Hong Kong Lawyer

高浩文資深大律師Face to Face With 專訪

Russell Coleman

July 2013 二零一三年七月

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

HO

NG

KON

G LAW

YER香

港律

師Ju

ly 2013

Should Hong Kong Consider Arbitration in Family Disputes? 香港應否為家事糾紛引入仲裁？

Suffer the Children (of Divorce) - a Jurisprudential Thought受傷害的孩子（父母離異）-法學上的思考

Recent Judicial Developments on Sole and Joint Custody關於獨有管養權和共同管養權的最新司法發展

From “Custody” to “Parental Responsibility”: The Need for Change 從「管養」至「父母責任」:改變是必要的

THE FAMILY LAW ISSUE 家庭法專題

Cover Story 封面專題

❝ We all want the best for children. ❞

❝我們都希望

子女得到最好。❞

Greater China: Law Society visit to Taiwan 大中華專欄：律師會代表團訪台

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 July issue 七月期刊內容

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

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

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

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

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

14 COVER STORY [PDF] [HKL online] 封面專題 [PDF] [HKL online] Face to Face With 專訪 Russell Coleman 高浩文資深大律師

22 GREATER CHINA COLUMN [PDF] [HKL online] 大中華專欄

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

29 FAMILY LAW[PDF] [HKL online] 家庭法 [PDF] [HKL online] From “Custody” to “Parental Responsibility”: 從「管養」至「父母責任」： The Need for Change 改變是必要的

36 FAMILY LAW[PDF] [HKL online] 家庭法 [PDF] [HKL online] Suffer the Children (of Divorce) 受傷害的孩子（父母離異）

- A Jurisprudential Thought - 法學上的思考

29 36

14 COVER STORY

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

Hans Mahncke 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

July2013二零一三年七月

HK$280

42 FAMILY LAW[PDF] [HKL online] 家庭法 [PDF] [HKL online] Recent Judicial Developments on 關於獨有管養權和共同管養權的

Sole and Joint Custody 最新司法發展

48 FAMILY LAW[PDF] [HKL online] 家庭法 [PDF] [HKL online] Should Hong Kong Consider Arbitration 香港應否為家事糾紛引入仲裁？

in Family Disputes?

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

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

72 LEGISLATION UPDATES [PDF] [HKL online] 立法新知 [PDF] [HKL online]

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

78 AFTER WORK [PDF] [HKL online] 工餘閒情 [PDF] [HKL online] Rekindle the Romance of Travel 重燃旅遊的浪漫情懷

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]

Managing Editor 執行主編 Vince Chong 張哲寧

[email protected]

Chinese Editor 中文編輯 Natalie Lee 李頴琳

Design and Production 設計及制作Gary Wu 胡國輝 Samson Pang 彭振生

Sales and Marketing Director 銷售總監Jane Lewis 劉真美

Commercial and Online Development Director 商業和網絡發展總監Robert Head [email protected]

Publishing Director 出版總監Neerav Srivastava 史立楓

[email protected]

Translation team 翻譯組:Patrick Li 李國強

Johnny Au 區仲禮

Info Power

Staff contributors 內部貢獻:Carmen Chu 朱慧敏

Vivian Leung 梁靜妍

Rocky So 蘇衍成

Kamilia Lahrichi 柳秋智

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: Jessie Cheung 張學智

[email protected]: +852 3762 3267

For subscriptions contact:

Traffic Administrator 統籌Vivian Leung 梁靜妍

[email protected]: +852 3762 3268

Publisher 出版人 Klaus Pfeifer 范梓樺 [email protected]

78 AFTER WORK

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.

42

48

EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

對不少人來說，夏天是一家人共聚天倫的好時候。因此，

我們今期七月號會以家事法為主題，由多名專家為我們講

解這個執業範疇有甚麼變化和迫切需要。

誠然，家事法往往令人聯想起離婚和管養權等不愉快的事

情，正正與夏天給人的愉快感覺相反。但我們的目的是讓

大家在享受天倫之樂的同時，亦不忘箇中容易出現差錯之

處，並避免犯上如斯錯失。

我們謹希望最新一期的《香港律師》能夠令所有讀者在專

業上和個人上均有所得著。

張哲寧《香港律師》編輯

Sweet & Maxwell執行主編

湯森路透

July 2013 • EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

www.hk-lawyer.org 3

Summer is, for many of us, a time for family. Hence, we have dedicated this July issue to family law, with experts telling us what is evolving and urgent in this area of practice.

Granted, family law oftentimes invoke unhappy concepts such as divorce and custody, which are incongruent with the spirit of summer. But our point is that even as we enjoy time with our families, we are reminded of what can so easily go wrong – and do whatever necessary to avoid such pitfalls.

We hope our latest issue of Hong Kong Lawyer will be of both professional and personal value to all readers.

Vince ChongEditor, Hong Kong LawyerManaging Editor, Sweet & MaxwellThomson [email protected]

Kemal BoKhary’s memoirs – Recollections

“ For the rule of law I see – much as I wish that I did not see – storm clouds on the horizon. The storm which they threaten is a storm of unprecedented ferocity. There is much for me to look forward to in retirement. But I wish it were not the case that the constitution and I must now part company. ” – Justice Kemal Bokhary

9789626615461 • Hardback • April 2013

AVAILABLE NOW!

Price:

HK$588

To order, please call 3762 3222 or email [email protected]

APPROVED

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

Ambrose Lam, President

❝ My first very pleasant task as President was to lead a Law Society 20-member delegation to Taiwan at the end of May. It was our first official visit to Taiwan and we were honoured by a very warm reception from each of the host organisations including the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Yuan, the Mainland Affairs Council of the Executive Yuan, the Straits Exchange Foundation, the Taiwan office of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, the Taipei Bar Association and the Kaohsiung Bar Association.

In December 2011, the Government set up the Hong Kong Economic, Trade and Cultural Office in Taiwan (the “HKETCO”) to further promote long-term co-operation and exchanges between Hong Kong and Taiwan. This demonstrates the Government’s increasing efforts to facilitate trade, promote investment and enhance cultural exchanges and discussions on issues of mutual concern between Hong Kong and Taiwan.

As the interactions between Hong Kong and Taiwan become more frequent and their scope becomes more extensive, the demand for legal services to support the diversified activities of Hong Kong people in Taiwan and of Taiwanese people in Hong Kong also grows.

Prior to our official visit in May 2013, with the assistance of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council and the HKETCO, a small “exploratory” team comprising myself, Ms. Elsie Leung and Mr. Henry Wai, members of the Law Society’s Greater China Legal Affairs Committee, had paid an informal visit to some of the government departments and professional organisations in Taiwan back in November 2012. Encouraged by the potential of the Taiwanese legal service market revealed during that visit,

I then decided to initiate a formal trip.

Similar to lawyers from other jurisdictions, lawyers from Taiwan can provide their services to the public in Hong Kong as a qualified legal practitioner of Taiwanese law if they are registered with the Law Society in accordance with our relevant registration rules and offer such legal services from within a law firm in Hong Kong. Although there is currently no registered foreign lawyer or foreign firm with Taiwan as their home jurisdiction, our door is open and the registration requirements and procedures are clearly set out for them to follow should they wish to have a presence in Hong Kong.

The position of Hong Kong lawyers in Taiwan is however much less clear.

In Taiwan, a foreign lawyer may provide legal services as a practitioner of the law of his home jurisdiction if he is registered as a foreign lawyer. To be registered as a foreign lawyer, he must have five years of practice experience in the law of his home jurisdiction or has been employed in a Taiwanese law firm as a consultant for two years prior to Taiwan joining the World Trade Organization. This is all clear.

Yet, the criteria in Taiwan’s foreign lawyer registration regime do not apply to Hong Kong, Macau or Mainland China lawyers because this group of lawyers is not considered as “foreign”. There are, however, no other registration rules that apply to us, resulting in an anomaly whereby there are no means for a Hong Kong lawyer to practise as such and provide Hong Kong legal services to the public in Taiwan, because we are considered neither local nor foreign.

I was hence very grateful to the various authorities and organisations that we visited during our Taiwan trip for explaining the current system of lawyer registration with specific reference to the practice of Hong Kong lawyers in Taiwan. In response to our concern about the exclusion of Hong Kong lawyers from the registration regime, the relevant authorities have reassured us that they are aware of the anomaly and are actively looking at ways to resolve it. The lack of reciprocity in permitting Hong Kong lawyers to practise in Taiwan is unsatisfactory and disappointing. I will continue to do my best to lobby for proper recognition of our fellow practitioners in Taiwan.

I am very thankful to our members for their active support and enthusiasm in this initiative and extremely pleased to receive very encouraging feedback from those who participated in the trip; they all found it useful and rewarding. ❞

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

HONG KONG LAWYER 香港律師 • July 2013

林新強，會長

July 2013 • PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

❝ 當上會長後，我的首個任務

是在五月底率領由20名會員組

成的律師會代表團出訪台灣。

這是我們首次正式訪問台灣，

並非常榮幸獲各接待組織盛情

款待，其中包括法務部、司法

院、行政院大陸委員會、海峽

交流基金會、香港貿易發展局

台灣辦事處、台北律師公會和

高雄律師公會。

為進一步促進香港與台灣之間的長遠合

作和交流，政府於2011年12月在台灣

設立香港經濟貿易文化辦事處（下稱「

經貿文辦」）。這顯示政府不斷致力促

進港台經貿、投資推廣、增進港台在文

化及共同關注的事宜上的交流。

香港和台灣之間的互動不僅越趨頻繁，

而且涵蓋的範圍更見廣泛，故此對支援

在台港人和在港台人進行多元化的活動

的法律服務需求也隨之增加。

在2013年5月進行正式訪問前，由本

人、大中華法律事務委員會成員梁愛詩

律師及韋業顯律師組成的一個小型「探

究」團隊，在香港貿易發展局和經貿文

辦的協助下，在2012年11月與台灣一

些政府部門和專業組織進行了非正式訪

問。我們在該次台灣之行發現當地的法

律服務市場相當具潛力，因此我決定展

開一次正式訪問。

一如其他司法管轄區的律師，台灣律師

可以以台灣法律的合資格法律執業者身

份在香港向公眾提供服務，但他們必須

已根據我們的相關註冊規則向律師會

註冊，並在一間律師行提供該等法律服

務。雖然目前尚未有任何以台灣作為所

屬司法管轄區的註冊外地律師或外地律

師行，不過我們歡迎有意立足香港的外

地律師或外地律師行提出申請，而且相

關的註冊要求和程序並已清楚訂明。

然而，香港律師在台灣註冊的情況則不

太明確。

在台灣，如一名外地律師已註冊為外地

律師，他/她可以其所屬司法管轄區法律

的執業者身份提供法律服務。要成為註

冊外地律師，有關人士必須具備所屬司

法管轄區法律的執業經驗達五年，或在

台灣加入世界貿易組織前已受聘於台灣

法律事務所作為顧問達兩年。這些要求

相當明確。

然而，台灣的外地律師註冊制度不適用

於香港、澳門或中國內地的律師，因為

這類律師並不被視為「外地」律師。可

是，台灣並沒有其他我們適用的註冊

規則，而這導致情況變得異常——由於

香港律師既非本地律師亦不屬於外地律

師，因此我們無法以外地律師的身份執

業，亦不能向台灣公眾提供香港的法律

服務。

因此，我非常感激是次台灣之行訪問過

的各機關和組織，它們為我們解釋現行

的律師註冊制度，尤其是香港律師在台

灣執業方面的做法。就我們對香港律師

被摒除在註冊制度之外的關注，有關當

局向我們保證，他們留意到問題所在，

並正積極尋求解決方法。香港律師不得

在台灣執業，並不符合對等原則，我們

對此感到不滿和失望。我將繼續盡我所

能進行遊說，為香港律師爭取在台灣獲

予以適當的認可。

我非常感謝各會員對這項舉措的積極支

持，而且十分高興是次訪台的參加者對

此行有正面及鼓舞的評價。 ❞

www.hk-lawyer.org 5

CONTRIBUTORS投稿者

SashaAllison咸頓金仕騰律師行，律師

Sasha是一名專門從事家事法工

作的執業律師﹕她的日常工作涵

蓋所有與婚姻法有關的事項，當

中包括具爭議性的經濟狀況案件

及與子女有關的事宜。此外，她

也對仲裁具有專門認識，是英國

仲裁學會的會員。

MaureenMueller私人執業調解員

她具有心理學和法律專業資格，也是

一名調解員，專門處理與法律範疇(遺

囑認證和離婚)有關的家庭問題。她

是香港國際仲裁中心家庭調解委員會

2000-2003年度的主席，並在司法機

構家庭調解督導委員會服務了9年。

她是香港律師會的調解員評審員，

並擔任香港律師會調解委員會及調解

員評審委員會的委員。在餘暇她喜歡

閱讀哲學書籍，以及駕駛她那艘名為

Mandrake號的競賽風帆。

Sasha AllisonHampton, Winter & Glynn, SolicitorSasha is a specialist family law practitioner: her daily work covers the full spectrum of issues relating to matrimonial law, including contentious financial cases and matters relating to children. She also has specialist knowledge of arbitration and is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

Maureen MuellerPrivate MediatorQualified both in psychology and law, Maureen works as a Mediator untangling family issues in the legal arena – Probate and Divorce. Maureen was Chair of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre’s Family Mediation Committee from 2000-2003 and for nine years appointed to the Judiciary Steering Committee for Family Mediation. Maureen is also a mediator assessor for the Law Society, and sits on its Mediation Committee and the Mediator Accreditation Committee. In her spare time Maureen enjoys reading philosophy and navigating on the racing yacht Mandrake.

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

• July 2013

July 2013 • CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

何志權何葉律師行，合夥人

何志權是一名律師、調解員和兼任講

師。他從事家事法工作超過20年，並且

是香港律師會家事法委員會的主席。此

外，他也擔任家庭暴力小組委員會及贍

養費強制執行小組委員會的主席。他是

家事法律程序中子女福利及附屬濟助工

作小組的成員，以及司法機構家事法庭

使用者委員會的委員。

何志權律師不時就家事法向社會工作

者、律師和學生進行授課和發表演講，

具有超過10年的相關經驗。此外，他

是香港中文大學法律博士課程的兼任講

師，也是香港樹仁大學的兼任教授。何

志權律師是香港首位實行協作解紛的執

業律師，協作解紛是另一種解決家庭糾

紛的另類排解糾紛方法。

廖雅慈香港大學法律系，副教授

Athena在香港大學講授家事法及醫學-法

律問題。她是Family Law for the Hong

Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong

Kong University Press, 1999)一書的作

者。她近期的著作包括“Exacerbat ing

Corbett: W v Registrar of Marriages”

(2011) 41 HKLJ 759) 和“Understanding

Goodwin: W v Registrar of Marriages”

(2012) 42 HKLJ 403。

Ho Chi Kuen, DennisHo & Ip, Partner

Dennis is a solicitor, mediator and part-time lecturer. He has practised family law for over 20 years and is Chairman of the Family Law Committee of the Law Society of Hong Kong. He has also chaired the Domestic Violence Subcommittee and Enforcement of Maintenance Subcommittee. He is a member of the Working Group on Children Welfare and Ancillary Relief in Family Proceedings, as well as the Judiciary’s Family Court Users’ Committee.

Dennis has given lectures and talks on family law for over 10 years to social workers, lawyers and students. He teaches part time for the Juris Doctor programme at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and is also an adjunct professor to Hong Kong Shu Yan University. Further, Dennis is among the first practitioners in Hong Kong to implement collaborative practice, another alternative dispute resolution tool towards resolving family disputes.

Nga-chee Liu, AthenaFaculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong,Associate Professor

Athena teaches family law and medico-legal issues at The University of Hong Kong. She is the author of Family Law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong University Press, 1999). Her recent publications include “Exacerbating Corbett: W v Registrar of Marriages” (2011) 41 HKLJ 759) and “Understanding Goodwin: W v Registrar of Marriages” (2012) 42 HKLJ 403.

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE理事會議題

《2012年印花稅（修訂）條例草案》

(下稱「《條例草案》」)

Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2012 (“Bill”)The Law Society published its first set of submissions on the Bill on 5 February 2013 and the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) responded in April 2013.

Whilst some of our comments have been clarified by the THB, there are still outstanding issues of concern which have not been adequately addressed or have been simply ignored.

Resulting TrustsIt is not uncommon for a Hong Kong Permanent Resident (“HKPR”) buyer of residential property to receive financial aid from a relative who may or may not be a “close relative” which is narrowly defined in the Bill. Such funding arrangements are neither documented nor created by any instrument, but may constitute a resulting trust at law and thus affects the analysis of whether someone has purchased a property for ‘his own benefit’, or for someone else. There are concerns as to whether such transactions are subject to Buyer’s Stamp Duty and how the Collector can be satisfied or whether a solicitor will be able to verify whether such HKPR buyer is acting on his own behalf.

Other Issues of Concern

These include, inter alia:-

• The basis for rejecting our submission for a sunset clause.

• Failure to address exemptions for trusts is contrary to the Government’s stated policy of attracting more trust business to Hong Kong.

• Exemption of a corporate entity whose shareholders are all HKPRs holding only one class of shares.

• The practical problems arising out of the definition of HKPR and difficulties for verification by solicitors.

• Whether non-payment of BSD would result in an encumbrance and thereby affect title to the property.

The Law Society invited the Administration to address these outstanding issues in a second set of submissions published on 28 May 2013. Both sets of submissions can be viewed on the Law Society’s website at http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk

律師會在2013年2月5日發表對《條例草案》的首份意見

書，而運輸及房屋局在2013年4月作出回應。

雖然運輸及房屋局已釐清我們提出的某些意見，但當中有

些關注事項仍未予以充分解決或被忽視。

歸復信託

香港永久性居民購買住宅物業時，獲近親或非近親的親

人提供經濟資助的情況並不少見，而《條例草案》對「近

親」所下的定義相當狹窄。儘管這種資助安排沒有以任何

文書作紀錄，亦並非由任何文書所訂立，卻可能在法律上

構成歸復信託，從而對分析某人購買物業是為其自身利益

還是為別人的利益造成影響。有些人關注到該等交易是否

須課繳買家印花稅，以及如何令署長信納或律師是否能夠

核實有關香港永久性居民買家是否代表自己行事。

其他關注事項

當中包括（除其他事項外）：

• 拒絕我們提議加入日落條款的依據。

• 未能處理為信託提供豁免的事宜，與政府希望吸引更

多信託業務來港的既定政策背道而馳。

• 為股東全是香港永久性居民並只持有一項股份類別的

法團實體提供豁免。

• 香港永久性居民的定義引起的實際問題，及由律師進

行核實出現困難。

• 不繳付買家印花稅會否引致產權負擔，從而影響有關

物業的業權。

律師會在2013年5月28日發表的第二份意見書中，邀請

政府當局解決此等尚未處理的事宜。此兩份意見書均已上

載至律師會網站：http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

• July 2013

規管專利代理服務的諮詢

商務及經濟發展局及知識產權署在2013年2月發表《規管

專利代理服務》諮詢文件，並就落實由商務及經濟發展局

委任的諮詢委員會所提出的建議徵詢意見。諮詢委員會的

職權範圍包括為以下事項提供意見：

• 在考慮2011年10月發表的公眾諮詢文件內所概述的議

題和公衆對這些議題的回應後，向政府當局建議香港專

利制度的未來路向；及

• 在政府決定專利制度的未來發展後，為落實建議的具體

安排出謀獻策。

諮詢委員會提出的建議包括（除其他事項外）： -

(a) 設立原授專利制度，把實質審查工作外判予其他專利

當局，同時保留現行的再註冊制度；

(b) 保留短期專利制度，並作出適當的優化；及

(c) 長遠而言，設立全面的制度規管專利代理服務，並分

階段達到該目標，及制訂適當的過渡措施。

商務及經濟發展局及知識產權署現正就各項議題徵詢意

見，例如：

• 關於「盡早建立和認受受規管的專利代理專業」的適當

臨時措施

• 監控對職銜的使用—「專利代理人」和「專利師」

• 有關現行專利代理服務的保舊條文安排

• 實施時間表

理事會已在2013年5月28日同意由知識產權委員會提交的

意見書擬稿。律師會堅決認為設立臨時措施並不可取，因

為有關諮詢未能為是項建議提出任何理由。

在任何登記制度之前，必須訂立設立標準和資歷評審，但

當局仍未提出有關此等議題的建議，故政府當局乃「本末

倒置」。

律師會支持採納高水平的標準，其中應包括具備相關專業

草擬能力、法律和程序的知識、分析經驗及專利法律和實

踐領域的特定勝任能力。我們亦注意到，互認認可的海外

資格的事宜在有關保舊條文的問題上，必須予以解決。

實施臨時制度只會令公眾引起混淆。

有關意見書已上載至律師會網站：

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

submissions/20130531.pdf

Consultation on Regulation of Patent Agency ServicesIn February 2013 the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (“Bureau”) and the Intellectual Property Department (“IPD”) issued a Consultation Paper “Regulation of Patent Agents Services” and sought views on implementation of the recommendations made by an Advisory Committee appointed by the Bureau. The Advisory Committee’s terms of reference include the provision of advice on:-

• HowtheAdministrationshouldpositionHongKong’spatentsystem,havingregardtotheissuesoutlinedinthepublicconsultationpaperofOctober2011andtheresponsesreceived;and

• Howbesttoimplementchangestothepatentsystem,inthelightofdecisionsmadebytheAdministrationonthewayforward.

The Advisory Committee’s recommendations include, inter alia:-

(a)introducinganOriginalGrantPatent(OGP)systemwithsubstantiveexaminationoutsourcedtootherpatentoffice(s)whilstretainingthecurrentre-registrationsystem;

(b)retainingtheshort-termpatentsystemwithsuitablerefinements;and

(c)developingafull-fledgedregulatoryregimeonpatentagencyservicesinthelongrun,whichhastobeachievedinstages,withpossibletransitionalmeasures.

The Bureau and the IPD are seeking views on issues such as:-

• Possible interim measures regarding the “earlybuildinginrecognitionoftheregulatedpatentagencyprofession”

• Controlling the use of titles – “Patent Agent” and “Patent Attorney”

• Grandfathering arrangements in relation to existing patent agency services

• Implementation timetable

The Council endorsed the draft submissions prepared by the Intellectual Property Committee on 28 May 2013. The Law Society is firmly of the view that there is no merit in introducing interim measures as the consultation fails to provide any justification for the proposal. The Administration is “puttingthecartbeforethehorse” as no proposals have been put forward on the issue of standards and accreditation which must be set before any registration system can be established. The Law Society supports the adoption of high standards which should include relevant technical drafting skills, legal and procedural knowledge, analytical experience and specific competence in the fields of patent law and practice. It was further noted that the issue of reciprocal recognition of credible overseas qualifications has to be resolved in relation to the question on grandfathering provisions.

An interim system would only confuse the public.

The submissions can be downloaded from the Law Society’s website at http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20130531.pdf

July 2013 • FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

www.hk-lawyer.org 9

獨立法律援助管理局

早在1997年，法律援助服務局（下稱「法援局」）已委

託顧問進行研究，評估在香港設立一個獨立法律援助管

理局的可行性及可取性（下稱「獨立性問題」）。法援

局在1998年向當時的行政長官建議設立一個新的獨立法

律援助管理局（下稱「管理局」），理由如下：

• 將法援服務交由公務員統辦，在架構上有欠妥善

• 政府有可能會施加壓力

• 體制架構予人欠缺獨立的觀感

• 已有不少人對獨立性問題表示關注

儘管設立管理局的理據明確有力，但政府於1999年決定

不接納有關建議。

2007年，法援局在事隔十年後，重新研究獨立性問題。

雖然法援局就過往所提出，法援體制予人有欠獨立的觀

感的立場予以肯定，但卻推遲到2011年底/2012年方對

獨立性問題重新作出決定，理由是法援局預期屆時政府

的財政狀況，應容許在建議法援體制的改革上，提供更

大的彈性。

法援局在2011年委託顧問就獨立性問題重新進行研

究。法援局對新的研究結果表示同意，並在2013年4月

向行政長官提交建議，指現時並沒有即時設立管理局的

需要——正正與其10年多前在獨立性問題上的立場完全

相反。

提供法律援助服務是司法制度中不可或缺的一部分。早

在法援局於1996年成立前，律師會已一直對設立管理局

表示支持。法援局在沒有充分理由下改變先前的立場，

令人失望。

我們已促請法援局重新考慮其立場。

有關律師會就獨立性問題提交的意見書，請瀏

覽：http ://www.hk lawsoc .org .hk/pub_e/news/

submissions/20130613.pdf

Independent Legal Aid AuthorityAs early as in 1997, the Legal Aid Services Council (“LASC”) commissioned a consultancy study to assess the feasibility and desirability of the establishment of an independent legal aid authority in Hong Kong (the “independence issue”). It made recommendations in 1998 to the then Chief Executive on the establishment of a new and independent Legal Aid Authority (“ILAA”), based on the following reasons:

• it was an institutionally-flawed arrangement for legal aid to be administrated by civil servants

• there was a risk of pressure from the Government

• the institutional set-up encouraged the perception of a lack of independence

• there were sufficient concerns over the independence issue

Unfortunately, notwithstanding that there were clear and strong arguments for the establishment of an ILAA, the Government decided in 1999 not to accept the recommendation.

The LASC revisited the independence issue a decade later in 2007. Whilst acknowledging its earlier position on the perceptional lack of independence of the legal aid regime, it deferred making any renewed decision on the independence issue until late 2011/early 2012, as the LASC had expected that the finances of the Government could by then allow for greater flexibility in proposing changes to the legal aid regime.

The LASC commissioned a new consultancy study on the independence issue in 2011. It agreed to the findings of the new consultancy study and submitted to the Chief Executive in April 2013 that there was no immediate need to establish an ILAA - a complete turnaround from its position on the independence issue more than 10 years ago.

Provision of legal aid service is an integral part of the system of justice. The Law Society has been in support of the establishment of an ILAA before the establishment of the LASC in 1996. The LASC’s departure from its previous position without adequate justification on its change of stance is disappointing.

We have urged the LASC to re-consider its position.

The Law Society’s submission on the independence issue can be viewed at http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20130613.pdf

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

• July 2013

FROM THE SECRETARIAT

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

秘書長朱潔冰律師

Practice guidance Since 1 January up to 23 June 2013, the Law Society has received 372 complaints on professional misconduct against practitioners and employees of law firms. The top categories of misconduct alleged in these complaints involve breaches of the principles in the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Volume 1 (“Conduct Guide”) (38%) and the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (Cap. 159, Laws of Hong Kong sub leg) (27%).

Running a legal practice is no easy task. In addition to having expertise in the black letter law, practitioners must familiarise themselves and ensure compliance with professional ethical rules and operational requirements of their legal practice.

The Secretariat is dedicated to providing necessary practice support and assistance to members.

The “Regulation and Guidance” Section under the Standards and Development Department deals with enquiries from members on matters relating to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159, Laws of Hong Kong) and its subsidiary legislation, the Law Society’s Practice Directions and the Conduct Guide. Every day, the Secretariat handles many enquiries from members by telephone and by email or letter on ethical issues and practice requirements.

Most of the common enquiries are straightforward. Very often, all an enquirer needs in order to solve his problem is simply a reminder of the relevant section in the legislation and the Conduct Guide or the relevant Law Society Circular.

To allow members to access these commonly sought answers in their own time, the Secretariat has compiled answers to the most frequently asked questions and posted them on the Law Society website, together with hyperlinks to the relevant legislation and Circulars. These include the requirements on the change of a firm’s name, the

執業指導

自本年1月1日至6月23日期間，律師會收到372宗針

對執業者和律師行員工專業失當的投訴。這些投訴

中，最多被指控的不當行為分別是違反《香港律師專

業操守指引》第一冊（下稱「《操守指引》」）中的

原則（38％）及《律師執業規則》（香港法例第159H

章，附屬法例）（27％）。

從事法律執業絕非易事。除了要具備法律知識外，執

業者必須熟悉有關專業道德的規則及從事法律執業的

所需營運操作規定，並確保對此予以遵守。

秘書處一直致力為會員提供所需執業支援和協助。

專業水準及發展部轄下的「條例及指導部」負責處理

關於《法律執業者條例》（香港法例第159章）及其

附屬法例、律師會的《執業指引》及《操守指引》的

會員查詢。每天，秘書處均處理許多會員透過電話及

電郵或書信提出有關道德及執業要求的查詢。

大部分的常見查詢均屬簡單的。查詢者往往只需要我

們加以提醒他們有關法例及

《操守指引》中的相關章節

或相關的律師會會員通告，

問題便可迎刃而解。

為了讓會員可隨時取得這

些常見查詢的答案，秘書

處撰備了一系列常見提問

的答案，並上載到律師會

網站，而且更附設相關

法例及會員通告的超連

結。有關資料包括更改


• July 2013

July 2013 • 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 May 2013): -

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2013

年5月底）：

Members (with or without practising certificate) 8,674

Members with practising certificate 7,527

Trainee Solicitors 933

Registered foreign lawyers 1,497

Hong Kong law firms 809

Registered foreign law firms 71

Civil Celebrants 1,866

Reverse Mortgage Counsellors 362

Solicitor Advocates 15

會員（持有或不持有執業證書） 8,674

持有執業證書的會員 7,527

實習律師 933

註冊外地律師 1,497

香港律師行 809

註冊外地律師行 71

婚姻監禮人 1,866

安老按揭輔導法律顧問 362

訟辯律師 15

question of ownership and retention of a firm’s files, the procedures for cessation of a practice, what an in-house solicitor can and cannot do, the requirements on the use of a service company as the administrative vehicle, what can be included on a firm’s letterhead, the rules governing photocopying charges and many others.

More complicated enquiries will normally be referred to the Law Society’s Guidance Committee for consideration. The Guidance Committee meets on an ad hoc basis and deals with enquiries relating to professional conduct and ethics.

Members are welcome to make use of such guidance service provided by the Secretariat. The contacts of the Regulation and Guidance Section (by telephone on 2846 0523 or by email at [email protected]) are posted on the Law Society website under “FAQs”. Hopefully, the guidance service will help clarify uncertainties over and reduce unintentional oversight of relevant rules and requirements.

Further, the Law Society’s Monitoring Accountants pays routine visits to newly-established law firms, both local and foreign, to provide guidance on how to ensure compliance with the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules. They have visited a total of 16 new firms in the first half of 2013. The Monitoring Accountants stand ready at all times to assist the firms with any queries that they may have in keeping proper accounts for their practices.

To further assist firms in understanding how the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules work, the Law Society regularly arranges seminars for practitioners and accounting staff of their firms. A Solicitors’ Accounting Manual for members’ reference, updated from time to time, is also posted on the Law Society website at www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/admission/LocalLawFirm/pdf/AccountingManual.pdf.

律師行名稱的要求、有關律師行文檔的所有權和保留

的問題、終止執業的手續、企業律師可以及不可以從

事甚麼、使用服務公司作為行政工具的要求、律師行

箋頭可包含甚麼資料、影印費的規則等等。

較複雜的查詢通常會轉介至律師會的指導委員會考

慮。指導委員會會在有需要時召開會議，處理有關專

業操守和道德的查詢。

我們歡迎各會員使用這種由秘書處提供的指導服務。

條例及指導部的聯絡方法（電話：2846 0523或電

郵：[email protected]）載於律師會網站中「常

見問題」一欄。我們希望指導服務有助澄清對相關規

定和要求的不確定之處，並減少無心之失的情況。

此外，律師會的監察會計師會對新成立的本地和外地

律師行進行例行探訪，就如何確保符合《律師帳目規

則》提供指導。他們在2013年上半年共對16間新成立

的律師行進行探訪。監察會計師隨時準備就緒就律師

行可能就其執業而備存妥善帳目上存有的任何疑問提

供協助。

為進一步協助律師行了解《律師帳目規則》如何運作，

律師會定期為執業者和律師行的會計人員舉辦講座。供

會員參考的《律師會計手冊》不時更新，並載於律師會

的網站：www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/admission/

LocalLawFirm/pdf/AccountingManual.pdf。

www.hk-lawyer.org 13


• July 2013

Russell Coleman

By Carmen Chu

作者朱慧敏

Face to Face With.......

The cliché that “law affects everyday life” rings no truer than when it comes to law relating to family arrangements.

Just ask Senior Counsel and family law expert Russell Coleman. As he told Hong Kong Lawyer one balmy evening last month, “(family law) may well be the only point at which an individual comes into contact with the law and the legal system”.

專訪

高浩文資深大律師


July 2013 • COVER STORY 封面專題


❝ More cases may be transferred to the High Court if there were a specific court for family law... ❞


❝The law that relates to the breakdown of family

arrangements is a very important one particularly because it often always brings with it emotional and legal baggage that may not be found in other types of cases,” Mr. Coleman said during the chat at his chambers in Admiralty.

“This is the main difference (between family law and other practice areas) and why it should not be overlooked (just because it may not be as glamourous).”

Starting out as a commercial litigator before taking on family law matters, a substantial part of Mr. Coleman’s practice today lies in family law. Over past years of practice, he notes the evolution in law as well as public perception.

“When I first practiced, family law was regarded as what mainly women lawyers would do… and (there was) really

not much law involved,” he recalls.

“There is now greater understanding among practitioners and the judiciary as a whole that family law is a vitally important area of law. It is an unfortunate aspect of life that there are family issues related to divorce and children and so forth.”

“Compared to 25 years ago, there seems to be a growing recognition that these family law cases are important cases.”

Future/reformThe Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong have so far released four reports under the Commission’s reference on guardianship and custody of children. The report on Child Custody and Access in 2005 is the final in the series that suggests replacing old terminology in family proceedings while introducing a new range of court orders.

Eight years on, Hong Kong is still using old concepts of custody, care and control, and access while a number of overseas jurisdictions, including England, Australia and New Zealand, whose former child custody laws are similar to Hong Kong’s,

have incorporated a more modern approach, such as the joint parental responsibility model.

“The profession has been pushing for change,” Mr. Coleman says.

“Judges also wish to see the changes come into place and help to promote the appropriate approach to deal with the care of

children… It is unfortunate that we have not yet in Hong Kong

addressed the Law (Reform) Commission’s report and I hope that it would occur sooner rather than later.”

Such delays are often attributed to Hong Kong’s relatively

conservative society, says the

barrister who admits a desire to sit on the bench as a family law judge. This, he adds, is however “not a good reason not to address, for example, matters related to children”.

Alternative family dispute resolutionAccording to the Hong Kong judiciary, the number of family cases has increased sharply over the past two decades; there were 23,674 such cases in 2012 compared to 22,989 in 2011 and 21,218 in 2010.

Hong Kong’s Civil Justice Reforms in 2009 places particular emphasis on alternative dispute resolution to take the pressure off increasing judicial caseloads. Tools like mediation and arbitration are set out in separate practice directions that require parties to stipulate their willingness to mediate, so that proceedings may be resolved more cheaply and swiftly.

Arbitration in particular, Mr. Coleman says, can help in family cases as it can provide privacy and finality – two crucial elements where family law is concerned.

“I think (arbitration) should (be encouraged)… It is a very good way for certain cases to be resolved where parties can if they want to adopt more flexible procedures with the benefits of specialised arbitrators. They can choose their own arbitrator for a particular case, and the case may be resolved more quickly,” he says.

Given the overwhelming caseload in the family court, especially where there is substantive argument, it often takes months before the argument can be put forward in court - even when it is only an interlocutory debate that helps frame the ultimate trial.

The time duration from the start to the final resolution, even ignoring all potential appeals, can take years, Mr. Coleman reckons.


• July 2013

“Lots of cases which involve a large commercial aspect would be suitable for arbitration,” he says.

“One of the advantages is the intended finality and the limitation of a right to appeal…Most family cases are dealt with at first instance on a private basis that is in chambers, not open to public. But when they go on to appeal, they would normally be dealt with in an open court because the Court of Appeal deals with the vast majority of cases in open court.”

“Although there are usually steps taken to keep some degree of confidentiality and to limit the publication of information of parties who are involved in an appeal which is otherwise dealt with in open court, some parties may choose to limit further the right to appeal by having an arbitration process which can ensure confidentiality.”

The flexibility and potentially lower cost of arbitration make it an attractive alternative dispute tool for family cases.

Parties can choose a particular arbitrator because “the skills, knowledge and experience of that arbitrator” can help to “frame a flexible procedure to determine the real issue for the parties at the earliest possible time and at proportionate expense”.

Compared to a drawn-out trial that may be public and probably costly, this is “very attractive” to many couples.

Flexibility helpsWhile improvements can always be made, Hong Kong is not behind any of the other developed jurisdictions where the financial part of family law disputes is concerned, said Mr. Coleman.

Here, the courts simply do what is “fair and just for the parties” since there is no mechanism identified in the ordinance on the division of assets or income streams upon divorce.

“In some other jurisdictions, there are details in the statute as to what percentage a division of assets should be…how to calculate the sum payable to children... There are also tables and forms to be filled out,” Mr. Coleman explains.

“Hong Kong does not have that and this gives the Hong Kong court a greater degree of flexibility to do particular justice that special cases (may) demand by reference to their own particular, sometimes peculiar, facts.”

“Personally, I like the absence of tables. But it does require parties’ representatives and judges to be disciplined (enough) to (exercise) that flexibility (based on judicial principles).”

The landmark case LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537, in which the senior counsel acted for the respondent on a pro bono basis, affirmed the “equal sharing” principle laid down by the UK House of Lords in WhitevWhite[2001] 1 AC 596 when dividing matrimonial assets in a divorce.

“Generally, flexibility is working well (but) there have been some cases recently where courts have been more mechanistic than is intended,” Mr. Coleman continues.

“(The courts) have to remember that the starting point is only the starting point and not the end. The danger at the moment is that some courts might think what are set up as guidelines become the answer and this certainly is a great danger if any courts work on this basis.”

Otherwise, such a system has “some real merit” as it caters for specific cases and individual facts, and “where there are specific facts, flexibility allows change in the approach to the case”.



Not everyone gets family lawIt is imperative that family law practitioners do not see such disputes as commercial matters, even though they sometimes involve the division of large amount of assets, Mr. Coleman says.

Family disputes very often involve emotions of the parties and the decisions made by the court can make a lasting impact on a family for many years. While this might be common sense to many, it might not be so to others, especially lawyers who get too immersed in the facts of the case to consider the more human aspects of the file.

Hence, Mr. Coleman points out, it is ideal that regardless of their roles as solicitors, barristers or judges, people who work best in family law have to first like working in this area, as opposed to being in it simply to make ends meet. For instance, any family judge has to be sensitive to the types of issues which arise in family cases and the way in which the parties come to the court for assistance.

“Even in the bigger money, more commercial cases, there is always the emotional overlay from the breakdown of marriage or relationship, and from the involvement of children… (these take precedence) over the commercial side of the cases,” says the senior counsel, stressing that the more experience judges have in family law disputes, the better.

“They could have either gained this experience from their private practice before becoming judges or from being judges… And the more experience the judges have in the way that the law has been developing over the last 15 years, the better.”

This begs the questions of whether Hong Kong has the requisite type of family law practitioners for the job,

to which Mr. Coleman answers in the affirmative where Family Court judges are concerned.

This dedicated Family Court lies within the District Court, though its jurisdiction is not limited by monetary assets. Thousands of family law cases are heard annually, the barrister notes, by judges who are “very competent and experienced”.

“If you look at the substantive judges in the family court, definitely, we have got the kind of people who come from busy family practice backgrounds and can translate that kind of experience onto the bench,” Mr. Coleman says.

“They provide guidance through the process, though not legal advice, to parties who are going through a difficult time in their lives.”

On the other hand, he adds, numerous family law cases are also being heard by non-specialised deputy judges on a day-to-day basis. This means that “inevitably, some of the less experienced judges are still learning on the job while deciding on the cases”.

“Although attempts are being made now to create enough judges with that sort of experience, it is just the feature at the moment to have these deputy judges who may or may not be interested in family law and…may not be competent or good judges for the family court,” Mr. Coleman says.

Also, he adds, a number of family law cases are transferred to the High Court, within which there is no real separate family law division.

A separate family law division?According to Mr. Coleman, there are not many High Court judges in Hong Kong with a significant degree of practice in family law.

But he does notice gradual changes: in addition to doing more family law cases, more High Court judges are spending their own time booking up on family law topics in order to boost their knowledge in this area.

“The Court of Appeal is starting to develop broad judicial knowledge and experience in family cases which it perhaps did not have a few years ago, and you have at the existing Court of Appeal one or two judges who have real experience in family law, either in private practice or in court or in both,” Mr. Coleman observes.

There are arguments for setting up a separate family division where more dedicated family law judges deal specifically with such cases.

“More cases may be transferred to the High Court if there were a specific court for family law, when it is found to be


• July 2013

appropriate to do so, and this can only advance the law in this area,” he said.

“Being a developed, affluent city where more and more people are seeking to understand their rights in such matters, in this regard, this would take Hong Kong law further forward.”

Ultimately, Mr. Coleman says, family law relates to people and families, and given that “we all want the best for children and society in general”, further legislative improvements will “come sooner rather than later”.

“I have been doing this for over two decades and I hope all the time that changes come soon (despite a lack of change since the last Law Reform Commission report in 2005),” he says with a tight smile.

“Hope springs eternal.” n


❝如果有一個專為家事法而設

的法庭，可能會有更多案件轉

介至高等法院❞

涉及到家庭安排破裂的法律是一門非常

重要的法律範疇，尤其是因為案件往往

牽涉情感和法律上的包袱，其他類型的案

件則不大會出現這種情況」高先生在其位

於金鐘的辦公室接受訪問時說道。

「這是（家事法和其他執業範疇之間的）

主要分別，亦是大家不應（僅因家事法可

能沒那麼吸引而）忽視它的原因。」

剛開始其法律生涯時，高先生是一名商業

訴訟律師，其後才從事家事法的事務。時

至今日，高先生大部分的工作均是關於家

事法的。在過去多年的執業生涯中，他注

意到家事法無論在法律上以至公眾對它的

觀感皆有所改變。

他憶述：「我最初執業時，家事法被視為

主要是女性從事的工作...（當中）確實並

不涉及太多法律」。

「現在整體法律從業者及司法機構，已明

白到家事法是法律中極其重要的一環。人

生中要經歷離婚和子女等家庭問題，實

屬非常不幸。」

「相比 2 5 年前，如今似乎有跡象顯

示，越來越多人認同這些都是相當重

要的案件。」

未來/改革

香港法律改革委員會迄今在兒童監護

權和管養權研究項目下已發表了一系

列共四份報告書。2005年發表的《子

女管養權及探視權報告書》是該系列

中的最後一份，其中建議取代家事法

律程序中的舊有用語，並引入一系列

新的法院命令。

八年過去，香港仍然採用舊有的管養、

照顧、管束及探視概念，多個海外司法

管轄區，包括英國、澳洲和新西蘭，

以前所採用的子女管養權法律與香港類

似，但如今都已採用更現代化的方法，

例如共同父母責任模式。


「法律與日常生活息息相關」雖說是

老生常談，但當法律涉及到家事的安

排時，這句話似乎一點也沒錯。

如果對此抱有懷疑，不妨問問家事

法專家高浩文資深大律師。上月一

個宜人的傍晚，這位家事法專家告

訴《香港律師》:「（家事法）很可

能是一個人接觸到法律和相關制度

的唯一情況」。

高先生說：「業界一直在努力推動改

革」。

「法官也希望看到改革推行及協助推動

處理子女照顧事宜的適當做法......可惜，

我們香港尚未處理法律(改革)委員會的

報告書，但事不宜遲，我希望這可儘早

進行。」

這位承認希望登上家事法法官席位的大

律師說，這種延誤往往是皆因香港社會

相對保守。然而，這「不能成為不處理

涉及子女等問題的理由」他補充說。

家事訴訟糾紛的替代解決方案

根據香港司法機構提供的數據，家事案

件的數量在過去二十年間大幅上升，在

2012年有23,674宗此類案件，而2011

年有22,989宗及2010年有21,218宗。

於2009年推行的香港民事司法制度改

革，特別強調採用替代訴訟糾紛解決方

案，以減輕案件數量不斷增加對司法機

構造成的壓力。調解和仲裁等方法載於

獨立的實務指示中，規定訴訟各方必須

願意作出調解，從而使訴訟可更便宜及

迅速地解決。

高先生說，仲裁尤其可以幫助解決家事

案件，因為它具備對此類案件非常重要

的兩個因素—保障私隱及取得屬最終的

裁決。

他說：「我認為應該（鼓勵採用仲

裁）... . . . 對某些案件來說，這是個解決

糾紛的好方法，如果當事人希望程序

更靈活，並且案件由專門的仲裁員處

理，可採用仲裁。他們不僅可為特定

案件選擇自己的仲裁員，亦可更迅速

地解決案件」。

由於家事法庭的案件數量非常多，特別

是當案件具有實質性的爭論點時，往往

需要在多個月後才有機會在法庭上提

出，即使只是一個有助制定最終審訊框

架的非正審辯論亦然。

據高先生估計，即使不理會所有潛在上

訴，案件從一開始到最後得以解決，可

能需時數年。

「許多涉及重大商業因素的案件，均適

合進行仲裁」他說。

「好處之一是裁決屬最終的及提出上訴

的權利受到限制...... 大多數家事案件的初

審均以非公開形式進行，即內庭聆訊，

不向公眾開放。但若他們提出上訴，案

件通常會以公開形式進行，因為上訴法

庭審理絕大多數的案件時，均以公開形

式進行。」

「雖然通常可採取某些措施，作一定程

度保密並限制當事人提出上訴(該上訴會

以公開形式進行)，但有些當事人為進一

步限制上訴的權利及為保密起見，可能

會選擇仲裁。」

由於仲裁的靈活性較高且費用通常較

低，對家事案件而言，無疑是一個吸引

的替代訴訟方法。

當事人可選擇某個特定的仲裁員，

因為「該名仲裁員的技能、知識和

經驗」可以「為當事人構建靈活的程

序，從而在最短的時間內並以相稱的

費用，對真正的爭論點作出裁決」。

相比起可能以公開形式進行、多半費

用昂貴的漫長審訊，仲裁對許多夫婦

來說乃「非常吸引」。

靈活性有助解決問題

不過，據高先生說，就家事法糾紛的財

務部分而言，香港並不遜於任何其他發

達的司法管轄區。

在香港，有關條例中並無任何關於離婚

時如何劃分資產或收入來源的機制，故

此法庭只是按「對當事人公平和公正」

的原則作出判決。

高先生解釋說：「在其他某些司法管轄

區，法例訂明資產分配的比例......應向子

女支付金額的計算方法...... 還備有供填寫

的列表和表格」。

「香港並沒有此機制，因此香港法庭擁

有更大的靈活性，可以按案件本身的特

定（有時甚至是奇特）的情況，處理（

可能）需要特定公義的特殊案件。」

「個人而言，我屬意沒有列表。但這確

實需要當事人的代表和法官（嚴守）紀

律，（依據司法原則）去（行使）有關

靈活性。」

LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537

一案意義重大，確認了由英國上議院在

White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 一案

中就離婚時如何分配婚姻資產而定下的

「平等共享」原則。附帶一提，高先生

是以義務性質代表此案答辯人。

高先生續道：「一般來說，靈活的做法

行之有效，（但）在最近一些案件中，

法庭所採用的方式較原定的機械化」。

「（法庭）必須謹記，出發點僅是出發

點而已，並非終點。目前的危險之處，

是有些法庭或會把設立為指引的原則當

作解決辦法看待，如果任何法庭以此基

礎運作，無疑非常危險。」

要不然，這樣的制度確具有「一些真

正的可取之處」，因為它能夠切合特

定案件和個別情況，而且「如有特定

情況，可靈活地根據案件所需改變有

關做法。」

不是人人皆能領略家事法

高先生說，最重要的是家事法執業者不

可把家事糾紛當作商業事務看待，儘管

家事糾紛有時會涉及大量資產的劃分。

家事糾紛往往牽涉到當事人的情緒，而

且法庭的決定對一個家庭產生的影響可

以持續多年之久。雖然對不少人來說

此乃常識，但對其他人而言卻又未必如

是，尤其是當律師太埋首於案件的相關

事實時，往往就未能顧及案中人性化的

一面。


• July 2013


因此，高先生指出，不論是作為律師、大

律師或法官，出色的家事法從業者必須先

喜歡從事這個範疇的工作，而並非單純為

了生計。

「家事法官必須對家事案件中出現的各類

問題及當事人向法庭尋求協助的方式，具

備敏銳的觸覺。即使是涉及大量金錢或商

業成份較高的案件，總會有因婚姻或關係

破裂、涉及子女而引起的情緒問題......相比

案中商業方面的事宜，（這些問題較為重

要）」他說。

他強調：「法官愈有經驗愈好，不論經驗

是從成為法官前的私人執業獲得，還是當

上法官後獲得……而且家事法在過去

十五年來不斷發展，法官愈有經驗就愈

好」。

這引申出一個問題——香港是否有如此

經驗豐富的家事法律執業者擔任家事法

庭法官？高先生的答案是肯定的。

家事法庭是區域法院中的專門法庭，但

其管轄權並不僅限於金錢資產。高先生

指出，每年成千上萬的家事法庭案件，

均是由「非常能幹且經驗豐富」的法官

審理。

「如果你看看家事法庭的實任法官，便

會知道我們的法官無疑是來自工作繁重

的家事法執業背景，並且他

們能夠把相關的執業經驗運

用在審案上」高先生說。

「他們在審案的過程中，向

正在經歷艱難時刻的當事人

提供指導，而不只是法律意

見。對有關問題具備敏銳觸

覺且富有相關經驗的法官，

勝任有餘。」

他補充，另一方面的問題

是，每天有許多其他家事

法案件由非專門的暫委法

官審理。

「無可避免地，有些經驗不

足的法官要一邊在工作中學

習，一邊為案件作出裁決」

高先生說。

「雖然現正試圖培養出更多

具備相關經驗的法官，但現

階段的情況是以一位暫委法

官作為主要的家事法庭法

官...... 這些暫委法官可能不

會對家事法感興趣也說不

定..... 對家事法庭而言，未

必具備足夠的能力或能夠成

為好的法官。」

此外，他還補充，許多家事法案件其後

轉介至高等法院，但高等法院並沒有真

正獨立的家事法部門。

獨立的家事法部門？

「目前，香港高等法院的法官之中，具

有豐富家事法實務經驗之人並不多」他

解釋。

但他注意到情況逐漸有所改變：除了處

理的家事法案件增加外，現在有更多高

等法院法官花上私人時間進修家事法，

以提高這方面的專業知識。

高先生指出：「上訴法庭正逐步建立出

對家事法案件的司法知識和經驗，而幾

年前或許仍沒有的，而且現時上訴法

庭有幾位法官在私人執業或法庭或兩者

上，具備真正的家事法經驗」。

有人支持設立一個獨立的家事法部門，

讓更多專屬的家事法法官專門處理此類

案件。

他說：「如果有一個專為家事法而設的

法庭，而案件被裁定適合作轉介的話，

可能會有更多案件轉介至高等法院，但

這能夠推動這個範疇的法律」。

「作為一個發達、富裕的城市，越來

越多人嘗試了解自己在這類事宜上的權

利，而這種情況可進一步提升香港的法

律。」

最後，高先生說，家事法與人們、家庭

息息相關，而且「我們都希望子女得到

最好的及社會整體上變得更好」，因此

進一步立法進行改革「事不宜遲」。

「二十年來，我一直在從事這工作，我

無時無刻都希望改革早日來臨（儘管自

法律改革委員會在2005年發表報告書以

來便沒有任何改變）」他苦笑說。

「希望在明天。」 n


A 21-member delegation of the Law Society visited Taipei and Kaohsiung from 28 to 31 May. Members of the delegation included President Ambrose Lam;

Vice Presidents Stephen Hung and Thomas So; Mr. Kenneth Ng, Ms. Angela Lee and Mr. Denis Brock, Council Members; Mr. James Wong, Vice Chairman of Greater China Legal Affairs Committee (“GCLAC”); Mr. Henry Wai and Mr. Kenneth Chan, Committee Members of GCLAC; Ms. Heidi Chu, Secretary General and eight other Law Society members.

The delegation met representatives of the Judicial Yuan, the Ministry of Justice, the Mainland Affairs Council of the Executive Yuan, the Straits Exchange Foundation and the Taipei City Government. At the meetings, matters concerning mutual recognition of arbitral awards, mutual legal assistance between Hong Kong and Taiwan, and the possibility for Hong Kong solicitors to practise in Taiwan were discussed.

The delegation also held seminars with the Taipei Bar Association (“TBA”) and Kaohsiung Bar Association (“KBA”) to enhance cooperation with the legal profession of these two cities. The Law Society and Hong Kong Trade Development Council jointly hosted the “Hong Kong Legal Services Forum” in Taipei which attracted over 130 participants from small and medium enterprises in Taiwan. The Law Society introduced the strengths of Hong Kong’s judiciary system and legal service, Hong Kong’s role in resolving cross-border commercial disputes by arbitration or mediation, and the relevant legal issues on setting up companies in Hong Kong.

The Taiwan visit would not have been as fruitful without the support of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Hong Kong, the TBA and the KBA. The Law Society is also thankful for active participation from its members on this trip.

香港律師會代表團於5月28至31日到訪台

北及高雄，代表團成員共有21人，包括

會長林新強律師、副會長熊運信律師和蘇紹聰

律師、理事伍成業律師、李慧賢律師和白樂德

律師、大中華法律事務委員會副主席黃江天律

師、委員韋業顯律師和陳元亨律師、秘書長朱

潔冰律師以及8名律師會會員。代表團與司法

院、法務部、陸委會、海基會、台北市政府會

面，就兩地司法互助、互認仲裁判決、香港律

師在台灣執業的可能性等議題進行交流。

此外，又分別與台北及高雄律師公會進行座

談，加強兩地法律專業的合作。律師會亦在

台北與香港貿易發展局合辦「台商如何利用

香港法律服務拓展海外業務」座談會，吸引

超過130名台商參加，律師會向台商推介香港

司法制度及法律服務的優勢，亦介紹了香港

的仲裁與調解制度以及在香港成立公司的法

律事宜等。

台灣之行成果豐碩，實有賴台北經濟文化貿易

辦事處、台北律師公會、高雄律師公會及台灣

各相關單位的支持，律師會亦感謝會員在此行

的積極參與。

Law Society visit to Taiwan 律師會代表團訪台

During the forum, the Law Society introduced the strengths of Hong Kong’s judiciary system and legal service, Hong Kong’s role in resolving cross-border commercial disputes by arbitration or mediation, and the relevant legal issues on setting up companies in Hong Kong.

律師會向台商推介香港司法制度及法律服務的優勢，亦介紹了香港的仲裁與調解制度以及在香港成立公司的法律事宜等。



July 2013 • GREATER CHINA COLUMN 大中華專欄

The Law Society held a seminar with the Kaohsiung Bar Association香港律師會與高雄律師公會舉行座談會

President Ambrose Lam presented souvenir to President of the Kaohsiung Bar Association林新強會長向高雄律師公會理事長盧世欽律師致送紀念品

President Ambrose Lam presented souvenir to Ms. Chen Wen-Chi, Director of the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice’s Department of International and Cross-strait Legal Affairs律師會會長林新強律師致送紀念品予法務部國際及兩岸法律司司長陳文琪

The delegation met Mr. Kao Koong-Lian, Vice-Chairman and Secretary-General (fourth from right), and other representatives of the Straits Exchange Foundation.代表團與海基會副董事長暨秘書長高孔廉 (右四) 等會面

From left: President Ambrose Lam; Mr. Silas Chu, General Manager, Taiwan, Hong Kong Trade Development Council; Vice-President Thomas So; Mr. Ludwig Ng左起：林新強會長、貿易發展局台灣總經理朱耀昌先生，蘇紹聰副會長、伍兆榮律師

President Ambrose Lam presented the Law Society’s Study Report on the development of the legal profession in Qianhai to Mr. Huang Kuo-Chung, Director-General of the Judicial Yuan’s Department of Judicial Administration. 林新強會長向司法院司法行政廳廳長黃國忠致送由律師會發表的「律師行業前海發展」研究報告。

Meeting with Dr. Lin Chu-Chia, (sitting, fourth from right) Deputy Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council 律師會代表團與陸委會副主委林祖嘉(前排右四)會面

Vice-President Thomas So introduced the arbitration and mediation systems in Hong Kong蘇紹聰副會長向台北律師公會介紹香港的仲裁及調解制度。

The Law Society and Hong Kong Trade Development Council jointly hosted the “Hong Kong Legal Services Forum” in Taipei, which attracted over 130 participants from small and medium enterprises in Taiwan.律師會在台北與香港貿易發展局合辦「台商如何利用香港法律服務拓展海外業務」座談會，吸引超過130名台商參加

The delegation met Mr. Chiou Dah-Jan, Commissioner of the Department of Finance, Taipei City Government (front row, centre)代表團與台北市政府財政局局長邱大展 (前排中間) 會面

The delegation met representatives of the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice 律師會代表團與法務部代表交流


LAW SOCIETY NEWS律師會新聞

Hong Kong Academy of Law 香港法律學院

The Law Society, The Hong Kong Institute of Chartered Secretaries (“HKICS”), and Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants jointly organised a seminar entitled “Codifying Directors Duties: The UK Experience & Lessons for Hong Kong” on 30 May.

The speaker was Professor Alan Dignam (second from right), Professor of Corporate Law, School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London; and the panelists were Mr. Mohan Datwani (far left), Director, Technical and Research, HKICS; Mr. Anthony Rogers (second from left), former VP, Court of Appeal; Ms. Julia Charlton (middle), Partner, Charltons; and Ms. Wendy Yung (far right), Executive Director & Company Secretary, Hysan Development Co. Ltd.

律師會、香港特許秘書公會及香港會計師公會在5月30日合

辦題為「把董事職責編纂為成文法則：英國經驗給香港的

啓示」。

講者為倫敦大學瑪麗皇后法律學院公司法教授Alan Dignam

教授（右二）；專題討論小組成員為香港特許秘書公會專業技

術及研究總監高朗先生（左一）；香港上訴法庭前副庭長羅傑

志先生（左二）；易周律師行合伙人周怡菁律師（中）；及希慎

興業有限公司執行董事兼公司秘書容韻儀小姐（右一）。

Mr. Alan Fong (left), Assistant Official Receiver (Legal Services), Official Receiver’s Office; and Ms. Ophelia Lok, Assistant Principal Solicitor (Legal Services), and Mr. Maurice Loo, Principal Assistant Secretary (Financial Services), Financial Services and Treasury Bureau, presented at the “Briefing Session on the Legislative Proposals to Improve Corporate Insolvency Law” on 21 May. Over 240 participants attended the briefing session.

左起：破產管理署助理處長(法律事務)方劍峯先生、破產管理署助理首席律師(法律事務)駱佩雯小姐及財

經事務及庫務局首席助理秘書長(財經事務)羅淦華先生在5月21日舉行的「有關優化香港公司破產法例的

立法建議簡介會」上演講。超過240人出席是次簡介會。

Mr. Simon Wong (right), Accredited General Mediator, Hong Kong Mediation Centre; and Mr. Jacky Lai (middle), Accredited General Mediator and Family Mediator, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, presented at a mediation sharing session entitled “Who has the Edge? Lawyer-Mediator vs. Non-Lawyer Mediator” on 28 May. The session was moderated by Law Society Mediation Co-ordinator Mr. Barbarossa Wan (left).

香港和解中心註冊調解員黃少雲先生（右）及香港國際仲裁中心一般調解員及

家事調解員黎子健先生（中）在5月28日舉行題為「誰人佔優？律師調解員對

非律師調解員」的調解分享會上演講。是次分享會由律師會調解統籌員尹凱

迪先生擔任主持。（左）


• July 2013

June 2013 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

Dragon Boat: The Legal Professional Cup Becomes an Annual SuccessFor the third consecutive year, the Law Society hosted the annual, law-specific dragon boat race - The Legal Professional Cup (the “Race”) - on 1 June, Saturday, at the Stanley Main Beach. The 2013 Race was again a smashing success complete with fantastic weather, enthusiastic paddlers, post-race celebratory and networking drinks, and sportsmanship.

The Law Society hosts the Race with one specific intent: to celebrate the flourishing legal community in Hong Kong by bringing together solicitors, government counsel and law students in a premier athletic-cum-networking event. The Race has been gaining greater and greater popularity in tandem with dragon boating in Hong Kong, particularly since this is the only paddling race that targets the legal community. This year, 11 teams participated in the Race and congratulations go to DLA Piper Hong Kong, The Law Society Dragon Boat Team, and King & Wood Mallesons for finishing first, second and third respectively. Many thanks to President Ambrose Lam, Ms. Eliza Chang, Chairperson of the Recreation and Sports Committee, and Mr. Nick Chan, Vice-Chairperson of the Recreation and Sports Committee, for attending the Race and showing their support.

The post-race celebratory drinks were held at The Pickled Pelican on the Stanley boardwalk and it was for many a party to remember.

We hope that more will attend the Race next year and help forge closer relationships in the legal community through paddling and sports. For now, we hope these pictures will motivate you to join us.

For those who would like to keep on dragon boating beyond the main races

during the Tuen Ng Festival, please come and join the Law Society team - our season doesn’t end till October. We will start recruiting again in July. Further details may be found in the weekly Law Society Circulars.

Hope to see you soon at training.

TheLawSocietyDragonBoatTeam

一年一度的法律專業盃龍舟

邀請賽成功完滿結束

由律師會連續第三年主辦的年度法律專

業盃龍舟邀請賽（下稱「邀請賽」）於

6月1日（星期六）在赤柱正灘舉行。

如同歷屆一樣，本年度的邀請賽非常成

功。當天風和日麗，健兒個個士氣高

昂，賽後還舉辦了慶祝酒會讓大家歡聚

及聯誼一番，最重要是大家都表現出體

育精神。律師會舉辦邀請賽有一個特定

目的：匯聚各律師、政府律師和法律系

學生一同參與這個運動

暨聯誼盛事，共同慶賀

香港法律界的蓬勃發

展。隨著龍舟在香港逐

漸普及，邀請賽亦愈來

愈受歡迎，尤其是因為

這是為法律界而設的唯

一一項龍舟比賽。今年

有11支隊伍參賽，取

得冠亞季軍的隊伍分別

為歐華律師事務所、香

港律師會龍舟隊，以及Champions DLA Piper冠軍由歐華律師事務所奪得

金杜律師事務所。我們非常感謝律師會

會長林新強律師、康樂及體育委員會主

席鄭麗珊律師，以及康樂及體育委員會

副主席陳曉峰律師出席邀請賽，表達對

活動的支持。

賽後的慶祝酒會在位於赤柱海濱長廊的

The Pickled Pelican舉行，場面熱鬧，令

人非常難忘。

我們期盼來年有更多人參與邀請賽，透

過龍舟和其他體育活動使法律界各業者

間建立更緊密的關係。希望這些精彩的

相片能激起你加入我們的龍舟行列。

若大家有意在端午節期間舉行的主要賽

事結束後繼續參與龍舟活動，歡迎加入

律師會龍舟隊，我們的活動直到10月才

結束。我們將在7月份再次招募隊員。欲

知詳情，請留意每週發出的會員通告。

龍舟訓練見！

律師會龍舟隊


Prof. Anselmo Reyes, former Court of First Instance Judge前高等法院原訟法庭法官芮安牟教授

YSG: Distinguished Speaker’s Luncheon Talk by Professor Anselmo Reyes The Young Solicitors’ Group’s (“YSG”) 2nd Distinguished Speaker’s Luncheon of the year was held on 8 June at the China Club. This time, we were honoured to have Professor Anselmo Reyes, formerly Judge of the Court of First Instance, to share with us his views on “How to be a Solicitor-Advocate”. This was followed by a lengthy Q&A session.

Prof. Reyes’ talk was not only highly informative (covering the different stages of a court hearing- pleadings, trial, drafting orders) but also highly entertaining, peppered with anecdotes from his early years as a pupil, before being a barrister and then his days on the bench. His tips on “How to compete with the Bar” in particular were most useful, with many members taking down detailed notes!

We would like to thank Prof. Reyes again for taking time out of his busy schedule to share with us his views and experience. Our thanks also go to all the members who attended (many of whom rushed over from work on a rainy day) as well as Ms. Grace Lam and Ms. Priscilla Cheung from the Secretariat, and everyone in the working group for organising the talk and helping out that day. For those of you who missed out on the talk, please note that a recording of Prof. Reyes’ speech has been uploaded onto the Law Society’s website at http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/ysg/event.asp?event=108

Ms.VickyManCommittee Member, YSG

Professor Anselmo Reyes (front row, centre) with luncheon participants. He is flanked by YSG Chairman Bonnie Chan on his right and YSG Vice-Chairman Serina Chan on his left. Next to Ms. Chan are YSG Committee Members Daniel Shum and Priscilla Wong. 芮安牟教授（前排中間）與午餐分享會的參與者。在他右側是年青律師組主席陳祖楹律師，左側是年青律師組副主席陳潔心律師。陳潔心

律師旁為年青律師組委員會成員沈嘉明見習律師及黃婷婷律師。

年青律師組：傑出講者午餐分

享會—芮安牟教授

年青律師組在2013年6月8日假中國會舉

行本年第二次的傑出講者午餐分享會。

今次，我們十分榮幸邀請到前原訟法庭

法官芮安牟教授與我們分享他對「如何

成為一名訟辯律師」的看法。大家在演

講後的答問環節表現相當踴躍。

芮安牟教授的演講不僅資訊豐富（涵

蓋法庭聆訊的不同階段，包括狀書、審

訊、草擬命令），同時亦充滿他早年作

為學生、任職大律師之前及當上法官後

所發生的趣聞軼事，非常有趣。芮安牟

教授就「如何與大律師競爭」所給予的

提示尤其有用，許多會員均詳細記下！

我們謹此再次感謝芮安牟教授在百忙之中

抽時間與我們分享他的看法和經驗。此

外，我們亦非常感謝所有出席是次活動的

會員（不少人乃冒雨趕過來的），以及

秘書處的林利芬小姐和張莉璟小姐，當

然少不了所有為是次講座進行籌劃及在

當天提供協助的工作小組成員！芮安牟

教授的演講錄音已上載到律師會網站，

如果你錯過了是次講座，可以到以下網

址收聽：http://www.hk lawsoc.org .

hk/pub_e/ysg/event.asp?event=108

文穎翹律師

年青律師組委員會成員


• July 2013

June 2013 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

From left: Ms. Bonita Chan, LSHK Past President Huen Wong, UIA President Jean-Marie Burguburu, and UIA Regional Secretary for Asia Fred Kan左起：陳寶儀律師、香港律師會前會長王桂壎律師、國際律師聯盟主席Jean-Marie

Burguburu先生及國際律師聯盟亞洲區域秘書長簡家驄律師

LSHK President Ambrose Lam and UIA President Jean-Marie Burguburu 香港律師會會長林新強律師及國際律師聯盟主席Jean-Marie Burguburu先生

UIA Cocktail ReceptionUnion Internationale des Avocats (“UIA”) will hold its 57th Congress in Macau from 31 October to 4 November. UIA President Jean-Marie Burguburu hosted a cocktail reception for members of the Law Society in Hong Kong on 13 June to introduce the highlights of the Macau Congress and invite them to attend the Congress.

Close to 60 members including President Ambrose Lam; Past President Huen Wong; and Council Members Amirali Nasir and Charles Chau attended the reception and enjoyed the hospitality of the host over champagne, strawberries and chocolates. Many have already indicated interest in signing up for the Macau Congress. Members who wish to know more about the Congress may obtain a brochure at the reception of the Law Society Secretariat or at this link - http://www.uianet.org/en/evenement/type-46987/57th-congress

國際律師聯盟雞尾酒會

國際律師聯盟將在10月31日至11月4日

期間在澳門舉行第57屆大會。國際律師

聯盟主席Jean-Marie Burguburu先生在

6月13日為香港律師會會員舉辦雞尾酒

會，介紹澳門大會的焦點並誠邀他們出

席。

近60名會員出席是次酒會，其中包括會

YSG: Friday Lunch Gatherings

年青律師組：週五午餐聚會

YSG Committee Members Ms. Stephanie Lau (first from right) and Ms. Nadine Lai (middle, far back) received new members at the YSG Friday Lunch Gathering on 14 June 年青律師組成員劉穎言律師（右一）和黎蒑律師（後中）在6月14日舉行的小組週五午餐聚會上接待新組

員

Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG”) Vice-Chairman Ms. Serina Chan (second from left) and YSG Committee Member Mr. Michael Ngai (third from left) received new members at the YSG Friday Lunch Gathering on 24 May 年青律師組副主席陳潔心律師（左二）和小組成員倪子軒見習律師（左三）在5月24

日舉行的小組週五午餐聚會上接待新組員

長林新強律師、前任會長王桂壎律師和

理事會成員黎雅明律師及周致聰律師，

酒會更設有香檳、草莓和巧克力款待各

會員。許多會員已表示有興趣參加在澳

門舉行的大會。如欲了解更多有關大會

的詳情，可到律師會秘書處的接待處索

取小冊子，或瀏覽以下網址 – http://www.uianet.org/en/evenement/type-46987/57th-congress


Basketball Team

籃球隊

Champions of the 3-on-3 Basketball Tournament三人籃球競技賽冠軍

Mr. Nigel Alexander MacKenzie Firth, Mr. David M. Pendergast, Mr. Peter Cheng & Mr. John Stephen KoshyNigel Alexander MacKenzie Firth律師, David M Pendergast律師, 鄭柏皓律師及 John Stephen Koshy律師

1st Runners-up of the 3-on-3 Basketball Tournament三人籃球競技賽亞軍

Mr. Woo Hing Yip Eric, Mr. Chow Hai Bong & Mr. Yuen Nga Lun胡慶業律師、周海邦律師及阮雅麟律師

2nd Runners-up of the 3-on-3 Basketball Tournament 三人籃球競技賽季軍

Mr. Lau Calvin Lik Hang, Mr. Mak Kane Kin Fung & Mr. Law Nicholas Ho Ming劉力行律師、麥健豐律師及羅浩名律師

Champion of 3 Point Competition 2013三分王

Mr. Yuen Nga Lun阮雅麟律師

Distance Running Team

長跑隊

The Law Society of Hong Kong Distance Running Team Awards: Standard Chartered Hong Kong Marathon 2013 / 14th Asian Marathon Championships 香港律師會長跑隊獎項: 渣打香港馬拉松 2013 / 第十四屆亞洲馬拉松錦標賽

1st in the Men’s Full Marathon男子全馬冠軍

Mr. Lee Yuen Chuen李遠傳律師

1st Runner-up in the Men’s Full Marathon男子全馬亞軍

Mr. Simpkins John David James Simpkins John David James律師

2nd Runner-up in the Men’s Full Marathon男子全馬季軍

Mr. Chan Wai Shing Wilson陳偉誠律師

1st in the Women’s Full Marathon女子全馬冠軍

Ms. Lau Shuk Fan劉淑芬律師

1st Runner-up in the Women’s Full Marathon女子全馬亞軍

Ms. Chan Yee Man Carman陳綺雯律師

2nd Runner-up in the Women’s Full Marathon女子全馬季軍

Ms. Wong Chan Rosana黃陳毓棻律師

1st in the Men’s Half Marathon男子半馬冠軍

Past-President Ip Shing Hing前會長葉成慶律師

1st Runner-up in the Men’s Half Marathon男子半馬亞軍

Mr. Lau Calvin Lik Hang劉力行律師

2nd Runner-up in the Men’s Half Marathon男子半馬季軍

Mr. Tsui Ming Lun徐銘崙律師

1st in the Men’s 10 KM Race男子十公里冠軍

Mr. Lee David JamesLee David James律師

1st Runner-up in the Men’s 10 KM Race男子十公里亞軍

Mr. Tin Htun Chi Hang Cyrus伍志衡律師

2nd Runner-up in the Men’s 10 KM Race男子十公里季軍

Mr. Cheung Chun Fung Alex張鎮楓見習律師

1st in the Women’s 10 KM Race女子十公里冠軍

Ms. Kung Nicola Seen Yee龔倩怡見習律師

1st Runner-up in the Women’s 10 KM Race女子十公里亞軍

Ms. Wong Suet Sum Michelle黃雪心律師

2nd Runner-up in the Women’s 10 KM Race女子十公里季軍

Ms. Lau Michelle Ho Ming劉皓明律師

Golf Team

高爾夫球隊

Most Valuable Player of the Year最有價值球員

Mr. Cheung Yuk Tong張玉堂律師

Best Lady Player of the Year最佳女球員

Ms. Candi Anna Chan 陳怡蓁律師

Most Improved Player of the Year最佳進步球員

Ms. Karen Lam藍嘉妍律師

Longest Hitter of the Year (Men)年度長打王

Mr. Dennis Chan and Mr. Roden Tong陳國剛律師、湯文龍律師

Longest Hitter of the Year (Ladies)年度長打后

Ms. Wendy Lee李昱潁律師

Historian of the Year年度撰史人獎

Ms. Sharon Evans區愷韶律師

Swimming Team

游泳隊

Swimming Team Loyalty Award游泳隊榮譽大獎

Ms. Chang Lai Shan Eliza鄭麗珊律師

Swimming Team Future Star Award游泳隊明日之星

Mr. Lau Chi Wah Derick劉志華律師

Swimming Team Best Improvement Award游泳隊最佳進步獎

Mr. Li Fai李輝律師

Table Tennis Team

乒乓球隊

Champions of the Internal Competition香港律師會會際賽冠軍

Mr. Sylvester Sung, Mr. Jet Luk and Ms. Petula Chan宋承輝律師、陸禮傑見習律師及陳錦蘭律師

First runners-up of the Internal Competition香港律師會會際賽亞軍

Mr. River Stone, Mr. Simon Yung, Mr. Ben Lui and Mr. Alvin Lo石川律師、翁宗榮律師、雷耀輝律師及盧凱鵬律師

Tennis Team

網球隊Joint Professional Tennis Tournament 2012 Champions聯合專業網球錦標賽2012冠軍

Mr. Simon Ng, Mr. Rocky Yung, Mr. Raymond Luk, Mr. Jackson Yeung, Mr. Rudy Chung, Ms. Amy Beckingham and Ms. Shun Fong Kung吳世民律師、容本樂律師、陸勁光律師、楊漢銘律師、鍾聲福律師、Amy Beckingham律師及龔淳芳律師

Members of the Distance Running Team (from left): Ms. Michelle Lau, Mr. Lee Yuen Chuen, Mr. Lee David James, Mr. Wilson Chan, Ms. Catherine Lau and Ms. Michelle Wong長跑隊隊員(左起)︰劉皓明律師、李遠傳律師、Lee David James律師、陳偉誠律師、劉淑芬律師及黃雪心律師

AGM Sports Award Presentation 2013We congratulate the following winners who were presented with the following sportsman’s awards by our Immediate Past President Dieter Yih - and duly cheered on by Council Members and the general membership:

2013年周年大會體育獎項頒獎禮我們衷心恭賀以下各體育獎項的得獎者，他們從前會長葉

禮德律師手中接過獎項之餘，亦獲各理事會成員和會員送

上熱烈歡呼：


• July 2013

July 2013 • FAMILY LAW 家庭法

By Athena Liu, Associate Professor Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

Dennis Ho, Partner Ho & Ip

After a period of nearly seven years, the Labour and Welfare Bureau (“LWB”) published on 28 December 2011 a Consultation Paper (the “Consultation Paper”) to invite submissions from the public, by 30 April 2012, on the Report’s recommendations, and more particularly, on the implementation of the “joint parental responsibility model” by legislative means.

Now, one year since the close of the submissions, the Government has recently put this topic of “Child Custody and Access” on the agenda of the Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services, for discussion this very month.

This article offers an update on the debates concerning the current concept of custody and the new concept of “parental responsibility” advocated by the Report. We urge the government to implement the concept of “parental responsibility” without further delay.

Background to the LRC Report In April 1995, a few years after England

and Wales brought in its Children Act 1989, the then Attorney-General and the Chief Justice of Hong Kong requested the LRC to consider the law relating to custody of children, and to recommend such changes as may be thought appropriate.

In May 1996, the LRC formed a sub-committee to undertake the above tasks. The sub-committee published an extensive consultation paper on GuardianshipandCustodyin December 1998 (“Consultation Paper 1998”), addressing the approach of the law and the courts toward custody and access arrangements for children, the use of


FROM “CUSTODY” TO “PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY”:THE NEED FOR CHANGE

從「管養」至「父母責任」：

改變是必要的作者廖雅慈，副教授香港大學法律系

何志權，合夥人何葉律師行

The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (“LRC”) published in March 2005 its Report on Child Custody and Access (“Report”).

dispute resolution procedures in family cases, parental child abduction, and the guardianship of children on the death of a parent. It also set out a number of proposals for reform. The Consultation Paper 1998 was eventually accepted by the LRC.

In Chapter One of the LRC’s Report, it says:

“In other common law jurisdictions, there has been a shift away from this legal emphasis on the rights and authority of each of the parents over their children, towards a more child-focused concept of “joint parental responsibility”. This newer approach, which emphasizes the obligations rather than the rights of the parents, and stresses the rights of the children to maintain a continuing relationship with both parents after divorce, is examined in this report as a possible model for Hong Kong’s future legislation in this area.” (para. 1.3)

These other common law jurisdictions are: England and Wales, which has revamped the whole regime on dealing with children in its Children Act 1989; followed by Scotland, in its Children Act 1995; Australia, in its Family Law Reform Act 1995; and New Zealand, in its Care of Children Act 2004. Indeed, in February this year, the English Government has introduced the Children and Family Bill to undertake further law reform by substituting “residence orders” and “contact orders” with “Child Arrangements Orders”.

LRC Report’s Proposed Paradigm ShiftFollowing the changes in these other jurisdictions, the Report recommends a paradigm shift from the current concept of “custody”, which emphasises the rights and authority of parents, to “parental responsibility”, which enjoins parents of their duty to care for their children and stresses the rights of the children instead.

The Report pointed out that there is

currently no statutory definition of “rights and authority”. However, it made an attempt to collate a list for these parental rights, and authority from existing case law and statutes. These rights include the rights to live with the child; to physical possession of the child; to choose the child’s education, religion, surname; to enter into contracts; to act in legal proceedings; to administer the child’s property; to give consent to medical treatment, marriage, adoption and application for passport; to inflict moderate punishment; to appoint testamentary guardian; and to arrange migration.

Contrary to the existing concept of “custody”, “parental responsibility” concerns the duty and responsibility of the parents towards their child, and it respects the right of the child to be cared for until they become of age. Section 3(1) of the English Children Act 1989 defines “parental responsibility” as encompassing “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property”. The Australian Family Law Reform Act 1995 defines “parental responsibility” in section 61B to mean “all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children.” The Report suggested adopting the definition provided in section 1(1) of the Scottish Children Act 1995, which gives a more detailed description of the responsibilities of a parent.

Guardianship/Custody: Property Rights not Rights of Children “The original legal concept of

parenthood appears to have been that of “guardianship”, a very old concept based more upon the protection of family landholdings than upon the protection of children.” (para. 2.7 of the Report)

As the English Law Commission, in Family Law: Review of Child Law, Guardianship & Custody 1988, said on the law pre-Children Act 1989:

“Our present law has no coherent legal concept of parenthood as such. Historically, guardianship came first. It developed as a means of safeguarding a family’s property and, later, became an instrument for maintaining the authority of the father over his legitimate minor children. Hence he was recognized as their “natural” guardian. While he was alive the mother had no claims as natural guardian and was originally in no better position than a stranger.” (no. 91, para. 2.2)

This old concept of guardianship, deeply rooted in medieval landholding, was later developed into the rights of custody, care and control and access.

The Need for ChangeThere is a need for the law to move away from the concept of parental rights and authority, to be replaced with the concept of “parental responsibility”. Four reasons support this change.


• July 2013


(1) Confusion and Inadequacy in Present Law

The present law on relocating parental rights and authority is dealt with in a number of overlapping ordinances. The approach of the court to an issue on children may depend on which statutory jurisdiction is invoked, whether it is the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (Cap. 13), Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192), Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap. 179), Separation and Maintenance Orders Ordinance (Cap. 16), Protection of Children and Juveniles Ordinance (Cap. 213) or some other legislation. The Report identified a number of shortcomings in their operation.

(2) A Shift in Societal Values

The relationship between parents and the child has undergone changes due to the change in societal norms and values. Hong Kong’s law relating to parent-child relationship needs to be modernised in order to reflect such changes. As the Report explained:

“In our view, the language of custody orders implies something akin to ownership of a child. The former common law, still accepted in Hong Kong, which gave the custodial parent virtually all rights concerning the upbringing of the child, inevitably leads to more cases being contested in the courts. To say to non-custodial parents that the only right they retain is to have access to the child, and some undefined residual rights which may only be exercised if the non-custodial parent finds out that they are being infringed by the custodial parent, is to invite continuing conflict between the child’s parents.” (para. 10.4)

Lord Fraser in Gillick v West Norfolk andWisbechAreaHealthAuthorityandDepartmentofHealthandSocialSecurity [1986] AC 112 has also correctly identified the change in parent-child relationship, which needs to be reflected in the law:

“… parental rights to control a child do

not exist for the benefit of the parent. They exist for the benefit of the child and they are justified only in so far as they enable the parent to perform his duties towards the child.” (p. 170)

Similarly, Hartmann JA said in PD v KWW CACV 188/2009:

“There was a time when the parents of a child, more particularly the father, had almost absolute authority over that child. That is no longer the case.”

On the divorce of the parents, there was a time when the mother was often trusted with the care for the child and the father to provide for the financial support. The father was left with the right of visitation. Hartmann JA pointed out that “[t]oday, such sexist views are obsolete”.

The concept of custody arguably is an emotive label which may lead to fights between parents in order to “win”. It is time that it be replaced by the concept of parental responsibility in law, and coupled with appropriate education, a change in attitudes and culture to redirect parents’ mind set on the need to care for their children’s future welfare.

(3) Obligations under International Treaties

International treaties concerning children applicable to Hong Kong require changes to be made to our child law as well. Article 19(4) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap. 383) (equivalent to Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)) acknowledges that:

“In the case of [marriage] dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.”

And Article 20 of the Bill (equivalent to Article 24 of the ICCPR) requires that every child:

“shall have … the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.”

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (“UNCRC”) stresses the rights of children for their protection and to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis if a child is separated from one or both parents (Article 9(3) of the UNCRC). Article 18(1) of the UNCRC places an emphasis on the responsibilities of the parents, and requires that:

“States Parties … use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents … have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

The UNCRC requires State Parties to ensure that children have the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them, and that they have the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting them (Article 12(2) of the UNCRC). However, our current law emphasises the rights of the parents on custody, care and control, and access, and does little to remind the parties of their responsibility towards the child.

(4) Judges’ Views on Need for Change

On many occasions, judges have urged for law reform relating to children as proposed by the Report. Hartmann JA in his judgment in PD v KWW CACV 188/99 said:

“Other common law jurisdictions – for example, Australia – have made legislative changes to similar effect, that is, where appropriate, to ensure the continued active involvement of both parents in the upbringing of the child, or children, of their marriage. The Hong Kong Law Reform Commission Report on Child Custody and Access of 2005 recommended changes in line with the Children Act 1989 but regrettably, to date at least, little appears to have


been done to give the Commission’s recommendations legislative form.” (paras. 50 and 51)

Lam J (as he then was) came to the same conclusion in the same judgment:

“Likewise, as observed by my Lord, the recommendations of our Law Reform Commission in 2005 regarding Child Custody and Access have not been taken forward. Had such recommendations been implemented, the respective rights and responsibilities of the parents towards their children would be more clearly and specifically defined. Judging from the submissions advanced by the parties in this case, I cannot help from observing that with the implementation of such reforms, appeals like the present one could have been avoided. Speaking for myself, I would like to take this opportunity to urge the administration to make some progress in these directions.” (paras. 80 – 81)

P. Cheung JA, also supported the change and said in SMM v TWM 209/2009 that:

“It should be noted that the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission Report on Child Custody and Access (7th March 2005) has recommended changes to the GMO, by, among other things, replacing custody orders with residence and contact orders. There has been no implementation of the recommendation yet. In my view the Administration should make a serious effort in implementing the recommendations by legislation soon.” (para. 29)

We understand that most Family Court Judges support the reform proposed in the Report. As Judge Melloy in TRR v RAR [2010] HKEC 1351 said:

“The father has said that joint custody is the normal or usual order in our courts. I do not agree. Rightly or wrongly it is one option open to both parents. It is fair to say though that the Law Reform Commission report on Child Custody and Access

dated March 2005 challenges this. … Unfortunately the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations have still to be acted upon.” (para. 17)

Joint Custody v Parental Responsibility? In spite of the four reasons above indicating the need for change, not much has been done.

Ironically, the LWB’s Consultation now appears to be advocating something different: the use of joint custody as a means of implementing “parental responsibility”.

In support of this approach, the LWB’s Consultation made reference to the experience in Singapore (like Hong Kong, the majority of its citizens are ethnically Chinese). Singapore decided not to introduce the new concept of “parental responsibility” after reviewing their own law. In its Attorney-General paper, it recommended “that the concept of ‘joint parental responsibility’ be further developed by the courts under the existing custody arrangement. In the case of CX v CY [2005] SGCA 37, the court suggested that the normal order should be joint custody or no custody arrangement, and sole custody would be made where there is child abuse or where cooperation between the parents is impossible.

The LWB’s Consultation advocating for the greater use of joint custody also states that joint custody orders have recently been more commonly granted, reflecting a shift by the courts towards the concept “joint parental responsibility”. The LWB’s Consultation gives no figures to support this assumption. Against this background, Judge Melloy collated figures of her court. At the Children’s Issues Forum held at the end of August 2012 at the University of Hong Kong, she confirmed that the assumption of the Government was incorrect – joint custody orders are not commonly made. In the period of January to December 2011, 72%

of orders made were sole custody orders, as compared to 28% for joint custody orders.

Conclusion The LRC Report has its genesis back in April 1995, and it has now been nearly eight years since the publication of the Report. Yet, the main thrust of its recommendations has yet to be implemented.

The LWB’s Consultation Paper highlighted how England and Wales, and Australia are further reforming their law based on the concept of “parental responsibility”. This does not necessary mean that the concept itself is unacceptable, although implementing it requires a commitment to make it work.

It would be unrealistic to expect that the concept of “parental responsibility” is the way to perfect the current family law justice system. It is not a panacea to all existing problems. However, Hong Kong has the benefit of learning from other jurisdictions; it can draw from relevant overseas experiences for the benefit of Hong Kong children.

The concept of “parental responsibility”, with its emphasis on the rights of the children, as opposed to the rights of the parents, must be the way ahead. We urge that the government not throw the baby out with the bathwater. n


• July 2013


REUTERS/Carlos Barria

經過幾近7年的時間，勞工及福利局（以

下簡稱「勞福局」）於2011年12月28

日刊發了一份諮詢文件（以下簡稱《諮

詢文件》），邀請公眾在2012年4月30

日以前，就《報告書》所提出的建議，

特別是通過立法手段來實施「共同父母

責任模式」發表意見。

在意見收集期結束一年後的今天，政府

再於最近將「子女管養權和探視權」這

一議題放在立法會福利事務委員會的議

程上，並在這個月進行討論。

本文就管養權的現行概念和《報告書》

倡議的「父母責任」新概念所進行的辯

論，為讀者報導其最新發展情況。我們

促請政府推行「父母責任」這一概念，

切勿再作拖延。

法改會《報告書》的背景

1995年4月，即英格蘭與威爾士制訂

《1989年兒童法案》的數年後，當時的

香港律政司和首席按察司要求法改會考

慮實施與子女管養權有關的法律，並建

議在認為合適的情況下進行相關改革。

1996年5月，法改會成立了一個小組

委員會進行上述工作。小組委員會於

1998年12月就「監護權和管養權」發

表了一份範圍廣泛的諮詢文件，（以下

簡稱《1998年諮詢文件》），就子女

的管養權及探視權安排、在家事個案中

使用的爭議解決程序、父母擄拐子女，

以及父母任何一方去世後子女的監護權

等議題，探討法律和法庭方面的取向。

此外，該諮詢文件還提出了若干改革建

議。最後，這份《1998年諮詢文件》獲

得法改會的接納。

法改會《報告書》第一章指出：

「在其他普通法司法管轄區中，這個

在法律上強調父母每一方對子女所享

有的權利及權能的做法已有改變，轉

為重較以子女為中心的「共同父母

責任」概念。這個較新路向的重點是

父母責任而非父母權利，並強調了子

女在父母離婚後與父母雙方均繼續維

持關係的權利。本《報告書》會對此

加以探討，研究此較新路向是否可以

成為香港此範疇法律的未來模式。」

（第1.3段。）

該等其他普通法司法管轄區指：英格

蘭與威爾士(它們在其《1989年兒童

法案》中重新建立了了整個處理子女

問題的制度)﹔緊隨其後的是蘇格蘭的

《 1 9 9 5 年兒童法案》 ﹔ 澳大利亞的

《1995年家事法改革法案》﹔以及新西

蘭的《2004年照顧兒童法案》。事實

上，英國政府在今年二月制訂了《子女

和家庭條例草案》，進一步實施法律改

革，以「子女安排令」取代「同住令」

和「聯繫令」。

法改會《報告書》建議的範式轉移

隨著該等其他司法管轄區所實施的改

革，《報告書》建議採納一個與目前的

「管養權」概念有別的範式轉移，從強

調父母的權利和權能轉而強調「父母責

任」，責成家長需要承擔照顧子女的責

任，並強調子女的權利。

《報告書》指出目前仍未訂立「權利和

權能」的法律定義。然而，它嘗試從現

行的判例法和成文法規中，就該等父母

權利和權能整理出一個列表。這些權利

包括﹕與子女一起生活的權利﹔實質管

有子女的權利﹔選擇子女教育、宗教、

姓氏的權利﹔訂立合約的權利﹔在法律

程序中行事的權利﹔管理子女財產的權

利﹔就醫療、婚姻、收養及申請護照作

出同意的權利﹔作出適度懲罰的權利﹔

委任遺囑監護人的權利﹔以及安排遷徙

的權利。

與現行的「管養權」概念相反，「父母

責任」涉及父母對子女的職責和責任，

並尊重子女享有獲得父母照顧直至其

成年的權利。《1989年兒童法案》第

3(1) 條界定「父母責任」包含「父母在

法律上享有的，與子女及其財產有關的

所有權利、職責、權力、責任和權能。

」《1995年澳大利亞家事法改革法案》

界定第61B條所載的「父母責任」的意

思，是「家長在法律上享有的，與其

子女有關的所有職責、權力、責任和權

能。」《報告書》建議採用《1995年

蘇格蘭兒童法案》第1(1) 條所提供的定

義，當中就家長的責任作出了較為仔細

的描述。

監護權/管養權：財產權利並非子女權利

「父母身分的原有法律概念，似乎是指

「監護權」此一法律概念。這是一個非

常古舊的概念，建基於保家族土地多

於保護兒童。」(《報告書》第2.7段)。

英國法律委員會在《1988年家事法：回

顧兒童法例、監護權及管養權》中，就


法律改革委員會（以下簡稱「法改會」）於2005年3月發表了《子女管養權及探視權報告書》（以下簡稱《報告書》）。

《1989年兒童法案》實施前在論及相

關法例時稱：

「我們目前的法律並沒有這樣的關於

父母身分的連貫法律概念。從歷史上

看，首先出現的是監護權。它發展成

為保障家庭財產的一種手段，後來更

成為父親維護他對其婚生未成年子女

權威的一項工具。因此，他被承認為

乃這些未成年子女的「親生」監護

人。在他還活著的時候，母親不能要

求成為親生監護人，在起初時實有如

一個陌生人。」（第2.2段第91）

這種關於監護權的舊觀念，是深深植根

於中世紀的土地所有權上，後來並發展

成為管養、照顧、管束和探視等各項權

利。

改變的必要

該法例現有需要偏離父母權利和權能的

概念，並以「父母責任」這一概念來取

代。支持這一改變的理由共有四項。

(1) 現行法例的混淆與不足地方

現行關於父母的權利和權能重新定位的

法律，見於若干相互重疊的條例中。法

院對子女問題的處理，也許是取決於其

所援引的法律依據，究竟是《未成年人

監護條例》（第13章）、《婚姻法律

程序與財產條例》（第192章）、《婚

姻訴訟條例》（第179章）、《分居令

及贍養令條例》（第16章）、《保護

兒童及少年條例》（第213章），還

是其他一些法例。《報告書》就這些法

例的施行指出了當中所存在的一些不足

之處。

(2) 社會價值觀的轉變

由於社會規範和價值觀念的改變，家長

和子女之間的關係因此也發生了變化，

而有關香港父母和子女關係的法例，也

需要進行現代化以反映此等變化。《報

告書》解釋稱：

「我們認為管養令的用語隱含類似擁

有兒童的意思。由於以前的普通法（

但香港至今依然奉行）將幾乎所有關

乎兒童教養的權利都給予負責管養的

父親或母親，所以難免導致較多個案

在法庭上出現抗辯。如果向沒有管養

權的父親或母親說他們所繼續享有的

權利僅為探視子女的權利和一些沒有

明確界定的剩餘權利，而且只有在沒

有管養權的父親或母親發現擁有管養

權的對方，正在侵犯該等剩餘權利的

情況下方可行使該等權利，則會在父

母之間挑起持續不斷的衝突。」（第

10.4段）

Lord Fraser在Gill ick v West Norfolk

and Wisbech Area Health Authority

and Department of Health and Social

Security [1986] AC 112一案中，也

正確地指出了父母與子女關係所發生的

變化，而此等變化需要在法律中反映出

來：

「…家長管束子女的權利，並非以家

長的利益為出發。該等權利是為子女

的利益而存在，而只有當它們能夠促

使家長履行其對子女的職責，它們才

有存在的理由。」（第170頁）

同樣地，上訴法庭法官夏正民在 P D

v KWW CACV 188/2009一案中

指出：

「曾經有一段時間，家長們，特別是

父親，對子女享有幾近絕對的權威。

但這種情況目前已不存在。」

曾經有一段時間當父母離異後，母親

通常獲法庭批准履行照顧子女的責

任，而父親則提供財政上的支持，並

僅獲得給予對子女的探視權。夏正民

法官指出，在今天，這種性別歧視觀

念已經過時」。

管養權概念可以說是一個情緒標籤，並

有可能導致家長之間為了要「贏」而進

行爭鬥。現在正是時候從法律上將它改

變為父母責任這一概念，並加上適當的

教育，以及在態度和文化上的轉變，從

而將父母的思維重新引導至照顧子女的

未來福祉上。

(3) 根據國際條約的義務

適用於香港的兒童國際條約，也要求我

們在兒童法例方面作出修正。《香港人

權法案》（第383章）第19(4) 條（相

當於《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》

第23條）確認：

「婚姻關係消滅時，應訂定辦法，對

子女予以必要之保護。」

而《人權法案》第20條（相當於《公民

權利和政治權利國際公約》第24條）也

規定，所有兒童：

「有權享受家庭、社會及國家為其未

成年身分給予之必需保護措施。」

1989年通過的《聯合國兒童權利公

約》強調兒童享有獲得保護的權利，而

一名子女如果與父母任何一方或雙方分

開的話，該名子女享有與父母雙方維持

個人關係和進行定期直接聯繫的權利（

《聯合國兒童權利公約》第9(3)條）。

《聯合國兒童權利公約》第18(1) 條強

調父母所須承擔的責任，並規定：

「締約國…應盡其最大努力，確保父

母雙方對兒童的養育和發展負有共同

責任的原則得到確認。父母、或視具

體情況而定的法定監護人對兒童的養

育和發展負有首要責任。兒童的最大

利益將是他們主要關心的事。」

《聯合國兒童權利公約》要求締約國確

保兒童在一切影響他們的事宜上，有權

自由表達自己的意見，而在影響到他/

她們自身的任何司法和行政訴訟中，

他/她們也享有作出陳述的機會（《聯

合國兒童權利公約》第12(2) 條）。然

而，香港的現行法律是強調管養、照顧

和管束、探視等各項權利，而絕少提醒

家長們其對子女所須承擔的責任。


• July 2013


(4) 法官對「改變是必要」的看法

在許多情況中，法官都敦促實施正如

《報告書》所提出的與子女有關的法

律改革。上訴法庭法官夏正民在PD v

KWW CACV 188/99一案的判決中

指出：

「其他普通法司法管轄區 — 例

如，澳大利亞 — 已經作出了具有

相類用意的法例修訂，即是，在適

當情況下，確保父母雙方在養育

子女方面，能夠繼續積極投入和參

與。2005年發表的《香港法律改

革委員會子女管養權及探視權報告

書》，建議實行與《1989年兒童

法案》一致的改革，但令人遺憾的

是，至少到目前為止，幾乎仍看不

到任何將法改會的建議轉化成為法

例的舉措」（第50和51段）

原訟法庭法官林文瀚（他當時的職務）

在同一判決中也達致相同的結論：

「同樣，正如夏正民法官所指出的，

香港法律改革委員會在2005年所提

出的，有關子女管養權及探視權的建

議，並沒有得到當局的落實執行。該

等建議如果獲得實施，則父母雙方對

子女的權利和責任，將會得到更加明

確和具體的界定。從本案各當事人所

作的陳詞來看，我不得不指出，該等

改革倘若得到付諸實行，像現在所提

出的這一上訴將可以避免出現。就

我自己來說，我謹藉此機會呼籲行政

當局在該等改革上取得一定程度的進

展。」（第80 - 81段）

上訴法庭法官張澤祐也支持實行該等變

革，並在SMM v TWM 209/2009一案

中稱：

「應該注意的是，《香港法律改革委

員會子女管養權及探視權報告書》

（2005年3月7日）建議就GMO進行

變革，並且(除其他事項外)以同住令

和聯繫令來取代管養令。但至今為

止，該等建議依然仍未得到實施。我

認為，行政當局應盡快通過立法，在

落實有關建議方面作出努力。」（第

29段）

據我們了解，大多數家事法院的法官

都支持《報告書》所提出的改革。正

如區域法院法官麥莎朗在TRR v RAR

[2010] HKEC 1351一案中所指出的：

「該名父親指共同管養令在我們的法

院中是正常或慣常的命令。對此我並

不同意。不論是對是錯，它仍然是為

父母雙方提供的一個選項。誠然，儘

管2005年3月的《法律改革委員會子

女管養權及探視權報告書》對此提出

質疑。 ... 不幸的是，法律改革委員

會所提出的建議仍有待付諸實行。」

（第17段）

共同管養v家長責任？

儘管上述四項理由說明了有改變的必

要，但當局目前仍然沒有在這方面下了

多少工夫。

諷刺的是，勞福局所作的諮詢現時看來

是在倡導一些不同東西﹕以共同管養作

為實施「父母責任」的一種手段。

勞福局的諮詢提述了新加坡的經驗（該

地有如香港般，大多數人口為華裔公

民），以作為這種取態的支持。新加坡

在檢視了他們自己的法例後，決定不引

入「父母責任」這一新概念。在其檢察

總長所提交的文件中，建議「共同父母

責任」的概念應由法院根據現行管養安

排加以進一步開展。在CX v CY [2005]

SGCA 37一案中，法庭指出正常頒發的

命令應是共同管養令，又或是不作任何

管養安排，而單獨管養令，是在子女受

到虐待，又或是父母之間不可能有任何

合作的情況下頒發。

勞福局的諮詢主張更大範圍地使用共同

管養權，當中稱法庭在近期已更為普遍

地頒發共同管養令，這反映了法庭趨向

接納「共同父母責任」這一概念。勞福

局的諮詢並沒有提供任何數字來支持這

一假設。在這背景下，麥莎朗法官為她

的法庭整理了一些數據。在2012年8月

底於香港大學舉行的「子女問題論壇」

上，她確定政府的假設是不正確的 — 法

庭並非更為普遍地頒發共同管養令。在

2011年1月至12月這期間，百分之七十

二的命令是單獨管養令，而共同管養令

的數目只佔百分之二十八。

結語

法改會的《報告書》是早於1995年4月

刊發，距今已幾近8年。然而，其主要建

議至今仍未得到落實。

勞福局的《諮詢文件》強調了英格蘭與

威爾士、澳大利亞如何以「父母責任」

這一概念為基礎，進一步改革它們的法

律。然而，這並非意味這一概念本身必

然不可接受，儘管在實施上，它需要我

們作出承擔，從以使其得到落實。

如果我們期望「父母責任」這一概念，

是完善現行家事法司法系統的途徑的

話，這將會是不切實際的想法。事實

上，它並非所有現存問題的靈丹妙藥。

然而，香港的優點在於，它可以向其他

司法管轄區學習和借鑒﹔為了香港兒童

的利益，我們應當積極吸收海外相關經

驗。

「父母責任」這一概念強調子女的權

利，而非父母的權利，這是我們所必須

選擇的途徑。我們謹此呼籲政府不要以

盲辨色，顧少失大。 n


The world changes. We change. Things change faster than we realise. On the seventh anniversary of the iPhone debut (29 June 2006), children now swipe, splay, pinch and tap long before they hold a pencil. Their brains are being wired differently to ours. Scientists find some infants are even losing the ability to empathise as they are faced by a parent’s botoxed forehead unable to reflect emotions. The brain is plastic: “what fires together, wires together.”

By Maureen Mueller Private Mediator作者 Maureen Mueller 私人調解員



SUFFER THE CHILDREN (OF DIVORCE) - A Jurisprudential Thought

受傷害的孩子(父母離異)- 法學上的思考

Not only does human hardware change, but so too the software.

In the last 10 - 15 years brain imaging has given new insights into the value and importance of relationships and of relationships in connection with the environment. We no longer look at the physical individual in isolation - gene decoding has led to epigenetics, which shows how the environment turns our genes on and off; how the environment influences our possibilities and thus our choices.

These findings make it important to reconsider what happens when a previously-intact family unit, where both parents have formed a relationship with the child, disintegrates in divorce; and how far our outdated legislation aggravates the current situation for a child of divorce.

Custody law came to HK in 1886; before carsFor a long time, our old law reflected society. The world used to move slowly. After World War II, peace and prosperity saw changing roles for men and women: men were less likely to be cannon fodder, the women’s liberation movement created new opportunities, and more children were surviving into adulthood. In 1961, Singapore introduced the concept of “Parental Responsibility” in its legislation on the “Rights and Duties of Husband and Wife”.

By the 1980s fathers were increasingly involved with their children and parent-child studies were re-formed to include fathers. These studies found that children bonded with both parents and the question of to which parent to turn for comfort was a developmental issue – eg at 15 to 18 months, when autonomy was the issue, the children turned to their fathers most of the time.

Brain studies now show that a child who experiences a caring, involved father

will in turn be more caring and involved with their own child. Both the adult and the child’s brains change and the next generation becomes more nurtured and nurturing. This virtuous spiral is likely a cause for the current push to have mandated Paternity Leave.

We also now better understand that where a father has formed a positive relationship with a child, the loss of that relationship is a significant detriment to the child, especially if the child cannot grieve that loss and, if the parents are so caught up in their own conflict, that they give a child a loyalty choice. Unsurprisingly some adult children of divorce report having chosen to be with a parent because a) they felt that parent was least able handle the loss of the child, or b) they most feared the repercussion of not choosing that parent.

Looking forward: Parental ResponsibilityAs children and our future have become so much more important than our past, our legislation should be forward looking as well. Parental Responsibility recognizes the existence of a family group, and that children have separate rights, needs, desires and choices. Parental Responsibility re-casts the environment in which families operate and focuses on the future.

Further, akin to land law terminology of Joint Tenants and Tenants-In-Common, Parental Responsibility allows for Joint Parents or Parents-In-Common. Divorce is between spouses, not parent and child.

When modern Hong Kong parents, who have previously divided up their parental responsibilities of child-minding and income generation in their own manner, divorce in Hong Kong, most can look to their children’s interests as paramount; yet they have to fit a square peg into a round hole.

REUTERS/Thomas Peter

A child tries to grab a soap bubble on a sunny evening.在陽光明媚的黃昏一個孩子試圖抓住一個肥皂泡。



Nowadays “reasonable access” – means undefined access more often relying on the parents to be reasonable. “Defined access” used to be an insult; it is now a preferred way for two working parents to schedule time with a child. We also now know that the optimal range of sharing time is 30 – 50%, with the 20% differential allowing for practicalities of life, the child’s needs, as well as developmental stages.

Where one parent remains supportive of the other asaparent, the percentage of time share can be unimportant as such support maintains the child’s connection with the other parent. Lack of support makes time share a more crucial issue between parents.

Conflicted parents, previously a team but they now do not support or even recognize each other as parents, are the ones that take up most of the court’s time. To them Custody terminology is a red rag to a bull. Often Custody issues fuel the understandably unresolved feelings of anger and humiliation. It produces an outdated, past-oriented environment of punishment, loss, retribution and fear. Those that do not want to include and share, use the legal terminology to exclude and blame.

Fights over who is the “primary parent” means the parent who allocated more time to income generation, and probably has had to sacrifice time at home to do so, is now painted as secondary and dispensable. And whereas previously the more-at-home parent would have supported the relationship between children and the more-away parent, now, that support is gone lest it bolster the other as a viable parent.

As nowadays most living-together parents are involved with their children, Custody law encourages more fighting to avoid being “Out”. You are “Out” unless the court finds you “In”. Parental Responsibility encourages inclusion and recognition – you are “In” unless the

Court finds you “out”.

Once sharing was better understood, the 2006 Australian Family Law reforms saw a 20% drop in child-related cases for 2010-2011, and a reduction of nearly one third for court work load in the five years previous to 2012.

The government knows it must change the environment before there is a change in behavior; it applied these principles in promoting mediation. Whereas once it was shown that mediation could help some disputes, the government realized that there was going to be no large scale change in dispute culture unless the legal environment was altered first; Practice Direction 31 changed the environment.

Similarly with Parental Responsibility, if it is promoted by the legislation as the ideal environment, we will get more acknowledgement at the outset of a case that the other parent should retain a meaningful relationship with the child.

High-conflict divorcing parents can do terrible things to each other, and wittingly or unwittingly to their children. The effects on children are sometimes only seen years later, and often manifest as mental rigidity and difficulty in relationships. Children encouraged to do homework and classes instead of having access time with a parent, often turn into workaholics valuing work over relationships.

A parent in conflict is often hostile, anxious and too stressed to enjoy their time with the child or to see their child’s needs as separate. This has been the traditional rationale to minimize a child’s relationship with the other parent.

Modern world, modern approachBut computers have changed things for children and parents alike. Since 2006 and age of the smart-phone we

have internet-based programmes that eliminate the need for one parent to have sight or sound of the other. Parallel Parenting is available. Parallel Parents are parents-in-common. The Internet allows the paradox of keeping in touch without keeping in touch.

Computer programmes such as “Our Family Wizard”, and their Apps for Apple and Android, allow parents to coordinate their children’s lives without requiring close contact.

In the 21st century, knowing what we do about parents, children, environments, while having access to modern communication systems, Custody should be put aside as an outdated approach to be replaced by the modern future-oriented environment of Parental Responsibility. n



世界在變，人也在變。事物的變

化速度，往往比我們所想像的快

得多。iPhone從面世至今快將

七年 (於2006年6月29日登場)

，其給青少年所帶來的，是經

常在屏幕上做著拍打、張開、緊

捏、輕敲等動作，絕少會拿起筆

桿來，而他/她們的大腦思維，

也與我們的不盡相同。科學家發

現，有些幼兒甚至失去了表達同

感的能力，因為他/她們所見到

的，是在額頭注射了肉毒桿菌素

(botox)，難以將感情適當地表

達的父或母。人的大腦是具有可

塑性的：「在一起被激發的情況

下，便會整體作回應」。

人也在變。事物的變化速度，往往

比我們所想像的快得多。iPhone

從面世至今快將七年（於2006年6月29

日登場），其給青少年所帶來的，是經

常在屏幕上做著拍打、張開、緊捏、輕

敲等動作，絕少會拿起筆桿來，而他/她

們的大腦思維，也與我們的不盡相同。

科學家發現，有些幼兒甚至失去了表達

同感的能力，因為他/她們所見到的，是

在額頭注射了肉毒桿菌素(botox)，難以

將感情適當地表達的父或母。人的大腦

是具有可塑性的：「在一起被激發的情

況下，便會整體作回應」。

人類不僅是在硬件上產生變化，就是

在軟件上也同樣地產生變化。在過去的

10-15年間，腦成像技術給各種關係，

特別是與環境有關的關係，在價值和重

要性上帶來了新的見地。我們現在不再

從單一的角度來看待每一個獨立個體—

基因解碼帶來外成遺傳學的出現，並顯

示環境會如何開啟和關閉我們的基因﹔

以及它是如何影響我們的潛能，進而影

響我們所能夠擁有的選擇。

此等發現，導致我們需要重新考慮一個

從前是完整（即父母雙方在其中與子女

們建立了關係）的家庭，但當婚姻破裂

並導致夫妻兩人離婚後，將會有甚麼情

況發生﹔以及過時的法例，如何導致父

母離異的子女面對當前更壞的情況。

管養法例於1886年引入香港﹔

比汽車到來的時代還早

一直以來，我們的舊有法例都是社會現

實情況的寫照。過去的世界，其變化速

度是緩慢的。二次世界大戰結束後，和

平與富庶的生活條件，給男女雙方帶來

了角色上的轉變：男子被送上戰場當炮

灰的情況有所減少，婦女解放運動為婦

女締造了新機會，以及，有為數更多的

兒童得以長大成人。1961年，新加坡

在其「丈夫與妻子之權利與義務」立法

中，提出了「父母親責任」這一概念。

20世紀80年代出現的情況是，父親與子

女之間的關係更加緊密，社會上有關親

子研究的內容也需要重新編寫，將父親

的角色包含其中。研究發現，子女與父

母親雙方的關係都是同樣密切，而子女

傾向尋求父親還是母親的幫助，須視乎

他/她們的發展階段而定—例如當子女在

15至18個月大開始學習自主時，多會傾

向尋求父親的幫助。



科學家們對腦部所作的研究已證明，

子女在成長階段面對的，如果是一位

經常給予他/她們照料與關懷的父親，

到了他/她們長大成人時，同樣也會給

予自己的子女更多照料與關懷。成年

人和兒童的腦部同樣在改變，我們的

下一代會被培育得更好，並更加懂得

去培育其他人。這是一種良性循環，

而父親們現時得以享有侍產假，成因

可能也是基於此。

我們現時更加明白到，父親與子女形成

了積極或正面的關係後，這種關係一旦

失去，將會對子女造成重大傷害，尤其

是假如子女不能為這種關係的失去而表

示難過，並且因著父母糾纏於衝突中，

迫使他/她們需要在父母之間作出取捨

時，情況更是如此。令人並不感到訝異

的是，在離婚報告中我們發現，好些成

年子女選擇與自己的父親或是母親一起

生活，是基於a）他/她們相信該父親或

母親一方，將會因為受失去子女而受到

沉重打擊，或b）他/她們顧慮不選擇該

父親或母親所將要面對的後果。

前瞻：「父母親責任」

子女和我們的未來，已經變得遠比過去重

要，因此法例上也應具有前瞻性。「父母

親責任」這一概念，乃承認家庭組織的存

在，而子女在其中享有個人權利、需求、

慾望和選擇。「父母親責任」重塑家庭在

其中運行的環境，並放眼於未來。

此外，正如土地法術語中的「聯權共

有」和「分權共有」一般，「父母親責

任」也可以分為「聯權父母」和「分權

父母」兩種情況。離婚所涉及的，是配

偶二人之間的事，父母和子女之間的關

係並不牽涉其中。

香港的現代父母在香港辦理離婚(他/她

們曾經按自己的想法，將「父母親責

任」區分為照顧孩子的責任和養家的責

任)，大多會將子女們的利益放於首位﹔

儘管在他/她們之間仍有不協調的地方

未解。

近年來，「合理探視權」所指的，是沒

有加以確切說明的探視權，而這往往需

要視父母親們的作為是否合理。在過

去，「確切的探視權」會被視作一種具

冒犯性的舉措﹔但在今天，如果父母親

都需要外出工作，這一種與子女見面的

安排，會是雙方都願意接受的方法。

我們現在也知道，時間分配的最適當範

圍，是在百分之三十至五十之間，當中

存在百分之二十的間隙，作為實際生活

狀況、子女需求，以及各個發展階段所

需的調整空間。

如同將公牛惹怒的一塊紅巾。子女的管

養問題，經常會引發起當事人的怒氣和

受屈情緒，而這種情況是可以理解的。

它形成了含有懲罰、失落、報復和恐懼

的，雖已過去但卻令人追憶的狀況。不

願意包容和分享的人，總會運用法律上

的語言來排斥和指責對方。

關於誰才是家中「首要家長」的爭議，

是指以往需要較多時間在外掙錢養家，

而不得不犧牲在家時間的父或母，而他/

她們現在被看作是次要及並非必不可少

的人物。以往，那些留在家裡的時間較

長的父或母，會支持在外時間較長的另

一方建立與子女之間的關係﹔然而，這

種支持現時已經不復多見，惟恐此舉會

加強了對方在孩子心目中的地位。

近年來，由於大多數與子女一起生活的

父母都與子女建立了密切的關係，因此

子女管養法例是鼓勵父母作出更多爭

取，以免他/她本人「被擠出局」—除非

法院裁定你是「在局內」，否則你便是

「被擠出局」。不過，「父母親責任」

這一概念是鼓勵包容與認同—因此，除

非法院裁定你「被擠出局」，否則你便

是「在局內」。

在分享這概念獲得人們的更適當理解

後，《2006年澳大利亞家庭法》的改

革，使得與兒童有關的個案在2010 -

2011年下降了百分之二十﹔而在2012

年以前的五年間，法院的工作量減少了

近三分之一。

政府明白到，在行為有所改變之前，必

須先行改變環境﹔因此在推廣調解服務

時，政府也運用了此等原則。調解服務

一旦證明了能有助解決若干家庭糾紛，

政府便意識到若非先行改變法律環境，

便難以在爭議文化方面產生重大改變﹔

《實務指示31》帶來了該環境改變。

「父母親責任」的情況也如是。如果我

們能夠通過法例來將它推展成為一個理

父母親的其中一方，如對另一方履行家

長責任給予支持，那麼在時間分配的比

例方面便問題不大，因為一方所給予的

支持，將可維繫另一方與子女之間的關

係。但是，如果雙方都不願意給予對方

此等支持，這將會使得時間的分配，在

他/她們之間成為一個較為關鍵的問題。

相方關係勢成水火的父母(雖然在以往

他/她們共同協作，但現時一切已成過

去，甚至會不承認對方是孩子的父母)，

是耗用法庭時間最多的父母。對他/她們

來說，子女管養法例中的一些用語，就



想的環境，那麼在一宗個案的起首階

段，我們便可以爭取到父或母其中一方

的認同，讓其同意另一方與子女們維持

具有意義的關係。

離婚父母之間假如存在嚴重的衝突，

他/她們會對另一方，甚至會有意識或

無意識地對自己的子女，作出可怕的事

情來。這些事情對子女所產生的影響，

可能會在多年後才浮現出來，並會導致

其難以接受新事物，而在與人交往上也

存在困難。父母若經常要求子女多做功

課，多上學習班，缺少與父母共聚的時

間，這會導致他/她們在日後變成耽於工

作，將工作置於親情之上。

REUTERS/Jorge Silva

父母若是與配偶不和，他/她的心中經常

會存有敵意和焦慮，因而無法令自己得

到適當放鬆，從而無法享受與子女一起

的時光，也未能客觀看待子女的需要。

這也是一直以來，將子女與另一方家長

的關係盡量降至最低程度的基本原因。

現代世界，現代取態

然而，電腦時代也為父母與子女之間的

關係帶來了改變。自2006年的智能手機

年代開始後，我們開始擁有以互聯網為

基礎的設計，能夠免除一方家長與另一

方家長會面或直接對話的需要。因此，

「平行親職」是一種現今可以考慮採納

的方式，而採納「平行親職」方式的父

母，乃是分權父母。這是一種看似矛盾

地，讓已離異的父母透過互聯網，得以

在雙方並無保持聯繫的情況下保持聯繫。

一些電腦程序 ( 例如 “ O u r F a m i l y

W i z a r d ”)，以及供蘋果和Andro id等

系統使用的應用程式，能夠令家長們在

無需與對方密切接觸的情況下，共商子

女的生活問題。

21世紀是一個我們知道應當如何處理父

母、子女、環境等問題，並同時能夠運用

現代通訊系統的年代。現在是時候讓我們

將「子女管養」這一過時的觀念拋開，並

以「父母親責任」這一個現代的，並具有

前瞻性的環境來取而代之。 n



By Athena Liu, Associate Professor Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

Dennis Ho, Partner Ho & Ip



RECENT JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS ON SOLE AND JOINT CUSTODY關於獨有管養權和共同管養權的最新司法發展

作者廖雅慈，副教授香港大學法律系

何志權，合夥人何葉律師行



In PD v KWW [2010] 4 HKLRD 191 Hartmann JA in the Court of Appeal said: “A parent having sole custody had the authority to make the final decision on such matters as the child’s education, religious upbringing and extracurricular studies, but only after consulting and giving full and rational consideration to the other parent’s views. The non-custodial parent had no power of veto, but could call upon the court to decide any disagreement”.

This narrows the gap between a sole and joint custody order. Thus, as Lam J said in the same case, ‘the line between sole custody and joint custody is a thin one’. Effectively, it changes the level playing field. In theory, it reduces the winner-takes-all approach, and hopefully it means that less is at stake (and there is less reason to fight). However, the downside is that the rebalancing may be perceived as an opportunity for the non-custodial party to assert his or her right to be consulted, and to have his or her views given full and rational consideration.


Sole Custody OrderA spouse who has been granted custody on divorce of a child is sometimes called the custodial parent. The custodial parent is sometimes also granted care and control. Where the court grants sole custody to one spouse (with care and control), the court may also grant access to the non-custodial parent. Access means contact with the child, e.g., staying access during weekends and holidays.

What does a sole custody order entail? At common law, an order for custody entails the right to exercise full parental rights and authority. Where a sole custody order is made (without any restrictions), parental rights and authority are vested in one to the exclusion of the other. The custodial parent has a duty to ensure, protect and promote the best interests of the child. Apart from day-to-day care, the custodial parent is also empowered to make major decisions concerning the child. There is no definition (or an exhaustive list) of what amount to major decisions, but it probably includes matters such as education, religion,

and major medical treatment. Lawyers thus may think that the effect of a sole custody order is to transfer most, if not all, parental rights and authority to the custodial parent exclusively. The non-custodial parent retains other rights qua parent (or guardian) under other statutory provisions, eg the right to succeed on the child’s intestacy, the right as a guardian on the death of the other parent, the right to appoint a testamentary guardian, and to veto adoption.

However, in England, before the Children Act 1989, this meaning of a custody order was complicated by DippervDipper [1980] 2 All ER 722, where Ormrod LJ held obiter that:

“It used to be considered that the parent having custody had the right to control the children’s education, and in the past their religion. This is a misunderstanding. Neither parent has any pre-emptive right over the other… To suggest that a parent with custody dominates the situation so far as education or any other serious matter is concerned is quite wrong” (at p. 731, author’s emphasis)

Cumming Bruce LJ further said that a non-custodial parent was entitled “to know and be consulted about the future education of the child and any other major matters”. (at p.733)

Joint Custody OrderJoint custody, as opposed to sole custody, refers to where custody is given to both parents, and care and control to one party. The original rationale for a joint custody order (as opposed to a sole custody order) was that instead of one party being given the right to decide important matters affecting the upbringing of the child, both parties had that right.

A joint custody order symbolises that divorced or separated parents continue to play a role in the child’s upbringing, and neither is excluded. In Jussa v Jussa [1972] 2 All ER 600, the father, an Indian Moslem and a teacher by profession, married an English Christian lady. When the parties separated, the court granted custody to the wife with reasonable access to the father. The father appealed against the custody order, although he conceded that she should have care and control. The Court of Appeal granted a joint custody order, with care and control to the mother:

“The joint order for custody with care and control to one of the two parents is, perhaps, of rather more recent origin . . . For my part, I recognise that a joint order for custody with care and control to one parent only is an order which should only be made where there is a reasonable prospect that the parties will cooperate. Where you have a case such as the present case, in which the father and the mother are both well qualified to give affection and wise guidance to the children for whom they are responsible, and where they appear to be of such calibre that they are likely to cooperate sensibly over the child for whom both of them feel such affection… it seems to me



that there can be no real objection to an order for joint custody.” (at p. 603 per Wrangham J)

Narrowing the Gap Between Sole and Joint CustodyIn PD v KWW [2010] 4 HKLRD 191 Hartmann JA said:

“It is to be emphasized in the strongest terms that if one parent only is given custody, that parent is not thereby given an absolute and independent authority to act without further reference to the non-custodial parent. Any such potential misunderstanding was quashed in DippervDipper…” (at para 36)

This statement (together with the one quoted above) highlights the narrow difference between a sole and joint custody order.

How is a non-custodial parent’s right to be consulted enforced?To facilitate a non-custodial parent continuing to play a role (ie participate in making major decisions) in a child’s upbringing, an obligation is now imposed on the custodial parent to consult the other.

How consultation may be enforced can be seen in LoChunWing-yeevLoPong-hing[1985] 2 HKC 647. In that case, a consent order for joint custody with the mother having care and control was made. Conflicts then arose between the parties regarding the child’s upbringing. The father was content that the mother continued to have care and control, and the question was whether the mother should be given sole custody to the exclusion of the father. It was held that the welfare of the child would best be served by reinstating one single authority in her daily life. However, the court adopted what Cumming Bruce LJ said in Dipper. Liu J granted sole custody to the mother on condition that she undertook:

“To give a quarterly report to the father under three headings of health, education and activity including the child’s out-of-jurisdiction visits, and in such a quarterly report, information under each head should not be less than five sentences.” (at p. 651)

In LoChunWing-yee, the court was of the view that a sole custody order would not bring about any severance of link between the father and the child. If the father disagreed with a course of action proposed or decided by the mother, he would have a right to resort to the court for guidance.

Today, in light of Hartmann JA’s statement, a non-custodial parent who wishes to secure his or her right to be consulted may seek to have conditions imposed on a sole custody order. These conditions would require the custodial parent to keep him or her informed on specific major issues concerning the child’s development, such that the non-custodial parent has a chance to participate in decision-making.

Full and rational consideration of the non-custodial parent’s view?Not only is there now an obligation to consult, a custodial parent must also give full and rational consideration to the non-custodial parent’s views. How this latter duty is to be enforced remains to be seen.

It should be remembered that the non-custodial parent has no veto power. In view of this fact, the court in any judicial proceedings will need to distinguish between a mere request that one’s view be given “full and rational consideration”, as opposed to an actual power of veto.

Arguably, therefore, the duty of giving “full and rational consideration” may be discharged in the same way as an administrative power. That is, so long

as the decision is not “Wednesbury unreasonable” and has taken into account the non-custodial parent’s view, the court should be slow to interfere.

The importance of a single authorityIn some cases, it is important for there to be a single authority in a child’s life. Sole custody is appropriate in such a case. Joint custody may work in cases where the parties are able to cooperate. Where, however, the parties cannot cooperate, the need to consult and give full and rational consideration to the non-custodial parent’s views is likely to lock them in bitter disputes. In such cases, it may be more appropriate to restore a single authority in a child’s life.

Joint Parental Responsibility?There is a trend in Hong Kong courts recognizing the benefit of parents continuing to play their role as parents even after divorce. In 2005, the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong published the Report on Child Custody and Access (the “Report”). The Report recommended, inter alia, the introduction of the concept of parental responsibility. More recently, in 2011, the Labour and Welfare Bureau issued a consultation paper entitled “Custody and Access: Whether to Implement the “Joint Parental Responsibility” Model by Legislative Means” (the “Consultation Paper”).

Although both the Report and the Consultation Paper considered custody and access, the latter appears to be hinting that

“the concept of ‘joint parental responsibility’ could be further developed and promoted by the courts under the existing legislative framework without legislative changes. Joint custody orders could be more frequently granted unless it was likely that the divorced parents could not cooperate in good faith on



上訴法庭法官夏正民在PD v KWW [2010] 4 HKLRD

191一案中指出：「享有獨有管養權的父或母其中一方

有權就子女的教育、宗教培養及課外學習等事宜作出最

終決定，但必須先諮詢及充分合理考慮另一方提出的意

見。雖然沒有管養權的一方並無否決權，但他/她可向法

庭申請就任何分歧作出裁決。」

這裁決縮窄了獨有管養令和共同管養令之間的差距。林

文瀚法官因此在同一案指出，「獨有管養權和共同管養

權之間只有一線之隔」。實際上，它改變了公平競爭的

原意。理論上，它削減了勝者全得的做法，希望這意味

著受影響之處會因而減少（及需要爭取管養權的理由減

少）。然而，缺點是改變有關做法可能令沒有管養權的

一方認為可藉此機會宣稱享有獲得諮詢意見的權利，以

及他或她提出的意見需要獲充分及合理地考慮。

issues relating to the upbringing of their children.” (at para 4.9)

The increase in the number of joint custody orders made is a reflection of the fact that more parents are willing to cooperate on parenting post-divorce. This can only be good for the children. However, this is only a small aspect of the recommendations made in the Report, which seeks a change of the fundamental principles involved in dealing with children, not only when the parents are separating, but whenever an issue arises that concerns children.

Recommendations in the Report also seek to shift the emphasis from the rights of the parents to those of the children, as recognised by international treaties applicable to Hong Kong. It is hoped that the implementation of these recommendations will not be further delayed. n



獨有管養令

離婚時獲判子女管養權的一方有時被稱

為有管養權的父或母。有時，有管養

權的父或母亦會獲判負責照顧和管束子

女。如法庭把獨有管養權判給父或母其

中一方（並由其負責照顧和管束），則

法庭或會把探視權判給沒有管養權的一

方。探視權指與子女保持聯繫的權利，

例如在週末和假日期間讓子女留宿。

獨有管養令會引申甚麼權利？根據普通

法，管養權的命令會引申充分行使父母

權利及權能的權利。如法庭作出獨有管

養令（而不設任何限制），父母的權利

和權能會由其中一方享有，而另一方則

被摒除此等權利和權能。有管養權的父

或母其中一方有責任保障、維護和促進

子女的最佳利益。除日常照顧外，有管

養權的父或母其中一方有權作出關於子

女的重大決定。對於何謂重大決定，目

前並沒有任何定義（或詳盡的列表），

但相信應包括教育、宗教和重要治療等

事宜。律師可能因而會認為獨有管養令

的作用是把父母的權利和權能，即使不

是全部，也大部分單獨轉移給有管養權

的父母其中一方。沒有管養權的父或母

其中一方也可保留以父母（或監護人）

身份所享有的權利，例如在子女無遺囑

而去世時繼承其遺產的權利、在另一方

去世時作為子女監護人的權利、委任遺

囑監護人的權利，以及反對子女被人領

養的權利。

然而，英格蘭在通過《1989年兒童法

令》前，上述的管養令涵義因為Dipper

v Dipper [1980] 2 All ER 722一案而

變得相當複雜，案中英國上訴法院法官

Ormrod 作出裁決時附帶以下意見：

「以往的看法是，享有管養權的父或

母其中一方有權控制子女的教育，而

且在過去亦可控制其宗教。這是個誤

解。父或母任何一方都不比另一方佔

有優先權利...... 指享有管養權的父或

母其中一方在涉及教育或任何其他重

要的事宜上可支配有關情況，乃錯誤

的」（第731頁，作者特別強調）

英國上訴法院法官Cumming Bruce 進

一步指出，沒有管養權的父或母其中一

方有權「知悉及獲諮詢關於子女未來的

教育和任何其他重大事宜」。（第733

頁）

共同管養令

共同管養權，相對於獨有管養，是指把

管養權判給父母雙方，但照顧和管束權

只判予其中一方。共同管養令（相對於

獨有管養令）背後的理據解釋如下：在

涉及教養子女的重要事宜之上作決定的

權利，不是只判給一方而是判給雙方。

共同管養令象徵已離婚或分居的父母，

在教養子女的工作之上共同發揮作用，

不會有一方遭排拒的情況出現。在Jus-

sa v Jussa [1972] 2 All ER 600一

案，父親是一名信奉回教的印度人，從

事教師的工作，其妻子是一名信奉基督

教的英國人。雙方分開時，法庭把管養

權判給母親，而父親享有合理探視權。

父親就管養令提出上訴，但他作出讓

步，指妻子可享有照顧和管束權。上訴

法院頒下共同管養令，但由母親負責照

顧和管束：

「發出共同管養令但把照顧和管束權

判給父母雙方其中一人，也許是最近

才出現的 . . . . .對我來說，我承認發出共

同管養令但把照顧和管束權判給父母

雙方其中一人，只在父母雙方合理可

期合作的案件中才適用。在本案中，

父親和母親均有足夠條件給予須負責

照顧的子女愛和善導，並且按其能力

來看，也有可能就雙方所深愛的子女

而理智地互相合作……如果你遇上一

宗這樣的案件，我覺得實在沒有任何

理由足以反對批予共同管養令。」

（按Wrangham法官所述，第603頁）

縮窄獨有管養權和共同管養權之

間的差距

上訴法庭法官夏正民在 PD v KWW

[2010] 4 HKLRD 191一案中指出：

「本席必須以強而有力的言詞強調，

倘若父母只有其中一方取得管養權，

該一方不會因而獲授絕對和獨立的權

力，可以在未經進一步諮詢沒有管養

權一方的情況下行事 ……Dipper v

Dipper一案已宣佈任何這樣的潛在誤

會為無效的......」（第36段）

這段判詞（連同上文引述的另一判詞）

重點說明獨有管養令和共同管養令之間

的分別並不大。

如何執行沒有管養權的父或母其

中一方獲得諮詢意見的權利？

為了令沒有管養權的父或母其中一方可

繼續在教養子女方面發揮作用（即有份

參與作出重大決定），現在有管養權的

父或母其中一方被委予諮詢另一方的責

任。

至於如何強制執行諮詢，可參考

Lo Chun Wing-yee v Lo Pong-hing

[1985] 2 HKC 647一案。在該案中，

法庭頒下共同管養的同意令，並把照顧

和管束權判給母親。其後雙方為子女的

教養起衝突。父親同意繼續由母親負責

照顧和管束，但問題是母親是否應獲得

獨有管養權，而父親則被摒除管養權？

法庭裁定在該子女的日常生活中恢復單

一權能，最能保障她的福利。然而，法

庭採用了英國上訴法院法官Cumming

Bruce在Dipper一案指出的原則。廖子

明法官把獨有管養權判給母親，但條件

是她須承諾：

「就孩子的健康、教育和活動狀況

（包括孩子離港外遊）三個項目，每季

向父親提交報告，而在該季度報告中，

每個項目的資料不得少於五句。」（第

651頁）



在Lo Chun Wing-yee一案，法庭認為獨

有管養令不會切斷案中父親和孩子之間

的聯繫。如果父親不同意由母親提出或

決定的某項行動，他有權訴諸法庭要求

法庭提供指引。

現時，鑑於上訴法庭法官夏正民的判

詞，如果沒有管養權的父或母其中一方

希望確保其獲得諮詢意見的權利，他/她

可申請在獨有管養令上施加條件。這些

條件規定有管養權的父或母其中一方必

須讓他或她得悉關於子女發展的特定主

要事宜，以使沒有管養權的父或母其中

一方有機會參與決策。

對沒有管養權的父或母其中一方提出的意見作充分及合理的考

慮？

現在有管養權的父或母不僅有責任作

出諮詢，他 / 她亦必須對沒有管養權

的一方提出的意見作充分及合理的考

慮。但如何強制執行此考慮的職責，

仍有待觀察。

有一點必須謹記，沒有管養權的父或母

其中一方並沒有否決權。有鑑於此，法

庭在任何司法程序中，需要對僅僅要求

意見獲「充分及合理考慮」還是實際否

決權，作出辨別。

因此，按此點來說作出「充分及合理

考慮」的責任或許能以行政權力的同

樣方式履行。換言之，只要決定並不

屬於「Wednesbury原則中的不合理情

況」，並已考慮過沒有管養權的父或

母其中一方的意見，則法庭應該不輕

易作出干預。

單一權力的重要性

在某些情況下，在子女生活中僅有父或

母其中一方擁有權力乃相當重要。此類

個案中，適合獨有管養。倘若父母雙方

能夠合作，這些案件可能適合共同管

養。然而，若雙方無法合作，但要求有

管養權的父或母其中一方對沒有管養權

的一方所提出的意見作充分及合理的諮

詢及考慮，則很可能令他們爭持不下。

在此類個案中，在子女的生活中回覆單

一權力可能更為合適。

共同父母責任？

香港法庭有承認父母即使在離婚後仍繼

續扮演父母的角色可帶來好處之勢。香

港法律改革委員會在2005年發表了《子

女管養權及探視權報告書》（下稱「《

報告書》」）。《報告書》的建議包括

引入父母責任的概念等。在2011年，勞

工及福利局發表了一份題為《子女管養

及探視權：應否以立法形式推行共同父

母責任模式》的諮詢文件（下稱「《諮

詢文件》」）。

雖然《報告書》和《諮詢文件》兩者

同樣考慮管養權和探視權，但後者似

乎暗示

「法院在現行法律架構下已可進一步

發展和推廣『共同父母責任』概念，

不必修改法例。除非預計離婚父母不

能在子女教育事宜上衷誠合作，否則

可發出更多共同管養令。」（第4.9

段）

發出的共同管養令的數量增加，反映出

越來越多父母在離婚後願意為子女教養

事宜合作。這對子女而言有利無弊。然

而，這僅屬《報告書》中建議的一小部

分。《報告書》尋求對涉及處理子女的

基本原則作出改變，而且有關更改不僅

針對父母離異時的出現的問題，亦包括

任何關乎子女事宜出現時的處理。

此外，《報告書》中的建議亦包括將強

調父母權利，轉變為著重子女的權利，

而這原則已經獲適用於香港的國際條約

認可。最後，期望這些建議可儘快落

實，不會進一步被推遲。 n

SHOULD HONG KONG CONSIDER ARBITRATION

IN FAMILY DISPUTES?

The Courts have been the primary forum for resolving disputes between divorcing couples. Whilst mediation and collaborative practice are useful supplementary methods for helping parties achieve resolution, there remain some disputes that are not amenable to mediation. These may require a third-party decision maker that would also keep disputes out of the court system.

Arbitration is now available to meet this need in England & Wales; Australia; Ontario, Canada; and Scotland. Hong Kong too should adopt arbitration for family disputes as another tool to assist divorcing couples promptly, confidentially, and in certain circumstances, cost-effectively, resolve their disputes.

香港應否為家事糾紛引入仲裁？By Sasha Allison, Solicitor HamptonWinter&Glynn, with acknowledgment to Jain Brown, Partner HamptonWinter&Glynn

REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

作者 Sasha Allison，律師咸頓金仕騰律師行 Jain Brown，合夥人協助咸頓金仕騰律師行





The past decade has seen an increasing trend in the application of

alternate dispute resolution techniques and methods to family disputes. Family law solicitors now routinely advise on methods such as mediation and collaborative practice as alternative means to resolve disputes following the breakdown of the family and that litigation should always be the last resort. This development may have arisen from a reaction to a hostile and unnecessarily aggressive and expensive procedure, which can often arise in a court-based resolution system.

With Hong Kong’s introduction of the Financial Dispute Resolution scheme and more recently, in October last year, the Children’s Dispute Resolution scheme, it is clear that the Courts too are keen to facilitate an amicable resolution of matters where possible.

However, one alternate dispute resolution method, which has not yet been implemented in Hong Kong for resolving family matters, is arbitration. This is unfortunate since arbitration has the potential to address particular types of cases that may not be suitable for mediation or collaborative practice and yet can be resolved without resort to the court process.

Arbitration is particularly suited for resolving the financial aspects of a marriage breakdown, where the parties wish for swift resolution of their dispute and yet are unable to agree between themselves on how to achieve this.

Arbitration is clearly not suitable for matters that involve disputes concerning children, which require the oversight of the Courts as in the absence of agreement between the parents, only the Courts have the powers to make life changing decisions regarding access to children, custody, care and control. However, even in these cases, there exists the possibility of resolving the financial aspects through arbitration and only resorting to the Courts to resolve child-related matters.

What is arbitration?At its simplest, arbitration is a confidential, consensual form of alternate dispute resolution through which the parties have a high degree of control over both the process and the selection of the decision maker, the arbitrator. After a decision has been made and an arbitral award issued, it is binding on the parties and is then often recognised and converted into an Order of the Court, which can thereafter be enforced in the usual way.

Features of family arbitrationArbitration of the financial aspects of a family dispute is very similar to regular arbitration in the commercial context, whereby the arbitration procedure is underpinned by an agreement between the arbitrator and the parties, in this case the spouses. The first task is for parties to agree on the appointment of the arbitrator, the scope of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, the timetable for exchange of evidence and submissions, the procedure that is to be adopted, the evidence to be adduced, and the arbitrator’s fee. The last point is important since, it is the parties who are responsible for the costs of the arbitrator unlike litigation in which the cost of the judge is publicly funded.

An arbitration is deemed to have commenced upon the appointment of the arbitrator and the process can be tailored to encompass a variety of arbitration methods. For example, the parties may elect a paper only arbitration by which they agree to the timetable for the filing of evidence or affidavits and submissions, but dispense with the need to attend an oral hearing. In certain cases this is particularly attractive to parties who wish to avoid the stress of attending a hearing and being cross-examined. Other cases, however, may require a full oral hearing, with cross-examination, and the arbitration process is sufficiently flexible to allow for this possibility.

It is suggested that to be able to reap the benefits of using arbitration to determine

a family dispute, the case should be dealt with in a relatively simple manner such as “on the papers” with an agreed statement of facts, written submissions and possibly a short hearing to address the written submissions.

Currently, some parties in Hong Kong are resorting to private Financial Dispute Resolution (“FDR”) hearings instead of a Court-appointed FDR in order to resolve matters. This raises the question whether and when parties should turn to arbitration to finalise their matter if the FDR fails; should arbitration be engaged before the FDR (private or otherwise) or should arbitration be adopted only after the parties have tried to resolve matters themselves through FDR. Undoubtedly this will depend on the level of funding available to the parties, and whether the parties wish to be afforded the opportunity to work out matters between themselves first before handing over the matter to the arbitrator.

It must be borne in mind, however, that there is nothing to prevent parties seeking “time out” from the arbitration so as to pursue settlement prospects which may be then emerge, and the arbitrator would no doubt pause proceedings for that purpose.

Suitability of arbitration in certain casesCurrently, family proceedings are conducted in chambers and are not open to the public. However, there may be family disputes that deal with issues of significant public importance that would allow either party to apply for the hearing to be open to the public. Decisions that go on appeal are also open to the public. Confidentiality is a key advantage of arbitration and is one likely to be welcomed by high profile individuals who would prefer that their matter be kept away from the Courts and the public domain.

Arbitration is also suitable for both litigants in person and those cases that require legal representation. Since the rules of evidence are not applied stringently, parties may feel more


comfortable in the arbitration process as opposed to using the Court process where there is a high degree of formality and a large number of rules with which parties are not familiar, while being expensive and in some situations disproportionate.

The right of the parties to select the arbitrator is also an advantage. Parties often feel more reassured by the fact that they have some control over who will make the final decision in their matter,

As noted above, whilst not suitable for children’s matters, arbitration is particularly suited for resolving all or even part of the financial issues between the parties. As an example, there may be an agreement between the parties as to the percentage division or “split” of the matrimonial pool or a particular asset, but there is no agreement on the valuation of the asset or the quantum of the matrimonial pool of assets to be divided.

These discrete issues could well be amenable to arbitration with an arbitral decision on them leading to a significant reduction in the number of outstanding questions to be resolved by the Court. This has advantages in significantly reducing the length of time required to finalise the matters between the parties.

A significant advantage of arbitration is that awards are final and can only be appealed in certain limited cases (usually on points of law or where the arbitrator has exceeded the ambit of their appointment). This aspect of finality provides parties with a higher level of certainty and allows the parties to “move on”. This is not always present in the standard Court process, with the spectre of an appeal often being present.

Applications to vary existing maintenance orders and freestanding applications for child maintenance are other examples of cases where a more tailored approach to discovery can pay dividends, as compared to the formal discovery requirements required by the Court.

Whilst arbitration provides many

advantages to a divorcing couple it is not all things to all people. Arbitration, whilst potentially fast and efficient, can be a costly option. Parties are responsible for their respective lawyers’ fees and the arbitrators’ fees and this may put the process beyond the reach of some families. In some respects this is similar to private mediation where the parties pay for everything. One disadvantage of arbitration is that parties nonetheless have a decision imposed on them, similar to a judgment after trial and feelings of animosity and hostility may remain unresolved. However, it is suggested that the very fact the parties have agreed on the process and the arbitrator, (and in particular that they agree to be bound by the decision) will help the parties accept the arbitrator’s decision, more readily, than accepting a decision by a judge at Court.

Matters that have complex issues or asset pools, non-disclosure or possible third party claims against property, may not find arbitration to be a suitable dispute resolution option.

On balance however, arbitration offers several advantages to divorcing couples and it is suggested that it should be an option available to divorcing couples in Hong Kong. In cases in which the parties are ready to move on with their lives and/ or have overcome the emotional trauma of a separation, arbitration can be ideal, particularly if the parties are keen to resolve matters expeditiously. Furthermore, there is no place for tactical delays, which result in excessive legal fees. Arbitration provides an alternative route for parties who seek an early resolution but who cannot work together to resolve matters by themselves in mediation or through collaborative practice; a middle ground between Court and mediation.

With a burdened Family Court system, return dates for hearings are usually several months away even when issues would benefit from being determined on a more urgent basis. Arbitration provides the parties with the option of having their

matter determined within their agreed timeframe and, potentially, the procedure being commenced and an arbitral award given within a matter of months rather than years. If more matters were decided by way of arbitration, the Court system would be freed up and would have more capacity to deal with the more urgent or pressing applications.

UK and Australian schemesWhilst arbitration is not yet a part of the legal landscape for resolving family disputes in Hong Kong, where is has been used in other jurisdictions it has been successful for many years. Those jurisdictions with an established family law arbitration scheme include Australia, Canada, Scotland and England & Wales.

Australia has arguably the lengthiest experience in applying arbitration to family disputes, commencing in 1991 with amendments to the FamilyLawAct 1975 to allow for the arbitration of family matters. Whilst Australia was an early adopter of family arbitration, it was little used in its first decade, partially due to the fact that there was no mechanism that allowed for the award to be readily and automatically enforceable; parties would receive an award, but to have it recognised by the Court a consent summons was required – something that a dissatisfied party was often unwilling to sign.

To address this issue, the FamilyLawRegulations were amended in 2001 to regulate the registration of awards. Other issues addressed by the 2001 Regulations were the required qualifications of arbitrators, the terms of the arbitration agreements and the conduct and procedure of arbitrations.

Unfortunately, despite an extensive set of Rules and a long history of applying arbitration to family matters, it appears that, in practice, the Australian arbitration scheme has had lukewarm success. It is suggested, however, that this is due, at least in part, to the limited success in promoting arbitration amongst practitioners as a viable option for alternative dispute resolution.




More recently, England & Wales has launched the Family Law Arbitration Scheme (the “IFLA Scheme”), an initiative that has received support and training from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. The Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (“IFLA”) was specifically set up to both draft and apply the Scheme. The English procedure is similar to arbitration in a commercial matter and there appears to be widespread support for the Scheme within the legal fraternity, both from practitioners and the judiciary, as an alternative for resolving family disputes. A number of retired judges are now qualified as arbitrators having being trained and included on the panel of accredited arbitrators. Considerable interest in arbitration is building among practitioners as they realise the potential of this as a viable alternative to litigation.

Some of the key features of the IFLA Scheme - it has been suggested that Hong Kong should consider it when it sets up its own scheme - include setting out a clear and concise procedure that the arbitrator will adopt. This includes a user-friendly format familiar to family lawyers; identifying that the applicable law is of that jurisdiction, and that this is the only law that the arbitrators can apply in resolving substantive issues (unlike commercial matters where parties have freedom in their choice of the seat of the arbitration); defining the powers of the arbitrator and the scope of available remedies; and defining the issues that then come under the Scheme (such as financial disputes for married couples, maintenance for children of unmarried parents, ownership of property for co-habitees).

Hong Kong – the way forwardHong Kong has a well-developed arbitration “mindset” and Hong Kong is often marketed internationally as a leading arbitration centre for commercial disputes. Most practitioners and the judiciary understand the very real advantages that arbitration presents for the parties and the author believes

that this “pro-arbitration mindset” will be a great advantage in facilitating the adoption of the use of arbitration to resolve family matters in Hong Kong.

That said, Family Law practitioners generally have little experience of and no background in arbitration. Accordingly, if family arbitration is to be introduced in Hong Kong, resources would need to be allocated to the education and training of practitioners. A scheme for training and recognising suitably-qualified arbitrators would also need to be put into place. Institutions such as the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators could potentially fill an important role in this regard.

As to substantive rules and regulations, Hong Kong would need to adopt a set of specific family arbitration rules (likely modelled on the IFLA Scheme rules) and amend certain elements of its arbitration legislation to ensure that the arbitral award is enforceable by leave of the Court in the same manner as a regular Order.

Should leave be granted, the Order should be in terms equivalent to the arbitral award.

This aspect of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is crucial to the success of any family arbitration scheme. If family arbitration awards are readily enforceable or easily converted into Court orders, then there is reason for this process to be considered by families (and practitioners) as a viable and cost-effective alternative.

ConclusionArbitration in commercial matters has a long and successful history in Hong Kong and while it may not be suitable for resolving every type of family dispute, there is no reason why arbitration cannot be applied successfully to financial disputes in a matrimonial context. This is especially the case in matters where the need for confidentiality, speed and certainty, are decisive factors to the parties. In such cases, arbitration would likely be an ideal option for many divorcing couples in Hong Kong. n

法庭一直是離婚夫婦解決糾紛的主要途徑。儘管調解及協作能夠有效輔助當事人解決糾紛，但仍有一些糾紛是不適合進行調解且需要由第三方做決定，不過不訴諸法庭對這類糾紛而言，仍屬有利。

現時，英格蘭及威爾斯、澳洲、加拿大安大略省以及蘇格蘭可以透過仲裁解決這類糾紛的需要。香港亦應採納仲裁作為解決家事糾紛的另一渠道，協助離婚夫婦以及時、保密，及(在若干情況下)符合成本效益的方法解決糾紛。


過去十年，採用替代訴訟糾紛方式解

決家事糾紛的情況有上升趨勢。現

時家事法律師慣常地會向當事人建議使用

調解及協作等替代方法去解決家庭破裂後

出現的糾紛，而訴訟乃是迫不得已的最後

方法。這是因為以法庭為基礎的解決糾紛

制度往往令程序變得充滿敵意、過份進

取，並引致高昂費用，故此我們發展出調

解制度作為應對方法。

隨著香港引入金融糾紛調解計劃，最近去

年十月更引入排解子女糾紛計劃，顯然法

庭亦盡可能積極鼓勵以和平的方式解決問

題。

然而，香港尚有一個替代糾紛解決方法仍

未落實作解決家庭問題之用——仲裁。這

令人相當遺憾，因為對於不適合調解或協

作的某類問題，仲裁有機會能夠解決它，

而無需訴諸法庭。

仲裁尤其適合解決離婚案件的財務問題，

這些案件的當事人均希望迅速解決糾紛，

但彼此之間卻又無法對如何解決糾紛達成

共識。

不過，如案件涉及子女的糾紛，則仲裁顯

然不適合。此類案件須由法庭監督，因為

在家長之間未能達成共識的情況下，僅法

庭有權作出有關探視子女、管養、照顧及

管束這些影響一生的重大決定。然而，即

使案件涉及子女，當事人仍可以通過仲裁

解決財務方面的問題，並僅把與子女有關

的問題留給法庭解決。

何謂仲裁？

簡而言之，仲裁是一種保密、雙方同意的

替代糾紛解決，而通過仲裁，當事人對有

關程序及決策人（即仲裁員）的選擇有高

度控制權。當仲裁員作出決定及發出仲裁

裁決後，此裁決對各當事人均具約束力，

並且通常可獲法庭認可並轉換為法庭命

令，之後便可按一般方式強制執行。

家事仲裁的特點

處理家事糾紛中的財務問題的仲裁，與處

理商業活動的一般仲裁非常相似，仲裁程

序以仲裁員與當事人（家事糾紛則為配

偶）之間的協議為基礎。當事人首先需要

就委任仲裁員、仲裁員的權限、交換證據

及陳詞的時間表、採納的程序、援引的證

據以及仲裁員費用作出協定。最後一點相

當重要，因為仲裁人的費用須由當事人承

擔，但法庭訴訟中的法官費用則由公帑支

付。

仲裁人一經委任，仲裁即當作已經展開，

而該程序可自定各種仲裁方法。舉例，當

事人可選擇僅以文件往來的方式進行仲

裁，即當事人就呈交證據或誓章及陳詞的

時間表達成協議，無須出席口頭聆訊。在

某些案件中，此形式對於希望避免出席聆

訊及被盤問的當事人尤其吸引。然而，某

些案件則可能需要進行包括盤問在內的完

整口頭聆訊，而仲裁程序非常靈活，足可

應付這種情況。

為了獲得採用仲裁方式解決家事糾紛的益

處，建議案件以較簡單的方法處理，例如

以「文件往來」方法，呈交議定的事實陳

述書、書面陳詞，及可能進行一次簡短的

聆訊以處理書面陳詞。

目前，香港有些人士選擇透過私人的金融

糾紛調解聆訊而非法院指定的解決財務糾

紛程序去解決問題。這引申出一個問題—

若金融糾紛調解失敗，當事人應否及何時

向仲裁求助以解決有關糾紛；而仲裁應在

金融糾紛調解（不論屬私人或其他形式）

前進行，還是僅應在當事人已嘗試通過金

融糾紛調解自行解決問題後才採納？毫無

疑問，答案將取決於當事人的財政狀況，

以及當事人是否希望在移交仲裁員處理

前，先自行嘗試解決有關問題。

然而，我們必須謹記，如在仲裁過程中出

現和解的機會，當事人可隨時「暫停」仲

裁程序以試圖達成和解，而仲裁員毫無疑

問會為此而暫時中止仲裁程序。

若干案件是否適合進行仲裁

目前，家事訴訟在內庭聆訊並不向公眾公

開。然而，可能有些家事糾紛所涉及的問

題對公眾有顯著的重要性，以使任何一方

可申請以公開形式聆訊。上訴的決定亦對

公眾公開。保密是仲裁的一個關鍵優勢，

而不欲自己的事情由法庭處理或對外公開

的知名人士相信會很歡迎這項優勢。

此外，無律師代表的訴訟人及須有法律代

表的案件均適合進行仲裁。由於仲裁不會

嚴格地應用證據規則，因此當事人可能在

仲裁程序中感到較自在，相反法庭程序非

常正規，有大量當事人並不熟悉的規則，

而且費用高昂，有時甚至屬不合理。

當事人選擇仲裁員的權利亦是仲裁的其中

一項優勢。如當事人在選擇為其案件作出

最終決定的人選上有某程度的控制權，通

常會使當事人較為安心。

誠如上文所述，儘管仲裁不適合處理子女

的事宜，但尤其適合解決當事人之間的所

有或部分財務問題。舉例，當事人之間或

已就婚姻財產或某特定資產的分配比例或

「劃分」達成協議，但就將被分配資產的

估值或婚姻財產中多項資產的總額卻未能

取得共識。

這些沒有關聯的問題完全可以通過仲裁並

發出仲裁決定予以解決，令需要透過法庭

解決的問題數目顯著減少。這做法有助大

大縮短審理當事人之間事宜的所須時間。

仲裁的另一個顯著優勢是仲裁裁決屬最終

決定，僅在若干有限情況下方可上訴（通

常關乎法律論點或仲裁員超出委任權限）




。終局性讓當事人對結果感到更明確，讓

他們能夠「展開新的生活」。在標準的法

庭程序中並不總是有這樣的確定性，因當

事人可能會提出上訴。

相比法庭規定的正式透露要求，自定的透

露方法對將來更有利，申請更改現行贍養

令及為子女贍養費而提出獨立申請的案件

就是好例子。

儘管仲裁對離婚夫婦而言具有許多好處，

但亦並非人人也適合。雖然仲裁有可能可

以快速及有效解決糾紛，但可能會產生高

昂費用。當事人須負責各自律師的費用及

仲裁員的費用，故此對某些家庭而言仲裁

乃可望而不可及。在某些方面，這與私

人調解相似，當事人須支付所有費用。仲

裁的其中一個缺點是，當事人仍會被施加

一個裁決，類似審訊後的判決，而仇恨和

敵意的感覺可能仍然無法平息。然而，有

人認為當事人就有關程序及仲裁員的人選

達成協議（特別是他們同意受有關決定約

束），令當事人對仲裁員的決定，比對法

庭法官的決定，更容易接受。

如果案件涉及複雜的問題或眾多資產、不

予披露或可能出現針對資產的第三方申

索，便不適合採用仲裁。

但平衡過各項利弊，仲裁可以為離婚夫婦

提供不少好處，因此建議把仲裁納入可供

香港離婚夫婦選擇之解決糾紛方式。如案

中的當事人已準備好展開新的生活及╱或

已克服分開帶來的感情創傷，仲裁是理想

的選擇，若當事人希望盡快解決問題則更

是如此。此外，仲裁不會出現造成過多訟

費的策略性拖延。仲裁為尋求盡早解決問

題但又不能通過調解或協作自行解決問題

的當事人提供另一個選擇，即法庭與調解

之間的中間點。

家事法庭已不勝負荷，即使獲得到優先緊

急處理會對案件有利，案件的下一次聆訊

日期往往也要定在數月之後。仲裁使當事

人能夠在他們協定的時間內把問題解決，

而且從程序開始直到頒發仲裁裁決，可能

只需數月而非數年。若更多問題通過仲裁

決定，法庭便可騰出更多時間處理更為緊

急或迫切的案件。

英國及澳洲的制度

儘管在法律上，仲裁仍然未成為香港解決

家庭糾紛的方法之一，但其他司法管轄區

早已應用多年且相當成功。擁有成熟家事

法仲裁制度的司法管轄區包括澳洲、加拿

大、蘇格蘭以及英格蘭及威爾斯。

澳洲在1991年修訂1975年的《家事法法

案》，開始允許採用仲裁解決家事糾紛，

可以說是在家庭糾紛上應用仲裁歷史最悠

久的地方。儘管澳洲很早便採納家事仲

裁，但首十年鮮有使用，部分原因是當時

沒有機制令裁決能夠容易及自動強制執

行；當事人取得裁決後，需要同意傳票法

院才會承認有關裁決，而不滿裁決的當事

人一般不願意簽署同意傳票。

為解決這個問題，澳洲在2001年修訂《

家事法規定》規管裁決的登記。2001年

的規定同時亦處理其他問題，包括仲裁人

的所需資格、仲裁協議的條款及仲裁的行

為操守及程序。

可惜，儘管訂立了大量規則而且在家庭事

宜應用仲裁的歷史悠久，但是澳洲的仲裁

制度實際上似乎並不成功。但是，有人認

為此乃(至少是部分是)由於未能成功向執

業者推廣仲裁作為替代糾紛解決方法的可

行選擇。

近期，英格蘭及威爾斯推出家事法仲裁制

度，這項行動得到英國特許仲裁員學會的

支持，並提供培訓。當局亦特別成立了家

事法仲裁員學會，專責草擬並落實有關制

度。英國落實的程序與商業事宜的仲裁相

似，而當地法律界的執業者及司法機構似

乎均對有關制度作為解決家庭糾紛的替代

方法予以支持。不少退休的法官在接受過

培訓後，現已成為合資格的仲裁員並被納

入獲認可仲裁員名單。隨著執業者認識到

仲裁是替代訴訟的可行方法，他們對仲裁

漸漸產生興趣。

英國的家事法仲裁制度的一些特點包括制

定清晰簡潔的程序讓仲裁員採用，有人建

議香港在制定其制度時應考慮這一點。有

關程序包括採用家事律師熟悉又簡便易用

的格式；定下該司法管轄區的適用法律，

且仲裁員解決實質爭議點時只可採用該法

律（與商業事宜的區別是，商業事宜中當

事人可自行選擇仲裁地點）；界定仲裁員

的權力及可獲得的補救措施；以及界定屆

時在制度下出現的爭議點（例如已婚夫婦

的財務糾紛、未婚家長子女的贍養費及同

居者的財產所有權）。

香港之未來路向

香港擁有發展完善的仲裁「心態」，並經

常在國際上推廣其為領先的商業糾紛仲裁

中心。大部分執業者及司法機構均明白仲

裁能夠帶給當事人的真正好處，而且筆者

相信，這種「支持仲裁的心態」將大大有

助推動香港採納仲裁作為解決家事糾紛的

方法。

然而，家事法的執業者一般在仲裁方面經

驗甚少且沒有相關背景。因此，若將家事

仲裁引入香港，必須投放資源為執業者提

供教育及培訓。此外，香港亦須為培訓及

認可合適和合資格仲裁員訂立所需制度。

香港國際仲裁中心及英國特許仲裁員學會

等機構可在這方面發揮重要作用。

關於實質規則及規定，香港需要實施一系

列特定的家事仲裁規則（很可能會以英國

家事法仲裁制度的規則為藍本），並修訂

本地仲裁法例的某些元素，確保仲裁裁決

在法庭許可下與一般命令相同的方式強制

執行。倘法庭授予許可，則有關命令的條

文應與仲裁裁決的條文相同。

仲裁裁決的認可及強制執行，對任何家事

仲裁制度的成功起著關鍵作用。若家事仲

裁裁決易於強制執行或轉換為法庭命令，

則家庭（及執業者）便有理由視仲裁作為

可行且具成本效益的替代方法。

總結

香港在商業事宜方面的仲裁歷史悠久並相

當成功，儘管仲裁可能不適合解決所有種

類的家事糾紛，但亦不代表仲裁不能成功

應用於婚姻事宜中的財務糾紛，尤其是如

果對當事人而言，保密、迅速及具確定性

是決定採用何種方法解決糾紛的因素。在

這些情況下，仲裁對香港許多離婚夫婦來

說，很可能是一個理想的選擇。 n


INDUSTRY INSIGHTS業界透視Civil Law 民法

“Letting sleeping dogs lie” - time for the “Dog Whisperer”Viewers of National Geographic Channel will be familiar with Cesar Millan, the “Dog Whisperer”. In his rehabilitation of delinquent dogs, the Dog Whisperer stresses three core values: exercise, discipline (including rules, boundaries and limitations – “sanctions”) and affection.

Dispute resolution lawyers (in some cases still making a transition from a pre-Civil Justice Reforms (“CJR”) “Rottweiler mindset” to more angelic qualities post-CJR) are familiar with the test for dismissal for abuse of court process, as set down by the Chief Justice in WingFaiConstructionCo.Ltd(in liquidation) [2012] 1 HKLRD 589. Prevailing themes in Wing Fai are the duty of the parties to case manage and judicial disapproval of a strategy of “letting sleeping dogs lie”.

That disapproval was recently reiterated by the Court of Appeal in ChinaNonferrousMetals(HK)FinanceCo.LtdvSouth-EastAsiaInvestmentHoldingCo.Ltd [2013] HKEC 758; a failed appeal against a judge’s refusal to dismiss for “want of prosecution”. Being an

appeal against the exercise of a judicial discretion, the outcome is no surprise.

Neither of much surprise is the recent failed application to dismiss for want of prosecution in WingFaiConstructionCo.LtdvFitzroyaFinanceCo.Ltd[2013] HKEC 737.

That said, a party who has no intention of progressing their Notice of Appeal can commit an abuse of process: Li Tai KuenvLeungChunSang [2013] CHKEC 510.

Applying the Dog Whisperer’s “core values” (his “underlying objectives”), some defendant lawyers could be forgiven for feeling rather exercised by the application of the “last resort” principles for dismissal for abuse of process as set out in Wing Fai. They may harbour the hint of a suspicion that some “sleeping” plaintiffs are being shown rather too much leniency and may long for a case that: (i) takes a lead and (ii) applies some effective sanctions against a plaintiff allowed to proceed after a long period of inactivity.

It could be time to consult the Dog Whisperer; as every jurist knows, ultimately, rules have to be backed-up by sanctions and some discipline.

- Smyth & Co in association with Reynolds Porter Chamberlain

「別招惹沉睡中的狗兒」-是「金牌馴狗師」出動的時候了國家地理頻道的觀眾應該對「金牌馴狗

師」Cesar Mil lan相當熟悉。金牌馴狗師

在矯正頑皮狗隻的行為時，強調三個核

心價值為：運動、紀律（包括規則、界

限和限制—「懲罰」）和情感。

專門從事處理糾紛的律師（在某些情況

下他們仍然努力從民事司法制度改革前

（下稱「改革」）的「洛威拿」式兇猛

派轉型至改革後的溫馴派）對於由終審

法院首席法官在Wing Fai Construct ion

Co. Ltd ( in l iqu idat ion) [2012] 1

HKLRD 589一案，就濫用法庭程序定

下的撤銷測試，可謂相當熟悉。Wing

Fai一案說明訴訟各方有責任管理案件，

而且法庭反對採用「別招惹熟睡狗兒」

(「letting sleeping dogs lie」，即置之不

理) 的策略。

最近，上訴法庭在Ch ina Nonfe r rous

Metals (HK) Finance Co. Ltd v South-

East Asia Investment Holding Co. Ltd

[2013] HKEC 758一案，重申反對採用

有關策略。案中被告人針對法官拒絕基

於「訴訟程序中無人作出行動」撤銷案

件而提出上訴，但不獲接納。有關上訴

是針對司法酌情權如何行使，故此得到

此結果屬意料中事。

同屬意料之內的是，最近 W i n g F a i



July 2013 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

Construct ion Co. Ltd v F i t z roya

F inance Co. Ltd [2013] HKEC 737

一案，以訴訟程序中無人作出行動為理

由撤銷案件的申請，同告失敗。

儘管如此，如訴訟一方提出上訴通知書

後沒有意圖繼續處理有關上訴，可構成

濫用法律程序：見Li Tai Kuen v Leung

Chun Sang [2013] CHKEC 510.

如果應用金牌馴狗師的「核心價值」(其

「基本目標」)，便可以理解為何有些辯

方律師對於採用Wing Fai一案指出的「

最後方法」原則，以濫用法律程序為理

由提出撤銷案件，感到相當煩惱。他們

可能抱有一絲懷疑何以法庭對有些「沉

睡」中的原告人太過寬大，而且他們希

望有一宗的這樣的案件出現：(i)具帶頭

作用及 (ii)對獲准於長時間靜止後繼續進

行訴訟的原告人，處以有效的懲罰。

這可能是諮詢金牌馴狗師的時候，就正

如所有法律學者都知道，規則無論如何

必須靠懲罰和紀律賴以支持。

- Smyth & Co與Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP聯營

Banking & Finance

銀行及金融

Abu Dhabi Financial Zone to challenge DubaiFor a decade, Dubai has prospered as the Middle East’s top financial centre, handling tens of billions of dollars of oil wealth. That dominance may now be threatened as neighbouring Abu Dhabi demands a piece of the pie.

Last week, Abu Dhabi outlined plans for a full-service financial zone on an island near its downtown area that will have its own administration, court system and tax incentives to lure banks and other firms from around the world.

The announcement caused consternation among thousands of

bankers, fund managers and other finance professionals in Dubai, some of whom may in future have to commute along the 130 kilometre (80 mile) highway linking the desert cities - or even move permanently to Abu Dhabi.

Dubai has big competitive advantages, including its entrenched status, a creative business culture and a cosmopolitan lifestyle which persuades many expatriate executives to settle there.

But Abu Dhabi has been narrowing the gap in many of those areas, and it has more money than Dubai, which it bailed out with $10 billion in emergency loans during the global credit crisis of 2009. If it deploys its money aggressively, financial firms will find it hard to resist.

“Abu Dhabi makes a tough competitor for Dubai,” said Jim Krane, Gulf economic analyst at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School in Britain, and author of “Dubai: The Story of the World’s Fastest City”.

Explicitly or implicitly, Abu Dhabi could use access to business with its state-owned institutions as a way to persuade

financial firms to set up there.

“If Abu Dhabi plays tough, giving banks an ultimatum - move to Abu Dhabi or else - few of them will be able to resist, given the much larger economy and liquidity pool across the border.”

- Reuters News

阿布扎比興建金融區挑戰迪拜迪拜近十年來在經濟發展上所取得的成

就，使它成為了中東頂尖的金融中心，

並處理數以百億美元計的石油財富。但

迪拜的這一優勢現時可能會面對挑戰，

因為其鄰國阿布扎比也正打算在這方面

分一杯羹。

阿布扎比在上週簡介了它的金融發展計

劃，有意在一個鄰近鬧市的小島上建立

一個提供全面服務的金融區，當中並設

有其自身的行政和司法系統及稅務優惠

政策，以吸引全球各地銀行和其他企業

前來投資。

該項公布令迪拜數以千計的銀行家、基

金經理及其他金融專業人士感到驚愕。

他們當中一些人，將來還可能需要經常

Burj Al Arab, Dubai阿拉伯塔，迪拜


往返於該全長130公里（80英里），將

兩個沙漠城市連在一起的高速公路—甚

或需要永久遷往阿布扎比。

迪拜擁有巨大的競爭優勢，包括其所確

立的經濟地位、具創意的企業文化，以

及國際都會性的生活方式，並吸引了許

多外籍行政人員前來定居。

然而，阿布扎比現時已在許多領域上，

將其與迪拜之間的距離縮小﹔差別之處

是，它比迪拜更加富有。在2009年的全

球信貸危機中，阿布扎比提供了 100 億

美元緊急貸款作為援助迪拜的資金。因

此，若它決定在其財富的部署運用上採

取更加進取的方式，恐怕許多金融企業

將會難以抗拒。

英國劍橋大學Judge Business School的

海灣區經濟分析師兼《迪拜：一個世上

發展速度最快城市的故事》一書的作者

Jim Krane說﹕「阿布扎比已成為迪拜的

強勁競爭對手。」

不管是以明確還是隱含的方式表示，阿

布扎比還可以提出與其國營機構建立業

務聯繫，作為游說金融企業前往當地開

業的一種方法。

「鑒於阿布扎比擁有遠為強大的跨境經濟

體系和流動資金匯集，故假如它以強硬姿

態向銀行發出最後通牒，要求銀行—要不

遷往阿布扎比，要不便等著瞧—相信沒有

多少家銀行敢於與它抗衡。」

- 路透社新聞

Contractual indemnity costs and court discretion DBSBank(HongKong)LtdvSan-HotHKIndustrialCo.Ltd[2013] HKEC 801, 24 May 2012, arises out of another failed mis-selling claim. It is another example of the difficulties associated with claiming that banks owe advisory duties to investors who trade their investments and resisting reliance by banks on principles of contractual estoppel.

The case also confirms that while the courts’ discretion on costs is unfettered, the parties’ agreement as to how costs will be dealt with is a starting point for the exercise of that discretion in the normal course of events (BankofChina(HongKong)LtdvTwinProfitLtd, CACV 94/2010, 18 March 2011, applied; also see the failed leave to appeal application, FAMV 4/2012, 24 May 2012).

The issue in dispute was whether a court should ignore clauses in a bank’s General Commercial Agreement and Master Agreement that purported to entitle it to indemnity costs; particularly, if a claim for costs on that basis had not been pleaded.

The court agreed to vary its costs order nisi (awarding the bank party and party costs) to an award of indemnity costs.

First, in the exercise of its unfettered discretion, the court should take into account all relevant matters, including contractual provisions.

Second, counsel for the bank had sought to rely on the relevant contractual provisions during the course of the trial.

Third, the defendants were unable to point to any prejudice or surprise.

Fourth, there were no abnormal circumstances as between the parties (who were commercial parties and not

consumers) such that the contractual provisions as to indemnity costs should be disregarded.

- Smyth & Co in association with Reynolds Porter Chamberlain

合約彌償訟費和法庭酌情權 DBSBank (HongKong) Ltd v San-Hot

HK IndustrialCo.Ltd [2013] HKEC 801

(2012年5月24日)一案是由另一宗失

敗的不當銷售申索引起的。這例子再

次顯示出，要指銀行須對買賣其投資

產品的投資者負上提供意見的職責，

並反對銀行依賴合約不容反悔原則，

實屬困難。

此案亦確定，儘管法庭就訟費可自

由行駛酌情權，但訴訟各方如何處

理訟費的協訂，是法庭在事件的正常

過程中行使該酌情權的起點（Bank

ofChina(HongKong)LtdvTwinProfit

Ltd，CACV 94/2010，2011年3月18日

一案採用此原則；此外，就拒絕上訴

許可申請，詳見 FAMV 4/2012，2012

年5月24日）。

案中的爭議點是，對於意在使銀行有

權得到彌償訟費的一般商業協議及總

協議中的條款，法庭應否不作理會，

尤其是倘若以該基礎所作的訟費申索

並沒有作訴的情況下。

法庭同意把其訟費暫准命令（即授予

銀行按訴訟各方對評基準評定的訟




費）更改為授予彌償訟費。

首先，法庭在行使其不受約束的酌情

權時，應考慮所有有關事項，當中包

括合約條文。

其次，銀行的代表律師在審訊過

程中，曾試圖以有關合約條文作

為依據。

第三，被告人未能指出任何具有偏見

或難以預料之處。

第四，訴訟各方之間並沒有異常的情

況（他們均為商業機構，並非消費

者）以使法庭應忽視關於彌償訟費的

合約條文。

- Smyth & Co與Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP聯營

Criminal Law 刑法

Three Mainland Chinese charged in HK Mercantile Exchange probeThree men were charged late May in a Hong Kong court with possessing false documents including a cheque for US$460 million (HK$3.6 billion) in connection with an investigation into the city’s shuttered Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange.

The exchange, which operated a trading platform for gold and silver futures, surrendered its licence to the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) at the weekend, saying it did not have enough trading revenues to support its operating expenses.

The SFC, the city’s financial watchdog, on Tuesday said it had found serious suspected irregularities in the exchange’s operations and referred the case to the police for a criminal investigation.

The three mainland Chinese men - Dai Linyi, 55, Li Shanrong, 49, and

Lian Chunren, 50 – faced charges of “possessing a false instrument with intent”, according to a charge sheet seen by Reuters.

The court gave no details of precisely how the men might be linked to the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange. No pleas were taken and the three were remanded in jail. The case was adjourned until 19 July 2013.

Barry Cheung, chairman and controlling shareholder of the exchange and a close political ally of Hong Kong leader Leung Chun-ying, has taken leave of absence from several high-profile public positions as the police investigation continues. Cheung has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The three men were accused of having in their custody or under their control instruments which were, and which they knew or believed to be false, according to the charge sheet.

It stated that the three intended to use the documents in question, including a letter of guarantee and telegraphic transfer, to induce somebody to accept them as genuine.

The abrupt closure of the mercantile exchange has raised questions over regulatory oversight in Hong Kong.

- Reuters News

香港商品交易所案三名內地人被落案起訴

三名涉及香港商品交易所一案的男

子，於五月下旬在香港法院被控以

管有虛假文書罪，當中包括一張款

額達4.6億美元（36億港元）的支

票。商交所現已停業。

為黃金和白銀期貨提供交易平台的

商交所，於上週末向證券及期貨事

務監察委員會（下稱「證監會」）

交回牌照，並表示原因是交易收入

不足以應付營運開支。

負責監管香港金融業的證監會在週

二表示，發現商交所的營運涉嫌嚴

重違規，故已把個案轉介警方作刑

事調查。

根據路透社所看到的控罪書內容，三

名內地男子分別為55歲的戴麟懿、49

歲的李善容及50歲的連春仁，各被控

有意圖而管有虛假文書罪。

法庭沒有透露三人與商交所關係的

具體細節。三人暫毋須答辯，還押

監房看管。案件押後至2013年7月19

日再審。

商交所主席及大股東張震遠，為香港

特首梁振英在政治上的緊密盟友，由

於警方的調查仍在進行中，他已暫停

多項備受矚目的公職。張震遠未有被

指控涉及任何不當行為。

根據控罪書內容，該三名人士被控

在知道或相信某虛假文書屬虛假

下，保管或控制該文書。

控罪書指出，三人擬使用有關文件

誘使他人接受該文件為真文件，當

中包括一份擔保書和電匯。

而商交所突然停業引起外界對香港

的規管和監察提出質疑。

- 路透社新聞

Environment 環境

Fish piracy costs billions a yearFish piracy - seafood caught illegally, not reported to authorities or outside environmental and catch regulations - represents as much as US$10 billion (HK$77.6 billion) to US$23 billion in global losses each year, non-profit conservation group Oceana estimated last month.

For example, the shark fin trade in Hong Kong suggests that three to four times more sharks are being killed than official


reports say, with US$292 million to US$476 million worth of shark fins sold.

Because pirated fish is sold on black markets, specifics of the economic impact are tough to decipher. But Washington-based Oceana looked at the records of fish catches by country as reported to the United Nations, then compared those statistics to seafood sales in various world markets.

The report said illegal trade could account for 11 million to 25 million metric tons of seafood, a minimum of 20% of seafood worldwide.

Fishermen who comply with legal standards can also lose business when they sell in the same market as illegal operators who don’t follow environmental or sanitary standards, the report found. In addition, adults and children have been trafficked into service on illegal fishing ships, making a catch more lucrative, it said.

Illegal fishing targets some of the most expensive species, including shrimp, fugu pufferfish, lobster, whole abalone and sea urchin uni. Penalties are often a fraction of potential profit, the report found. It estimated also that illegal trade threatens 260 million jobs dependant on marine fisheries.

- Reuters News

非法捕魚的魚獲價值每年達數以十億美元計非牟利海洋保育團體Oceana上月估計，

非法捕魚—意指並無向主管部門申報，

又或是在違反環境和捕魚規例的情況

下，以非法手段取得魚獲—導致全球每

年在這方面蒙受的損失多達100億美元

（合776億港元）至230億美元。

例如，在香港進行的魚翅貿易，顯示鯊

魚被殺害的數量，實際上比官方所報導

的多三至四倍，而所出售的魚翅價值，

是在2.92億美元至4.76億美元之間。

由於該等非法魚獲是在黑市出售，因此

人們難以知悉所造成的具體經濟影響有

多大。然而，總部設於華盛頓的海洋保

育團體Oceana翻查了各國向聯合國提交

的漁獲記錄報告，然後將相關統計資料

與全球各地市場的海產食品銷售數額進

行比較。

該報告稱，有關海產食品的非法貿易，

其數量可能在1,100萬至2,500萬公噸之

間，佔全球海產食品至少百分之二十。

該報告發現，符合法律標準的漁民，倘

他們與不遵守環境或衛生標準的違法經

營者在同一市場出售魚獲，他們的生意

額也將會受到影響。該報告亦指出，由

於有成年人和兒童被販運到非法捕魚的

船上工作，故此等非法捕魚的獲利更為

豐厚。

進行非法捕魚的魚民專門以一些價錢最

昂貴的品種為目標，包括對蝦、河豚、

龍蝦、原隻鮑魚和海膽等。該報告並指

出，非法捕魚的漁民所繳納的罰款，一

般只佔其潛在利潤的一個很少數目。據

估計，海產食品的非法貿易，威脅到依

賴海洋捕魚業的2億6000萬個就業崗

位。阿布扎比還可以提出與其國營機構

建立業務聯繫，作為游說金融企業前往

當地開業的一種方法。

- 路透社新聞

Family Law 家庭法

UK Supreme Court case rips away veil of status quoDivorce cases in Hong Kong are set to be influenced by a landmark ruling delivered last month in the UK Supreme Court (“UKSC”) on whether the “corporate veil” can be pierced, and a transfer of property award on divorce made from company, rather than personal, assets.

This follows the Court of Appeal ruling in Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34, which involved the divorce of Michael Prest, founder of the Nigerian energy group Petrodel Resources and Yasmin, his wife of 15 years. Mr Prest claimed that Petrodel’s assets did not belong to him, but to a family trust under Nigerian customary law, and that he was actually £48 million (HK$385 million) in debt. His wife claimed that this is untrue, that he and Petrodel were one and the same, and that she should have a multi-million pound award paid for from the Petrodel corporate structure. She was awarded £17.5 million by the High Court, but faced formidable enforcement issues.

“Hong Kong courts often look to judgments delivered in the English courts... By piercing the corporate veil in respect of assets, the Prest ruling will be a huge concern to those who have shielded assets in corporate structures,” said Sharon Ser, senior regional partner and head of Withers family practice in Asia.

“Pre-nuptial agreements are arguably going to hold far greater weight in future and will need to be developed with creative and microscopic strictness and care.”

For over a century it has been the law that a company is independent of its shareholders and that ownership - even by a sole individual - will not enable a

REUTERS/ Dani Cardona




court to pierce the corporate veil unless the corporate structure has been used to conceal wrongdoing. But in practice the Family Court had been prepared to make financial awards from company assets. The Court of Appeal in Prest had decided that this could not be done.

- Withers

英國最高法院案件開創先例上月英國最高法院就是否可揭破「法團

面紗」作出的裁決意義重大，把公司而

非個人的資產轉讓予離婚訴訟的一方，

而這將對香港的離婚案件帶來不少影

響。

在此之前，上訴法庭對Prest v Petrodel

[2013] UKSC 34一案曾作出裁決，該案

為尼日利亞能源集團Petrodel Resources

的創辦人Michael Prest與結婚15年的妻

子Yasmin之間的離婚訴訟。Prest先生指

Petrodel的資產並不屬於他個人，而是屬

於一個受尼日利亞習慣法管限的家族信

託，而他實際上負債4800萬英鎊（3.85

億港元）。其妻指這並不屬實，Prest先

生和Petrodel屬同一個整體，因此她應獲

判從Petrodel的法團結構中得到數百萬英

鎊。高等法院判她獲得1,750萬英鎊，但

在執行上則非常艱鉅。

衛達仕律師事務所高級區域合夥人及亞

洲家庭實務部的主管施瑞玲說：「香港

法庭往往會考慮英國法院所作的判決.. .

Prest一案揭破法團的資產面紗，以法團

結構屏蔽資產的人士必定會對有關裁決

非常關注。」

「按理說，婚前協議在將在未來具有非

常大的影響力，這方面的發展需要創意

並且非常嚴謹。」

個多世紀以來，根據法律規定，公司是

獨立於其股東的，除非企業的結構被用

作掩蓋不法行為，否則法院並不能以所

有權為依據去揭破法團面紗，即使所有

權由唯一的個人持有。然而實際上，家

事法庭已作好準備作出以公司資產提供

經濟援助的裁決。不過在Prest一案中，

上訴法庭則認為此舉不可為。

- 衛達仕律師事務所

IPO 首次公開招股

Mongolia passes new securities law, paves way for giant mine IPOMongolia’s parliament finally passed a long-awaited securities law inin late May that will allow the state-owned firm mining the enormous Tavan Tolgoi coal deposit to launch a US$3 billion (HK$23 billion) initial public offering at home and overseas.

Khangai Altai, the chief executive of the fledgling Mongolian Stock Exchange said the new law would also help attract more companies to the exchange by introducing international standards, adding that it could eventually bring total market capitalisation to around US$30-$40 billion, from only around US$1.3 billion at present.

A statement issued by the exchange said the law will allow companies to list on multiple markets, enabling those

currently operating in Mongolia but listed on overseas bourses to launch IPOs at home as well.

The new legislation is also an essential part in allowing Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi LLC, the state-owned miner of the coveted Tavan Tolgoi coking coal project, to list in London and possibly Hong Kong.

The cash-strapped state-owned developer, Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi, has been planning to list the eastern Tsankhi block of the Tavan Tolgoi project for years, but the fundraising has been repeatedly delayed. The company said in January that it would not happen this year.

The London Stock Exchange signed a deal with its counterpart in Mongolia in 2011 to introduce new software, advise on capital market training, and bring its market rules up to date.

Although the Mongolian stock market was ranked as one of the world’s best performing markets in 2010 and 2011, it suffered in 2012 largely as a result of slow growth in China, falling commodity prices, and the introduction of new regulations and taxes that deterred foreign investment.

- Reuters News

Vehicles drive during sunrise in the Taiga area along the M54 highway Krasnoyarsk - Mongolia日出時分一輛車在蒙古的大雅區沿著M54公路克拉斯諾亞爾斯克駕駛


蒙古通過新證券法—為大型礦業招股鋪路

蒙古議會在5月下旬終於通過期待已久的

證券法，允許開採巨型煤礦 Tavan Tolgoi

的國有礦企在國內外進行首次公開招

股，集資30億美元（23億港元）。

蒙古證券交易所尚處於萌芽階段，

其行政總裁Khangai Altai稱，透過引

入國際標準，新法例亦有助吸引更

多企業到蒙古證券交易所上市。他

並補充，最終總市值可從目前僅約

13億美元，大幅增加至約300至400

億美元。

蒙古證券交易所發出一份聲明，表示

有關法例允許企業在多個市場上市，

令目前在蒙古經營業務但在海外交易

所上市的企業，也能夠在國內進行首

次公開招股。

此外，新法例的另一重點是允許國有

礦企Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi LLC 在倫敦

及甚或香港上市，而該企業負責的是

令各界均虎視耽耽的Tavan Tolgoi焦

煤項目。

作為國有開發商的 E r d e n e s T a v a n

T o l g o i缺乏資金，多年來一直計劃

把Tavan Tolgoi 項目的Tsankhi東部礦

區上市集資，但計劃卻一再被推遲。

該公司在1月時表示，上市計劃不會

在本年發生。

2011年，倫敦證券交易所與蒙古證券

交易所簽署了一項協議，前者將為後

者引入新的軟件、就資本市場培訓提

供意見，並引入最新的市場規則。

雖然蒙古股票市場的表現在2010年和

2011年排名世界之首，但在2012年卻

下滑，這主要是由於中國增長放緩、

商品價格下跌，以及實施的新法規和

稅項令外商投資卻步。

- 路透社新聞

Offshore 離岸

Further clarification on the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts in offshore shareholder disputesIn the decision of Re Yung Kee Holdings Ltd HCCW 154/2010, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance laid down certain principles as to when the Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction to wind up a company incorporated offshore. The case is of significant importance as it is common for business owners in Hong Kong, principally for tax related reasons, to own their businesses through shareholdings in offshore investment holding companies.

Harris J, who heard the Yung Kee case, has subsequently provided further clarification of the approach of the Hong Kong Courts to this question in RePioneerIronandSteelGroupCoLtd HCCW 322/2010. Here, the British Virgin Island liquidators of Pioneer Iron and Steel Group Company Limited (the “Company”) had filed a petition to wind up the Company in Hong Kong so as to avail themselves of the investigatory powers of a Hong Kong liquidator. Harris J confirmed that the Court would have jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered company if three core requirements are satisfied: that (a) there is sufficient connection with Hong Kong, (b) there is a reasonable possibility that the winding up order would benefit those applying for it, and (c) the Court will be able to exercise jurisdiction over the persons interested in the distribution of the company’s assets.

Unlike in Yung Kee, the Court found that all three core requirements were satisfied. Specifically, as the Company’s sole shareholder and director had made major decisions regarding the Company’s affairs in Hong Kong, this constituted a substantial connection

with Hong Kong. At the same time, Harris J emphasised that that there was no basis for adopting a less stringent approach in assessing whether there is sufficient connection with Hong Kong, even where the application is made by an unregistered company which is already in liquidation in its home jurisdiction and it would be desirable to obtain the assistance of the Hong Kong courts.

Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the correct petitioner for the winding up petition was the Company and not its liquidators, and the petition was adjourned on that basis for an application for substitution to be heard.

- Walkers

進一步釐清香港法庭對離岸股東糾紛的管轄權

在Re Yung Kee Holdings Ltd HCCW

154/2010（「鏞記」）一案的判決中，

香港原訴法庭就香港法庭是否有權對一

家離岸註冊公司清盤制定了若干原則。

該案尤其重要，因為其代表著香港企業

東主的普遍情況，即主要基於稅務相關

原因，香港企業東主一般透過離岸投資

控股公司的股權持有其企業。

聆訊鏞記一案的Ha r r i s J隨後在Re

P i o n e e r I r o n a nd S t e e l G r oup Co

L t d HCCW 322/2010 案件中進一

步釐清香港法庭就這個問題採取的

方法。在此案中，P ionee r I r o n a nd

S t e e l G r o u p C o m p a n y L i m i t e d

（「該公司」）的英屬維爾京群島清

算人在香港提交了對該公司清盤的呈

請書，以取得作為香港清算人的調查

權。Harris J確認，若符合以下三項核心

要求，法庭將有權對一家未註冊公司清

盤：(a)和香港有足夠關連，(b)清盤令對

申請者有實際得益的合理可能性，及(c)

有權分配公司資產之受益人為香港法庭

可管轄之人士。

與鏞記一案不同的是，法庭裁定所有三




項核心要求均已符合。特別一提，由於

該公司的唯一股東及董事就該公司的香

港事務作出了重大決策，這構成了和香

港之重大關連。此外，Harris J強調，在

評估和香港是否有足夠關連方面，即使

該申請是由已經在其所屬司法管轄區進

行清算的未註冊公司作出，亦沒有理據

採用較為寬鬆的方法，並且在香港法庭

取得協助將是合宜之舉。

儘管如此，法庭仍然裁定，清盤請願的

正確呈請人是該公司，而不是其清算

人，並且因為將會聆訊代入為呈請人之

申請，該請願之聆訊亦被押後審理。

- 滙嘉開曼羣島律師事務所

extended to include PTCs. There are also changes to trust duty and third party lending.

In addition to the changes which now allow PTCs to be trustees of VISTA trusts and purpose trusts, a further change in the legislation now means that for the “related trust business” condition, under which a PTC can act as a trustee without a trust licence, the class of beneficiaries for a trust to fit within this condition can now include the settlor. This is a welcome amendment, which means that PTCs will no longer have no carry on only “unremunerated trust business” if the settlor is in the class of beneficiaries and such PTCs can carry on “related trust business” instead.

- Harneys

英屬維爾京群島的新信託法例

英屬維爾京群島在2013年5月頒布新法

例，進一步完善信託法，特別是私人信

託公司的運用及《維爾京群島特別信託

法案》（下稱「《法案》」）的信託。

根據《信託法案》，（除其他事項

外）最長的財產恆繼期已經由100年

增加至360年，並適用於2013年5月

15日後成立的新信託。關於目的信託

的受託人規定亦有所修改。當中有一

項規定仍然不變，即必須有至少一名

受託人屬「指定人士」，直至現在為

止，「指定人士」指英屬維爾京群島

的律師或核數師，或英屬維爾京群島

信託持牌人，但此定義已擴闊至涵蓋

私人信託公司。此外，信託責任和第

三方貸款方面亦有所修改。

除了作出修改以允許私人信託公司

現作為《法案》下的信託和目的信

託的受託人外，法例亦對「相關信

託業務」條件（如符合有關條件，

沒有信託牌照的私人信託公司亦可

作為受託人）作出修改，把財產授

予人納入條件下的信託受益人類別

之內。我們歡迎這項修改，因為這

意味著如果財產授予人在受益人之

列，則私人信託公司亦不再只可從

事「無報酬的信託業務」，而亦可

從事「相關信託業務」。

- 衡力斯

PRC 中國

China’s New Draft Consumer Protection Law: New Obligations and Potential Liability for CompaniesChina is finally about to amend its law for the protection of consumers, almost 20 years after it was first promulgated in October 1993. On 28 April 2013, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee published a draft amended law (the “Draft”) for comments by 31 May 2013. It will likely be promulgated later this year after two more rounds of Standing Committee discussions.

The Draft strengthens protection of consumers’ rights and imposes more obligations on businesses. It also seeks to update the law by addressing issues that have arisen or become more prominent since it was first passed, such as protection of personal data, electronic marketing messages, warranties, product recalls, and e-commerce. The authorities are also given more power to conduct selective inspections on business operators and their goods and services, and penalties are increased.

Businesses potentially affected by these revisions (such as businesses selling to consumers in China or providing online trading platforms for such businesses) should consider whether and how they might need to revise business practices or contracts with consumers or business partners in response.

- Baker & McKenzie

New BVI trust lawsNew legislation was enacted in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) in May 2013 to further refine trust legislation, especially the use of Private Trust Companies (“PTCs”) and the Virgin Island Special Trust Act (“VISTA”) trusts.

Under the Trustee Act, inter alia, the maximum perpetuity period has been increased from 100 years to 360 years, which apples to new trusts established after 15 May 2013. The requirement concerning the trustees of purpose trusts has also been changed. There remains a requirement that at least one trustee must be a “Designated Person”, which has until now meant a lawyer or auditor in BVI or a BVI trust licence holder, but this definition has been


中國新消費者權益保護法：為企業帶來的新義務和潛在責任

中國在1993年10月首次頒布《消費者

權益保護法》，將近20年後，終於

準備對法例作出修訂。2013年4月28

日，全國人民代表大會常務委員會公

佈了法例的修正草案（下稱「草案」

）徵詢意見，截止日期為2013年5月31

日。草案很可能會於常務委員會進行

兩輪討論後，在今年稍後時間頒布。

草案的目的是加強保護消費者的權

益，及加強企業的責任。它亦旨在

修訂有關法例，解決自首次頒布以

來出現或越趨重要的問題，例如保

障個人資料、電子營銷訊息、保

修、產品召回和電子商貿等。此

外，當局亦獲賦予更大權力，有

權對營商者及其商品和服務進行抽

查，而且罰則亦有所提高。

如企業有機會受到這些修改影響（

例如向中國消費者進行銷售的企業

或為此等企業提供網上交易平台的

企業），應考慮是否有需要及如何

改變商業經營方法或修改與消費者

或商業夥伴之間的合約。

- 貝克•麥堅時律師事務所

Professional Practice 專業實務

Davis Polk sued in New York for US$1.4 million over Hong Kong recruiting feeDavis Polk & Wardwell has been hit with a US$1.4 million (HK$10.9 million) lawsuit by a legal recruiter who claims the firm used information that he provided to hire a prominent Hong Kong lawyer and his litigation team.

Alan Metz sued Davis Polk in New York State Supreme Court 5 June 2013, saying the firm used information he provided in a conversation about a potential job candidate to hire Martin Rogers, then head of the litigation practice for Asia-Pacific at Clifford Chance, and a group of 17 lawyers from that firm.

“Upon information and belief, Metz was excluded from the negotiations between Rogers and DP (“Davis Polk”) in an attempt to avoid DP’s obligation to pay a fee to Metz for his services,” the lawsuit said.

After being contacted by the head of an unnamed Wall Street law firm’s Hong Kong office to recruit a litigator in June 2012, Metz reached out to Rogers about the job, according to the complaint.

While Rogers did not end up at this firm he gave Metz permission to contact other Wall Street law firms with offices in Hong Kong to gauge their interest in hiring his litigation group, according to the lawsuit. Davis Polk said then that it wasn’t interested in adding a litigation team, the complaint said.

On 13 December 2012, Davis Polk issued a press release announcing they had hired Rogers and members of his litigation team, the lawsuit said. Metz claimed that the announcement proves Rogers was secretly negotiating with Davis Polk while Metz was continuing to negotiate for him with multiple law firms.

- Reuters News

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。

DavisPolk在紐約被入稟追討140萬美元的香港招聘費用 Davis Polk & Wardwell 被一名獵頭顧問入

稟追討140萬美元（1,090萬港元），指

Davis Polk使用他提供的資料聘得一位香

港著名律師及其訴訟團隊。

2013年6月5日，Alan Metz在紐約州最

高法院控告Davis Polk，指Davis Polk使

用他在交談中提供的資料，該資料乃

關於他們有意聘請的準候選人羅嘉誠

(當時為高偉紳律師行亞太區訴訟部

的主管)，以及該律師行共17名律師。

訴訟內容稱，「根據所悉及所

信， Metz被摒除於羅嘉誠及 Davis

Polk之間的談判之外，Davis Polk企圖

以此逃避為Metz所提供的服務支付費

用的責任」。

根據訴狀，一家不願透露姓名的華爾

街律師事務所位於香港的辦事處在2012

年6月就聘請一名訴訟律師與Metz而接

觸，Metz其後就該職位空缺接觸羅嘉誠。

訴訟內容指，儘管羅嘉誠最後並沒有

加盟該律師行，但他准許Metz與其他

華爾街律師事務所在香港的辦事處聯

繫，以了解他們是否有興趣聘用其訴

訟團隊。根據訴狀，當時Davis Polk稱

他們無意增聘一個訴訟團隊。

訴訟內容又指，Davis Polk在2012年12

月13日發出一份新聞稿，宣布已聘得

羅嘉誠及其訴訟團隊的成員。Metz指

該宣布證明，當Metz繼續為羅嘉誠與

多家律師事務所洽談時，羅嘉誠卻正

秘密地跟Davis Polk 進行洽商。

- 路透社新聞



July 2013 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

CASES IN BRIEF案例撮要

BANKRUPTCY 破產

Re Chung Winston [2013] HKEC 277

Court of First Instance

High Court Action Nos 1283 of 2011, 1290 of 2012 & Bankruptcy Proceedings No 4005 of 2012

Queeny Au-Yeung J

20 December 2012, 8 January, 27 February 2013

Bona fide dispute as to debt — judgment conclusive unless obtained by fraud or had been miscarriage of justice

The plaintiffs (“Ps”) and the debtor (“D”) held shares in a company (“C”), whereby they entered into a deed whereby Ps would withdraw from the investment in C and D guaranteed C’s repayment of the share capital contributed by Ps (the “Deed”). Ps duly took legal action after D failed to make payment. The parties then agreed to settle if Ps would transfer all outstanding equity in C to D for US$23.8 million (HK$185 million). D however, again failed to pay. A consent order was duly made for judgment against D, subject to an undertaking by Ps to preserve C’s assets. The assets of C’s subsidiary were sold through auction before the order was executed. Upon D’s continual failure to pay, Ps issued a petition for bankruptcy against D, who opposed this action on the ground that this was a bona fide dispute as to

the debt on substantial grounds, and that the petition was presented with improper motives.

Held, allowing Ps’ petition, that, inter alia:

A judgment was conclusive but the bankruptcy court could go behind a judgment to determine if it had been obtained by fraud or collusion, or some miscarriage of justice. These principles also applied to a consent order which could be impeached upon any ground such as mistake or that the debt was fictitious which invalidated an agreement. Plus, there was no bona fide dispute as to the judgment debt under the consent order on substantial grounds. Ultimately, there was no evidence that the petition was presented with an improper motive.

原訟法庭

高等法院民事訴訟2011年第1283

號、2012年第1290號及高等法院

破產案件2012年第4005號

高等法院原訟法庭法官歐陽桂如

2012年12月20日、2013年1月8

日及2月27日

關於債務的真誠糾紛—除非判

決以欺詐手段取得或存在司法

不公，否則判決屬最終定論

原告人等及債務人持有某公司（下稱「

該公司」）的股份，他們訂立了一份契

據，列明原告人等將撤回對該公司所作

的投資，及債務人為該公司向原告人等

付還他們投放的股本作出擔保（下稱「

該契據」）。債務人沒有繳款，原告人

等於是正式採取法律行動。其後各方同

意和解，債務人須向原告人等支付2,380

萬美元（1.85億港元），而原告人等則

須將所有該公司的尚餘股份轉讓予債務

人。然而，債務人再次沒有支付款項。

法庭正式作出可判債務人敗訴的同意

令，但條件是原告人等需承諾保留該公

司的資產。執行有關命令前，該公司旗

下附屬公司的資產已通過拍賣售出。由

於債務人屢次未能繳款，原告人等於是

提出針對債務人的破產呈請，而債務人

對有關訴訟提出反對，理由是此債務糾

紛份屬真誠，具有實質理由，而且提出

破產呈請的動機不當。

裁決 - 批准原告人等的呈請，除其他事

項外：

雖然判決是不可推翻的，但破產法庭可

以探究判決本身是否以欺詐手段或串通

取得或是否存在司法不公。這些原則亦

適用於任何同意令，因為同意令可能因

任何使協議無效的理由而遭受質疑，例

如錯誤或有關債務屬虛構等。再者，本

案的同意令下的判定債項並沒有任何真

誠而具實質理由的爭議。最後，沒有任

何證據證明提出呈請的動機不當。


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 行政及憲法

Chong Wing Fai Winfield v Cheung Kwok Kwan [2013] HKEC 284


Constitutional and Administrative Law List No 10 of 2012

Lam JA

1, 6 March 2013

District Council election — casting vote without reporting change of address — not corrupt conduct or material irregularity

In the 2011 District Council election, the petitioner (“X”) lost by 24 votes to the respondent (“C”). X contended that C was not duly elected due to: (a) corrupt conduct which was generally prevalent at or in connection with the election; and (b) a material irregularity in relation to the election. X alleged that at the time of the election, 180 electors - of whom only 41 actually voted - were not residing at their registered addresses

Held, dismissing the petition, that, inter alia:

Whilst an elector had to provide his principal residential address at the time of registration, there was no statutory duty to report any change of his address to the Registration and Electoral Office. Thus, an elector who failed to do so, yet voted, was not guilty of corrupt conduct. At the highest, he had failed to observe a civic duty, but this was not an offence. On the contrary, until his name was removed from the register, discounting his vote would be an irregularity.

原訟法庭

憲法及行政訴訟2012年第10號

高等法院上訴法庭法官林文瀚

2013年3月1、6日

區議會選舉—投票選民

沒有更改地址—不構成

舞弊行為或具關鍵性的

不妥當之處

在2011年的區議會選舉中，呈

請人以24票之差敗於答辯人。

呈請人辯稱答辯人並非妥為選

出，原因是：(a) 在該項選舉中

或與該項選舉有關連的事宜中

普遍存在舞弊行為；及(b)有關

乎該項選舉而具關鍵性的欠妥

之處。呈請人指，在該項選舉進行時，

有180名選民（其中只有41名實際上有

前往投票）並非在其登記地址居住。

裁決 - 駁回呈請，除其他事項外：

雖然選民在登記時必須提供其主要住

址，但法例並沒有規定選民必須向選舉

事務處更改地址。因此，選民沒有更改

地址而前往投票不構成舞弊行為。他最

多只是沒有盡公民的義務，但並沒有觸

犯法例。相反，除非他的名字從選民登

記冊中被除去，否則不計算他所投的一

票實屬欠妥。

CRIMINAL LAW 刑法

HKSAR v Liu Xiaoli [2013] HKEC 330

Court of Appeal

Criminal Appeal No 296 of 2011

Cheung, Yuen and Chu JJA

19 October, 23 November 2012

Further directions in response to specific question raised by jury — whether imbalanced and unfair to defendant

The defendant (“D”) was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug. She arrived in Hong Kong by air, and Customs officers found heroin in the backpack she was carrying. D’s defence was that she thought the backpack,

which was given to her by someone in Malaysia, contained only samples of goods that she had been asked to take from Malaysia to Mainland China, and that she neither knew that it had a secret compartment nor that there was heroin inside. The judge in the lower court then gave directions as requested by the jury. D applied for leave to appeal against the conviction, complaining inter alia that the further direction to the jury in response to their question was unfair and unbalanced and failed to provide the jury with a legal definition of “dangerous drug”.

Held, dismissing the application, that, inter alia:

The further direction was neither unbalanced nor unfair to D. The question raised by the jury was a request for direction to deal with the difference in opinions amongst themselves. The further direction was aimed at the crux of the jury’s question. Also, the judge was not obliged to provide the jury with a legal definition of a “dangerous drug”; there was no dispute that the heroin involved was a dangerous drug.

上訴法庭

高等法院刑事上訴2011年第296號

高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐、

袁家寧及朱芬齡

2012年10月19日、11月23日




對陪審團提出的具體問題作進

一步引導—是否對被告人不平

衡和不公平

被告人被裁定販運危險藥物罪名成立。

她乘搭飛機到達香港時，海關人員在她

攜帶的背包中發現海洛英。被告人的抗

辯理由是，她在馬來西亞從某人接收到

背包，以為只載有貨物樣辦，讓她從

馬來西亞到帶回中國內地，她既不知道

背包內設有暗格，亦不知內藏海洛英。

其後，下級法院的法官在陪審團要求下

給予引導。被告人就定罪提出上訴許可

申請，指（除其他事項外）對陪審團提

出的具體問題作進一步引導既不公平亦

不平衡，並且有關法官沒有就「危險藥

物」的法律定義向陪審團作出解釋。

裁決— 駁回申請，除其他事項外：

該進一步引導並沒有對被告人造成不公

平或不平衡的情況。陪審團提出的問

題，是要求原審法官就他們之間的分歧

給予引導。該進一步引導是針對陪審團

問題的焦點的引導。此外，原審法官無

必要向陪審團提供「危險藥物」的法律

定義，因控辯雙方均同意涉案的海洛英

屬危險藥物。

INSURANCE 保險

China Taiping Insurance (HK) Co Ltd v Tang Tze Wai [2013] HKEC 205

Court of Appeal

Civil Appeal No 277 of 2011

Chu and Lam JJA and Thomas Au J

27 November 2012, 7 February 2013

Motor vehicle insurance — third party liability policy — engine different from that registered with Transport Department and referred to in proposal and policy

The plaintiff insurer (“P”) issued the

defendant (“D”) with a third-party insurance policy covering a used private car (the “Car”), based on a proposal in which D provided the engine’s number and cylinder capacity. D was involved in a fatal traffic accident.

Government examiners found that the engine in D’s car was not that registered in the vehicle registration document (“VRD”). D was sued in a personal injury action and P brought proceedings seeking to repudiate liability. The Judge found that the engine was an essential part of a car; and since the engine in D’s car was different from that in the Car registered in the VRD and referred to in the proposal or policy, the policy was void ab initio. P was granted declarations that inter alia the Car was not the vehicle intended to be covered under the policy at the time of the accident.

On appeal, it was argued that the test as to whether the vehicle was the same subject vehicle intended to be insured was whether the vehicle conformed in all outward respects to answers in the proposal, and the answers in the proposal as to hidden respects conformed with what was stated in the VRD.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

Whether a vehicle was the same subject matter as intended to be covered by the policy was a matter of fact. Some

features were minor, such as colour. Others were more fundamental and important, such as the engine itself; that D’s vehicle was not the same as that identified in the policy is a fact that cannot be disturbed.

上訴法庭

高等法院民事上訴2011年第277號

高等法院上訴法庭法官朱芬齡及

林文瀚及高等法院原訟法庭法官

區慶祥

2012年11月27日、2013年2月

7日

汽車保險 -第三者責任保險–

涉案引擎與向運輸署登記和建

議書及保單所指的引擎不同

原告人為一家保險公司，其根據一份由

被告人提供引擎號碼及汽缸容量的建議

書，向被告人發出一份承保一輛二手

汽車（下稱「該汽車」）的第三者保險

單。被告人涉及一宗致命交通意外。

政府的檢驗人員發現，被告人汽車內的

引擎並不是車輛登記文件所載的登記引

擎。被告人在一宗人身傷害訴訟中被起

訴，原告人於是提出訴訟尋求拒絕履行

責任。原審法官認為引擎是汽車的重要

部分，而且由於原告人汽車的引擎，與

車輛登記文件登記該汽車的引擎及在建

議書或保單中所指的引擎有別，因此宣

告有關保單從一開始即無效。原告人獲

授予各項聲明，其中包括在事故發生時

該汽車並不是有關保單擬承保的汽車。

上訴中，被告人的論據是，對於有關汽

車是否擬作受保的同一輛標的汽車，有

關測試應為：有關汽車是否與建議書內

所有外在方面的答案一致，及建議書內

隱藏方面的答案是否與車輛登記文件所

載的資料一致。


裁決 - 駁回上訴：

一輛汽車是否擬獲保單承保的同一標

的物是一個事實的問題。有些特徵屬

次要，例如顏色。但有些特徵則屬基

礎及相當重要，例如引擎；被告人的

汽車與保單確定的汽車不一樣是事

實，無法更改。

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 知識產權

Tsit Wing (HK) Co Ltd v TWG Tea Co Ltd [2013] HKEC 374

Court of Appeal


Chu JA and Johnson Lam JA

16 February 2012, 15 March 2013

Trade marks — whether defendants’ case of international reputation and honest use established

The plaintiffs (“P1–2”), a large and well-known local coffee and tea manufacturer, supplier, distributor and retailer, were part of the “Tsit Wing Group” (“TWG”). P2 was the registered proprietor of the “TW” and “TWG” trade marks (“Ps’ Marks”) used by inter alia a large proportion of fast food chains, tea houses, hotels and cafés and Western restaurants run by a subsidiary of P1. The defendants (“D1–2”) were part of the “The Wellness Group” (“TWG”). They held a registered trade mark that co-existed with Ps’ Marks in Mainland China, Singapore and Taiwan. D1 was a Singaporean luxury tea manufacturer and retailer with international tea boutiques/counters and salons, including one such salon in the IFC Mall. In proceedings against D1–2 alleging passing off and trade mark infringement, Ps obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining

Ds from using their trade marks pending trial. Ds appealed, seeking to discharge the injunction.

Held, allowing the appeal, that, inter alia:

The judge in the lower court erred in failing to draw a distinction between damage to Ps’ goodwill attached to “TW” marks and the names “Tsit Wing” (or TW) and that relating to the “TWG” marks and the name “TWG”. There was little evidence as to Ps being known as TWG simpliciter as opposed to Tsit Wing Group or Tsit Wing, including on Ds’ evidence after 2010. Given the evidence on the difference in clientele and market sectors and how the parties’ services were packaged and presented, although there was a serious issue to be tried, the likelihood of confusion was not that clear.

Further, Ps did not have a strong argument based on dilution of goodwill in TWG. This was not a case where Ps’ goodwill in their TWG marks would be likely tarnished due to the quality of Ds’ goods or services. There was no evidence of Ps’ companies being identified as TWG rather than “Tsit Wing Group”.

上訴法庭


高等法院上訴法庭法官朱芬齡及

林文瀚

2012年2月16日、2013年3月

15日

商標—被告人等作出關於國

際信譽和誠實使用的論據是

否確立

原告人等(下稱「第一及第二原告人」)

為一家大型的本地知名咖啡和茶類生

產商、供應商、分銷商和零售商，屬

「Tsit Wing Group」（即「TWG」）

的一部分。第二原告人是商標「TW」

和「TWG」（下稱「原告商標」）的註

冊所有人，大部分連鎖快餐店、茶館、

酒店和咖啡廳，以及由第一原告人旗下

一家附屬公司所經營的西式餐廳等，均

有使用原告商標。被告人等（下稱「第

一及第二被告人」）屬「The Wellness

Group」（即「TWG」）集團的一部

分。他們持有一個註冊商標，該商標在

中國內地、新加坡和台灣與原告商標共

存。第一被告人是新加坡一家高級茶類

生產商和零售商，在世界各地設有茶類

專賣店/專櫃及茶室，其中包括位於香

港國際金融中心商場的茶室。在指控第

一及第二被告人假冒及侵犯商標的訴訟

中，原告人等取得臨時禁制令，禁制被

告人等在候審期間使用其商標。被告人

等提出上訴，要求解除該禁制令。

裁決 - 批准上訴，除其他事項外：

下級法院的法官出錯，沒有就原告人等

在商標「TW」及名稱「Tsit Wing」中

的商譽的損害，以及在商標「TWG」及

名稱「TWG」中的商譽的損害作出區

分。由被告人等提供關於2010年後的證

據顯示，相對於Tsit Wing Group或Tsit

Wing，幾乎沒有證據證明原告人等被單

獨地稱為TWG。儘管本案存在須予審訊




的重要爭論點，但鑑於有證據證明雙方

的客源和市場界別不同，故被混淆的可

能性並不太大。

此外，原告人等以攤薄TWG中的商譽

為基礎的論據亦屬薄弱。本案的情況並

不是因被告人等提供的商品或服務的質

量，以致原告人等在其TWG商標中的商

譽很可能會受到損害。本案沒有證據顯

示原告人等的公司被認作為TWG，而不

是「Tsit Wing Group」。

LAND LAW 土地法

Chan Kwong Ho v Yeung Chi Keung Eric [2013] HKEC 634

Lands Tribunal

Possession Application No 1932 of 2012

Presiding Officer Justin Ko

7, 12 December 2012

Applications for possession — under the amended Section 8(6), jurisdiction of Tribunal not confined to landlord and tenant applications

X commenced these proceedings in the Lands Tribunal in the capacity of landlord of the suit premises against Y, claiming repossession, arrears of rent and mesne profit, on the ground that Y failed to pay rent pursuant to an oral tenancy agreement. In Y’s application to set aside the default judgment obtained by X, it transpired that X was not the landlord but a principal tenant in place of his mother, Z, who formerly rented the premises and sublet to others. The default judgment was set aside on the basis of irregularities. X amended his application and, in the capacity as lessee of the premises, sought the eviction of Y as an unauthorised occupant and compensation for loss and damage arising from Y’s occupation of the premises.

Held, giving judgment for X:

The various grounds of objection raised by Y were either irrelevant or not established on the facts, and were rejected accordingly. Also, in the past, the Lands Tribunal only heard landlord and tenant type of possession cases because Section 8(6) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance (Cap. 17) expressly confined the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to the “[making of] orders for possession under the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap. 7)” (“LTCO”). By the Civil Justice (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance, s.8(6) was amended to confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to “make an order for the recovery of possession of any premises” or for ejecting a tenant from those premises, whether under the LTCO “or otherwise”, although no other specific procedures for repossession had been prescribed. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal was now therefore not confined to landlord and tenant cases.


土地審裁處

收回管有申請2012年第1932號

土地審裁處法官高勁修

2012年12月7、12日

收回管有申請—根據經修訂的第8 ( 6 )條，審裁處的司法管轄權並不局限於業主和租戶的申請

申請人以涉案物業業主身份向土地審裁

處提出針對答辯人的訴訟，申請收回物

業並追收欠租及中間收益，理由是答辯

人未有按口頭協議繳付租金。答辯人沒

有提交反對通知書，法庭於是判申請人

勝訴，其後答辯人提出擱置有關判決

的申請，當中透露涉案物業是由申請人

母親承租，再分租給其他人，故申請人

並非業主，而是取代其母親成為二房

東。由於有關判決並不合符規定，於是

被法庭擱置。其後申請人修改了申請通

知書，並以涉案物業承租人身份提出

申請，要求未獲授權的佔用人（即答辯

人）搬走及賠償物業被答辯人佔用而引

致的損失。

裁決 - 判申請人勝訴：

答辯人提出的各種反對理由均屬無關或

根據案情並不成立，因此全被法庭拒

絕。此外，過去土地審裁處只會審理業

主與租客類的收樓案件，因為《土地審

裁處條例》（第17章）第8(6)條明確限

制審裁處的司法管轄權，只可「根據《

業主與租客（綜合）條例》（第7章）作

出收回管有的命令」（下稱「《條例》

」）。《民事司法制度（雜項修訂）

條例》第8(6)條現已作修訂，審裁處司

法獲賦予管轄權，可根據《條例》「或

在其他情況下，作出收回任何處所的管

有的命令」或強迫租客離開該處所的

命令，不過沒有加入其他特定的收樓程

序。因此，現在審裁處的司法管轄權並

不局限於業主與租客類案件。

Billion Star Development Ltd v Wong Tak Chuen [2013] HKEC 327

Court of Appeal


Kwan, Fok and Lam JJA

26 February, 8 March 2013

Practice of describing defendant as group of unnamed persons —quia timet injunction

The plaintiff (“P”) owned land in a large estate on which a proposed block of flats was to be built. Some residents of the estate opposed this and blocked the only vehicular access within the estate. P sought an injunction against the defendants (“D1–7”). A number of persons claimed to be D7 and three were joined as parties (“D8–10”). At the hearing for injunctive relief against D7–10, the judge in the lower court rejected D8’s defences, inter alia, that there was a prescriptive right of way over the land including a public pedestrian pavement

and that Ds’ presence on the road was an exercise of their constitutional rights. Exercising his discretion, the judge granted an interlocutory injunction against D7 and D10 and a final quia timet injunction against D8–9. D8 now appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that, inter alia:

P had discharged its prima facie burden for the injunction. It was then for D8 to adduce contrary evidence to demonstrate that his intention was otherwise than to continue to participate in acts to interfere with P’s right of reasonable use of the REUTERS/Aaron Tam




access road. It could also not be either necessary or proportionate for D8 to insist on infringing P’s private property rights where the effect would be to prevent P’s lawful exploitation of the land by its development.

In obiter, there was no reason why Hong Kong should not adopt the practice of referring to a defendant by a generic description of a group of persons without naming any individuals, when the circumstances demanded legal redress of a plaintiff’s interest against a large number of unidentified persons by way of injunctive relief. This could be useful in such an application, subject to certain safeguards.

上訴法庭


高等法院上訴法庭法官關淑馨、

霍兆剛及林文瀚

2013年2月26日、3月8日

形容被告人為一組無指名道姓人士的做法—預防性禁制令

原告人擁有的一幅土地位於一個大型屋

苑的範圍內，其計劃在該土地上興建一

幢住宅。有些屋苑居民反對有關計劃，

並阻塞屋苑內唯一的車輛通道。原告人

向法庭申請針對被告人等（即第一至第

七被告人）的禁制令。有若干人士自稱

為第七被告人，其中三人加入成為訴訟

一方即第八至第十被告人）。在針對第

七至第十被告人的禁制令聆訊中，下級

法院的法官不接納第八被告人的抗辯，

其中包括因時效而獲得包括公共行人路

的有關土地的路權，以及被告人等身處

有關道路上是行使其憲法權利等。該法

官行使酌情決定權，向第七和第十被告

人發出非正審禁制令，及向第八和第九

被告人發出最終的預防性禁制令。第八

被告人現提出上訴。

裁決 - 駁回上訴，除其他事項外：

原告人已為禁制令履行其初步的舉證責

任。然後便須由第八被告人援引相反證

據，證明他的意圖並非繼續參與有關行

為以干預原告人合理使用通道的權利。

此外，第八被告人堅持侵犯原告人的私

人產權，以達致阻止原告人合法發展有

關土地，屬不必要及不相稱的。

法庭附帶一提，如果原告人的權益需要

法律透過向大量身份不明的人士發出禁

制令作糾正的話，則香港沒有理由不應

採取有關做法—即統稱某類人士為被告

人，而不指定任何個人。在若干保護措

施下，此方法對這樣的申請相當有用。

PERSONAL INJURY 人身傷害

Lau Yuk Hung v Tsang Kwong Ming [2012] HKEC 1734


Personal Injuries Action No 284 of 2010

Bharwaney J in Chambers

24 September 2012

Employees’ Compensation Assistance Fund Board — claim for payment from Board where plaintiff unable to recover payment from employer

The plaintiff (“P”) fell from a ladder at work after which the parties’ orthopaedic experts assessed a total impairment of between 4–6%. Four years after the accident, P still suffered intermittent attacks of right wrist pain and right chest pain and also rib pain upon deep breathing. P’s employer and defendant (“D”) was found liable for employees’ compensation. Subsequently, P obtained interlocutory judgment in the common law proceedings against D, who thereafter failed to participate in the proceedings. The Court ordered the Employees’ Compensation Assistance Fund Board (the “Board”) to be joined as a defendant, and the Board agreed not to contest the assessment of damages provided P’s claims were limited to HK$420,000. P was a fire-extinguishing system technician earning HK$11,000 per month when he was injured. He was granted nine-and-a-half months’ sick leave.

Held, that, inter alia:


The total gross award was HK$545,960 (comprising pain, suffering and loss of amenities at HK$280,000; Mandatory Provident Fund at HK$138,600; loss of earning capacity at HK$120,000; and special damages at HK$7,360). It was also reasonable to allow two-and-a-half months after P’s sick leave expired to search for suitable alternative employment. After deducting HK$125,960 for employees’ compensation received, the total net award was $420,000. Interest was also awarded.

In obiter, the Court expressed disquiet at the state of affairs where, following amendments to the Employees’ Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Cap. 365), injured persons who were unable to recover payment from their employers were required, nevertheless, to prove their claim for common law damages in court before they could claim payment from the Board. Yet the Board was neither liable to pay interest on damages awarded nor costs incurred in proving the case in court and obtaining judgment against the employer; judicial review proceedings might have to be taken if statutory legislative intervention to end this situation was not available going forward.

原訟法庭

傷亡訴訟案件2010年第284號

高等法院原訟法庭法官包華禮（內

庭聆訊）

2012年9月24日

僱員補償援助基金管理局—原

告人無法自僱主處追討款額，

可申請由管理局支付款項

原告人工作時從梯子跌下受傷，其後訴

訟各方的骨科專家評定總損傷為4-6％之

間。意外發生四年後，原告人右手手腕

仍出現間歇性疼痛、右側胸口間歇性疼

痛，並在深呼吸時感到肋骨疼痛。原告

人的僱主（即被告人）被裁定須負上僱

員補償責任。隨後，原告人在針對被告

人的普通法法律程序中取得判被告人敗

訴的非正審判決，此後被告人再沒有參

與有關訴訟。法庭下令僱員補償援助基

金管理局（下稱「管理局」）加入有關

訴訟成為被告人，而管理局同意只要原

告人的申索款額不超過420,000港元，

便不會對損害賠償的評估提出異議。原

告人是一名滅火系統技術員，受傷時月

入11,000港元。他獲准放取9.5個月病

假。

裁決 - 其中包括：

總賠償為545,960港元（包括疼痛、

痛苦及喪失生活樂趣280,000港元；

強積金138,600港元；喪失賺取收入

能力120,000港元；及專項損害賠償

7,360港元）。此外，准許原告人病

假期滿後放取額外2 .5個月病假，讓

其尋找合適的替代工作，亦屬合理。

扣除已得的僱員補償即125,960港元

後，總淨賠償為420,000港元。法庭

亦判原告人獲得利息。

法庭附帶一提，《僱員補償援助條例》

（第365章）經修訂後，如傷者無法自

其僱主處追討款額，他們必須就普通法

損害賠償在法庭證明其申索後，才可申

請由管理局支付款項，而法庭對此狀況

表示憂慮。管理局既沒有責任就損害賠

償支付利息，亦沒有責任支付就在法庭

證明申索及取得判僱主敗訴的判決所招

致的訟費，倘若將來無法以法定立法干

預改變此情況，則可能要以司法覆核的

方式解決。

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 專業實務

Re Youh Chuen Po Alan [2013] HKEC 285


Miscellaneous Proceedings No 1439 of 2012

Lam JA

8 February, 1 March 2013

Barristers — contested application for local admission

X applied for admission as a local barrister supported by a certificate of qualification for admission issued by the Bar Council. The Bar Association (the “Bar”) raised concerns as to whether X was “a fit and proper person to be a barrister”, withdrew the Certificate and informed the Court that the application was contested. X eventually applied for leave to withdraw his motion and maintained there should be no order as to costs. The Court took the opportunity to consider the cost principles in a contested local admission application.

Held, granting leave to withdraw and making no order on the summons or as to costs, that, inter alia:

Under the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub. Leg.), the party who discontinued his action should pay the other side’s costs, but the court had an unfettered discretion to order otherwise if appropriate.

In contested local admission applications, the Bar would not seek costs if they fell within those usually incurred in the protection of the public interest, namely to ensure that only fit and proper persons were admitted to the Bar. In this regard, the proper approach was to ask whether the applicant did anything or made any omission improperly or unnecessarily, such as excessive adversarial language,




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》。

tactics in correspondence and forensic steps. In particular the parties’ conduct was also relevant to the overall assessment of circumstances.

Here, on the facts and bearing in mind X’s inexperience and lack of legal representation, he had not done anything or made any omission so improperly or unnecessarily that called for a costs sanction against him. X might have been unhelpful and uncooperative, but he was not positively obstructive.

原訟法庭

雜項案件2012年第1439號

高等法院上訴法庭法官林文瀚

2013年2月8日、3月1日

大律師 — 有爭議的本地認許

申請

申請人申請獲認許為本地大律師，並以

大律師公會的執行委員會發出的具備認

許資格證明書作為支持。大律師公會

對申請人是否屬「適當作為大律師的人

士」表示關注，並撤回有關證明書及通

知法庭表示對有關申請提出爭議。最終

申請人提出撤回動議許可的申請，並堅

持法庭不作出任何關於訟費的命令。法

庭藉此機會對具爭議的本地認許申請中

的訟費原則予以考慮。

裁決 – 准許撤回動議，並就傳票及訟費

不作出任何命令，除其他事項外：

根據《高等法院規則》（第4A章，附屬

法例），中止其訴訟的一方應支付對方

的訟費，然而，如適當的話，法庭有不

受約束的酌情權作出其他命令。

在具爭議的本地認許申請中，如果有關

申請屬於在保護公眾利益時通常會招致

的申請，則大律師公會並不會追討訟

費，為的是確保僅適當作為大律師的人

士獲認許為大律師。在這方面，正確

的做法是了解申請人有否不當或不必要

地作出任何作為或不作為，例如使用過

度對抗的語言、通信中的手法及法證步

驟。尤其是訴訟各方的行為亦與情況的

整體評估有關。

在本案中，根據案中的事實，以及在申

請人缺乏經驗和沒有法律代表的情況

下，他沒有不當或不必要地作出任何作

為或不作為，以致需要向他處以訟費懲

罰。申請人可能沒有提供協助及不合

作，但他沒有正面作出阻礙。


LEGISLATION UPDATES立法新知

REUTERS/Bobby Yip



Legal NoticesAmendments to Ordinances/Subsidiary Legislation

• 2013/100 Road Traffic Ordinance; Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) Ordinance--Resolution of the Legislative Council - 《道路交通條例》；《道路交通(違例駕駛記分)條

例》--立法會決議

• 2013/101 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Amendment of Second Schedule) Order 2013 - 《2013年危險藥物條例(修訂

附表2)令》

• 2013/102 Hospital Authority Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2013 - 《2013年醫院管理局條例(修訂附表

1)令》

• 2013/103 Prevention and Control of Disease (Amendment) Regulation 2013 - 《2013年預防及控制疾病 (修訂) 規例》

• 2013/104 Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance (Amendment of Schedules 1 and 2) Notice 2013 - 《2013年

預防及控制疾病條例 (修訂附表1及2) 公告》

• 2013/105 Declaration of Markets (Amendment) Notice 2013 - 《2013年街市宣布 (修訂) 公告》

• 2013/106 Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Markets) (Amendment of Tenth Schedule) Order 2013 - 《2013年公眾生及市政條例 (公眾街市) (修訂附表10)

令》

• 2013/107 Declaration of Increase in Pensions Notice 2013 - 《2013年宣布增加退休金公告》

• 2013/108 Widows and Orphans Pension (Increase) Notice 2013 - 《2013年孤寡撫恤金 (增加) 公告》

• 2013/109 United Nations Sanctions (Iran) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 - 《2013年聯合國制裁 (伊朗) (修訂) 規

例》

• 2013/110 Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013 - 《2013年律師 (一般) 事務費 (修訂) 規則》

• 2013/111 Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance--Resolution of the Legislative Council - 《釋義及通則條例》--

立法會決議


立法會決議


立法會決議


立法會決議

LEGISLATION UPDATES

PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

Newly - Admitted Members 新會員

ADEBIYI JOHN DANIEL ABIODUN SKADDEN,ARPS,SLATE,MEAGHER&FLOM 世達國際律師事務所

BIRKS MITCHELL SCOTT WONG&CO.,HENRYH.C.黃浩翔律師行

DEVOY STACEY LORRAINE

GU YUJIE 顧宇杰

LEEJOSEPHP.C.&ASSOCIATES李秉財律師事務所

HO WINIFRED 何嘉泳

HYATT INTERNATIONAL-ASIAPACIFIC,LIMITED

HOLTRICHTER JOHN Z HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS史密夫•斐爾律師

事務所

JOHNSON JR DAVID JAMES O’MELVENY&MYERS美邁斯律師事務所

KUO KUO-CHENG DAVID郭國正

ALLEN&OVERY安理國際律師事務所

KWOK WEN LONG DAVID郭文龍

WILKINSON&GRIST高露雲律師行

LEE PANG 李鵬

SHEARMAN&STERLING謝爾曼•思特靈

律師事務所

MILLIGAN DAVID JAMES NORTONROSEHONG KONG 諾頓羅氏香港

SHENG STEPHANIE CHUN 盛皓欣

O’MELVENY&MYERS美邁斯律師事務所

TURNBULL DAVINA ANTONIA SMYTH&CO

VANCE ELEANOR MARIE-FRANCINE HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS史密夫•斐爾律師事務所

YIN YUNXIA 尹雲霞

ROPES&GRAY羅普斯•格雷律師事務所

YU HUALIANG 余華良

SHEARMAN&STERLING謝爾曼•思特靈律師事務所

ZHANG YAN 張岩

O’MELVENY&MYERS美邁斯律師事務所



July 2013 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

• ADEBIYI JOHN DANIEL ABIODUN

joined Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom as a partner as from 10/06/2013.

自2013年6月10日加入世達國

際律師事務所為合夥人。

• BATES MICHAEL DAVID joined Clifford Chance as a

partner as from 28/05/2013. 自2013年5月28日加入高偉紳

律師行為合夥人。

• BINNERSLEY NIGEL JOHN ceased to be a partner

of Blank Rome as from 15/06/2013, and joined Bryan Cave as a partner as from 17/06/2013.

潘納理自2013年6月15日辭去博銳

律師事務所合夥人一職，並於

2013年6月17日加入博凱律師

事務所為合夥人。

• CARMICHAEL ANDREW JAMES

ceased to be a partner of Linklaters as from 23/05/2013 and .

自2013年5月23日辭去年利達

律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CARNABUCI CONNIE BERNADETTE

ceased to be a partner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer as from 01/06/2013.

自2013年6月1日辭去富而德

律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CHAN KAI LEUNG ceased to be a partner of

King & Company and remains as a consultant of the firm as from 01/06/2013. Mr. Chan commenced practice as the sole practitioner in the name of K.L. Chan & Co. as from 01/06/2013.

陳啟量自2013年6月1日辭去譚德興

程國豪劉麗卿律師行合夥人

一職，但仍繼續擔任該行顧

問一職。陳律師並於2013年

6月1日獨資經營新開業陳啟

量律師行。

Partnerships and Firms 合夥人及律師行變動

changes received as from 1 May 2013

取自2013年5月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料BRADY MORGANA CLAIRE

CHAN YUK YING AMANDA 陳玉英

CHIN&CO.,P.H.

錢北慶律師事務所

CHAU POK MAN ALEX 周博文

CLEAVER ROBERT PHILIP

GAO YI 高屹

SIMPSONTHACHER&BARTLETT

盛信律師事務所

KOK WEN YING

LI GUANG 李光

LO HO YI 盧灝怡

LINKLATERS

年利達律師事務所

NICKLIN MICHAEL PAULROPES&GRAY

羅普斯•格雷律師事務所

QUINN PAUL SIMON LIPMANKARAS

立祁律師事務所

SIMMONS NATHAN BRADLEY GALL

高嘉力律師行

TAI CHI CHUNG 戴志聰

TAIT STUART JONATHAN

TILLETT EMILY JOYCE GALL

高嘉力律師行

TONG YU YING 唐宇盈

ZHANG YUE 張悅

CITICPACIFICLIMITED

• CHAN KING LEUNG WILLY ceased to be a partner of

Chan & Associates as from 18/06/2013 and the firm’s name changed to Wong & Lawyers on the same date. Mr. Chan remains as a partner of Wong & Associates.

陳景良自2013年6月18日辭去陳景

良律師行合夥人一職，而該

行於同日改名為黃廣安律師

行。陳律師繼續擔任黃宇豪

律師行合夥人一職。

• CHAO HOWARD HONSHUEN

ceased to be a partner of O’Melveny & Myers and remains as an assistant solicitor of the firm as from 04/06/2013.

趙宏絢自2013年6月4日辭去美邁

斯律師事務所合夥人一職，

但仍繼續擔任該行助理律師

一職。

• CHENG FUNG YEE JESSIE ceased to be a partner of

Wong, Fung & Co. and remains as a consultant of the firm as from 17/06/2013.

鄭鳳儀自2013年6月17日辭去黃馮

律師行合夥人一職，但仍繼

續擔任該行顧問一職。

• CHEUNG KAR YIN KEVIN became a partner of

Linklaters as from 03/06/2013.

張家賢自2013年6月3日成為年利

達律師事務所合夥人。

• CHOONG JIN HAN (updated) became a

partner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer as from 01/05/2013.

鍾津翰 (更新) 自2013年5月1日成

為富而德律師事務所合夥

人。

• DEEGAN THOMAS joined Sidley Austin as a

partner as from 20/05/2013. 自2013年5月20日加入盛德律

師事務所為合夥人。

• DEVOY STACEY LORRAINE joined Withers as a partner as

from 04/06/2013. 自2013年6月4日加入衛達仕律


• GRAY GREGORY QUINTON ceased to be a partner of

Holman Fenwick Willan as from 21/05/2013.

自2013年5月21日辭去夏禮文

律師行合夥人一職。

• HASWELL PAUL RICHARD became a partner of Pinsent

Masons as from 03/05/2013. 自2013年5月3日成為品誠梅森

律師事務所合夥人。

• HO FOOK HOI FRANCIS ceased to be a partner of F.H.

Ho & Co. as from 01/06/2013 and the firm closed business on the same date and Mr. Ho remains as a consultant of Bernard Wong & Co.

何福海自2013年6月1日辭去何福海律

師行合夥人一職，而該行於同

日結業。何律師繼續擔任黃江

森、林輝德律師事務所顧問一

職。

• HO WING CHI became a partner of Loong &

Yeung as from 11/06/2013.

何穎芝自2013年6月11日成為龍炳

坤、楊永安律師行合夥人。

• HUNT ROBERT WILLIAM MICHAEL

joined Herbert Smith Freehills as a partner as from 22/05/2013.

自2013年5月22日加入史密

夫•斐爾律師事務所為合夥人。

• JOHNSON JR DAVID JAMES joined O’Melveny & Myers as a

partner as from 04/06/2013. 自2013年6月4日加入美邁斯律



• KUO KUO-CHENG DAVID joined Allen & Overy as a partner as

from 04/06/2013.

郭國正自2013年6月4日加入安理國際律師事務

所為合夥人。

• LAM BIK KWAN MARGARET became a partner of Szwina Pang,

Edward Li & Company as from 03/06/2013.

林碧君自2013年6月3日成為李國強、彭書幗律

師行合夥人。

• LI CHI MING became a partner of Yeong & Co. as

from 20/05/2013.

李志明自2013年5月20日成為楊潤康律師行合

夥人。

• LI CHING MAN ROSA ceased to be a partner of Tsui & Co. as

from 30/05/2013.

李正文自2013年5月30日辭去徐國森律師事務

所合夥人一職。

• LIEW FUI KIANG DANIEL ceased to be a partner of Brandt Chan

& Partners as from 01/06/2013, and joined Li & Partners as a partner on the same date.

自2013年6月1日辭去布英達陳永元律師

行合夥人一職，並於同日加入李偉斌律

師行為合夥人。

• LIU WAI KI became a partner of Ng and Fang as

from 01/06/2013.

廖偉奇自2013年6月1日成為吳漢英、方成生律

師樓合夥人。

• LLOYD VICTORIA SALLY TINA joined Ropes & Gray as a partner as

from 13/05/2013.

羅愛琪自2013年5月13日加入羅普斯•格雷律


• LOWE PAUL WYNDHAM ceased to be a partner of Eversheds as

from 30/05/2013. 自2013年5月30日辭去安睿國際律師事

務所合夥人一職。

• MacAULAY ALASTAIR CRAIG joined Clifford Chance as a partner as

from 03/06/2013.

麥求理自2013年6月3日加入高偉紳律師行為合

夥人。

• MURRAY PETER JOHN ceased to be a partner of Ince & Co. as

from 01/06/2013.

馬瑞自2013年6月1日辭去英士律師行合夥人

一職。

• NG KAM CHEUNG commenced practice as the sole

practitioner in the name of Daniel K. C. Ng & Co., Solicitors as from 06/05/2013 and remains as a consultant of Alan Ho & Co.

吳錦祥自2013年5月6日獨資經營新開業吳錦祥

律師行，並繼續擔任何伯華律師行顧問

一職。

• NICKLIN MICHAEL PAUL joined Ropes & Gray as a partner as

from 04/06/2013. 自2013年6月4日加入羅普斯•格雷律師

事務所為合夥人。

• PANG CHOR WAN KERRY became a partner of Lau & Chan as

from 01/06/2013.

彭楚雲自2013年6月1日成為劉陳律師事務所合

夥人。

• PAU KA HANG DOROTHY became a partner of Ng and Fang as

from 01/06/2013.

鮑嘉恒自2013年6月1日成為吳漢英、方成生律

師樓合夥人。

• ROGERS MARTIN DAVID ceased to be a partner of Clifford

Chance as from 11/05/2013, and joined Davis Polk & Wardwell as a partner on the same date.

羅嘉誠自2013年5月11日辭去高偉紳律師行合

夥人一職，並於同日加入DAVIS POLK &

WARDWELL為合夥人。

• SANDSTAD BENJAMIN JOHN ceased to be a partner of Mayer Brown

JSM as from 01/06/2013. 自2013年6月1日辭去孖士打律師行合夥

人一職。

• STEWIEN BRETT WALTER ceased to be a partner of DLA Piper

Hong Kong as from 23/05/2013. 自2013年5月23日辭去歐華律師事務所

合夥人一職。

• SWEENEY AUSTIN GERARD joined Herbert Smith Freehills as a

partner as from 22/05/2013. 自2013年5月22日加入史密夫•斐爾律


• TAM MAN LEUNG VIRGINIA joined K&L Gates as a partner as from

27/05/2013.

譚敏亮自2013年5月27日加入高蓋茨律師事務

所為合夥人。

• TSE LAI MOON SAMMY passed away on 01/06/2013 and

ceased to be a partner of M.C.A. Lai & Co.

謝禮滿於2013年6月1日逝世，之前為賴文俊律

師行合夥人。

• VAN EUPEN FRANCES MARY LOUISE

became a partner of Allen & Overy as from 01/05/2013.

易碧菲自2013年5月1日成為安理國際律師事務

所合夥人。

• WADHAM JAMES RUTHERFORD ceased to be a partner of Clifford

Chance as from 11/05/2013, and joined Davis Polk & Wardwell as a partner on the same date.

自2013年5月11日辭去高偉紳律師行合

夥人一職，並於同日加入DAVIS POLK &

WARDWELL為合夥人。

• WONG CHI KIN OSMAN became a partner of Lau & Chan as

from 01/06/2013.

黃子健自2013年6月1日成為劉陳律師事務所合

夥人。

• WONG KWONG ON became a partner of Chan & Associates

as from 14/06/2013 and the firm’s name changed to Wong & Lawyers as from 18/06/2013.

黃廣安自2013年6月14日成為陳景良律師行合

夥人，而該行自2013年6月18日改名為

黃廣安律師行。

• YUEN CHING PONG ceased to be a partner of Zebra H.Y.

Kwan & Partners as from 10/06/2013.

袁正邦自2013年6月10日辭去關幸玉律師行合

夥人一職。



An idyllic view of the Sigiriya world heritage site in Sri Lanka

在斯里蘭卡的錫吉裡耶世界遺產的田園景觀

重燃旅遊的浪漫情懷

rekindle the romanceof travel


• July 2013 Sponsored Feature 贊助內容

By Kamilia Lahrichi 作者柳秋智


I am sure we have all experienced a holiday that was supposed to be perfect

but instead you returned more exhausted and less inspired than before, leaving you in need of another holiday. The issue mainly stems from the endless choices we have today and the lack of time to filter through all the options to find the ideal one. How many times have you given up on a dream holiday simply because of ominous anticipation of the logistical and administrative nightmares involved?

Take James Cheung, a fictitious partner in a Hong Kong firm who enjoys taking pictures of scenic views in secluded islands, the only times he can take a break. But he finds it difficult to conciliate this yearning with his wife’s. Unlike him, Carmen, the vice-president of a consultancy, wants to stimulate her taste buds. They also want a holiday package that offers their nine-year old and 13-year old children international exposure and learning, something that they could perhaps never experience in their daily lives.

However, overwhelmed as they are by the hectic pace of Hong Kong life, neither of them has the time or the energy to meticulously prepare a vacation that satisfies everyone’s desires.

Last summer, the Cheungs had a rather stressful six-day trip to Seoul. After three intensive days during which they visited as many Buddhist temples, parks and teahouses as they could, they decided to spend the remaining of the holiday in the resort complex. Due to a lack of organisation, this vacation didn’t cater to each member’s interests and they eventually got bored of the city’s crowd and the lack of personalisation.

Where once such travellers might have considered buying a fully-furnished property at an idyllic locale where each member of the family could do their own thing, more would now rather take advantage of a completely customised vacation set in a personal residence, complete with concierge and chef while taking in the local surrounds maybe during the day. Indeed, such luxury would also include a personal travel advisor who organises customised trips and activities for the family. One key reason for this, data has shown, is variety – now travellers can spend each annual holiday at a

different “home”, instead of returning to the same place over and over again until they decide to sell their holiday property. This research is based on Horwath HTL’s AGlobalTrendsReport–FirstFindingsforILTMAsia, June 2011.

Simply put, families like the Cheungs fantasise about not having to raise a finger to organise their dream holiday. After all, that’s not the point of taking a break. As luxury travellers, they imagine a club where exclusivity is the key word, and they get as much as they can, wherever they are.

They are admittedly not familiar – yet – with the all-inclusive model that a bespoke luxury hospitality and travel company like Rediscovered has introduced to Asia. Compared to say the vacation ownership holiday system, luxury travellers can now be pampered, while satisfying their yearnings for less cost, a somewhat pleasant surprise for many such travellers. In exchange for paying a low subscription fee, they have access to a range of ultra-premium properties globally, exclusive experiential activities in each destination, and once-in-a-lifetime adventures globally all curated by a personal travel advisor.

Your staff, your style, your wayOne-of-a-kind residences and awe-inspiring adventures aside, a perfect luxury holiday is also defined by the execution of any services surrounding it. Who wants to chase down a taxi at the airport when you’re traveling with a family of five, carrying five suitcases and who wants to be put on hold when trying to make restaurant reservations?

What if you want to arrange something special like a surprise birthday cake? All these sort of small details, if executed seamlessly, can create the perfect holiday. Without it, even the most beautiful residences or destinations may not be able to redeem the bad taste left in your mouth from bad service.

So why not have people looking after the details just for you? New generation players like Rediscovered are answering travellers’ call for more personalized attention and tailored solutions by providing members with dedicated staff that look after them at each stage of their travels: planning before the holiday, on the ground during the holiday, and after the holiday. This leaves travellers with less stress, more time and energy to simply “be” and more opportunity to effortlessly enjoy their holiday.

Luxury travellers are also looking for multi-generational travel. Together with an increasing demand for privacy, this has boosted the need for serviced villa properties and family-friendly programmes, with the provision of personal care services, recreation facilities and tourist services.

A taste of it For instance, some have opted for a rediscovery trip to Sri Lanka that cossets and rekindles in them the romance of travel.

This trip comes complete with helicopter flights that allow travellers to take in views as far as the eye can see from a thousand feet above sea level, flying in style over the Tear Drop of India and its breath-taking views. Private transfers around island by chopper or seaplane are convenient and ideal for flight-seeing tours, aerial filming and aerial reconnaissance.

A club for a chosen fewThe main wish of such discerning travellers oftentimes is to stay in top-end properties that reflect local communities in emerging destinations – and then take off to explore what their host locale has to offer. Some, for instance, might feel like sipping champagne in a personal hot air balloon as the sun rises to the East over the Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia. Others may fancy galloping over the Mongolian plains to reach the river in time to catch Taimen salmon for lunch. The rest could be in the mood for heli-skiing in El Calafate before dropping in on friends for a Patagonian barbecue.

Besides, luxury travellers are fond of a more exclusive and discreet style of luxury, research has shown, with a heightened demand for concierge-type services.

For example, they are looking for the guy who can get them tickets to anything, helicopters to anywhere and find them the only place in town that sells a Panama hat with a Montecristi Cuenta number of over 900.

AFTER WORK 工餘閒情July 2013 •


Explore Sri Lanka just the way you wantFirst, relax… Your personal resident concierge, private chef and housekeeping staff will pamper you in your resplendent Elysium residence in Thalpe, in southern Sri Lanka. The five-bedroom villa alone will take you to a peaceful state of mind with beautifully designed interiors, a serene swimming pool, private beach access, extensive gardens and shaded massage sala.

Once you are ready to make a move, you can appreciate the diversity of sea life during a diving workshop to enhancing your awareness and understanding of Sri Lanka’s aquatic environment. Travellers can make the most of their underwater adventures in Hikkaduwa, Weligama or Kirinda. And snorkelling is also a great alternative for travellers who prefer exclusive excursions that avoid the traditional and busier dive and snorkel sites for up-close experiences with the local flora and fauna. A late-night stroll on the beach may even afford an encounter with hatching sea turtles.

Travellers can also take advantage of having a private boat to explore Sri Lanka and the surrounding coast line. For those in the mood to celebrate, helicopter transfer can be arranged from the quiet getaway of Thalpe in the south to Sigiriya in the north for a ride in a privately charted hot air balloon tour of the Cultural Triangle.

以你所喜愛的方式訪尋斯里蘭卡

你首先要作的是放鬆…在你位於斯里蘭卡南部Thalpe的輝煌極樂世界居所中，你的門房服務員、私人廚子和家務人員會為你安排各項服務。一棟擁有五個睡房的別墅，當中設有美侖美奐的室內裝飾、環境清優的游泳池、私人海灘通道、偌大的花園、遮光的按摩室等，會令你感覺倍加寧靜。

當你一旦準備採取行動後，你可以選擇參加一個潛水講習班，在當中領略海洋生物的多樣化，從而加深你對斯里蘭卡海洋環境的認識和了解。旅遊人士最適宜在Hikkaduwa、Weligama或Kirinda等地方進行水底歷奇。對於希

望遠離傳統而繁囂的潛水和潛泳場地，進行單獨觀賞並可以更靠近當地動植物海洋棲息地的旅遊人士來說，潛泳確是一項很好和值得考慮參與的活動。假如你於深夜在海灘漫步，更可能會有幸見到海龜在沙灘上的孵化的過程呢。

旅遊人士現時也可以利用私人遊艇來觀賞斯里蘭卡及其周邊海岸線的景色。有興趣舉行慶祝的人士，也可以安排乘坐直升機，從南方的Thalpe飛往北方的Sigiriya，並在那兒乘坐文化三角(Cultural Triangle)的私人導賞熱氣球進行觀光。

回到基本﹕在俄羅斯的Kamchatka垂釣讓我們在世界上最漂亮但最少人到的地方進行一次絕佳的戶外垂釣之旅，並與大自然再次聯繫於一起。神秘的堪察加半島位於俄羅斯遠東區的活躍地質範圍內，當中有各樣奇妙的景觀，包括火山、間歇噴泉、熱溫泉，更有一個硫酸湖﹗著名的「Ｋamchatka火山」是聯合國教育科學文化組織的一個世界遺產所在地。

風景最漂亮的垂釣地方是在只可以乘坐直升機到達的偏遠地點。當然，你不會只固定於其中一個地方，你的導遊是釣魚專家，他會不時勘察有沒有其他更佳的垂釣地方。

旅遊人士乘坐現代化而舒適的木筏流向下遊，並一直觀賞令人嘆為觀止的景色。在一日之盡，大家處身於被奇妙大自然包圍的帳蓬中，享用俄國人所精深泡製的晚餐。一次多麼令人嚮往的奇妙旅程﹗

Such a vacation would be perfect for someone like James Cheung – he would be able to capture the tropical scenery while his family spends their time hiking the tea estates in the central highlands or biking through rice paddies in the area around Galle. The family could meet up for a privately catered dinner at the holiday villa or on board a privately chartered catamaran.

The luxury travel market is ripe for something new. With a growing number of luxury travellers, there is an increased emphasis on exclusivity and personalization. Traditional options have reached somewhat of a plateau so when it comes to travel moments that matter - family holidays with the in-laws, a pre-wedding getaway with friends, or an important retreat with the investors - for some, and in fact for a growing number of discerning travelers, traveling is no longer only about the destination but also about the journey itself. It will be worth keeping an eye on these new players that bring romance back to travel.

Fancy following in the Cheungs’ footsteps? n

Activities tailored just for you

Get back to basics: fishing in Kamchatka, RussiaReconnect with nature in the great outdoors on a fishing trip in the most beautiful but least visited part of the world. Mysterious Kamchatka, located in the geologically active region of Russia’s Far East, offers curious souls scenic views of volcanoes, geysers, hot springs, and even a lake of acid! The dramatic “Volcanoes of Kamchatka” are a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The most scenic fishing areas are in remote areas only accessible by helicopter. Of course, you will not be tied down to one area. Your guides are expert fishers who constantly track where the best fishing locations are.

Travellers go downriver on modern and comfortable rafts, all the while taking in the breath-taking scenery only few have seen. At the end of the day, they stay in tents, surrounded by magnificent nature, and enjoy hearty Russian meals. What an adventure!

This article is brought to you by Rediscovered Luxury Residences & Voyages. www.re-discovered.com [email protected] +852 3103 1020

我肯定大家都有這樣的經驗，就是當我

們滿以為可以度過一個愉快的假期，

但結果卻是乘興而來，敗興而返，令你再次

萌生下一個假期快點到來的念頭。問題的根

源，主要在於今天我們享有無數的選擇，但

卻沒有充裕的時間來去蕪存菁，篩選出我們

心中最想要的東西來。有多少次是你因為對

後勤補給和管理等問題有著不祥的預兆，而

令你不得不放棄所期待到來的夢幻旅程。

專門為你設計的活動


• July 2013

A snorkeler swims towards sperm whales diving into the deep blue sea in southern Sri Lanka在斯里蘭卡南部一位泳客遊向抹香鯨

AFTER WORK 工餘閒情July 2013 •

Rediscovered Luxury Residences & Voyages 為你獻上此專題 www.re-discovered.com [email protected] +852 3103 1020

讓我們以James Cheung為例。他是一名虛

構的香港某家律師事務所的合伙人。他所喜

愛的活動，是在一些與世隔絕的小島上拍風

景照，而這也是他唯一可以放假休息的時

間。但他發覺他自己的愛好，卻難以與他太

太的愛好融和。他的太太Carmen與他有著

不一樣的喜好。她是一家顧問公司的副總

裁，而她的喜好是品嘗美食。事實上，他/

她們也希望能夠安排到一個假期配套，讓

他/她們兩名分別9歲和13歲的兒子有機會

往外國遊歷和學習，而這是他們在日常生活

中所無法體驗得到的。

然而，基於香港的生活節奏忙碌，他/她們

二人都沒有時間和精力來仔細安排一個符合

大家願望的假期。

去年夏天，張先生一家人在首爾度過了一

個為期6天的沒趣旅程。在頭三天的緊湊行

程中，他/她們參觀了許多寺廟、公園和茶

館，而他/她們最後決定選擇在度假村中消

磨餘下的時間。由於有關旅程缺乏組織，因

此未能顧及各成員的興趣，而大家最終也對

首爾這個城市的擠迫和缺乏人性化設計而感

到厭煩。

這些旅遊愛好者也可能曾經考慮購買一棟富

有田園風味並且家具齊全的度假屋，讓每名

家庭成員在當中都可以從心所欲的做自己喜

歡做的事情。但是，現在也許有更多人希望

享受到在一個私人居所中，有專人為他們設

計假期活動，並有服務員和廚子為你提供所

需服務，而你則可以趁著白天到處瀏覽當地

的景物。事實上，這種豪華旅遊方式，也包

括由一名私人旅遊顧問為你全家人精心安排

合適的旅程和活動。資料顯示，這種服務受

歡迎的其中一個主要原因是它的多樣化。旅

客現今可以安排每年的年假在不同的「家」

中度過，而無需經常重覆地回到同一個地

方逗留，直至決定要將自己的度假屋出售

為止。這項研究是根據Horwath HTL’s A

Global Trends Report – First Findings for

ILTM Asia, 於2011年6月而作出的。

簡單而言，像張氏這樣一個家庭，都是希望

能無須動一根手指頭，便可以享受到夢幻式

的假期安排。畢竟，放假的重點並非在於

此。作為豪華旅行人士，能夠專享會所的服

務對他們而言才是最重要，而他們確實無論

是身在何方也可以如願以償。

誠然，他們仍然不熟悉這種由例如

Rediscovered這些旅遊預訂公司向亞洲推介

的此等全面旅遊安排。與諸如「假期所有權

制度」相比，豪華旅客現時可以支付更為便

宜的價格而享受到奢華的飲食，而對於許

多這類旅遊人士來說，這可以說是一個驚

喜。在支付了低廉的服務認購費用後，他

們可以挑選在全球一系列的特級房屋、每

一個目的地的獨有行程體驗，以及一生經

歷一次的環球歷奇，而這全都是由一位私

人旅遊顧問所負責安排。

只讓少數人享用的會所設備

而精明旅遊人士所最希望得到的，是住在能

體現新興旅遊地點當地社會情況的高級房子

中，然後出發尋找這兒的可供探尋地方。例

如，一些人可能喜歡當太陽在東方俄羅斯

的堪察加半島上空升起之際，坐在私人熱氣

球上品嘗香檳的滋味。另一些人也許喜歡在

蒙古平原上奔馳，目的是準時趕抵河流捕捉

Taimen三文魚以供作午膳之用。而其他人則

可能會在巴塔哥尼亞探訪朋友，並在享受野

餐燒烤以前，先行興致勃勃地在艾加拉法地

乘搭直升機上高山滑雪。

除此以外，研究顯示豪華旅遊人士喜歡獲

得提供較專門和招呼周到的豪華享受方

式，因而對該等門房類型服務的需求也更

殷切。

例如，他們會尋找一些人士可以為他們購

買到任何類型活動的入場券、讓他們可以

乘坐直升機到任何地方，以及可以為他們

尋找到Montecristi Cuenta數目超過900的

巴拿馬草帽唯一售賣地方。

你的員工、你的風格、你的方式

除了獨一無二的居所和令人讚嘆的歷奇活

動外，一個完美的豪華假期還包括與其相

關的服務提供。有誰希望一家五口要提著

五件行李在機場追趕的士﹖又有誰希望在

向餐廳訂位時被拒之於門外﹖

如果你希望作出一些特別安排，例如奉上

一個令對方驚喜的生日蛋糕，這又如何

呢﹖所有這種種細節，如果都能經過悉心

安排的話，相信必然能夠為你帶來一個十

分愉快的假期。但如果這樣的服務欠奉的

話，那麼即使是最漂亮的居所和景點，都

不能補償因為劣質的服務而導致留在你咀

巴中的那股歷久不散的惡味。

因此，為何不讓其他人來代勞，為你安排

各項細節呢﹖像Rediscovered這樣的新一

代旅遊經營者，能為旅遊人士提供更加個

人化的服務和專門設計的方案。它熱誠待

客的職員，會照顧每一位客戶在每一個旅

遊階段的需要，包括﹕在假期開始前進

行計劃﹔以及在假期之中及假期完結後

的適切服務。這使得旅遊人士的壓力得以

減輕，並能省下更多時間和精力來舒展身

心，以及有更多機會可以無憂無慮地享受

他們的假期。

現時的豪華旅遊人士也在尋找可以讓多代

人參與的旅遊機會。隨著對私隱要求的提

高，這促使市場對有服務提供的別墅居所

和家庭友善計劃(當中包含提供個人料理服

務、康樂設施及旅客服務)等的需求增加。

不妨一試

例如，一些人會選擇在斯里蘭卡度過一個

重新尋找自我的旅程，並旨在重拾旅遊時

的浪漫情懷。

如要讓旅程顯得更加完美，旅客可以乘搭

直升機，在海拔1000呎以上，放眼盡情飽

覽周圍的景色，並在印度的Tear Drop及其

令人驚嘆的景觀上作花式飛行。乘坐直升

機或水上飛機作環島遊，對於欲進行飛行

觀賞、空中拍照和空中勘察的遊客而言，

也是非常方便和理想的選擇。

這樣的假期安排，對於像James Cheung這

一家人來說是最合適不過的—他可以盡情

地拍攝熱帶風景照，而他的家人則可以在

中央高地漫步於茶樹種植園中，又或是在

加勒的稻田旁踏著自行車遊玩。此外，他/

她們也可以相約在一家假日別墅，又或是

登上一艘私人租用的雙體船享用由私人料

理的晚餐。

現在正是為豪華旅遊市場提供一些新產品

的時候。由於豪華旅客的數目正不斷增

加，因而「獨家提供」和「個人化」等概

念也日益備受重視。傳統的旅遊方式現已

發展到了一個極限，而新興的旅遊方式則

有﹕與配偶家人一起共度假期﹔與友伴們

一起度過一個婚前假期﹔又或是與投資者

一起進行重要的集思/退修會(對於某些人

來說) ﹔事實上，對於數目不斷增加的精

明旅遊人士來說，旅遊並非只在乎景點，

也在乎旅遊的本身。新經營者正嘗試將浪

漫元素帶回旅遊中，這是一個值得我們關

注的趨勢。

你是否也希望步張氏一家的足印﹖n


CAMPUS VOICES法學院新聞

Talk of change dominates CUHK High Table Dinner speech The recent Annual LLB High Table Dinner organised by the Sir TL Yang Society brought together over 200 students, academic staff, and legal luminaries for an evening of “high” style at the Regal Hotel in Causeway Bay on 23 May 2013. In addition to Chinese University of Hong Kong (“CUHK”) mentors and mentees, noteworthy guests included Sir TL Yang; Mr. Clive Grossman, past Bar Council chairman; Mr. Kevin Zervos, director of public prosecutions; Mr. Grenville Cross, former director of public prosecutions; Mr. Lester Huang, former Law Society president; Ms. Sylvia Siu, former Hong Kong Mediation Centre president; and Mrs. Justice Judianna Barnes.

Student emcees Jessica Poon and Aaron Tang kept the evening’s program moving at a lively pace, starting with welcoming remarks from CUHK Law School Dean Christopher Gane. Sir TL Yang Society Secretary Dr. Arthur McInnis introduced the guest speaker Mr. Anthony Chow, also a former Law Society president.

Mr. Chow focused on changes that he has witnessed during his 30-year career in Hong Kong, including the substantial increase in the number of people now pursuing legal studies and careers. He cited how dominance of English foreign law firms has now given way to the plethora of international and Mainland law firms operating in Hong Kong. He recounted how the Law Society itself has grown, moving from

a 1,000 sqft office with 10 staff, to 90 staff housed on an entire floor of Wing On House. He then touched on qualities that contribute to a successful career; in particular, integrity. Young lawyers, Mr. Chow concluded, should expect as many changes in the next 30 years as he has himself experienced.

The evening closed with the announcement of the Annual Scholarship and Subject Prize winners.

高桌晚宴演講談論香港的變化

本年度法律學士的高桌晚宴由楊鐵樑爵

士協會組織匯聚超過200名學生、學術人

員、傑出導師和法律界名人一同於2013

年5月23日銅鑼灣富豪酒店共度了一個「

高」風格的晚上。除了香港中文大學導師

和學生，還有一班值得一提的嘉賓，當中

包括楊鐵樑爵士、前大律師公會主席郭兆

銘先生、刑事檢控專員薛偉成先生、前

刑事檢控專員江樂士先生、前律師會會長

黃嘉純先生、香港調解中心前主席蕭詠儀

女士和張慧玲法官。

從Christopher Gane院長致歡迎辭開始，

學生司儀Jessica Poon和Aaron Tang

在當晚節目中不斷製造熱鬧的氣氛。

楊鐵樑爵士學會秘書Arthur McInnis博

士介紹主講嘉賓兼前律師會會長周永

健先生。

周先生重點講述他在香港長達30年的職

業生涯所見證的「改變」，當中包括選擇

法律作為升學和就業的人數大幅增加。他

列舉了英國的外國律師事務所的主導地位

現在已經被眾多在香港經營的國際和內

地律師事務所取代。他亦講述律師會本身

如何由10名員工增員至90名員工，並由

一個1,000平方英尺擴展成為佔據永安集

團大厦一整層樓的辦公室。然後，他分

享打造一個成功的事業必備的素質，尤

其是操守。周先生總結，年輕的律師要

為未來30年將會發生的許多變化作好準

備，這可是他經驗之談。

聚會在公佈年度獎學金及主題獎得主下

圓滿結束。

Convergence of comparative views: CityU international conference on “The Rule of Law with Chinese Characteristics”The City University of Hong Kong (“CityU”) held from 5 to 7 June 2013 the International Conference on “The Rule of Law with Chinese Characteristics”, co-organised by the CityU School of Law’s Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law (the “Centre”); and the Chinese Journal of Law, Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (“CASS”). More than 30 distinguished scholars from Hong Kong, Macau, PRC, and abroad presented at the conference and exchanged views on this controversial topic.

Several years ago, Beijing officially announced the introduction of a legal system with socialist Chinese characteristics. This conference was then established to facilitate dialogue among scholars on the rule of law based on this “China model”, offer comparative perspectives on its features, and to bridge communication between the PRC and other jurisdictions in relation to this topic.


• July 2013

July 2013 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

Professor Lin Feng, Director, the Centre; Professor Wang Guiguo, Dean, School of Law; and Professor Li Lin, Director, Institute of Law, CASS, spoke at the conference’s opening ceremony on 5 June 2013.

Prof. Lin welcomed all participants to explore if there exists at the moment special characteristics as such within what is essentially a transitional PRC legal environment. Prof. Wang meanwhile, pointed out that amid a globalised environment, no national law can stand alone without considering the international norms of other systems. It would be “very interesting”, he added, to investigate whether the characteristics of the Chinese rule of law are being influenced by China’s integration into the rest of the world. Prof. Li set out the belief that experience and knowledge shared by scholars with diverse cultural and legal backgrounds could only be beneficial to the overall legal development on the mainland.

收集比較觀點：國際會議談

「富中國特色的法律」

2013年6月5日至7日，香港城市大學聯

合香港城市大學中國法與比較法法律中

心學院、中國法學研究、法學研究所、

中國社會科學院以「富中國特色的法

律」為題舉辦國際會議。來自香港、澳

門、內地和國外的30多名著名學者在會

議上就這個具爭議性的話題發表和交換

意見。

幾年前，北京正式宣布引進一個富中

國社會主義特色的法律體系。這次會

議是以「中國式」法治為基礎以促進

學者之間的對話而建立的，對其特色

作出比較和提供不同的觀點，亦就有

關課題在內地與其他司法管轄區之間建

立溝通的橋樑。

2013年6月5日，中心的主任Lin Feng教

授、法學院院長Wang Guiguo教授和中國

社會科學院法學研究所所長Li Lin教授在

會議的開幕式中發言。

林教授歡迎所有參加者探討在現時有否

存在如什麼本質上一個過渡性的中國法

律環境內的特點。王教授同時指出，在

面對全球化的環境中，沒有國家的法律

可以獨立存在而不考慮在國際規範下的

其他法律體系。他補充說，調查究竟內

地的法治是否正在受到內地融入世界的

影響將是「非常有趣」。李教授相信透

過具不同文化和法律背景的學者在經驗

和知識上的分享會有利於內地整體法律

的發展。

HKU welcomes the Chair of Commercial Law and other eminent scholarsThe University of Hong Kong’s (“HKU”) Faculty of Law (the “Faculty”) is delighted to welcome its Chair of Commercial Law Professor John Lowry (right). Prior to coming to Hong Kong, Prof. Lowry was Professor of Commercial Law at University College London, where he remains Professor Emeritus. He has also taught law at the universities of Oxford (Merton College), Warwick, the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Queen Mary London. He has written widely in domestic and international journals on insurance law, directors’ fiduciary obligations and shareholder remedies and he has co-authored five books on insurance law, company law and limitation of actions.

The Faculty added that it is happy to have Professor David Llewelyn with them again, given that the Professor of Intellectual Property Law at King’s College London is no stranger to the school. This year he is set to teach the intensive course “Management and Commercialisation of Intellectual Property”, with Ms. Annie Tsoi from

Deacons and Mr. Haochen Sun, Deputy Director of the Law and Technology Centre (www.law.hku.hk/ip.html).

Also, Professor Thomas M. Scanlon, Jr, Alford Professor of Natural Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Civil Polity at Harvard University, will be addressing in two lectures “Disagreement about Justice”, namely “The Problem of Disagreement” and “Responding to Disagreement” (ppa.hku.hk/p/scanlon).

香港大學歡迎商法主席及其他著名學者

香港大學法律學院熱烈歡迎商法主

席 J o h n L o w r y 教授的蒞臨。來港

前， L o w r y 教授是英國

倫敦大學商法學院的教

授，亦是那裡的名譽教

授。他還曾於牛津大學

墨頓學院、華威大學、

倫敦政治經濟學院和倫

敦大學瑪莉皇后學院任

教法律。他在國內和國

際刊物上廣泛地發表有

關保險法，董事受信責任及股東補

救方法的文章；他亦曾合作撰寫有

關保險法、公司法和訴訟時效的五

本書。

學院補充說，很高興能夠與 D a v i d

Llewelyn教授再次合作，因學院對倫敦

大學國王學院的知識產權法教授並不陌

生。今年，他會與來自的近律師行的

蔡小婷女士、和法律和技術中心副主任

Haochen Sun先生一同任教「管理和知

識產權商品化」的精讀課程。（詳情可

瀏覽www.law.hku.hk/ ip.html）

此外，哈佛大學的自然宗教道德哲學

和公民科的Thomas M. Scanlon, Jr.教

授將舉辦兩個有關「司法分歧」的講

座 –「分歧的問題」和「應對分歧」。

（詳情可瀏覽ppa.hku.hk/p/scanlon）


THE LAST WORD 趣聞

世界各地的法律

對至少兩位周旋在法律角力中的國際知名人士來說，

過去一個月可謂好不容易。據路透社報道，負責意

大利前總理貝盧斯科尼性醜聞案審訊的檢察官I l da

B o c c a s s i n i，收到一系列的匿名恐嚇信，其中

一封更附有兩顆子彈。首席檢察官Bruti Liberati

說，對Ilda Boccassini發出的恐嚇信愈來愈多，

因為她要求法庭判處貝盧斯科尼6年監禁，並終身

不得擔任公職。

在愛爾蘭那邊箱，政府計劃實行有限度墮胎合法化，該

國的總理說他收到反對派人士發出的血書，並被冠以兇手

之名。數十年來，該國對於墮胎的意見分歧且兩極化。在

支持及反對雙方進行數月辯論後，由總理Enda Kenny領

導的政府在4月時對法例草案表示同意，有限度允許女性

在生命受到威脅的情況下墮胎，其中包括自殺威脅。

以色列的情況則溫和得多。據路透社報道，該國的教育

部長向國會發表講話，當提到「侵入」一詞時，忍俊不

住大笑起來。事件其後在以色列網站上廣為流傳。身任

教育部長的Sha i P i r on本身亦是一名猶太教教士，他當

時正在就打擊走私手機到以色列監獄的建議法例發表講

話，但還未說畢第一句話即開始暗自發笑。

Law around the worldThe past month was an uneasy one for at least two global personalities in the midst of legal tussles. In Italy, the prosecutor in former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s sex trial has received a series of anonymous letters of threats, including one with two bullets, Reuters reported. The letters against Ilda Boccassini have become more frequent since she requested a six-year jail sentence and a lifetime ban on holding public office for Berlusconi, said chief prosecutor Edmondo Bruti Liberati.

Over in Ireland, the country’s prime minister said he had been sent letters written in blood and been branded a murderer by opponents of his government’s plans to allow limited access to abortion, an issue that has polarised the country for decades. Enda Kenny’s government agreed draft legislation in April to allow for limited access to abortion where a woman’s life is in danger, including the threat of suicide, following months of protests from both sides of the debate.

It was much less grim in Israel, Reuters reported, when a reference to “penetration” in a speech to parliament caused the country’s education minister to burst into a laughing fit. This then went viral on Israeli websites. Shai Piron, who is also a rabbi, could not get past the first sentence of his address, on a proposed law against smuggling cell phones into Israel’s prisons, before beginning to chuckle.

“Crazy rents getting crazier”Once again, businesses are feeling the crunch of rising property prices and law firms are no exception. Rental rates in Central have risen dramatically since the start of the year – “almost trebling”, lawyers said – and firms and chambers, big and small, have had to seek alternative space for all or parts of their business. These include moving further west to Sheung Wan, or downgrading to non-Grade A buildings within Central.

As the partner of a mid-sized law firm told Hong Kong Lawyer, “Hong Kong’s crazy rents are getting crazier”.

He was echoed by a veteran barrister who revealed that as many as half the lawyers at his previous chambers have had to move out this year. “As is typical in most chambers, when rents went up, one half of the chambers grumbled but paid up anyway while the other half had no choice but to get out,” he said.

「瘋狂租金越見瘋狂」

樓價飆升再一次令商業機構受壓，律師行也不例外。自

今年年初以來，中環的租金急劇上升，有律師指升幅「

幾近三倍」之多，不論是律師行還是大律師辦事處，規

模是大還是小的，都不得不把全部或部分的業務遷往別

處，包括進一步向西遷移至上環，或降級到中環內的非

甲級寫字樓。

一家中型的律師行合夥人告訴《香港律師》：「香港的

瘋狂租金越見瘋狂」。

一名資歷很深的大律師對此表示認同。他透露，以前所

屬的辦事處今年有多達半數的大律師需要遷出。他說：

「大多數的大律師辦事

處皆是如此，當租金

上升，其中一半的大

律師會抱怨，但不管

怎樣也會支付租金，

另一半則只好遷出」。



July 2013 • THE LAST WORD 趣聞

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。

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. In personal injuries action, trial court erred in refusing to declare mistrial when, on fourth day of trial, one of jurors appeared intoxicated by having alcohol on his breath, making grimacing motions, waving his hands and attempting to engage in conversation with other jurors during reception of evidence.

Goldring v. Escapa, 338 So.2d 871 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1976)

2. Exigent circumstances regarding health and safety hazards justified police officer’s warrantless impoundment of 15 cats found in pet owner’s motor vehicle, where pet owner was living out of her vehicle, the vehicle was crammed full of boxes, coolers, blankets, clothes, books, cooking utensils, a large bag of cat food and a large and dirty litter box, cats interfered with pet owner’s ability to see where she was going, and pet owner nearly backed into police officer’s car.

State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, 785 N.W.2d 272 (S.D. 2010)

3. In action for injuries sustained when defendants’ horse rolled over and fell on plaintiff, plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof with respect to one of the essential issues that the horse in fact possessed a dangerous inclination to fall and roll as speculated by the plaintiff.

Whitney v. Brann, 394 F.Supp. 1 (D.Del. 1975)

另類法律的新奇觀點（摘錄自Westlaw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. 在一宗人身傷害訴訟的第四天審訊中，其中一名陪審員

身上中帶有酒氣，並且裝鬼臉、揮手，以及在聽取證

供時試圖與其他陪審員交談，故看似已酒醉，但原審

法庭錯誤地未有拒絕宣佈審訊無效。

Goldring v.Escapa, 338 So.2d 871 (Fla.App.3 Dist.1976)

2. 警員在健康和安全受到危害的緊急情況下，具有充分

理由在無令狀下拘留在寵物主人汽車中發現的15隻貓

兒。寵物主人在該車居住，車內擠滿箱子、冷卻箱、

毛毯、衣服、書籍、煮食器具、一大包貓糧和一個骯

髒的大垃圾箱。寵物主人被貓兒干擾無法看清前路，

並幾乎倒車撞到警員的汽車。

State v.Fifteen Impounded Cats, 785 N.W.2d 272

(S.D.2010)

3. 被告人的馬匹翻滾並跌落在原告人身上，令原告人受

傷。在訴訟中，原告人未能就其中一個重要的爭論點

履行舉證責任，而該爭論點是根據原告人的推測，馬

匹事實上有下跌及翻滾的危險傾向。

Whitney v.Brann, 394 F.Supp.1 (D.Del.1975)

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


A new, in-depth reference guide to banking and financial law in Hong Kong

PRINCIPLES OF HONG KONG BANKING LAW

ISBN: 9789626615003Publication Date: Jul 2013Price: HK$2,800

*Prices are valid at the time this went to press, but are subject to change without notice

www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk +852 3762 3222 [email protected]

A new, in-depth reference guide to banking and financial law in Hong Kong

PRINCIPLES OF HONG KONG BANKING LAW

ISBN: 9789626615003Publication Date: Jul 2013Price: HK$2,800

*Prices are valid at the time this went to press, but are subject to change without notice

www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk +852 3762 3222 [email protected]

Astus Recruitment LimitedRm 1901 Lyndhurst Tower, 1 Lyndhurst Terrace, Central, Hong Kong

T: +852 2104 7799 F: +852 3010 1798 www.astusrecruitment.com

Stand Out With Hughes-Castell

To find out more about these roles & apply, please contact us at: T: (852) 2520-1168E: [email protected]

In-houseGeneral Counsel | 12+ yrs PQE | Hong Kong REF: 11591/HK Superb opportunity to head up the legal division in the Asia region for this entrepreneurial and exciting energy company. You will be responsible for managing a small regional legal team, providing support and advice to the business, including acquisitions, development projects, finance or corporate transactions and general corporate governance. Ideal candidates must be Hong Kong qualified, with a minimum 12 years’ PQE gained in a mix of leading law firms and in-house roles in industries which focus on energy and infrastructure development. Fluency in Mandarin and experience in Asia are essential.

AVP, Listings | 8 yrs PQE | Hong Kong REF: 11594/HK Excellent opportunity is now open at one of Hong Kong’s best known institutions. The role will include responsibility for regulation of all financial markets and law enforcement including investigations, taking disciplinary action and formulating, disciplinary policy and procedures. The ideal candidate will be a qualified lawyer with at least 8 years’ experience in regulatory, administrative or white collar crime litigation. Knowledge of Main Board Listing Rules and GEM Listing Rules is preferred. Native English is required and fluency in Cantonese & Mandarin is highly desirable.

Legal Counsel | 6-8 yrs PQE | Hong Kong REF: 11526/HK Great opportunity for a corporate lawyer in this world-leading financial services company. This role will see you working with the Head of Legal to provide advice and support on key transactions and general corporate issues. You should be Hong Kong qualified with experience gained in international law firms. Knowledge of HK securities & futures regulations is required. Fluency in English is essential, fluent Mandarin is desirable.

Legal Counsel | 5-8 yrs PQE | Hong Kong REF: 11623/HK Prestigious hotel group is seeking a high-calibre lawyer with solid commercial experience in China. The role will include responsibility for all legal issues with specific focus on contract management, corporate compliance, business development, tax planning, dispute resolution, and risk management. Ideal candidates will have a LL.M degree with 5-8 years PQE preferably gained in a mix of private practice and in-house experience. Fluent English &Mandarin are required.

Legal Manager | 5+ yrs PQE | Hong Kong REF: 11625/HK This Asia-leading IT solutions provider seeks an experienced commercial lawyer to join its Hong Kong office. The role will involve providing legal advice and support on contracts, litigation, employment disputes and business activities. Qualified lawyers with over 5 years PQE gained in a mix of in-house and private practice experience will be considered. You must be fluent in English and Cantonese, and a good command of Mandarin would be an advantage.

Corporate Services & Compliance Manager | 3+ yrs PQE | HK REF: 11608/HK A market leader in traded policy and life settlement funds is urgently seeking an experienced candidate to manage its corporate service and compliance department. Working closely with the business development managers worldwide, the role will handle a wide range of responsibilities, including compliance monitoring and training, reviewing and drafting contracts, managing marketing materials and liaising with regulators. The ideal candidate should have solid experience of company secretarial, legal or compliance work. Native English language skills are mandatory.

Private PracticeProjects/Energy Partner | 10+ yrs PQE | Beijing REF: 11561/HK This is an exciting developmental opportunity with an established international law firm to lead and grow its corporate practice in China. The firm is seeking a senior lawyer with solid international firm experience and a portable book of business, ideally in energy/infrastructure, to join its Beijing office. Ideal for an enthusiastic lawyer looking to take on a management role.

Partner | 8+ yrs PQE | Singapore REF: 11600/HKLeading UK specialist firm seeks a partner-level marine litigation expert to join its burgeoning Singapore office. Some Asia experience would be ideal but the position would suit an experienced shipping disputes lawyer looking to relocate.

Senior Litigation Associate | 6+ yrs PQE | Hong Kong REF: 11495/HKThis US firm is seeking a Senior Associate to join their growing litigation practice in Hong Kong. The ideal candidate will be Hong Kong qualified with 6+ years’ experience in corporate/commercial litigation, ideally with some insolvency-related involvement, gained preferably in an international law firm. HK qualification is essential and native level Cantonese is highly preferable.

Mid to Senior-Level Associate | 5+ yrs PQE | Beijing REF: 11620/HKThis leading oil & gas US law firm is seeking an associate to join its China team based in Beijing. The ideal candidate will have at least 5 years PQE in M&A practice, ideally but not exclusively in the oil & gas sector. Fluency in Mandarin is an advantage but not mandatory.

ICM Associate | 5+ yrs PQE | Hong Kong REF: 11609/HKTake the next step in your career by building on your securities experience and working at a top-tier international law firm. This role covers general securities work and requires debt capital markets and equity capital markets experience under Hong Kong or UK law. Fluency in Mandarin is essential.

Employment Associate |3-6 yrs pqe | Hong Kong REF: 11363/HK Superb role in a collegiate team of a prestigious international firm awaits an ambitious employment lawyer. You will be Hong Kong or Commonwealth qualified and have broad contentious employment experience gained from top-tier international firms. Excellent career prospects are on offer.

US Securities Associate | 3+ yrs PQE | Hong Kong REF: 11601/HKTop international law firm seeks a US securities specialist to join its capital markets group based in Hong Kong. The ideal candidate will be New York qualified with a J.D. from a top-ranked law school and a minimum of 3 years’ experience working on US securities law. Knowledge of US debt capital markets is preferred. Fluency in English and spoken Mandarin is essential.

HKL Jul 13 Stand.indd 1 6/24/2013 2:56:58 PM

PRIVATE TRUST COUNSELREGIONAL PRIVATE WEALTH PROVIDEROAA/485860

This leading provider of private wealth solutions is looking for a legal counsel to join the team of three in Hong Kong. Working on a regional basis, you will be supporting the continued expansion and development of the business whilst developing your own skills in an established legal function.

Key Requirements:

a minimum of five years experience, ideally Hong Kong qualified and preferably gained in a private wealth environment substantial experience in private trustsexperience managing contentious cases involving trust structures, including trust litigations and family disputesfluency in written and spoken English is required with knowledge in Cantonese and/or Mandarin beneficial

FUNDS LAWYERGLOBAL INVESTMENT MANAGEROAA/480770

Reporting to the Head of Legal, APAC, this well-known funds house is looking for a mid level Funds Lawyer. Working closely with the business team, you will be providing legal advice on a range of investment products, managing legal documents and agreements, and liaising with regulators and service providers.

Key Requirements:a minimum of five years’ funds experience, ideally Hong Kong qualified and preferably gained in an asset management company, financial institution or law firmsolid knowledge of SFC authorised funds, private funds, and good understanding of PRC corporate projects works are essentialfluency in written and spoken English is required with knowledge in Cantonese and/or Mandarin beneficial

SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENTLEGAL PROFESSIONALS

FINANCIAL SERVICES

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

TO FIND OUT MORE AbOUT ThESE ExCITING LEGAL CAREER OPPORTUNITIES, PLEASE CONTACT:

Ricky Mui +852 2103 5370 [email protected] Altuve +852 2103 5328 [email protected]

Oliver Allcock +852 2103 5317 [email protected]

ROBERT WALTERS HONG KONG • 20/F NExxuS BuILDING • 41 CONNAuGHT ROAD CENTRAL• CENTRAL • HONG KONG www.robertwalters.com.hk

SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL GLOBAL LEADER RETAIL CORPORATION EQA/482520

This global multinational company is seeking a business minded lawyer to join as Senior Legal Counsel. Reporting to the General Counsel, you will be responsible for a broad range of corporate commercial work and manage a small team in APAC.

Key Requirements: a minimum of six years’ PQE; Hong Kong and Commonwealth qualifiedability to successfully apply commercial laws and legal precedents relative to sales, general business procedures and policies, with a sensitivity to regulatory issues and other corporate risk areasknowledge and familiarity with both common law and continental law systemsfluency in written and spoken Mandarin, Cantonese and English is required with excellent communicational and presentation skills

SENIOR CONSTRUCTION LAWYERLEADING INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATEEQA/476440

This leading international conglomerate with a very diverse portfolio in Asia Pacific is seeking a qualified Senior Construction Lawyer. Reporting to the VP and Head of Legal, you will be responsible for all non-contentious construction and project finance matters for the group in APAC.

Key Requirements: a minimum of 12 years’ PQE; Hong Kong and Commonwealth qualifiedstrong non-contentious and contentious construction experience with exposure to corporate finance or ideally project finance mattersgood legal drafting, negotiation, presentation and analytical skills along with good organisational and communication skillsfluency in written and spoken English is required with knowledge in Cantonese and/or Mandarin beneficial

hEAD OF LEGALLEADING MuLTINATIONAL FMCG CORPORATIONEQA/4453620

This leading FMCG corporation is seeking a Head of Legal to work closely with the management in a broad legal role. Reporting to the General Manager, you will be responsible for all legal matters arising in the APAC region, with a particular focus on Greater China, Hong Kong and Indonesia.

Key Requirements: a minimum of 8 to 10 years’ PQE; HK and Commonwealth qualifiedknowledge and exposure to PRC law is a musthighly motivated and committed, management skills, and a keen sense of commercial awareness is necessaryfluency in written and spoken Mandarin, Cantonese and English is required

REGIONAL LEGAL COUNSELLEADING MuLTINATIONAL LOGISTICS CORPORATIONEQA/484770

This leading logistics and procurement corporation with a strong global presence is seeking an experienced general commercial lawyer. Reporting to the Group General Counsel, you will be responsible for providing commercial legal support and advice to different offices in Asia, as well as key divisional offices throughout the world.

Key Requirements: a minimum of eight years’ PQE; Hong Kong and Commonwealth qualifiedgeneral corporate commercial including solid exposure to M&A and litigation work coming from freight forwarding and supply chain companiesexperience drafting and negotiating a wide range of commercial contracts including service and procurement agreementsfluency in written and spoken Mandarin, Cantonese and English is required

PRIVATE TRUST COUNSELREGIONAL PRIVATE WEALTH PROVIDEROAA/485860

This leading provider of private wealth solutions is looking for a legal counsel to join the team of three in Hong Kong. Working on a regional basis, you will be supporting the continued expansion and development of the business whilst developing your own skills in an established legal function.

Key Requirements:

a minimum of five years experience, ideally Hong Kong qualified and preferably gained in a private wealth environment substantial experience in private trustsexperience managing contentious cases involving trust structures, including trust litigations and family disputesfluency in written and spoken English is required with knowledge in Cantonese and/or Mandarin beneficial

FUNDS LAWYERGLOBAL INVESTMENT MANAGEROAA/480770

Reporting to the Head of Legal, APAC, this well-known funds house is looking for a mid level Funds Lawyer. Working closely with the business team, you will be providing legal advice on a range of investment products, managing legal documents and agreements, and liaising with regulators and service providers.

Key Requirements:a minimum of five years’ funds experience, ideally Hong Kong qualified and preferably gained in an asset management company, financial institution or law firmsolid knowledge of SFC authorised funds, private funds, and good understanding of PRC corporate projects works are essentialfluency in written and spoken English is required with knowledge in Cantonese and/or Mandarin beneficial

SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENTLEGAL PROFESSIONALS

FINANCIAL SERVICES

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

TO FIND OUT MORE AbOUT ThESE ExCITING LEGAL CAREER OPPORTUNITIES, PLEASE CONTACT:

Ricky Mui +852 2103 5370 [email protected] Altuve +852 2103 5328 [email protected]

Oliver Allcock +852 2103 5317 [email protected]

ROBERT WALTERS HONG KONG • 20/F NExxuS BuILDING • 41 CONNAuGHT ROAD CENTRAL• CENTRAL • HONG KONG www.robertwalters.com.hk

SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL GLOBAL LEADER RETAIL CORPORATION EQA/482520

This global multinational company is seeking a business minded lawyer to join as Senior Legal Counsel. Reporting to the General Counsel, you will be responsible for a broad range of corporate commercial work and manage a small team in APAC.

Key Requirements: a minimum of six years’ PQE; Hong Kong and Commonwealth qualifiedability to successfully apply commercial laws and legal precedents relative to sales, general business procedures and policies, with a sensitivity to regulatory issues and other corporate risk areasknowledge and familiarity with both common law and continental law systemsfluency in written and spoken Mandarin, Cantonese and English is required with excellent communicational and presentation skills

SENIOR CONSTRUCTION LAWYERLEADING INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATEEQA/476440

This leading international conglomerate with a very diverse portfolio in Asia Pacific is seeking a qualified Senior Construction Lawyer. Reporting to the VP and Head of Legal, you will be responsible for all non-contentious construction and project finance matters for the group in APAC.

Key Requirements: a minimum of 12 years’ PQE; Hong Kong and Commonwealth qualifiedstrong non-contentious and contentious construction experience with exposure to corporate finance or ideally project finance mattersgood legal drafting, negotiation, presentation and analytical skills along with good organisational and communication skillsfluency in written and spoken English is required with knowledge in Cantonese and/or Mandarin beneficial

hEAD OF LEGALLEADING MuLTINATIONAL FMCG CORPORATIONEQA/4453620

This leading FMCG corporation is seeking a Head of Legal to work closely with the management in a broad legal role. Reporting to the General Manager, you will be responsible for all legal matters arising in the APAC region, with a particular focus on Greater China, Hong Kong and Indonesia.

Key Requirements: a minimum of 8 to 10 years’ PQE; HK and Commonwealth qualifiedknowledge and exposure to PRC law is a musthighly motivated and committed, management skills, and a keen sense of commercial awareness is necessaryfluency in written and spoken Mandarin, Cantonese and English is required

REGIONAL LEGAL COUNSELLEADING MuLTINATIONAL LOGISTICS CORPORATIONEQA/484770

This leading logistics and procurement corporation with a strong global presence is seeking an experienced general commercial lawyer. Reporting to the Group General Counsel, you will be responsible for providing commercial legal support and advice to different offices in Asia, as well as key divisional offices throughout the world.

Key Requirements: a minimum of eight years’ PQE; Hong Kong and Commonwealth qualifiedgeneral corporate commercial including solid exposure to M&A and litigation work coming from freight forwarding and supply chain companiesexperience drafting and negotiating a wide range of commercial contracts including service and procurement agreementsfluency in written and spoken Mandarin, Cantonese and English is required

Head of Legal & Compliance› 10+ Years PQE

› US Based Financial ServicesReporting to the CEO with a dotted reporting line to the Regional Legal Counsel, you will handle a wide range of legal and regulatory work within Hong Kong, covering general commercial agreements, mutual funds, pension and general insurance. You will work independently and liaise regularly with internal and external stakeholders, including senior management and business people within other teams based in Hong Kong head office. The ideal candidate should possess financial services or asset management experience, with knowledge in any type of financial products. High caliber candidates without significant relevant experience though with willingness to take on new work as well as with a passion for financial services will be considered. You must be fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Legal Counsel› 5-12 Years PQE › Leading Financial InstitutionOur client is a leading financial institution in Asia, with ambitious growth plans and is very highly ranked amongst its competitors. Reporting to the Head of Legal and Compliance, you will work closely with a team of 4 lawyers, focusing on corporate transactions including IPO, pre-IPO, joint ventures, foreign direct investments and other cross border work. You will also be exposed to on-going corporate compliance and regulatory matters. The successful candidate should be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with at least 5 years of PQE gained in the area of corporate finance or corporate commercial. Candidates with experience in sizable law firm or financial institution are preferred. You must be fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Associate Legal Counsel› 3+ Years PQE › Global Payment & Financial PlayerWorking in a team of 6, you will report to the Senior Legal Counsel based out of Hong Kong. Covering the APAC region, you will cover a wide range of corporate commercial agreements, TMT/e-Commerce work, Privacy Law related matters, as well as M&A and joint ventures. You will be entrusted to provide comprehensive corporate, regulatory and commercial legal advice across multiple jurisdictions and working closely with the business such as business development team and corporate business units. The ideal candidate should have corporate commercial law experience with an international law firm, strong communication skills and the ability to liaise with all levels of personnel. You must be fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Corporate Associate› 3+ Years PQE › Leading US law firmOur client is looking for a junior to mid-level corporate associate to work closely with the Managing Partner to look after the business and transactions in Hong Kong, US and South Korea. Your team will include over 15 lawyers and you will focus on IPO and M&A matters. Reporting to the partners of the APAC Region, you will negotiate, review and draft a variety of offering documents and other corporate and commercial related contracts and agreements. The successful candidates will possess at least 3 years of PQE and gained significant inbound and outbound experiences with a leading law firm. You must be fluent in both English and Mandarin and able to work independently with minimum of supervision.

U.S. Securities Associate › 4+ Years PQE › Leading International FirmReporting directly to the senior partner of this prestigious US firm, our client is eager to take on a high caliber mid-level U.S. securities associate with 4 to 6 years of PQE to joint their U.S. Corporate and capital market group in Asia. The ideal candidate should have 4 years of relevant experiences in China, as well as U.S. SEC-registered IPOs, Rule 144A/Regulation S offerings, private equity investment and cross-boarder M&A for Asia based companies. Experience in ECM work in Hong Kong is essential. You should be a lawyer qualified in the common law jurisdiction and have excellent technical skills. You must be fluent in both English and Mandarin.

Legal Director› 10-15 Years PQE › Listed, Multinational Corporation, Business ServicesOur client is a prominent player in the product end-to-end cycle management field, with the headquarter located in Canada and is listed on both the Toronto Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange. This Legal Director position is a newly created position. You will be responsible for a full range of legal matters for the entire China region, including but not limited to contracts management, business negotiations, intellectual property, disputes and litigations, compliance and legal training, corporate transactions and ad hoc projects. The ideal candidate must be a qualified lawyer in PRC, have strong communication skills in English and Mandarin, and should have minimum 10 years of experience in a senior role. This position is based in Dongguan.

Legal Counsel› 3-6 Years PQE › Multinational Design Engineering ConsultancyAn exciting opportunity to join a leading design and engineering consultancy, renowned for working on some of the world’s most iconic buildings and structures. Joining their Hong Kong office, you will work independently, reporting directly to the Managing Director of Asia. You will primarily look after the Hong Kong region, with opportunity to work on PRC related matters. You will be responsible for drafting and negotiating a wide range of commercial contracts, including engineering and consulting contracts. The ideal candidate should be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer, with 3-6 years of commercial law experience. Those with experience in construction or engineering contracts will be highly regarded, although not a must. You must be fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Legal Manager › 3-6 Years PQE › Prominent Non-Profit Charity OrganizationA good opportunity to join a prominent non-profit charity organization based in Hong Kong. You will join a team of 5 – 6 lawyers, reporting directly to the Executive Director of the group and providing a wide spectrum of legal services. These services include commercial contracts, contentious matters, employment and pension matters, information technology and intellectual property matters, procurement and supply issues as well as operational licensing matters. You will be responsible for drafting and negotiating the legal and transactional documents. The ideal candidate will be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer, with 3-6 years of corporate and commercial law experience. Prior experience from prominent local firm will be highly regarded. You must be fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Legal Manager › 4-6 Years PQE › Leading Insurance GroupReporting to the head of legal and compliance, you will be supporting the group on a full range of legal work. Working independently, you will be given the responsibility to draft and review legal documentation for various business units and providing legal advice to various business units. Those with experience in drafting, reviewing and providing advice to legal documents in relation to insurance products such as traditional life, investment-linked, group life products and policies will be highly regarded. The ideal candidate should be a Hong Kong qualified solicitor or barrister, with 4-6 years of experience gained in the area of insurance law. You should be able to work independently and must be fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Legal Manager, Greater China› 5+ Years PQE › US Consultancy FirmA leading US management consultancy company is looking for a legal manager with strong expertise in employment to join their Greater China team. You will report to their Head of Employment Team (Director Level) and work closely with their business service line in the Greater China region on a wide range of labor issues. The ideal candidate should have minimum 5 years of solid legal practice experience with top tier local law firms or international law firms. Solid knowledge and practice experience in labor law is a must, preferably on the non-contentious side. Excellent level of written and spoken English and Mandarin are required. This position is based in Beijing.

In-house Counsel › 6+ Years PQE › US MNCThis is an excellent opportunity for a commercial lawyer to join the market leader in the chemical industry. In this role, you will report to the Legal Director and work closely with other lawyers in Shanghai. You will provide legal service to various legal entities cross Asia and major responsibilities include drafting, reviewing, and negotiating local commercial agreements, managing local disputes, and overseeing compliance programs. You should be a PRC bar licensed lawyer with minimum 6 years of commercial experience gained from relevant industries or law firms. This role is based in Shanghai.

Corporate Lawyer› 5+ Years PQE › Leading International law firmOur client is an international law firm with leading practices in M&A transactions, General Corporate and Capital Markets. They are looking for a mid level corporate associates to join their expanding China Team. You will work closely with the partner and participate in a wide range of corporate transactions including M&A transactions, general corporate advisory work such as contracts review, employment, and other PRC law related matters. The successful candidate should be a qualified lawyer in common law jurisdiction with 5 years of PQE gained in the area of corporate law related to China practice. Excellent level of written and spoken English and Mandarin are required. This role is based in either Beijing or Shanghai.

Please contact Olga Yung from Michael Page quoting ref: H1799790 or visit our website.



Please contact Tina Chan from Michael Page quoting ref: H1681080 or visit our website.

Please contact Tina Chan from Michael Page quoting ref: H1691720 or visit our website.

Please contact Jimmy Heng from Michael Page quoting ref: H1791530 or visit our website.

Please contact Carolyn Woo from Michael Page quoting ref: H1783210 or visit our website.



Please contact Kathy Luo from Michael Page quoting ref: H1774780 or visit our website.

Please contact Cheng Yuyan from Michael Page quoting ref: H1769760 or visit our website.

Please contact Janet Chan from Michael Page quoting ref: H1686560 or visit our website.

To apply for any of the above positions, please go to www.michaelpage.com.hk/apply quoting the reference number, or contact the relevant consultant on +852 2530 6100 for further details.

LegalSpecialists in legal recruitment

www.michaelpage.com.hk

{WE KNOW RECRUITMENTAND WE MATCH HIGH PERFORMERS WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPANIES

As part of PageGroup, Michael Page is a leading professional recruitment consultancy specialising in the recruitment of permanent, contract and temporary positions on behalf of the world’s top employers. The Group operates through 164 offices in 34 countries worldwide. First established in London in 1976, we’ve been bringing job seekers and employers together for more than 30 years. Our presence in the Asia Pacific region extends across Singapore, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, India, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand.

#141

46

14146-AC_Hong Kong Lawyer July Issue.v2.indd 2-3 21/06/2013 12:04:06 PM

Charmaine ChanIn-House Commerce & IndustryHong Kong

taylorroot.com

THE SR GROUP: BREWER MORRIS . CARTER MURRAY . FRAZER JONES . SR SEARCH . TAYLOR ROOT LONDON . DUBAI . HONG KONG . SINGAPORE . SYDNEY . MELBOURNE

Please note our advertisements use PQE purely as a guide. However, we are happy to consider applications from all candidates who are able to demonstrate the skills necessary to fulfi l the role.

EA Licence: 12C6222

Private Practice In-House

In some recruitment companies all that matters is the next placement fee. At Taylor Root, our consultants are encouraged to think longer-term, providing clients and candidates with advice that’s in its best interests.

It’s an approach that’s served us well over our 25 year history and helped make us the global leader in specialist legal recruitment.

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

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

Expect usto think longer-term

Litigation Hong KongThis Magic Circle law fi rm has one of the leading disputes practices in Asia. As a result of growth, the team in Hong Kong is looking to hire across a range of seniorities and specialisms. You will work with some of the most respected partners in Hong Kong.Ref: 191060. 1-5+ years

Litigation Hong KongA fantastic opportunity to join the well established and highly regarded litigation team of this US law fi rm. The work will focus on fi nancial services litigation and contentious regulatory matters. A salary at the top of the market is on offer. Ref: 190060. 2-4+ years

Litigation Hong KongAs a result of growth, this UK headquartered international law fi rm is looking to bring in a senior associate that can be groomed for partnership. No client following is required, but you must have strong disputes experience from a leading fi rm in Hong Kong. Ref: 189400. 5+ years

Senior Litigation Hong Kong Leading offshore fi rm seeks a counsel level disputes lawyer with strengths in fi nancial and insolvency disputes. The ideal candidate will be a Mandarin speaker with good business development skills. Counsel title on offer for the right person. Ref: 191150. 6+ years

Banking NQ Hong Kong Top fi rm is looking to add another junior fi nance lawyer to the team. Work will include advising on secured and unsecured lending transactions. Chinese language skills are required. Excellent partner to work with who will be a good mentor. Ref: 191100. NQ-1+ years

Communications/IT Hong KongLeading global mobile communications and portable IT devices organisation seeks a legal counsel to oversee all legal affairs in Hong Kong, including software licensing, IT and marketing. HK qualifi cation & Chinese language skills essential.Ref: 191140. 4-8+ years

In-House Counsel MNC BeijingGlobal MNC seeks a senior lawyer with a solid IT/IP commercial law background to support the legal function of the company. Candidates must be PRC qualifi ed, while knowledge of IT, internet laws and government regulatory matters would be highly preferred. Ref: 190920. 7+ years

Funds - M&A Hong KongInvestment management/private equity group seeks to recruit a mid-level lawyer with private equity fund formation experience and/or solid corporate M&A experience. Role to support the head of legal and its real estate investment team in the APAC region. Ref: 191090. 3-6+ years

Equities/Prime Finance Hong Kong Investment bank invites applications for a legal counsel position supporting its prime fi nance business. Role dealing with its hedge fund, mutual fund, investment management and broker-dealer clientele in the APAC region.Ref: 191050. 3-6+ years

Asset Management Hong KongA leading US headquartered asset manager seeks to recruit a medium level lawyer. The main responsibilities include advising on fund structuring and setup in North Asia and the development of mutual and closed ended funds for institutional & retail investors. Ref: 190840. 4-8+ years

@TaylorRootLegal

039340-280x210-HKLawyer.indd 1 19/06/2013 12:36

your professionour passion

hays.com.hk

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

sonali Khemka - entry-level and professional support opportunities e: [email protected]

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

Daryl Hodes - other in-house opportunities e: [email protected]

or +852 2521 1460.

unit 5805-07, 58/f, The Center, 99 Queen’s road Central, Hong Kong.

Capital Markets associate Hong Kong. 2-5 pQe.

This elite UK originated international law firm seeks a junior to mid-level HK or E&W qualified solicitor for its Hong Kong office. Experience covering a broad range of securities related legal matters including debt and equity capital markets is required. Mandarin language skills are preferred. ref: 1038560

Corporate associate Hong Kong. 2+pQe.

This US law firm in association with its local Hong Kong partner firm, is seeking Hong Kong qualified Solicitors for its expanding corporate finance practice. You will be joining a three partner team covering both capital markets and M&A. The team has a healthy and expanding workload and is ideally seeking Associates from a similar corporate practice. ref: 1037199

Corporate associate (new york Qualified)Hong Kong. 2-5 pQe.

This top-tier US firm handles both international and local corporate matters. A dual (US and Hong Kong) qualified associate is sought for its Hong Kong office. You should have at least two years experience with a similarly positioned US firm’s Hong Kong practice. You will have worked on a broad range of corporate work covering M&A and HK/US capital markets in respect of both equity and debt. ref: 1039016

regulatory associate (financial services) Hong Kong. 2+ pQe.

This international law firm has a well established local practice and is seeking a regulatory associate for its Hong Kong office. You will have Hong Kong qualification, trilingual (English and Chinese) fluency and a minimum of two years experience in both contentious and non contentious regulatory matters on behalf of financial services clients. ref: 1036934

Company secretary Manager (Law firm) Hong Kong.

This well reputed firm seeks qualified Company Secretaries (junior and senior). You will maintain a public and private client portfolio and liaise with authorities. English, Mandarin and Cantonese fluency is preferred. You must have good knowledge of Hong Kong listing rules. The manager should have six to eight years experience, and the junior two to three years. ref: 1037799

Legal Counsel (intellectual property) Hong Kong. 10+ pQe.

A multinational with profound Asian interests has created a new role within its legal team for a specialist Intellectual Property Lawyer. You will manage the company’s trademark portfolio and all related IP matters including commercial advisory, instructing external advisers, prosecutions and PRC matters. Mandarin language skills are a requirement. ref: 1038676

Legal Counsel (Derivatives) Hong Kong. 6-12 pQe.

A derivatives specialist Lawyer is needed to join the legal team of a multinational with vast interests across a variety of sectors including supply chain and property. They have about 20 lawyers throughout Greater China, amongst whom there is one banking specialist. You will ideally be common law qualified with specialist (transactional derivatives) experience in a relevant practice or team. Fluent Mandarin is essential. ref: 1038677

Legal Counsel (Commercial services) Hong Kong. 10+ pQe.

A large multinational, with varied commercial interests and a big footprint in East Asia, will augment its legal and compliance team with a seasoned commercial legal specialist. Basic requirements for the role include Hong Kong qualifications, drafting ability in Chinese, and ten or more years of post qualification experience, including solid stints with both a good firm, as well as a large US company. ref: 1038806

Legal Counsel (Global Markets) Hong Kong. 7-10 pQe.

This renowned bank wishes to engage a seasoned Legal Counsel for a leadership role within its global transactions team. You will have extensive experience with financing and security documentation and general IB advisory, as well as broad corporate and securities transactional skills. Experience in project and export finance is preferable. Risk management, internal advisory and liaison with external advisers is also part of the remit. ref: 1038858

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

A life insurer with extensive interests in Hong Kong seeks a mid-level counsel for its local office. You will need exposure to relevant Hong Kong laws and regulations pertaining to the insurance industry, plus experience in the space either with a firm or corporation. Trilingual (English, Cantonese and Mandarin) language skills are strongly preferred. ref: 103852

paralegal (in-house) Hong Kong.

A Hong Kong based private equity firm wishes to engage a junior Paralegal. You will work with the sole legal counsel on all legal, compliance and regulatory administration matters. Around two years of relevant experience is preferred. You must be fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin, including drafting ability. ref: 1036944

Charmaine ChanIn-House Commerce & IndustryHong Kong

taylorroot.com

THE SR GROUP: BREWER MORRIS . CARTER MURRAY . FRAZER JONES . SR SEARCH . TAYLOR ROOT LONDON . DUBAI . HONG KONG . SINGAPORE . SYDNEY . MELBOURNE

Please note our advertisements use PQE purely as a guide. However, we are happy to consider applications from all candidates who are able to demonstrate the skills necessary to fulfi l the role.

EA Licence: 12C6222

Private Practice In-House

In some recruitment companies all that matters is the next placement fee. At Taylor Root, our consultants are encouraged to think longer-term, providing clients and candidates with advice that’s in its best interests.

It’s an approach that’s served us well over our 25 year history and helped make us the global leader in specialist legal recruitment.

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

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

Expect usto think longer-term

Litigation Hong KongThis Magic Circle law fi rm has one of the leading disputes practices in Asia. As a result of growth, the team in Hong Kong is looking to hire across a range of seniorities and specialisms. You will work with some of the most respected partners in Hong Kong.Ref: 191060. 1-5+ years

Litigation Hong KongA fantastic opportunity to join the well established and highly regarded litigation team of this US law fi rm. The work will focus on fi nancial services litigation and contentious regulatory matters. A salary at the top of the market is on offer. Ref: 190060. 2-4+ years

Litigation Hong KongAs a result of growth, this UK headquartered international law fi rm is looking to bring in a senior associate that can be groomed for partnership. No client following is required, but you must have strong disputes experience from a leading fi rm in Hong Kong. Ref: 189400. 5+ years

Senior Litigation Hong Kong Leading offshore fi rm seeks a counsel level disputes lawyer with strengths in fi nancial and insolvency disputes. The ideal candidate will be a Mandarin speaker with good business development skills. Counsel title on offer for the right person. Ref: 191150. 6+ years

Banking NQ Hong Kong Top fi rm is looking to add another junior fi nance lawyer to the team. Work will include advising on secured and unsecured lending transactions. Chinese language skills are required. Excellent partner to work with who will be a good mentor. Ref: 191100. NQ-1+ years

Communications/IT Hong KongLeading global mobile communications and portable IT devices organisation seeks a legal counsel to oversee all legal affairs in Hong Kong, including software licensing, IT and marketing. HK qualifi cation & Chinese language skills essential.Ref: 191140. 4-8+ years

In-House Counsel MNC BeijingGlobal MNC seeks a senior lawyer with a solid IT/IP commercial law background to support the legal function of the company. Candidates must be PRC qualifi ed, while knowledge of IT, internet laws and government regulatory matters would be highly preferred. Ref: 190920. 7+ years

Funds - M&A Hong KongInvestment management/private equity group seeks to recruit a mid-level lawyer with private equity fund formation experience and/or solid corporate M&A experience. Role to support the head of legal and its real estate investment team in the APAC region. Ref: 191090. 3-6+ years

Equities/Prime Finance Hong Kong Investment bank invites applications for a legal counsel position supporting its prime fi nance business. Role dealing with its hedge fund, mutual fund, investment management and broker-dealer clientele in the APAC region.Ref: 191050. 3-6+ years

Asset Management Hong KongA leading US headquartered asset manager seeks to recruit a medium level lawyer. The main responsibilities include advising on fund structuring and setup in North Asia and the development of mutual and closed ended funds for institutional & retail investors. Ref: 190840. 4-8+ years

@TaylorRootLegal

039340-280x210-HKLawyer.indd 1 19/06/2013 12:36

�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, Natalie Wong or Nisha Chugh.

(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 PracticePSL REAL ESTATE Hong Kong 4-9 PQEOpportunity to move into a support role that will offer more manageable working hours while remaining close to the business. Suitable candidates will have solid understanding of Real Estate law, as well as excellent communication and organisation skills (HKL 9481)

REAL ESTATE / PROPERTY Hong Kong 4+ PQEPremier real estate practice is urgently seeking a mid to senior real estate lawyer with solid experience, including project development and pre-sale work. The successful candidate will speak fluent Cantonese and ideally read/write Chinese. (HKL 9366)

PROJECT FINANCE Hong Kong 4-6 PQETop tier projects practice has headcount to hire an associate with solid experience in general banking/finance or project finance (ideally oil/gas related) and admission as a solicitor in the UK, New York or Hong Kong. Fluent written and spoken English and Chinese (Mandarin) required. (HKL 9388)

U.S. SECURITIES Hong Kong 3-5 PQEHighly regarded US firm has headcount to appoint a 3rd – 5th year associate to join their Hong Kong office. Solid U.S. securities law experience from a leading firm and a JD from a top law school are essential. Fluent spoken Mandarin required. (HKL 9387)

INVESTMENT FUNDS Hong Kong 2-6 PQELeading international funds practice seeks a lawyer with experience in PE funds, especially related to fund formation. The team is well recognised across the region and this is an opportunity to gain excellent exposure across a high quality client base (HKL 9447)

ARBITRATION Singapore 2-4 PQEOur client is seeking a strong Singapore qualified arbitration lawyer who has the capability to work independently. You will have solid arbitration experience from reputable firms, academic excellence, preferably with overseas education. (HKL 9356)

CAPITAL MARKETS Singapore 2-6 PQEOur client is seeking a strong US or England & Wales qualified capital markets associate. You will have experience in debt/equity capital markets transactions and excellent drafting skills. Candidates with experience dealing in works for Indonesia and Thailand capital markets transactions preferred. (HKL 9444)

SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL Beijing 8-10 PQEA world leading MNC with newly launched hi-tech products is searching for an in-house Senior Legal Counsel with 8-10 years PQE. MNCs and international law firm experience is required. Solid PRC law practice experience is essential. The working location is based in Beijing for now. Very attractive package and senior leadership will be offered. (HKL 9471)

HEAD OF LEGAL - MNC Hong Kong 6+ PQEOur client is one of the most highly recognised brands in the world. The Hong Kong business is looking to appoint a strong leader to advise operational and functional departments on a broad range of matters. Scope of work will involve a range of corporate and commercial matters, commercial property, distribution and service agreements as well as risk/compliance and best practice matters. Fluent written and spoken Chinese (Cantonese) and previous in house experience required. (HKL 9177) GENERAL COUNSEL – PENSIONS / REGULATORY Hong Kong 4-8 PQE Highly regarded financial services company looking to appoint a General Counsel to oversee legal and regulatory matters for the pensions and funds business. Responsibilities include review and drafting of various product documentation, investment management agreements in both English and Chinese. As primary contact negotiating with third party investors, you will review and approve new products and liaise with regulators on new product approvals. (HKL 9428)

SENIOR CORPORATE COUNSEL Hong Kong 6-10 PQE New opening for a strong corporate/commercial lawyer to join the Hong Kong regional office of a global MNC. Strong M&A and project management experience is essential, as is the ability to work well with internal clients across the business in providing solutions-based legal support with a strong commercial focus. Fluency in both English and Chinese (Mandarin) is essential for consideration. (HKL 9513)

PRIVATE BANKING COUNSEL Hong Kong 3-6 PQEMarket leading, international Private Banking business seeks an additional lawyer to provide support across; equities, fixed income, FX, derivatives, funds and a range of other matters. Candidates should have diverse legal experience, excellent Regulatory exposure and be fluent in Mandarin. (HKL 9518)

LEGAL COUNSEL - MNC Hong Kong 4+ PQEWell known corporate services client seeks a mid+ level commercial lawyer to support the business in the region. The role will a range of matters including review and negotiation of a range of contracts, working with and managing external counsel, assisting HR with employee matters, and supporting other commercial activities in the region. Fluent Cantonese and Mandarin as well as written Chinese is essential. (HKL 9503)

LEGAL COUNSEL - ENERGY Hong Kong 2-5 PQE Downstream energy giant is looking to appoint a mid-level lawyer to their Hong Kong based team. The position will primarily focus on Hong Kong matters, though there will be involvement in Greater China matters as needed. Strong general commercial experience, M&A and compliance is essential and previous experience supporting contentious matters would be a plus. Fluent English and Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese) is essential. (HKL 9517)

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

Capital Markets NQ-5 PQE Hong Kong

Top tier capital markets practice regarded

across the globe seeks associates with strong

equity / debt capital markets exposure and

Mandarin. You will receive fantastic training and

access market leading deals. HKL3238

Regulatory 2+ PQE Hong Kong

Fantastic opportunity with a truly leading

practice to focus on largely non-contentious

regulatory work. Exposure to SFC/SFO

requirements, advising on proposed listings /

investigations ideal; Chinese essential. HKL3209

Corporate Finance 4-8 PQE Hong Kong

Global firm with solid presence across the APAC

region seeks to bolster its corporate practice.

Excellent mix of blue-chip M&A/IPO/PE work in

a collegiate working environment for Mandarin

speakers with HK admission. HKL3143

Banking & Finance 1-3 PQE Hong Kong

This is a fantastic opportunity for a junior

associate with HK admission/Mandarin to get

your career on track with a leading banking &

finance practice. A variety of big ticket work and

excellent training on offer. HKL3229

Corporate M&A/PE 2-5 PQE BJ/SH

This incredibly strong corporate platform is

bolstering its China offering with the addition

of a corporate associate to focus on M&A,

delisting/going private and private equity work.

Chinese fluency is essential. HKL3266

Energy/Resources 5+ PQE Perth/Sydney

International firm with solid global energy

reputation seeks a senior PRC associate with

strong corporate/finance exposure gained

within the energy arena. Work with this dynamic

partner and drive firm forward. HKL2881

Project Finance 4+ PQE HK/SG

Stellar opportunity with a leading global

projects/energy practice. Focus on large-scale

financings/acquisitions across the APAC region

in this leading team in growth mode. Energy

exposure essential. HKL3248

Funds 2-3 5+ PQE Hong Kong

This international firm with an unrivalled

reputation in funds work seeks an investment

funds lawyer with strong exposure to formation,

particularly in relation to international PE funds.

No language requirement. HKL3274

International Arbitration 3-6 PQE Hong Kong

A fantastic opening exists with the highly

regarded disputes team of this truly top tier

firm. Get your career on track and access a high

level of responsibility and independence in this

specialised arbitration role. HKL3250

Corporate Finance 1-3 PQE Hong Kong

Join this international firm with a highly regarded

corporate practice and work with renowned

partners. Solid exposure to/knowledge of IPO/

M&A work and Chinese language skills essential

for this exciting opportunity. HKL3252

Banking & Finance 3-4 PQE Beijing

A unique opportunity exists for a native English

speaker with common law admission to drive

your career forward and focus on bank/project

financings with this exceptional practice.

Chinese beneficial. HKL3261

Energy 3-6 PQE Korea

Newly established office of a globally renowned

practice seeks an associate with corporate/

commercial or project development/finance

background, ideally with exposure in the energy/

resources sector. Korean essential. HKL3246

Commercial Litigation 1-5 PQE Hong Kong

Top 10 Global 100 firm with exceptionally rated

disputes team seeks litigators to focus on a

broad range of commercial litigation, arbitration

and more. Chinese language skills are required

for this stellar opportunity. HKL3235

US Securities 2-5 PQE Hong Kong

Excellent opportunity for USJD/LLM to join this

global firm’s highly regarded practice. Ideal

candidates will have solid exposure to capital

markets in an international law firm; Chinese

essential. HKL3275

Corporate M&A 2-4 PQE Hong Kong

This is a stellar opportunity for a corporate

lawyer with solid M&A experience and Hong

Kong/UK/US admission to step away from IPOs

working alongside truly reputable partners.

Chinese language not essential. HKL2822

Real Estate 3+ PQE Hong Kong

This is a fantastic opportunity to join a collegiate

team with a very well regarded partner. You will work

on blue chip deals with institutions and household

names on a range of corporate and finance real

estate matters. Chinese essential. HKL3210

Arbitration 5+ PQE Beijing

International firm with renowned practice seeks

common law associate with solid arbitration /

construction exposure to grow their Asia offering.

Partnership prospects on offer for the right

candidate; Chinese language useful. HKL3226

Capital Markets 2-6 PQE Singapore

Fantastic opportunity for a US/UK qualified

capital markets lawyer to access a mix of equity/

debt transactions within this high profile,

globally renowned practice working with blue-

chip clients across the APAC region. HKL3278

In-House

CORPORATE PSL X2 HONG KONG 5-8 & 2+ yearsUK firm seeks a senior & junior PSL to support its corporate team. You will assist in managing & developing the firm’s knowledge management function & the preparation of client-facing publications. The successful candidates will have quality transactional HK experience. HKL4064

This is a small selection of our current vacancies. Please refer to our website for a more comprehensive list of openings.Please contact Lindsey Sanders, [email protected] + 852 2537 7409 or Chris Chu, [email protected] + 852 2537 7415

or email [email protected]

www.lewissanders.com

BANKING & FINANCE HONG KONG 3-7 years Top international firm seeks a mid to senior level associate to join its growing banking & finance team. You should have solid & diverse Asian banking & finance experience gained at international firms. HK qualification & Chinese language skills preferred but not essential. HKL3889

INSOLVENCY/RESTRUCTURING HONG KONG 3-6 yearsLeading offshore firm seeks a mid-level insolvency litigation/restructuring associate. The ideal candidate will have strong disputes experience from a top international firm or restructuring/banking experience. Top quality lawyers with no previous offshore experience are of interest also. HKL4118

FUNDS HONG KONG 3-5 years Top US firm seeks a mid-level funds lawyer for its HK office. The successful candidate should have international firm experience in private funds formation work, including the formation of PE funds & ideally be HK, UK or US qualified. Overseas candidates will be considered. HKL4193

CORPORATE HONG KONG 3-6 yearsUS firm seeks a corporate associate to join its HK team. The role will focus on representing Asia-based corporations & financial institutions in M&A/IPO work. The successful candidate will be HK qualified & UK qualification a plus. Fluent Mandarin skills will be highly-regarded. US rates. HKL3827

Top UK firm is currently expanding its Capital Markets team in HK & is looking for a junior associate to join its market-leading team. You will have trained with an international firm & possess strong academics. Candidates must be admitted in HK or overseas & have native Mandarin. HKL4201

CAPITAL MARKETS HONG KONG NQ-3 year

Top tier firm with well-regarded & expanding dispute resolution practice seeks a junior-mid associate. The team is engaged in top tier international litigation & arbitration matters & ideal candidates will have relevant experience. Chinese essential. HKL4136

DISPUTE RESOLUTION HONG KONG NQ-4 years

Private Practice

Excellent opportunity for a banking lawyer to work closely with the business at a renowned global investment bank. Candidates must have gained solid banking & finance transactional experience at an international firm & prior in-house experience would be an advantage. HKL4040

BANKING & FINANCE HONG KONG 3-5 years

COMMERCIAL/PROPERTY HONG KONG 2-6 years Property development company is looking for a junior lawyer to join the team. You must have fluent Cantonese & proficient Mandarin. You will advise the business on commercial & property development projects across the region as part of this established in-house legal team. HKL2994

GENERAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 15+ yearsHK statutory body seeks a GC to lead & manage its legal department & external lawyers. You should have at least 15 years’ experience handling legal, operational, commercial, corporate governance, regulatory compliance, corporate finance & contentious matters. HKL4215

FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATOR HONG KONG 2-6 yearsEuropean i-bank is looking to expand its litigation team with the addition of a junior to mid-level litigator from a top tier law firm or peer bank. Broad commercial litigation experience & fluent English required & contentious regulatory experience would be a distinct advantage. HKL4181

LITIGATOR HONG KONG 6-9 yearsGlobal name in the hospitality sector is seeking a senior litigator to join the legal team. Reporting to the GC, the role will cover a broad range of work including shareholder & contract disputes, investigations & operational risk. Chinese language skills are preferred but not essential. HKL4204

FUNDS LEGAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 5-8 yearsMajor global asset manager with an impressive AUM seeks a legal counsel to support its Greater China investment functions. You should have at least 5 years’ experience in hedge/PE fund formation, dealing with trading agreements & knowledge of QFII & RQFII documents. HKL4199

PRIVATE BANKING – DIRECTOR/MD SINGAPORE 12+ yearsGlobal i-bank seeks to hire a Director or Managing Director level lawyer with solid regional private banking experience & in-depth regulatory exposure to lead & supervise on all legal, compliance, regulatory advisory & control issues across Asia. Experience in Singapore/HK/Asia ideal. HKL4086

Our clients consistently rate us as one of Asia’s premier legal search firms and their first choice when recrui�ng lawyers

We are currently recrui�ng for Magic Circle and US law firms, Financial Ins�tu�ons & MNCs.

We appreciate the importance that lawyers a�ach to selec�ng the best recruiter.We also know what it takes to stand out from the rest.

Our consultants are dedicated to specific prac�ce areas and are widely recognised for their superior market knowledge and extensive network

Our track record includes comple�ng exclusive and retained searches for partners & teams

[email protected]@[email protected]@kingswoodglobal.comoodglobal.comoodglobal.comhongkong@kingswhongkong@kingsw [email protected]@kingswoodglobal.com

Guidance throughout your career.

Key ContactsFor support you can rely on throughout your career, speak to the people in the know. Roz Etkind

Associate Director

Private Practice

(w+852 3469 5214*[email protected]

Liam RichardsonAssociate Director

In-House

(w+852 3469 5207*[email protected]

London | +44 20 7429 4400 Hong Kong | +852 3469 5200 Singapore | +65 6407 1216

www.puresearch.com

Every Legal recruiter will tell you about their unrivalled track record, their access to the best jobs and how good they are at what they do.

We believe however that our consultants are not only market leading, but they go the extra mile. The difference is that we prioritise a personal approach and build long-term partnerships with our candidates.

This allows us to provide genuine, informed advice for every specialism, at every stage of your career.

Pure Search is a niche search and selection consultancy based in Hong Kong, Singapore and London, with a high profile client base that reflects the exceptional standard of our work.

Pure Search - Legal

Hong Kong Lawyer

Documents

Transcript of Hong Kong Lawyer