity for a lawyer with medico-

legal experience or for candidates with a genuine

interest in this area to represent healthcare

professionals and hospitals. Chinese language

skills preferred but not essential. HKL3439

Construction Litigation 3+PQE Hong Kong

Fantastic opportunity to join an international

law firm highly regarded for their projects and

construction practice. You will work with highly

regarded partners on high profile disputes.

Chinese language essential. HKL2283

Legal Counsel 4-8 PQE Hong Kong

Stellar opportunity for a corporate/commercial

lawyer with knowledge of IP to join the

management team of this, growing international

business. You will provide strategic and business

advice in a regional role. HKL3476

Project Finance 2-5 PQE Beijing/Shanghai

Excellent opportunity with this market leading

global projects practice to focus on large-scale

financings/acquisitions across the APAC region.

You will work in a dynamic team with highly

skilled lawyers. HKL3248

Banking/Finance 2+PQE Singapore

Top tier banking and finance practice seeks an

associate lawyer with strong experience acting

for lenders and borrowers on a range of finance

transactions. Exposure to SE Asia ideal, common

law qualification essential. HKL3445

Corporate M&A/PE 2-5 PQE Hong Kong

Fantastic opportunity to join this international law

firm and work with market-leading partner as part

of collegiate corporate and securities team. You will

focus on M&A/PE transactions for clients across

various industries. Mandarin essential. HKL4105

Regulatory Head 5+ PQE Hong Kong

International law firm seeks a lawyer with

extensive experience in regulatory & ICAC/SFC

matters to join their practice, to replicate their

success in the London market. Proven marketing

skills essential. HKL4010

Corporate M&A/PE 4-6 PQE Hong Kong

Excellent opportunity for a lawyer to step away from

corporate finance & focus on cross-border M&A,

PE and FDI matters. You will work with a renowned

partner & represent MNC clients across diverse

industry sectors. Mandarin essential. HKL4104

Corporate PSL 7+PQE Hong Kong

Excellent opportunity for lawyers seeking work/

life balance; to provide training & knowledge

management support to lawyers. Solid practice

experience and admission in HK/UK/AU

mandatory. HKL3430

Corporate M&A/PE 4+ PQE Beijing/Shanghai

Top tier global firm seeks a PRC qualified lawyer

with international exposure to work on cross-

border M&A and PE transactions within the PRC.

Experience in business development beneficial.

HKL3448

Leveraged Finance 3+ PQE Singapore

Fantastic opportunity for a lawyer with strong

leveraged finance exposure to join this top tier

practice. You will work with leading individuals

on ground-breaking deals and structures.

Common law qualification essential. HKL3444

Corporate Finance NQ-3 PQE Hong Kong

Exciting opportunity for a junior lawyer to grow

with a top tier practice. You will obtain excellent

training and exposure to blue chip deals. Hong

Kong qualification and Mandarin language skills

essential. HKL3077

Insurance Litigation 3-6PQE Hong Kong

This growing international law firm seeks a

lawyer with experience handling personal injury

and employers’ liability claims to join their

team. Experience within the transport sector

preferred, HK qualification essential. HKL4033

Banking & Finance 1+ PQE Hong Kong

Highly ranked practice seeks a lawyer with solid

banking/finance experience; including project /

asset / acquisition / structured finance matters.

Opportunity to work with a highly regarded

partner in a dynamic team. HKL2429

Legal Assistant NQ-3PQE China

An exciting opportunity exists for an ambitious

individual seeking to take their career to the next

level within the in-house arena. You will work

closely for a growing MNC. PRC qualification is

essential. HK4020

Banking & Finance 3-5 PQE Beijing

Top tier finance practice known for their work

in project finance, debt restructuring and more

seeks a common law qualified lawyer with solid

experience in asset and/or project finance.

Chinese is essential. HKL2400

Corporate M&A 2-5 PQE Tokyo

Exciting opportunity for a lawyer with Japanese

language skills to take their career to the next

level. You will work in a collegiate team on a

range of public/private M&A and cross-border

transactions for household names. HKL3468

@TaylorRootLegal

taylor-root

taylorroot.com

EA Licence Number: 12C6222

Opportunities in AsiaIn some recruitment companies all that matters is the next placement fee. At Taylor Root, our consultants are encouraged to think longer-term, providing our clients and the lawyers that we work with advice and consultation. Our specialist legal recruitment team based in Hong Kong recruit across all of North Asia and have an impressive portfolio of clients and opportunities. With consultants dedicated to both the practice, in-house and compliance markets, contact Taylor Root for a confidential discussion.

In-House ROLES

In-House Investment Management . Hong KongInternational bank seeks a lawyer with investment/asset management or custodian experience to advise its PRC & Taiwan business. Languages and a familiarity with the laws & regulations of PRC or Taiwan is required. A great team environment. Ref: 193770 5-15+ years

APAC General Counsel . Hong Kong/Singapore Global financial services company seeks a top-tier lawyer to head up its legal team in Asia. You will come from a financial services background, preferably with brokerage and regulatory experience (Asia and US). Hong Kong or Singapore based. Ref: 194661 10+ years

General Counsel, APAC . Hong Kong Global marketing company seeks a General Counsel to manage the APAC legal team and oversee all legal affairs including corporate, commercial, employment and litigation matters. You will work hand in hand with senior management. Chinese language skills required. Ref: 192980 8+ years

Private Practice ROLESLitigation . Hong KongTop offshore law firm is looking to grow with an additional mid-level associate. Work will include high value complex litigation involving multi-jurisdictions. The ideal candidate will have top-tier regional onshore experience. Ref: 192680 4-6+ years

Corporate . ShanghaiInternational firm seeks an associate for its Shanghai office with experience in M&A and PE. The candidate must have fluent Mandarin language skills and have spent time studying/working overseas. International package available for the right candidate. Ref: 191580 5-7+ years

Project Finance . Hong KongTop projects team in Hong Kong. Looking for a good mid-level lawyer with experience in working on the banking/finance side of projects deals. A great team to work in with lots of work. No Chinese language skills required.Ref: 189030 2-4+ years

For legal roles In-House, call Hayden Gordine on +852 2973 6333 or email [email protected]

For legal roles in Private Practice, call Mark Coates on +852 2973 6333 or email [email protected]

PART OF THE SR GROUP

Brewer Morris | Carter Murray | Frazer Jones | SR Search | Taylor RootUK | EUROPE | MIDDLE EAST | Asia | AUSTRALIA | OFFSHORE

�ese are a small selection of our current vacancies. If you require further details or wish to have a con�dential discussion about your career, market trends, or would like salary information, then please contact one of the following consultants in Hong Kong:Andrew Skinner, Jennifer Donnelly, Michael Godby, Kumiko Lam or Claire Park.

(852) 2920 [email protected]

Hong Kong Singapore

(65) 6557 [email protected]

Beijing(86) 10 6567 8728

[email protected]

Shanghai(86) 21 6372 1058

[email protected]

Hong Kong • Singapore • Beijing • Shanghai

In-HousePrivate PracticeHEAD OF PARALEGALS HONG KONG 5+ PQEA prestigious international law firm seeks a qualified corporate lawyer to lead the paralegal team across the region. Excellent English and Chinese language skills are essential. Good work-life balance and dynamic working environment will be offered. (HKL 10175)

CORPORATE FINANCE BEIJING/SHANGHAI 4+ PQEA leading international law firm is actively seeking a middle to senior level HK qualified corporate finance lawyer, with experience on Main Board and GEM Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. Mandarin skills are not a must but will be a plus. (HKL 10114)

CORPORATE/ENERGY HONG KONG 3 – 7 PQEA leading US law firm is looking to appoint a Corporate/Energy lawyer to join their Korean practice. Excellent opportunity to gain exposure in wide range of cross-border M&A and energy transactions. Ideal candidate will have trained with international law firm. Fluent Korean required. (HKL 10223)

LITIGATION HONG KONG NQ – 3 PQEOur client is a top-tier US law firm and this is an opportunity to gain exposure to an exceptional portfolio of clients. This role offers US rates and a great training program is provided. Ideal candidates will be HK qualified and boast excellent academics. (HKL 10079)

ECM/DCM ASSOCIATE HONG KONG NQ – 3 PQE Exciting new opportunity to join a leading platform, covering a wide range of matters including; equity linked bonds, MTNs, straight debt/euro bonds, equity issues including initial public offerings and private equity. Mandarin is essential for this role. (HKL 10341)

CORPORATE ASSOCIATE HONG KONG NQ – 2 PQE Our client, a Wall Street law firm, is looking to appoint a HK Associate to join their market leading, HK Corporate practice. This is an attractive opportunity to gain a good mixture of work, including M&A, IPO and general corporate transactions across the Asia Pacific region. (HKL 10323)

TMT ASSOCIATES SINGAPORE VARIOUS PQEWe have a number of excellent opportunities in international law firms for newly qualified, junior and mid-level TMT/corporate lawyers. In these roles you will be exposed to a broad mix of largely non-contentious technology, IT, IP and general TMT work alongside corporate and M&A transactions. Ideal candidates will have relevant experience and good academics. (HKL 10297 & 10296)

M&A/PE HONG KONG 8 – 14 PQEA well regarded private investment group is seeking a lawyer to support portfolio companies across sectors including; Real Estate, Luxury Goods, IT and Shipping. Matters covered will include M&A, Restructuring, Corporate Finance, Wealth Management and General Commercial issues. Competitive compensation on offer. (HKL 10299)

ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION HONG KONG 6 – 10+ PQEGlobal professional services firm looking to appoint a senior legal counsel to support their business in Asia. Broad general role covering a range of corporate & commercial matters, though requires solid projects, infrastructure or construction focused experience. Mandarin is required. (HKL 10275)

IT COUNSEL HONG KONG/SINGAPORE 5 – 8 PQEA leading international bank is seeking an in-house counsel to join its team in Singapore or Hong Kong to handle a broad range of IT matters, including a core workload of IT outsourcing. Previous experience of handling IT related legal matters in Asia is preferred. (HKL 10248)

CORPORATE COUNSEL SHANGHAI 4 – 8 PQE A luxury group is seeking a legal counsel in Shanghai. The ideal candidate should have 4-8 years Post-Qualification Experience with reputable law firms. Superior English and Chinese written and oral communication skills are required for this position. (HKL 10338)

MNC COUNSEL HONG KONG 4 – 7 PQEOur client, a well-regarded MNC in IT industry, is seeking Legal Counsel to join their Regional Legal team. This is a broad In-House Counsel role with APAC coverage. Suitable candidate will have a high-level of business acumen and strong communication skills. Chinese is not essential. (HKL 10333)

MNC COUNSEL HONG KONG 3 – 6 PQEWell known MNC seeks a strong corporate/commercial lawyer to advise on a broad range of commercial and operational matters for Greater China, supporting various business units including HR, finance and supply and distribution teams. Solid PRC exposure and fluent Mandarin are essential. (HKL 10283)

CORPORATE/COMMERCIAL HONG KONG 1 – 3 PQEWell regarded professional services firm looking to appoint a junior to mid-level lawyer to their regional legal team in Hong Kong. The role will primarily focus on general corporate/commercial matters, supporting various business divisions, with a particular focus on Greater China matters. Previous experience in IP/IT advantageous. Fluent written and spoken Mandarin essential. (HKL 10336)

[email protected] (+852) 2847 2000

PUB DATE: MAR 2014ISBN: 9789626615324LIST PRICE: HK$4,200SPECIAL PRICE: HK$3,800FORMAT: HARDBACK

An up-to-date reference book for practitioners and business professionals dealing with employment and labor matters in and out of China

Employment law and workers’ rights continue to evolve

in China at an astonishing pace as new Amendments to

China’s Employment Contract Law have just taken effect

this past July 2013. The second edition of Employment Law

in China is the prime resource for a comprehensive and

analytical analysis of China’s evolving employment laws,

their application in and out of China, and real-world impact

on doing business in the second largest economy in the

world.

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND PRACTICE IN CHINA, SECOND EDITION

EARLY BIRD SPECIAL FOR READERS OF HONG KONG LAWYER EXTENDED TO 31 MARCH 2014ORDER TODAY TO SAVE HK$400!

*This special offer does not apply to trade, academic and government and cannot be used in conjunction with any other offers.

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

In-House

This is a small selection of our current vacancies. Please refer to our website for a more comprehensive list of openings.Please contact Emily Lewis, [email protected] + 852 2537 7408 or Andrea Richey, [email protected] + 852 2537 7413

Chris Chu, [email protected] + 852 2537 7415 or email [email protected]

www.lewissanders.com

Leading US firm seeks a senior litigation associate to join its growing team in HK. You will have first rate academics, disputes experience from a leading international firm & ideally be HK qualified with fluent Chinese language skills, although Commonwealth qualified are also invited to apply. HKL4493

LITIGATION HONG KONG 5-10 years

US SECURITIES HONG KONG 3-5 yearsMagic Circle firm is looking to recruit a US Securities lawyer to join its US team. The ideal candidate will have 3-5 years experience at a top US firm, be US qualified & have a US JD. You must be fluent in spoken & written Mandarin. US rates & COLA on offer. HKL4501

DCM PARTNER HONG KONG/SINGAPORE 10+ years Top tier firm with strong corporate platform in HK & across Asia seeks a DCM partner to join the existing practice. You will have a strong DCM background with an international firm & contacts/relationships. You could be a partner or a counsel ready to take the step up. HKL4329

FUNDS HONG KONG/LONDON 4-8 yearsReputable offshore law firm seeks a senior funds associate to join its London or HK office. The majority of the role will be funds-focused but there is also a corporate element to it. UK qualification ideal, however candidates with other Commonwealth qualifications would also be considered. HKL4603

BANKING HONG KONG NQ - 4 years Top tier firm seeks a junior to mid-level banking lawyer with good experience in syndicated loans, project finance & acquisition finance to join the team. You will advise on a range of banking & finance matters advising blue chip clients & investment banks. Chinese language skills are required. HKL2968

LITIGATION/RESTRUCTURING HONG KONG 3-6 yearsLeading offshore firm with strong insolvency, restructuring & dispute resolution practice seeks to expand its team. You will have 3-6 PQE experience & be Commonwealth qualified. Proficiency in Mandarin is preferred but not essential. Good work/life balance. HKL4595

A leading international firm seeks a TMT lawyer for its growing team. The successful applicant should have exposure to a broad spectrum of IT work, including service agreements, outsourcing & data privacy. Candidates from HK & other common law jurisdictions will be considered. HKL4581

TMT HONG KONG 3-5 years

Private PracticeSENIOR REGIONAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 12+ yearsA senior legal counsel is required for a HK-based conglomerate with a global business in retail & outsourcing. The ideal candidate will be at least 12 years qualified with general commercial experience, prior in-house experience & have fluent Cantonese & Mandarin. HKL4592

HEDGE FUND HONG KONG 3-7 yearsTop Asia-based hedge fund seeks a legal counsel with solid funds experience. This is a broad role that will involve funds, regulatory & general commercial work. Chinese skills not required. Excellent opportunity for a funds lawyer to join a dynamic, commercial environment. HKL4546

FUNDS HONG KONG 4-6 yearsGlobal asset manager seeks a mid-level lawyer for its legal team in HK. You will ideally have funds formation experience including in negotiation of relevant documentation. Bright candidates with other financial services experience would also be considered. HKL4510

US i-bank seeks a mid to senior level corporate lawyer to support the bank’s private investing business. The ideal candidate will have solid PE/M&A experience & familiarity with Asian regulatory issues. US, UK or HK lawyers will be considered. Fluent Chinese helpful. HKL4573

M&A/PRIVATE EQUITY HONG KONG 5-8 years

BANKING HONG KONG 2-6 years European bank seeks a banking lawyer to join its HK legal team to provide legal support to the international banking group & handle a mix of lending & trade finance matters. You will have at least 2 years’ experience in general banking plus fluent English & Mandarin. HKL4576

LITIGATION HONG KONG 4-7 yearsBulge bracket bank seeks a VP level legal counsel for its litigation & regulatory team. The role will involve financial services litigation, contentious regulatory work & advising on cross-border matters. Chinese skills advantageous & HK qualified lawyers preferred. HKL4594

IBD LEGAL HONG KONG 5-10 yearsUS i-bank with a strong regional IBD team is seeking a mid to senior level lawyer to join the HK legal team. You will be US qualified with broad ECM/DCM & M&A experience although a US lawyer with pure securities experience will also be considered. Mandarin a plus. HKL4542

[email protected] [email protected]@kingswoodglobal.com [email protected]

Head of Competition LawHong Kong

Excellent opportunity for a seasoned competition lawyer to join a global financial institution in this newly created regional role. As the designated competition lawyer in Asia, you will advise key stake-holders across all business lines on identifying and mitigating potential infringements of competition law, once it comes into force in 2015. Chinese language skills are preferable though not essential.

US Securities AssociateHong Kong 5yrs+ PQE

A leading international law firm is looking for an associate to enhance their growing practice. The firm offer New York salary rates and a competitive housing allowance along with strong future progression prospects due to the age and size of the team. The firm handle a mix of equity and debt capital markets work and the partner recruiting is well known in this area of law. Fluency in English and Mandarin required.

Compliance CounselHong Kong

A leading international auction house, is seeking to hire a Compliance and Business Integrity Counsel to join their Hong Kong operations. Ideal candidates will have at least 5 years of post-qualification legal experience, be fluent in Mandarin and English, and be well versed in developing and implementing internal compliance programs.

M&A PartnerHong Kong

Well regarded US law firm with a long standing presence in the Asia region and a highly rated IPO team are looking to hire an M&A partner with Mandarin skills, a portable business and who has China inbound Private equity experience.

Looking for the best available position?Our experienced consultants can provide you with a complete overview of your options and guide you towards the right direction for your career.

www.puresearch.com Hong Kong | Singapore | London

For a confidential discussion about these opportunities please contact:

PP Partner Hires Roz Etkind ( +852 3469 5214 [email protected]

PP Associate Hires Michael Wright ( +852 3469 5210 [email protected]

In-house FS Hires Liam Richardson ( +852 3469 5207 [email protected]

In-house C&I Hires Karishma Khemaney ( +852 3469 5219 [email protected] C&I Hires Bridget Hougham ( +852 3469 5220 [email protected]

To see more of our latest opportunities, please visit our website: www.puresearch.com

Current Opportunities

Hong Kong Lawyer

Documents

Transcript of Hong Kong Lawyer