Law + Tech vs COVID-19 - Hong Kong Lawyer

COVER STORY 封面專題

Law + Tech vs COVID-19

MAY 2020二零二零年五月

HK$308

MAY 20

20 2020年5月

The Decline of Pigeon Racing in Hong Kong香港賽鴿的沒落

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 環境法

INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURING 破產與重組

Demystifying Chinese Insolvencies – All Roads Lead to the Mainland揭開中國內地與海外互相承認破產程序的神秘面紗—條條大路通內地

ARBITRATION 仲裁

Lasmos and Beyond: Have the Cake and Eat It Too?Lasmos 案及以後：魚與熊掌可以兼得嗎？

Nick Chan 陳曉峰

Fred Sheu 許遵發

Stephen Wong 黃繼兒

www.hk-lawyer.org 1

www.hk-lawyer.org

Inside your May issue五月期刊內容

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

Editorial Board 編輯委員會

Chairman 主席Huen Wong 王桂壎

Nick Chan 陳曉峰Peter CH Chan 陳志軒Charles CC Chau 周致聰Michelle Cheng 鄭美玲Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰Julianne P Doe 杜珠聯Elliot Fung 馮以德Steven Brian GallagherWarren P Ganesh 莊偉倫Julienne Jen 任文慧Karen Lam 藍嘉妍Byron TW Leung 梁東華Stella SY Leung 梁淑儀Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟Tony YH Yen 嚴元浩

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

President 會長Melissa K Pang 彭韻僖

Vice Presidents 副會長Amirali B Nasir 黎雅明Brian W Gilchrist 喬柏仁CM Chan 陳澤銘

Council Members 理事會成員Stephen WS Hung 熊運信Billy WY Ma 馬華潤Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華Denis G Brock 白樂德Warren P Ganesh 莊偉倫Roden ML Tong 湯文龍Robert C Rhoda 羅睿德Jonathan Ross 羅彰南Pierre TH Chan 陳達顯Eric TM Cheung 張達明Karen Lam 藍嘉妍Careen HY Wong 黄巧欣Calvin K CHENG 鄭偉邦Mark DALY 帝理邁Doreen YF KONG 江玉歡Christopher KK YU 余國堅

Secretary General 秘書長Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

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

Annual Subscription 全年訂閱: HK$3,696

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

ISSN 1025-9554

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

3 EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

7 CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

9 FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

11 FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

12 COVER STORYLaw + Tech vs COVID-19

封面專題法律+科技 vs COVID-19

19 LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

20 INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURINGDemystifying Chinese Insolvencies – All Roads Lead to the Mainland

破產與重組揭開中國內地與海外互相承認破產程序的神秘面紗— 條條大路通內地

25 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWThe Decline of Pigeon Racing in Hong Kong

環境法香港賽鴿的沒落

28 ARBITRATIONLasmos and Beyond: Have the Cake and Eat It Too?

仲裁Lasmos 案及以後：魚與熊掌可以兼得嗎？

35 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

47 CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

54 PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

57 LAWYERS AT LEISURECooking at Home During COVID-19

律師閒情2019 冠狀病毒病期間在家烹飪

60 CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

78 LEGAL TRIVIA QUIZ 法律知識測驗

82 BOOK REVIEW 新書速遞

85 PRACTICE SKILLS 實踐技能

88 PRACTICE MANAGEMENT 實務管理

2 www.hk-lawyer.org

Managing Editor 執行主編Ranajit Dam 鄧文杰[email protected]: +65 6870 3393

Lead Editor 編輯Navin G. [email protected]: +65 87667479 / +852 3008 8928

Design and Production 設計及製作Benedict Cheung 張恩澤[email protected]

Translation team 翻譯組InfoPowerTang Mei Kwan

Special thanks to Hong Kong Law Reports & Digest and Reuters News特別感謝香港法律彙報與摘錄及路透社新聞

For marketing/promotion opportunities please contact:

Director, Legal Media Group,Asia & Emerging MarketsAmantha Chia 謝京庭[email protected]: +65 6870 3917

For subscriptions contact:

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

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

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

Hong Kong Lawyer, as the official monthly magazine of theLaw Society of Hong Kong, provides the legal community with

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

The magazine focuses on topical, relevant content throughfeatures and regular sections, and ensures that each issue is

read and trusted amongst the legal community. To get it online,simply go to www.hk-lawyer.org.

To receive a hard copy of Hong Kong Lawyer, you can make a single purchase of HKD308 for 1 issue, or HKD3,696 for 12 issues.

To proceed with print subscription, please contactJordy Lee at: [email protected]

STAY IN THE KNOW

MAY 2020二零二零年五月

HK$308

PRINT

SUBSCRIPTION

AVAILABLE

www.hk-lawyer.org 3

Welcome to this special edition predominantly concentrating on COVID-19. The Cover Story focuses on a group of lawyers and other professionals who, in their spare time, are working with technology to assist in combating COVID-19 in Hong Kong. The President’s Message provides an update of measures for the members of the Law Society in these difficult times, whilst From the Secretariat discusses the establishment of a fund to assist law firms and barristers’ chambers in procuring or upgrading their information technology systems and arranging training for their staff. The Practice Management section contains two articles – first, on coping with the added stress arising from COVID-19 and second, on how law firms can support company executives and navigate their journey back to business. Finally, as the saying goes, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Whilst one view is that that working from home as a result of COVID-19 means more work (like having wi-fi on a plane), it also means that physical meetings, appointments and commuting are cancelled, thereby giving lawyers more time in the day. The Lawyers at Leisure section suggests stepping out of our comfort zone and trying something new.

To reiterate, numerous articles on the various legal implications arising from COVID-19 have been published (for example in relation to Intellectual Property, Land Law, Employment Law, Contract Law, Arbitration, Legal Guardianship, China’s new Foreign Investment Law, Maritime Law, etc.) in our e-newsletters which were circulated to our subscribers and then posted on our website. Please feel free to subscribe to our free e-newsletter (which features articles published exclusively online) to receive our monthly publication and regular updates on the latest legal trends and developments in Hong Kong and China. Please visit http://hk-lawyer.org to register.

Finally, as of the time of publication, the number of cases of COVID-19 in Hong Kong appears to be stabilizing. Fingers crossed and stay safe!

Navin G. Ahuja Editor, Hong Kong Lawyer Legal Media Group Thomson Reuters

歡迎閱讀主要關注冠狀病毒病的特別版。「封面專題」

集中講述一群律師及其他專業人士在業餘時間利用科

技，協助對抗香港的冠狀病毒病。「會長的話」向律師

會會員介紹在這困難時期採取的最新措施，而「律師

會秘書處資訊」則討論設立基金，協助律師行和「大

律師」的事務所採購或改善資訊科技系統，以及為員

工安排培訓。「實務管理」專欄包括兩篇文章，第一

篇是關於如何應對冠狀病毒病帶來的額外壓力，第二

篇是關於律師事務所如何支援公司高管並引導他們重

返業務之旅提供了一個框架。最後，正如諺語所說，

只工作不玩耍，聰明的孩子也變傻。雖然有一種觀點

認為，冠狀病毒病導致的在家工作意味著更多的工作

（就像在飛機上使用 wi-fi 一樣），但這也意味著親

身見面的會議、預約和通勤被取消，從而使律師獲得

更多的時間。「律師閒情」建議走出我們的舒適區，嘗試一些新的東西。

我重申，多篇有關冠狀病毒病引起的法律影響的文章已

經發表（例如有關知識產權、土地法、僱傭法、合約法、

仲裁、法律監護、中國新的外商投資法、海事法等）在

我們的電子報上，這些電子報會發送給訂戶，之後文章

將上載在我們的網站。請隨時訂閱我們的免費電子報

（本報的文章只限網上提供），以接收我們的月刊和香

港與中國最新法律趨勢及發展信息的定期更新。請瀏覽

http://hk-lawyer.org 作出登記。

在出版本刋時，香港的冠狀病毒病個案數目似乎正在穩

定下來 - 祈求好運，常常平安！

Navin G. Ahuja《香港律師》編輯Legal Media Group 湯森路透

編者的話

EDITOR'S NOTE

May 2020 • EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE會長的話

United Against COVID-19

The COVID-19 outbreak has shaken the world. Legal professional bodies and associations are all looking at ways to assist their members. In early March, we have written to over 130 legal bodies to share our experiences in Hong Kong and updated the international community on what the Law Society has done for the profession. Having an interactive platform to discuss and learn from each other’s experiences, similar to the Presidents’ Roundtable that we host in the Opening of the Legal Year every year, will be even better. Although a face-to-face discussion is not possible in the current public health condition, technology has enabled us to continue effective exchanges in another form. The Law Society has taken the lead to organise a Presidents’ Roundtable by video conferencing on 27 April. We are grateful for the overwhelming responses from our overseas counterparts. A total of 71 participants from 57 different law societies, bar associations and international legal organisations coming from 31 overseas jurisdictions took part in the event.

It may be a good opportunity for me to provide an update of the measures that we have put in place for our members in these difficult times.

(a) The contribution to the Solicitors' Professional Indemnity Scheme (“PIS”) for the indemnity year 2020/2021 will be reduced by 80 percent.

The Law Society has already started considering the feasibility of this relief measure for our members since February when consultants were engaged to prepare professional actuarial projections to assist the Council to consider if an adjustment to the contribution to PIS could be made and if so, the extent of the adjustment. The projections were available in late April. After careful consideration of the recommendation of the Board of Hong Kong Solicitors Indemnity Fund and all relevant factors, the

Council decided to reduce the PIS contribution by 80 percent for the indemnity year 2020/21.

(b) The membership fee for 2021 will be reduced from $800 to $100.

(c) The Council has also resolved to reduce the practising certificate fee for 2021 by 70 percent to $1,950. However, as the practising certificate fee is fixed by statute, we need to amend the legislation to effect the fee reduction which requires approval by the Chief Justice and LegCo by

• May 2020

www.hk-lawyer.org 5

negative vetting. We have obtained the Chief Justice’s approval of the proposed amendments and we are working with the Department of Justice to arrange the gazette of the amended legislation. We hope that there will not be any obstacle in the negative vetting of the amendments by LegCo as we have worked very hard to push through the amendments within a very tight timeframe.

(d) The CPD course fees have generally been waived for 2020, except for some special courses.

(e) The Council has approved in principle to effectively waive the CPD and RME elective obligations for 2019/20 so that practitioners are only required to complete 15 CPD points (including three RME elective hours) across two practice years 2019/20 and 2020/2021, subject to some exceptions. The relevant committees are examining the technicalities and further details will be announced shortly.

(f) The Law Society has sourced financial support offers from four banks and details have been disseminated to the general membership via our Weekly Circulars on 16 March 2020 and 6 April 2020.

(g) The Law Society has prepared a general letter to landlords to urge for support for law firm tenants as well as letters of tailored content upon request to facilitate members’ negotiation with their landlords.

(h) The Law Society has requested the Legal Aid Department to speed up the processing of payments of fees to assigned solicitors and solicitor advocates in legal aid matters, to which we have received positive replies.

(i) The Law Society keeps close liaison with the Judiciary reflecting views of members on the general adjournment of court proceedings.

(j) In particular, the Law Society has been actively urging the Judiciary to have a medium to long-term strategy in place and to consider special measures to deal with the possibility of a prolonged outbreak of COVID-19. The efforts suggested by the Law Society include expediting the introduction of appropriate technology to facilitate the administration of justice (eg e-service and e-filing, telephone/video conference hearings, sending judgments by email instead of adjourning the handing down of judgments etc), utilising the time during the general adjournment period to quicken the delivery of outstanding judgments which are long-awaited and adopting paper-based hearings more widely.

(k) The Law Society has also written to the Department of Justice urging speedy settlement of solicitors' fees and briefing out of more cases to solicitors. We have also asked the Secretary for Justice to lobby for an extension of the Government's Anti-epidemic Fund or any government scheme to cover law firms.

(l) Similarly, we have written to the Financial Secretary lobbying for allocation of funding from the Anti-epidemic Fund to law firms to assist them through these difficult times.

(m) In response to our lobbying, the Government has proposed relief measures including the setup of the LAWTECH Fund to assist members to equip themselves with technological tools that enable them to continue business, notwithstanding the public health condition.

(n) We have worked closely with the Department of Justice and the Bar Association on the implementation of the LAWTECH Fund which will benefit, in relation to solicitors, around 617 law firms with five or fewer practising solicitors, representing 66 percent of the total number of law firms. The Law Society and the Bar Association will jointly administer

the LAWTECH Fund and share the administrative expenses on the basis of the ratio of the maximum entitlement of the total number of eligible law firms and barristers chambers respectively. As such, the Law Society will effectively be shouldering around 90 percent of the total administrative expenses.

(o) The Law Society has distributed surgical masks to members for free. A total of 714 firms and 1,774 members have benefited so far. We will also be distributing mask keepers to members shortly.

(p) The Law Society has also been giving general advice on practice management issues arising from the outbreak of the pandemic, including guidance on the formulation of a disaster recovery plan.

(q) The Law Society has initiated the participation of a number of professional bodies in TVB's production of a song titled <疫境同行>. The song production aimed at promoting, through music, the positive values of love, care and unity in the community when faced with the challenges arising from the outbreak of COVID-19 and supporting the medical profession which is in the frontline selflessly fighting for the health of the people of Hong Kong.

Knowing that our members are undergoing difficult times, the Law Society has been working very hard to assist them in different ways to the best of our ability. We will be sending a survey to members gauging further views on the difficulties that members have and how the Law Society can assist. We will report further on the findings as soon as they are ready.

Melissa K Pang, President

May 2020 • PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE 會長的話

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

疫境同行

2019 冠狀病毒病震驚全球，各地的

法律專業組織都想方設法協助成員。

我們在 2020 年 3 月初致函逾 130 個

法律團體，分享自己的經驗，並讓國

際社會得知律師會曾如何協助業界。

若以類似每年法律年度開啓典禮期

間舉辦的「會長論壇」模式，讓大家

互動討論，參考彼此經驗，效果應

更佳。鑑於疫情，現時不能面對面

討論，但科技讓大家可以另一方式

繼續有效交流。律師會在 4 月 27 日

帶頭以視像會議方式舉辦會長論壇，

眾多海外同業反應踴躍，我們十分感

激。我將在論壇後向各位匯報。來

自 71 個海外司法管轄區的 57 個律師

協會、大律師公會和國際法律組織的

31 位參加者參加了此次活動。

容我藉此機會，向大家分享在此艱難

時期，律師會引入的措施。

(a) 2020/2021 年度律師專業彌償計

劃的供款將降低 80%。

律師會自 2 月起開始考慮為會員

採取這項紓困措施的可行性，並

聘請了顧問作出專業精算預測，以

協助理事會考慮是否可調整專業

彌償計劃的供款及調整程度。理

事會在 4 月下旬獲得預測結果。仔

細考慮了香港律師彌償基金董事

會的建議及所有相關因素後，理

事會決定把 2020/2021 年度律師

專業彌償計劃的供款降低 80%。

(b) 2021 年的會員費將由 $800 減至

$100。

(c) 理事會決定把 2021 年的執業證

書費用減少七成至 $1,950。但是，

由於執業證書費用由法例規定，

我們需要修改法例以令減費生效，

而修訂須獲得終審法院首席法官

同意，並由立法會以先訂立後審議

的程序通過。終審法院首席法官

原則上同意建議修訂，我們亦正與

律政司安排修改法例的憲報。我

們盡力在非常緊迫的時間內推動

修訂，希望由立法會以先訂立後審

議的修訂程序能順利通過。

(d) 除某些特殊課程外，2020 年持

續進修課程的費用一般獲豁免。

(e) 理事會已原則上同意，除了

一些例外情況，會員只需在

2019/2020 及 2020/2021 兩個執

業年度內完成 15 個持續進修學

分 ( 包括 3 個風險管理教育選修

小時 )，變相豁免 2019/20 年度

持續進修計畫和風險管理教育選

修的要求。相關委員會現正審視

執行細節，詳情容後公布。

(f) 律師會已向四間銀行尋求財政援

助，詳情已透過 2020 年 3 月 16 日及 2020 年 4 月 6 日的每週通告

向會員發放。

(g) 律師會為方便會員與業主商討，

已預備一份呼籲業主支援律師行

租戶的通用函件，以及針對實際

情況的函件，供會員索取。

(h) 律師會要求法律援助署向法律援

助事宜的外委律師和訟辯律師加

快支付律師費，我們已收到正面

答覆。

(i) 律師會與司法機構緊密聯繫，反映

會員就法院程序一般延期的意見。

(j) 尤其重要的，是律師會一直呼籲

司法機構制訂中期及長期策略，

及考慮 2019 冠狀病毒病持續爆

發時應引入的措施。律師會的建

議包括加快引入合適科技便利司

法程序 ( 例如電子提交文件及電

子存檔、電話 / 視像會議聆訊、

以電郵發放判詞以取代延期頒發

判詞等 )、在一般法院程序延期

間加快處理積壓已久的判詞，及

廣泛採用文件傳閱聆訊。

(k) 律師會亦致函律政司，呼籲當局加

快支付律師費，並把更多宗案件

外判予律師。我們亦要求律政司

司長把政府的防疫抗疫基金或任

何政府資助計劃，延伸至律師行。

(l) 我們同樣要求財政司司長，從抗

疫防疫基金中撥款協助律師行渡

過難關。

(m) 政府回應我們的遊說，建議不同

紓困措施，包括設立法律科技基

金，協助會員購置技術功具，使

他們在疫情下仍可繼續營運。

(n) 我們正與律政司及大律師公會緊

密合作，落實法律科技基金，該

基金將惠及 617 間聘用五名或以

下執業律師的律師行 ( 佔整體律

師行的 66%)。律師會和大律師

公會將共同管理法律科技基金，

並根據合資格律師行和大律師事

務所總數的最高資助比例分擔行

政費用。因此，律師會實際上將

承擔九成的行政費用。

(o) 律師會向會員免費派發外科口

罩。目前共有 714 間律師行及

1,774 名會員受惠。我們亦將於短

期內向會員派發口罩暫存夾。

(p) 律師會亦一直就疫情衍生的執業

管理事宜發放通用意見，包括制

訂災難應變計劃的指引。

(q) 律師會發起多個專業團體參與無

線電視一首名為《疫境同行》的

歌曲製作，旨在透過音樂，在面

對 2019 冠狀病毒病爆發所帶來

的挑戰時，在社區推廣愛、關懷

和團結，並支持在前線為香港市

民的健康無私奮鬥的醫護界。

律師會明白會員正處於艱難時期，因

此一直竭盡全力以各種方式為他們

提供協助。我們將向會員發出問卷，

以進一步了解會員面對的困難，及律

師會可如何提供協助，結果將容後盡

快公布。

彭韻僖會長

• May 2020

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

投稿者

CONTRIBUTORS

Tammy YeungAssistant Solicitor, Ng, Au Yeung & PartnersTammy was admitted as a Solicitor in Hong Kong in July 2017. Her practice focuses on civil litigation. She also has experience in handling matters related to family law and criminal litigation.

楊潤甜Ng, Au Yeung & Partners律師楊潤甜女士於 2017 年 7 月獲認許為香港律師。她的執業重點是民事訴訟事務。她也有處理與家事法和刑事訴訟有關事務的經驗。

Nick SternCounsel, Freshfields’ Asia restructuring and insolvency and dispute resolution practicesNick Stern is a counsel in Freshfields’ Asia restructuring and insolvency and dispute resolution practices. He is based in Hong Kong. Nick has a broad practice involves advising corporates, banks, funds and insolvency practitioners on restructuring and insolvency matters. He has particular experience with insolvency or restructuring-related disputes, typically where there are cross-border elements, shareholder disputes, schemes of arrangement or other court-led restructurings. In addition, he advises on a broad range of disputes and contentious regulatory matters, particularly within the financial services sector. Before relocating to Asia, Nick spent almost 10 years in our London office. He is recognised in Asia Legal 500 for restructuring and insolvency.

Nick Stern本所亞洲重組、破產及爭議解決團隊顧問律師Nick 是本所亞洲重組、破產及爭議解決團隊的顧問律師，常駐香港。Nick 的執業領域十分廣泛，主要代表公司、銀行、基金及破產從業人員等解決重組和破產問題。Nick 尤其善於處理破產或重組相關爭議，特別是涉及跨境元素的爭議、股東爭議、債務償還安排計劃、以及其他由法院主導的重組。此外，Nick也有為廣泛的商業爭議以及爭議性監管事宜（尤其是涉及金融服務行業）提供咨詢意見。調到亞洲工作前，Nick 曾在本所的倫敦辦公室工作將近十年。Nick獲《亞洲法律 500 強》認可為優秀重組和破產律師。

Dantes LeungPartner, Oldham, Li & NieDantes is a Partner at Oldham, Li & Nie. He specialises in commercial litigation, international arbitration and contentious regulatory matters. He has extensive experience in advising and representing multinational corporations and high-net-worth individuals in a wide range of cross-border commercial disputes. He also has substantial experience in dealing with various regulators. He is qualified in Hong Kong and England & Wales. He is a Part-Time Lecturer at the University of Hong Kong and serves as a Member of HKU Court. He graduated from HKU and the University of Oxford.

梁泳澤高李嚴律師事務所合夥人梁泳澤律師是高李嚴律師事務所的合夥人。他專門從事商業訴訟、國際仲裁和具爭議的監管事務。他在處理廣泛的跨境商業糾紛，以及與各監管機構交涉方面，代表跨國公司和高資產凈值人士及為其提供意見，有著豐富的經驗。他擁有香港、英格蘭、威爾士的執業資格。他是香港大學兼職講師，香港大學校董會委員。他畢業於香港大學和牛津大學。

Fiona ChanPartner, Boase Cohen & CollinsFiona Chan is a Partner in Boase Cohen & Collins. She specialises in dispute resolution and is experienced in a wide range of civil litigation. Her core practice areas include conveyancing and property, Will drafting, estate administration and probate matters, while she is an appointed member of the Panel Solicitors for the Official Administrator.

陳展樑布高江律師行合夥人陳展樑是布高江律師行的合夥人。她擅長解決爭議，並在廣泛的民事訴訟中有豐富經驗。她的核心執業範圍包括物業轉易及物業處理、遺囑草擬、遺產管理及遺囑認證事宜，同時亦是遺產管理官的委任律師團成員。

Julienne JenPrincipal Lecturer, the Faculty of Law, University of Hong KongJulienne Jen is a Principal Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong. She teaches on the Postgraduate Certificate in Laws course where she coordinates the subjects of Civil Litigation, Commercial Disputes Resolution and Employment Law & Practice. As a solicitor, she practises in the areas of medical and professional negligence and commercial disputes resolution.

任文慧香港大學法律學院首席講師

任文慧是香港大學法律學院的首席講師。她主要負責於法律專業文憑課程中任教民事訴訟，商業訴訟與爭議解決及僱傭法例科目。作為執業律師時，她的主要業務範圍為醫療與專業疏忽及商業訴訟與爭議解決。

May 2020 • CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

Mohammed TalibSenior Associate, Pinsent MasonsMohammed is a Senior Associate at Pinsent Masons. He is a Solicitor Advocate and specialises in the construction and infrastructure sector in Hong Kong and has experience of mid-project support and disputes on a wide variety of projects, including both building and civil engineering projects in Hong Kong and throughout the region. He also provides advice on competition compliance for the construction industry, including industry best practice, internal guidelines and training.

Mohammed Talib品誠梅森律師事務所高級律師Mohammed 是品誠梅森律師事務所的高級律師。他是一名訟辯律師，他的專業涵蓋香港的建築和基礎設施領域，為多個香港和其他地區的建築和土木工程項目提供支援，並在項目爭議方面具有豐富經驗。他亦為建築行業提供有關競爭法合規性的諮詢

服務，當中包括行業最佳實踐，內部準則和培訓。

Susheela RiversOffice Managing Partner of Hong Kong and Co-Chair of Global Real Estate SectorSusheela Rivers is the Office Managing Partner of international law firm DLA Piper Hong Kong. She is also the Co-Chair for their Global Real Estate sector and Head of the Real Estate Group and the Hospitality & Leisure Group across Asia Pacific. Susheela has over 26 years' experience in real estate investments and developments, hotel, retail and mixed use sector and has advised on landmark developments throughout Asia (including China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, India, Indonesia and Vietnam) and the UK.

Susheela Rivers歐華律師事務所香港辦公室管理合夥人及全球房地產部門聯席主席Susheela Rivers 是國際律師事務所歐華律師事務所香港的辦公室管理合夥人。她也是其全球房地產部門的聯席主席，以及亞太地區房地產組和酒店與休閑事業組的負責人。Susheela 在房地產投資和開發、酒店、零售和混合用途領域擁有超過 26 年的經驗，並為亞洲（包括中國、香港、新加坡、馬來西亞、韓國、印度、印度尼西亞和越南）和英國的標誌性開發項目提供諮詢。

William KhooPartner, Khoo & Co.William is a partner at Khoo & Co., specialising in corporate restructuring of local and PRC enterprises and assisting such enterprises to list on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. He also advises Hong Kong listed companies on securities transactions and compliance with the relevant securities regulations and law in Hong Kong. William was admitted as a solicitor in Hong Kong in 2009 and obtained his Bachelor of Laws from the City University of Hong Kong and Bachelor of Science from the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

丘煥法丘煥法律師事務所合夥人丘煥法律師為丘煥法律師事務所的合夥人。他主要執業的領域是協助本港及內地企業進行重組並於香港交聯合交易所掛牌上市。丘律師同時對香港上市公司的證券交易及香港證券守則及法律相關的合規事務提供咨詢。丘律師於 2009 年成為香港事務律師，分別於香港城市大學獲得法律學士學位及香港中文大學獲得理學士學位。

Stephanie ChingTrainee Solicitor, Pinsent MasonsStephanie is a second year Trainee Solicitor at Pinsent Masons. She has assisted on a broad range of contentious and non-contentious matters. She is currently seated in the construction advisory and disputes (CAD) team and assists in advising overseas and local clients in the construction industry. Prior to joining the CAD team, she also gained experience on corporate and commercial matters and was involved in various contract reviews, private equity transactions as well as public listing projects.

程與善品誠梅森律師事務所見習律師程與善是品誠梅森律師事務所的第二年見習律師。她曾協助處理各種爭議及非爭議性的事務。她目前在建築諮詢與糾紛團隊中任職，並協助為建築行業的海外和本地客戶提供諮詢服務。在加入該團隊前，她亦具有公司和商業事務方面的相關經驗，並曾協助各種合同審查，私募股權交易以及公開上市項目。

Michael Gregory, ASA, CVA, NSA, MBAQualified Mediator, Minnesota Supreme CourtMike is a professional speaker, negotiator and mediator. You may contact Mike directly at [email protected] and at USA 1 (651) 633-5311. Mike has written 11 books including Business Valuations and the IRS: Five Books in One, The Servant Manager and Peaceful Resolutions that you may find helpful.

Michael Gregory, ASA, CVA, NSA, MBA明尼蘇達州最高法院認可調解員Mike 是專業演講者、談判員和調解員。你可以電郵 [email protected] 或致電美國電話 1 (651) 633-5311 直接與 Mike 聯絡。Mike 撰寫了 11 本書，其中包括 Business Valuations and the IRS: Five Books in One, The Servant Manager and Peaceful Resolutions。

Editorial Note: The bio and photo of William Khoo, the author of the Lawyers at Leisure article ‘Playing Darts – A Mental Game’ in the April 2020 issue of Hong Kong Lawyer was not displayed.

編者按：《香港律師》2020 年 4 月號「律師閒情」專欄中，《飛鏢—一種考驗你心理質素的運動》一文作者的個人簡歷及相片並未顯示。

• May 2020

www.hk-lawyer.org 9

律師會秘書處資訊

FROM THE SECRETARIAT

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

LAWTECH FUND (“LTF”)

Some common law jurisdictions like England, Australia and Singapore have introduced remote hearings to cope with the impact of COVID-19 on the operation of their legal and judicial systems. Since early April, our Judiciary has also introduced the use of video conferencing facilities (“VCF”) for remote hearings for suitable civil cases of the High Court. In the first week of introduction, two cases were heard in this mode. The experience was said to be satisfactory and more cases using VCF have since been listed at the High Court.

We are all very pleased that the public health condition is improving and there was a drop in the number of infection cases in Hong Kong in the last weeks of April. As announced by the Judiciary, all hearings, both civil and criminal proceedings, including trials (except jury trials), will generally resume (with reduced capacity) from 4 May.

Nevertheless, we must not let our guard down. The situation is still fluid, and we must be prepared for all possibilities, including the unfortunate eventuality that COVID-19 returns and hits us with another wave of widespread infection.

The Judiciary is taking a flexible approach. While hearings are to be resumed, the court may continue to invite parties to explore the use of VCF or conduct hearings by telephone where appropriate.

Against this background, legal practitioners must be well prepared to meet the demands on their practice arising from the impact of COVID-19, including having technological tools to conduct remote hearings or transactions in appropriate cases, depending on the nature of their individual practice. The Law Society has highlighted the difficulties of the profession in these challenging times and lobbied for financial relief measures.

On 8 April, the Government announced the proposed establishment of a LAWTECH Fund (“LTF”). On 18 April, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved reserving HK$35 million for the LTF to assist law firms and barristers’ chambers with five or less practising lawyers to procure or upgrade their information technology systems (such as VCF), and arrange relevant lawtech training for their staff.

Those law firms and barristers’ chambers with five or less practising solicitors and barristers respectively as of 8 April 2020, the date when the proposal was publicly announced, are each eligible to apply for funding up to HK$50,000 for the purposes specified under the LTF.

法律科技基金

英格蘭、澳洲和新加坡等一些普通法司法管轄區已引

入遙距聆訊，以應對 2019 冠狀病毒病對其法律和司

法系統運作的影響。自 4 月初以來，香港的司法機構

亦引入了視像會議設施，在高等法院合適的民事案件

中進行遙距聆訊。引入的首週，已有兩宗案件以這種

模式聆訊，據說效果令人滿意，有更多高等法院案件

將通過視像會議設施聆訊。

我們非常高興公共衛生狀況正在改善，在 4 月後期，

香港的感染病例有所下降。正如司法機構所公布，由

5 月 4 日起，所有民事和刑事程序，包括審訊一般將

恢復進行 ( 除了設有陪審團的審訊 )，但整體上所能

處理的法庭事務將會減少。

然而，我們決不能鬆懈，狀況仍然持續變化，我們必

須為所有可能的情況作好準備，包括萬一疫情再次爆

發導致另一輪大規模感染。

司法機構正採取靈活的措施，在恢復聆訊的同時，法

院可繼續邀請當事方研究使用視像會議設施，在適當

情況下通過電話進行聆訊。

有鑑於此，法律執業者必須作好充分準備，以應對疫

情對其執業的影響，包括根據他們的執業性質購置科

技工具，以便在適當情況下進行遙距聆訊或交易。律

師會已強調業界在此艱難時間所面對的挑戰，並遊說

當局提供經濟援助措施。

政府在 4 月 8 日宣布成立法律科技基金。在 4 月

18 日，立法會財務委員會批准為法律科技基金預留 3,500 萬元，以協助有不多於五名執業律師的律師行和

大律師辦事處購買／提升其資訊科技系統 ( 包括視像會

議器材 )，以及安排其員工參加在香港（不包括海外）

的相關的法律科技培訓。

於 2020 年 4 月 8 日（即政府宣布成立基金當日）或之

前，有不多於五名執業律師或大律師的律師行和大律

May 2020 • FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

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

業界每月統計資料( 截至 2020 年 3 月 31 日 )：

Members (with or without Practising Certificate) 11,751

Members with Practising Certificate 10,257 (out of whom 7,648 (75%) are in private practice)

Trainee Solicitors 1,227

Registered Foreign Lawyers 1,667 (from 34 jurisdictions)

Hong Kong Law Firms 933 (46% are sole proprietorships and 42% are firms with 2 to 5 partners, 46 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Registered Foreign Law Firms 92 (16 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Civil Celebrants of Marriages 2,189

Reverse Mortgage Counsellors 448

Solicitor Advocates 72 (66 in civil proceedings, 6 in criminal proceedings)

Student Members 236

Registered Associations between Hong Kong law firms and 40registered foreign law firms (including Mainland law firms)

會員(持有或不持有執業證書) 11,751

持有執業證書的會員 10,257 (當中有7,648 (75%)是私人執業)

實習律師 1,227

註冊外地律師 1,667 (來自34個司法管轄區)

香港律師行 933 (獨資經營佔46%，2至5名合夥人的律師行佔42%，46間為按照《法律執業者條例》組成的有限法律責任合夥律師行)

註冊外地律師行 92 (16間為按照《法律執業者條例》組成的有限法律責任合夥律師行)

婚姻監禮人 2,189

安老按揭輔導法律顧問 448

訟辯律師 72 (民事程序：66位，刑事程序：6位)

學生會員 236

香港律師行與外地律師行 40(包括內地律師行)在香港聯營

The application period is for two months until 26 June 2020. The Guidance Notes on applications under the LTF and the Application Forms are posted on the websites of the Law Society and the Bar Association. Eligible applicants who are interested in making an application should refer to the Guidance Notes for detailed information.

Briefly by way of introduction, the funding under the LTF covers, on a reimbursement basis, purchases (not renting or leasing) of information technology systems for use by the applicants in their operation and practice as well as the arrangement of relevant lawtech training participated by their staff in Hong Kong (not overseas).

The meaning of “information technology systems” is detailed in the Guidance Notes. It refers to all information technology systems including hardware, servers, computer equipment, software, databases, networks, cloud-based services, and other information technologic tools used in connection with the operation or the practice of the applicant. It is thus not restricted only to VCF for remote hearing purposes.

Further, where other government or public funding is being applied for in respect of a product or training, no application for funding should be submitted for the same item under the LTF. Applicants under the LTF must agree to keep the systems for at least two years from the date of reimbursement.

It is also worth noting that the purchases and training must be committed and be due for payment during the application period, ie between 28 April and 26 June 2020. Purchases and training that were fully paid and settled before the opening of the application period, ie 28 April 2020, are not covered by the LTF.

Eligible practitioners are strongly encouraged to utilise the resources allocated to the legal profession to enhance their competitiveness by upgrading their information technology systems and by providing relevant training to their staff. Enquiries are welcome and please send them to [email protected].

師辦事處，即有資格向基金申請最高 50,000 元資助。

申請期為兩個月，直至 2020 年 6 月 26 日。申請表

格及相關資料已上載香港律師會和香港大律師公會的

網頁。合資格的人士如有意申請，請參閱相關指引。

簡單來說，法律科技基金以實報實銷方式資助申請人

購買 ( 不包括租用 ) 資訊科技系統供其運作和執業使

用，以及安排其員工參加在香港（不包括海外）的相

關的法律科技培訓。

指引中「資訊科技系統」的定義，是指所有資訊科技

系統，包括硬件、伺務器、電腦設備、軟件、數據庫、

網絡、雲端服務，以及與申請人的運作或執業相關的

其他資訊科技工具，不僅限於供遙距聆訊用途的視像

會議器材。

此外，如已就一項產品或培訓申請其他政府或公共資

助，則不得就同一項目提交法律科技基金申請。法律

科技基金申請人必須同意，自獲發資助當日起保留該

系統最少兩年。

另外，購買和培訓必須在申請期間 ( 即 2020 年 4 月

28 日至 2020 年 6 月 26 日 ) 落實及付款。在基金申

請期 ( 即 2020 年 4 月 28 日 ) 之前已全數付款的購買

和培訓將不獲基金資助。

律師會大力鼓勵合資格的同業利用法律界獲分配

的資源，提升資訊科技系統，並向員工提供相關

培訓，以增強競爭力。如有查詢，歡迎電郵至

[email protected]。

• May 2020

www.hk-lawyer.org 11

理事會議題

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE

Consultation on rules on contractual stays on termination rights in financial contracts for authorized institutions under Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance

In January 2020, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”) issued a

consultation paper on the policy proposals for a set of rules to be made

relating to contractual stays on termination rights in financial contracts

for authorized institutions under Financial Institutions (Resolution)

Ordinance (Cap.628) (“Consultation Paper”) for public consultation.

Under the Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance (Cap.628)

("Ordinance"), the HKMA is the resolution authority for banking sector

entities, including without limitation, all authorized institutions. The

HKMA is empowered under section 92 of the Ordinance to make rules

that the terms and conditions of a contract entered into by it contain

a provision to the effect that the parties to the contract agree to be

bound by any suspension of termination rights that may be imposed

by the HKMA under the Ordinance. This is known as the "Stay Rules".

It is said that subject to the outcome of the public consultation, the

intention is to introduce the rules as subsidiary legislation under the

Ordinance into the Legislative Council for negative vetting in the

2020/2021 legislative session.

The Council has reviewed the Consultation Paper with the assistance of

the Insolvency Law Committee. The Law Society has made a submission

on the consultation questions posed. The full submission can be found

on the Law Society's website: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/

news/submissions/20200401.pdf

就根據《金融機構（處置

機制）條例》制定適用於

認可機構暫停金融合約終

止權的規則的諮詢

香港金融管理局（金管局）於 2020 年 1 月就根

據《金融機構（處置機制）條例》（第 628 章）

制定適用於認可機構暫停金融合約終止權的建議

規則，發表諮詢文件。

根據《金融機構（處置機制）條例》（第 628 章），

金管局是銀行界實體（包括但不限於所有認可機

構）的處置機制當局。該條例第 92 條授權金管

局訂立規則，規定在合約中加入適當條文，訂明

合約各方同意金管局根據條例設立的暫停終止權

的權力所約束，稱為「暫停終止權規則」。

視乎公眾諮詢的結果，金管局打算在 2020 至

2021 立法年度內將規則提交立法會進行先訂立後

審議程序。

理事會在破產法委員會的協助下審閱了該諮詢文

件，並就諮詢的問題提交了意見書。律師會意見

書的全文可瀏覽律師會網站：

h t t p : / / w w w . h k l a w s o c . o r g . h k / p u b _ e / n e w s /

submissions/20200401.pdf

May 2020 • FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題


Law + Tech vs COVID-19

COVER STORY

By Thomson Reuters

• May 2020


COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic transcending national borders, race, skin colour, culture, language, social status, religious

beliefs, political ideologies, poverty divide, and digital divide. The world has to-date bore witness to over 2.5 million cumulative confirmed infected cases, and over 180,000 deaths in 215 countries. This causes a huge strain on the healthcare system, and if broken, could have drastic consequences.

Global Problem, Home Grown Solution“This calls for urgent coordinated worldwide governmental response, as well as initiatives from the private sector and the broader community to reduce strain on our healthcare system, and to put in place better systems to earlier identify and help hidden infectious disease carriers,” said Nick Chan MH, Convenor of Tech Response to COVID-19 team, a technology lawyer and awardee of the Law Society Pro bono and Community Services Distinguished awards who has retired from the Law Society Council in 2019 and still serves in various different capacities for our profession and the wider community.

“Over 700,000 of those infected have recovered thanks to the sacrifices and hard work of medical and healthcare professionals around the world, but more can be done, more must be done in the war of humanity and compassion against COVID-19,” added Chan.

Law + Health + Tech + Social ResponsibilityWith affected countries having been in some form of lockdown or with some controls or restriction measures in place to manage and mitigate the surge or resurgence of infections in a globalised world, Chan said, “Smart data, data and cybersecurity, data integrity, predictive AI technologies and legal knowledge can play a proactive role in facilitating societies live under the “new normal” and enter recovery phase to alleviate the socio-economic impact caused by COVID-19.”

Chan added “we should take a privacy-

by-design informed risk-based approach and use technology as an enabler to empower and mobilise community to support frontline medical staff by using technology-enabled ‘shields of defence’ to help minimise, mitigate and remediate the socio-economic impact of COVID-19.” Emphasising that that an empowered community should never be underestimated in this global fight.

Chan, a partner and regional coordinator of a practice group at Squire Patton Boggs, is the Convenor of Tech Response to COVID-19 Limited, a non-profit non-governmental organisation (NGO) registered in Hong Kong to build and provide a technology-based response to the crisis, which can also be used to fight against other epidemics and pandemics in the future.

The primary objectives of the NGO include crowdsourcing resources, solutions and responses from the innovative and technology community (including from academia, universities, research and development centres, businesses, chambers of commerce, NGOs and the wider community) to address and respond to the challenges brought about by COVID-19 and other public healthcare crisis, helping to prevent, reduce and relieve poverty that would otherwise arise if left unaddressed.

“Positively-charged tiny droplets of water can together cause a ripple effect to turn the tides against the raging sea of fear and infection. When we collaborate and contribute our expertise, resources and boundless positive energy together, there is no limit to what us lawyers and other professionals can do to make the world a better place!” said Chan.

Lawyers are problem solvers. Solve novel problems. Dare to dream. A truly “home grown” Hong Kong community response to combat COVID-19, Chan explained that the NGO’s tech response will initially take the form of a unique COVID-19 risk exposure identifier SmartPhone App-based system being built and updated/upgraded over time with the following purposes and features in mind:

May 2020 • COVER STORY 封面專題


with other jurisdictions that have deployed “contact tracing” technology that collect name and send the user’s phone number to other users via Bluetooth. The app development and systems design process follows the Privacy by Design and Best Practice Guide on Mobile App Development issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data;

4. Collaborative effort using the best-in-class technology from around the world – The NGO brought together otherwise business competitors, universities, centres of excellence for i n n o v a t i o n a n d creativity and experts from around the world (programmers, doctors, scientists, technical domain exper ts , law yers etc), so the solution can make use of applicable latest R&D and technological developments (eg Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Blockchain, Private Cloud, Data Integrity and Security, Encryption, Location Intelligence, Machine Neural Learning, Smart Data, Radio Signal Signature Profiling etc.);

5. Enabler for individuals to not only help themselves but also to help the wider community – User’s

personal data are stored only on user’s own phone with encryption that even the NGO does not have any backdoor key to, and will not be uploaded unless user opt-in to do so (eg when user becomes a confirmed case then that user may decide to share data to help others). Users and communities may request to opt-in crowd-contribution

1. Reduce strain on healthcare workers – Better prevention and control of the spread of COVID-19 will reduce strain on healthcare professionals and our healthcare system;

2. Effective COVID-19 contact risk identification will reduce “false positives” and false sense of security, enabling earlier identification to help pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic “silent” infectious disease carriers – App users will be quickly informed of whether he/she has in a referenced period prescribed by medical experts (ie the past 14 days) came into “close contact” (ie within two metres and for an extended period) with another user who has since been confirmed as infected w i t h C O V I D -1 9 enabling the user to make decision about seeking medical a s s i s ta n c e a n d taking measures to prevent the potential further spread of COVID-19. Users do not need to recall/call to inform the NGO about when, where, how or why the user came into close contact with a confirmed case;

3. Privacy by design – As fellow members of the Hong Kong community, and with lawyers on the team, including Stephen Wong, the Hong Kong privacy commissioner for personal data, onboard as the honorary privacy facilitator, the NGO App and systems development team fully values personal data privacy, and the NGO, being a not-for-profit non-commercial entity, has

therefore decidedly taken a much different strictly privacy-by-design approach. From day one the Hong Kong developed COVID-19 contact risk identifier app will not collect sensitive personal biometric data as the team uses proprietary advanced radio signalling technology that uses anonymised data and radio signals (for example, invisible WiFi signals that

already hit phones as it enters into coverage of free WiFi services offered by many coffee shops, shopping malls, public library, airport, mass transit hub etc) to ascertain proximity, and as such this Hong Kong app upon roll-out does not collect user name, user mobile number, user GPS location. This is a significant leap compared

Nick Chan MH, Convenor of Tech Response to COVID-19 Team陳曉峰律師 MH，Tech Response to COVID-19召集人

• May 2020


of more anonymised data to improved prediction for the benefit of the wider community (eg school, workplace, place of worship, etc) to reduce the risks of exposure;

6. Scalable and world-class data security – The scalable system is designed to meet high-data security and integrity requirements using robust built-in security features of Microsoft Azure and deploying other measures;

7. Proactive, predictive and not just passively reactive – Using a Six Sigma and 360o Risk Management approach to system design, this solution is aimed at holistic risk management and mitigation strategy and cont inuous i m p r o v e m e n t targeting the impact of COVID-19 with predictive, preventive, detection, response and recovery phases in mind;

8. Cross-disciplinary approach that will produce workable solutions – With a cross-disciplinary team working with lawyers closely with medical, computer scientists, big data experts and scientific experts, the NGO is confident that the solution will be useful to strengthen the defence against COVID-19, and to support the frontline efforts of medical staff on the war against COVID-19;

9. Instil better personal and public health hygiene – This solution aims to instil a self-monitor, prevention and reporting culture to prepare

users on making informed choices and decisions;

10. Rebuild confidence under the “new normal” – As the society commences its recovery phase and rebuild to normality under the “new normal”, the system will help the community rebuild, help each other and go back to lead normal lives in an informed,

safer and quicker manner than without this system;

11. C o l l a b o r a t i v e p l a t f o r m – This is built as a collaborate platform welcoming other NGOs, agencies, communities, individuals, organisations, schools, mass transit operators, shopping mall operators,

employers and other stakeholders to do good without compromising the trust and personal data of users; and

12. Inspire, ’do good, do well and love one another‘ – “It is better to give than to receive”, and Chan and his team members hope to inspire others to “do good, do well and love one another” and collaborate to contribute to the

community during this critical time.

The initiative received global support from i n d i v i d u a l s a n d organisations, including Cherrypicks; Cyberport; Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks; HKUST-MIT Research Alliance Consortium; The Hong Kong and Medical Healthcare Device Industries Association; HKUST School of Engineering; Microsoft; MIT Innovation Node; MIT Media Lab; NDN Group; Smart City Consortium; Smart S e n s i n g ; V i z z te c h Technology; Big Data experts, microbiologists, epidemiologists, doctors, nursing schools, and Stephen Wong, the privacy commissioner for personal data.

Apps and system development, testing a n d b eta la u n c h is expected to be completed before school term starts again in September 2020.

As a Chinese proverb goes, “Droplets of water makes a river” and “Live the Lion Rock Spirit!” said Chan. The team welcomes more beta testers, volunteers and sponsors from all walks-of-life to join in this ‘crowdsource initiative’ to be a contributor and hero in our own ways.

Lawyers and friends, time to assemble!

Positively-charged tiny droplets of water can together cause a ripple effect to turn the tides against the raging sea of fear and infection. When we collaborate and contribute our expertise, resources and boundless positive energy together, there is no limit to what us lawyers and other professionals can do to make the world a better place! - Nick Chan MH



封面專題

作者：湯森路透

法律 + 科技 vs COVID-19

2019 冠狀病毒病 (COVID-19) 是

全球性流行病，跨越一切國

界、種族、膚色、文化、語言、

社會地位、宗教、政治、貧富和數碼

的界限。迄今為止，全球 215 個國家

/ 地區的累積確診病例超過 250 萬，

死亡人數超過 18 萬，對醫療系統造

成了巨大的壓力，醫療系統一旦崩

潰，後果可能極為嚴重。

全球問題的本地解決方案

Tech Response to COVID-19 召集人陳

曉峰律師 MH 指出：「全球的政府必

須協調應對措施，私人公司和整個社

會亦必須採取行動，以減輕醫療系統

的壓力，設立更佳系統及早發現並援

助隱藏帶病毒者。」陳律師是科技律

師兼香港律師會公益法律服務及社

區工作嘉許計劃傑出社區服務獎得

獎者。他於 2019 年退任香港律師會

理事會，但仍以不同身份為業界和社

會服務。

陳律師補充指：「有賴全球醫護人員

的犧牲和辛勤工作，超過 70 萬名感

染者已痊癒，但是在這場人性和同情

心對抗 COVID-19 的戰爭中，我們還

有更多事可以做且必須做。」

法律 + 健康 + 科技 + 社會責任

受影響國家均處於某種形式的封鎖，

或採取了一些限制措施，以在全球化

的環境下控制或減慢感染數字或防

止再爆發，「智能數據、數據網絡安

全、數據完整性、預測性人工智能技

術和法律知識，無疑可以發揮積極作

用，協助社會在『新常態』下生活和

復元，以及減輕 COVID-19 對社會經

濟方面的影響。」

陳律師補充說：「我們應採取保障私

隱、有依據、根據風險制訂的方法，

並利用科技動員社會，使用科技驅動

的『防禦盾』來支援前線醫護人員，

以盡量減輕和補救 COVID-19 帶來的

社會經濟影響。」他強調我們不應低

估社區對全球抗疫的力量。

陳律師是律師行 Squire Patton Boggs的合夥人及專業小組協調人，他擔

任香港註冊的非牟利非政府組織

（NGO） Tech Response to COVID-19 Limited 的召集人，該 NGO 的宗旨

是建立和提供以科技應對危機的方

案，將來也可用來對抗其他流行病和疫情。

該 NGO 成立的主要宗旨包括從創新

科技界（包括學術界、大學、研發中

心、企業、商會、NGO 等及整個社

會）眾集資源、方案和應對方法，共

同解決和應對 COVID-19 及其他公共

衛生危機事件可能引起的挑戰，從而

協助預防、減少和減輕此類危機如未

被解決而可能產生的貧窮問題。

陳律師說：「帶正電荷的水滴會產生

漣漪效應，捲起千重浪，抵禦洶湧的

恐懼和疫情。若我們合作共同貢獻我

們的專業知識、資源和正能量，律師

和其他專業人士的力量將無可限量，

能使世界變得更美好！」

律師是解決問題的能手。

解決新問題。敢於夢想。

這是香港社區一個「本土化」應對

COVID-19 的方法。陳律師解釋，該

NGO 的科技應對方法將採取一個獨

特的 COVID-19 風險識別系統形式，

該系統將建立在智能手機應用程式

的基礎上，並隨時間的推移而更新

• May 2020


及升級。該系統考慮之目的和功能如下：

1. 減輕醫護人員的壓力—更有效

地預防和控制 COVID-19 的傳播，

將能減輕對醫護人員和醫療系統

的壓力；

2. 有效的 COVID-19接觸風險識別將減少「偽陽性」結果和錯誤的

安全感，及早識別及協助未出現

症狀和無症狀隱藏帶病毒者—

應用程式用戶可獲迅速通知，在

醫學專家規定的參考期間（即過

去 14 天）內，是否曾與其後確診

感染 COVID-19 的用戶有過「密

切接觸」（即持續一段時間在 2米範圍內），用戶從而可自行決

定尋求醫療協助，並採取措施防

止 COVID-19 可能進一步傳播。

用戶無需致電通報何時、何地、

如何或為何與確診病人有密切接觸；

3. 貫徹私隱設計—作為香港社會

的一份子，該 NGO 邀得律師加

入團隊，個人資料私隱專員公署

黃繼兒先生擔任名譽私隱協調

員，NGO 的應用程式和系統開發

團隊充分重視個人資料私隱，而

該 NGO 作為非牟利、非商業組

織，決定採取截然不同的設計，

嚴格保障私隱。因此從開始這個

香港開發的 COVID-19 接觸風險

識別應用程式不會收集敏感的個

人生物特徵數據，而使用專有的

高級無線電信號技術，收集匿名

數據和無線電信號（例如，當我

們連接咖啡店、商場、公共圖書

館、機場、公共交通樞紐等提供

的免費 WiFi 服務時，WiFi 信號

接觸到我們的手機），以確定接

觸程度。因此，這個香港的應用

程式在推出時不會收集用戶名、

用戶的手機號碼、用戶的 GPS 定

位。其他司法管轄區的追踪技術

會通過藍牙發送名字和手機號碼

至其他用戶，相比起來，香港的

應用程式是個大躍進。應用程式

的開發和系統設計過程遵守個人

資料私隱專員公署公布的「貫徹

私隱設計」及《開發流動應用程

式最佳行事方式指引》；

4. 利用世界各地的一流技術進行合作—該 NGO 匯集了在其他

方面的商業競爭對手、大學、創

科中心及世界各地的專家（程式

編寫員、醫生、科學家、技術領

域專家、律師等），利用了最新

的研究和技術（如人工智能、大

數據、區塊鏈、私人雲端、數據

完整性和安全性、加密、智能定

位、機器神經學習、智能數據、

無線電信號個人特徵分析等）；

5. 令用戶不僅可幫助自己，也可幫助整個社會—用戶的個人資料

以加密方式存儲在用戶的手機

內，即使該 NGO 也沒有任何後

門鑰匙，除非用戶同意（例如若

用戶確診後，可能希望共享數據

以幫助他人），否則不會上傳。

用戶和社區可能會要求加入更多

匿名數據，以改善預測的準確

性，造福整個社區（例如學校、

工作場所、宗教場所等），以減

少感染的風險；

6. 可擴展的世界級數據安全— 可擴展的系統設計，使用

Microsoft Azure 的強大內置安全

功能和其他措施，來滿足高數據

安全和完整性的要求；

7. 主動、可預測性，而不僅是被動反應—該解決方案使用 Six Sigma 和 360o 風險管理進行系

統設計，旨在以整體風險管理和

緩解策略，針對 COVID-19 的影

響，因應預測、預防、檢測、應

對和復元階段，作出持續改進；

8. 產生可行的跨領域解決方案—該 NGO 的跨領域團隊律師與醫護

人員、電腦科學家、大數據專家

和科學專家緊密合作，有信心該

解決方案將有助對抗 COVID-19，

支援醫護人員的前線抗疫工作；

9. 灌輸更好的個人和公共衛生意識—這個解決方案旨在灌輸

自我監察，預防和自我檢查的文

化，以便用戶作出明智的選擇 /

決定；

10. 在「新常態」下重建信心—隨

著社會開始進入復元階段，並在

「新常態」下恢復正常生活，該

系統將協助社會重建，互相幫

助，並在知情、安全的情況下恢

復正常生活；

11. 協作平台—該平台是一個協作

平台，歡迎其他非政府組織、機

構、社群、個人、組織、學校、

集體運輸營運者、商場營運者、

僱主及其他持份者合作，造福社

群而又不損害用戶的信任和個人

資料私隱；及

12. 啟發、向善行善，互助互愛—施比受更有福，陳律師和其他團

隊成員希望啟發他人向善行善，

互助互愛，在這個關鍵時刻互相

合作，為社會作出貢獻。

來自世界各地志同道合的各界業者

迅速對方案表示支持，包括但不限

於 Cherrypicks、數碼港、香港科技

園、HKUST-MIT Research Alliance Consortium、香港醫療及保健器材行

業協會、香港科技大學工學院、微

軟、MIT Innovation Node、MIT Media Lab、NDN Group、智慧城市聯盟、

Smart Sensing、域思科技、大數據

專家、微生物學家、流行病學家、醫

生、護理學校以及個人資料私隱專員

黃繼兒先生。

在團隊的通力合作下，應用程式和

系統開發、測試和 Beta 版發佈預計

將在未來不久，2020 年 9 月開學前完成。

俗語有云：「滴水成河」；陳律師說：

「活出獅子山精神！」團隊歡迎各行

各業的 Beta 測試員、志願者和贊助

人加入「眾集計劃」，各自成為貢獻

者及英雄。

律師們、朋友們，是時候集合起來了！



Microsoft is proud to be Tech Sponsor providing Microsoft Azure cloud computing and storage to Tech Response to COVID-19! Our Microsoft Azure provides secure foundation across physical, infrastructure and operational security. Microsoft invests over a billion dollars every year into security.

微軟很榮幸能成為技術贊助商，為 Tech Response to COVID-19 提供 Microsoft Azure 雲端

計算和儲存！我們的 Microsoft Azure 提供物質、

架構和運作安全方面的穩固基礎。微軟每年在安

全方面的投資超過 10 億美元。

Microsoft National Technology Officer Mr Fred Sheu

微軟香港有限公司香港區域科技長

許遵發先生

Lawyers can proactively make a huge contribution to the success of any App development. Lawyers can help App developers truly understand the privacy issues involved and take a Privacy by Design approach in developing Apps, so that user's privacy is always the top priority (not afterthought) in every design path taken. This helps address privacy concerns, unnecessary delays and costs. I am delighted to be engaged as the Honorary Privacy Facilitator for this very timely and worthwhile community project and to join hands in fighting COVID-19.

律師可為任何應用程式的成功開發作出積極且巨大的貢獻。律

師可幫助應用程式開發人員了解涉及的私隱問題，並在開發應

用程式時採用『貫徹私隱設計』，令用戶的私隱成為設計過程

的重中之重（而不是事後才考慮）。這有助於解決私隱問題，

避免不必要的延誤和成本。我很高興能成為這個非常及時而有

價值的社區項目的名譽私隱協調員，攜手對抗 COVID-19。

Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data Mr Stephen Kai-yi Wong

個人資料私隱專員黃繼兒先生

• May 2020


律師會新聞

LAW SOCIETY NEWS

Dr Anson Au Yeung (left) and Mr Raymond Yip (right) of the CUHK MBA Program presented a souvenir to Vice President C.M. Chan.

陳澤銘副會長接受中大工商管理碩士課程導師歐陽秋乾博士（左）和葉澤恩先生（右）致送的紀念品。

Vice President C.M. Chan gave lecture to CUHK studentsAt the invitation of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), Mr. C.M. Chan, Vice President and Chairman of the Greater China Legal Affairs Committee, gave a lecture to MBA students on Hong Kong legal profession’s role in the “Belt and Road” Initiative and the Greater Bay Area on 21 March. Topics included the legal profession’s positioning and strengths under these initiatives and related policies. Students from overseas, the Mainland and Hong Kong attended the lecture and showed great interest in the topics. In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the event was conducted online at the CUHK Business School Town Centre.

副會長陳澤銘律師為中大學生授課

應香港中文大學的邀請，副會長暨大中華法律事務委員

會主席陳澤銘律師於 3 月 21 日為該校的工商管理碩士課

程學生授課，分享香港法律專業界別在「一帶一路」倡

議和粵港澳大灣區發展中所扮演的角色，包括法律界在

這些發展項目中的定位、優勢和相關政策等。來自海外、

內地和香港的學生們都對課題十分有興趣。因應 2019 冠

狀病毒病的影響，是次課堂假中大商學院市區教學中心

以線上教學模式進行。

May 2020 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞


By Nick Stern, Counsel, Freshfields’ Asia restructuring and insolvency and dispute resolution practices

Demystifying Chinese Insolvencies – All Roads Lead to the Mainland

When a Mainland Chinese business fai ls , what happens to its assets outside of Mainland

China? Are they dealt with piecemeal in satellite insolvency proceedings or can they be brought under the control of the main Chinese proceedings? Given the scale of Chinese investment overseas and the financial problems currently being experienced by many Mainland businesses, these are certainly not hypothetical questions.

Two recent decisions – one in Hong Kong and one in New York – address these issues and point to a growing demystification and recognition of Chinese insolvency law outside Mainland China. What they also show is that creditors outside Mainland China may increasingly find that their only route to recover debts from a failed Chinese business is to engage with the Chinese insolvency process.

An international Free-For-All?When a business goes into liquidation in China, its creditors are prevented from taking individual actions against

the business’ Chinese assets. Instead, they have to participate in a collective liquidation process. However, what about assets located outside Mainland China? Can foreign creditors ignore the Chinese liquidation process and enforce their claims against the foreign assets?

Re CEFC Shanghai International Group LimitedMr Justice Harris in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance had to consider this issue in a judgment delivered in January (Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 167). CEFC, a Shanghai-based investment company, was placed into liquidation in Mainland China in November 2019. Its assets included a debt claim against its Hong Kong-incorporated subsidiary (the “HK Debt Claim”). Prior to CEFC’s liquidation, a creditor had obtained a default judgment against CEFC in Hong Kong and a garnishee order nisi in respect of the HK Debt Claim. To prevent the creditor from enforcing over the HK Debt Claim (by obtaining a garnishee order absolute) the Chinese court-appointed administrators of CEFC applied to the Hong Kong court for assistance and recognition of the

Chinese liquidation. Although the Hong Kong courts have routinely recognised foreign insolvencies, this was the first application for recognition of a Mainland insolvency.

The court considered three main questions. First, should it recognise the Chinese insolvency proceedings? Second, if recognised, what assistance should the Chinese administrators be granted? And third, how would this affect the creditor’s claim for a garnishee order absolute?

RecognitionTwo criteria must be satisfied before recognition may be granted to insolvency proceedings opened in a civil law jurisdiction:

• the foreign proceedings must have

• May 2020


been opened in the company’s country of incorporation; and

• the foreign insolvency proceedings must be collective insolvency proceedings.

The first requirement was met, as CEFC was incorporated in China where the insolvency proceedings had been commenced. In relation to the second requirement, the court noted that Chinese insolvency proceedings are intended to deal with all of a debtor’s assets. Thus, there was little doubt, the court said, that they were collective proceedings. Indeed, the reason why recognition was being sought was to maintain that collectivity to ensure equal treatment of creditors. As both criteria were met, the Hong Kong court was prepared to recognise the

Chinese proceedings.

AssistanceThe second issue for the court was what assistance to offer the Chinese administrators? The Hong Kong court will grant assistance to a non-Hong Kong officeholder by applying Hong Kong insolvency law, although it will not grant them all the same powers as a liquidator appointed under Hong Kong law (namely the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32). Rather the powers granted must be:

• limited to allowing the officeholder to exercise in Hong Kong the powers they were granted in their home jurisdiction (but not the powers to do something they would not be able to do in their

home jurisdiction);

• necessary for the officeholder to carry out their other functions; and

• consistent with Hong Kong law.

One of the most notable aspects of this decision is that the Judge, when answering this second question, sought to draw out some of the key similarities between Hong Kong and the Mainland’s insolvency laws. In particular, he noted that both the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (the relevant Mainland insolvency legislation) and Hong Kong insolvency law provided for:

• a stay on creditor claims;

• all of a debtor ’s assets to be

May 2020 • INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURING 破產與重組


encompassed in the proceedings and to be distributed to creditors on a parri passu basis; and

• the appointed insolvency officeholders to have similar powers and duties.

Given these similarities between the two regimes, the court was prepared to extend to the Mainland Chinese administrators the same assistance as it would to officeholders from other jurisdictions. Most importantly, this included a stay on proceedings against CEFC in Hong Kong as if the company were in liquidation in Hong Kong. Such a stay provides a mechanism for the Hong Kong court to restrain and oversee creditor action while the company undergoes an orderly liquidation in its home jurisdiction.

Garnishee orders and GalbraithThe final issue was whether the moratorium granted by the court ought to prevent the creditor from obtaining its garnishee order absolute over the HK Debt Claim. This issue involved consideration by the court of the House of Lords decision in Galbraith v Grimshaw [1910] AC 508. In Galbraith, a creditor obtained a judgment against a Scottish debtor. To enforce the judgment, the creditor sought to obtain from the English court a garnishee order nisi over an English debt owed to the debtor. However, after the garnishee order had been served, the debtor was adjudicated bankrupt in Scotland resulting in his estate being transferred to the Scottish bankruptcy trustee. The House of Lords in Galbraith decided, however, that the prior English garnishee order prevailed over the foreign (ie Scottish) bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, the creditor could enforce over the English debt claim (by obtaining the garnishee order absolute) despite the bankruptcy proceedings in Scotland.

Harris J noted that Galbraith was “inconsistent with contemporary cross border insolvency law and its reasoning […] inapplicable to modern common law cross-border insolvency assistance.” He was therefore not prepared to follow it and instead decided that the Mainland insolvency should prevail over the Hong

Kong garnishee proceedings. This was consistent with recognising the Mainland proceedings in Hong Kong.

Mainland InsolvencyOne eye-catching aspect of this decision is that it seems clearly aimed, at least in part, at a Mainland audience. There are two reasons for inferring this. First, Harris J addressed the thorny mirror issue of whether a Mainland court would ever be prepared to recognise a foreign insolvency. None has done so to date, despite the fact that the main Chinese insolvency legislation – the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (at Article 5) – expressly envisages such recognition. The Judge noted that in Hong Kong there is no legal requirement for reciprocity when recognising a foreign insolvency. Nevertheless, he stated that the extent to which greater assistance is provided to Mainland insolvencies by Hong Kong (and other) courts in the future is likely to be influenced by the level of cooperation and recognition given by Mainland courts to foreign insolvencies. Second, unlike in Hong Kong, reciprocity is a prerequisite to recognition of foreign proceedings for Mainland courts. It must therefore be hoped that the Mainland courts can take some comfort from the recognition given to Mainland proceedings by the Hong Kong court in this decision when they come to consider in the future whether to recognise Hong Kong insolvency proceedings in China.

In re Reward Science and Technology Industry Group Co., LtdThe CEFC decision came only a few months after the decision of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to grant Chapter 15 protection to Reward, a Chinese-incorporated consumer goods group. This meant that Reward’s offshore creditors, some of whom had contested the application, were prevented from enforcing their claims against Reward’s assets in the US. This is understood to be the first contested Chapter 15 application for a Chinese company.

Reward had debts of US$1.3bn, which prompted a liquidity crisis leading to an insolvency filing in Beijing in April last year.

US$200m of that debt was comprised of US dollar-denominated offshore notes, with the remainder of the debt arising from borrowing in China. Despite the Chinese insolvency, two groups of noteholders launched proceedings in New York. The Chinese court-appointed administrator applied to the US Bankruptcy Court to recognise the Chinese proceedings under Chapter 15 to stay all claims against the debtor in the US.

The noteholders objected to the application, raising a number of arguments including that, as non-Chinese creditors, they were receiving discriminatory treatment in the Chinese insolvency proceedings. The US Bankruptcy Court, nonetheless, made the Chapter 15 order in Reward’s favour. This meant that the offshore creditors could not enforce their claims against Reward’s offshore assets but instead had to participate – together with Reward’s onshore creditors – in its Chinese liquidation process.

Freshfields in New York and Hong Kong acted for the Chinese administrator that made the Chapter 15 application.

Growing Engagement and CooperationBoth of these decisions show that foreign courts are increasingly prepared to engage with and seek to understand the Chinese insolvency process. Given the growing financial problems being faced by many Chinese businesses, this trend is likely to continue. How far it will go, however, will depend on whether foreign creditors are seen to be treated fairly in Chinese insolvencies and whether there is similar engagement and understanding by the Chinese courts. As Mr Justice Harris observed in CEFC:

The extent to which greater assistance should be provided to Mainland [insolvencies] in the future will have to be decided on a case by case basis and the development of recognition is likely to be influenced by the extent to which the [Hong Kong] court is satisfied that the Mainland, like Hong Kong, promotes a unitary approach to transnational insolvencies.

• May 2020


作者：Nick Stern，本所亞洲重組、破產及爭議解決團隊顧問律師

揭開中國內地與海外互相承認破產程序的神秘面紗—條條大路通內地

當中國內地企業倒閉時，該企

業在中國以外的資產將如何

處理？會以國外衛星破產程

序分散處理，還是置於中國的破產程

序的管轄下？鑑於中國在海外的投

資規模，以及許多內地企業當前遇到

的財務問題，這些都是切實會面對的

情況。

最近兩個分別在香港和紐約裁決，回

應了這些問題，並進一步解開了中國

破產法的神秘面紗和在外地的認受

性。它們亦顯示，中國內地以外的債

權人可能漸漸發現，他們從倒閉的中

國企業追回債務的唯一途徑，是參與

中國的破產程序。

外地債權人可任意行動？

當企業在中國進行清盤時，債權人

不得對企業的中國資產採取個別行

動，而必須參加集體清盤過程。但

是，在中國以外的資產又如何處理

呢？外地債權人是否可以不理會中

國的清盤程序，對外國資產執行索

償嗎？

上海華信國際集團有限公司案

香港原訟法庭夏利士法官在 1 月在

上海華信國際集團有限公司 [2020] HKCFI 167 1 一案中就此議題作出了裁

決。以上海為基地的投資公司上海

華信國際集團有限公司（「上海華

信」）於 2019 年 11 月在中國內地清

盤，其資產包括對其香港子公司的債

務索償（「香港債務索償」）。上海

華信清盤前，一位債權人已在香港取

得針對上海華信的欠缺行動判決書，

及對香港債務索償的暫准第三債務

人的扣押令。為防止債權人對香港債

務索償通過獲得絕對第三債務人扣

押令進行強制執行，中國法院指定的

上海華信管理人向香港法庭申請協

助和要求承認中國的清盤程序。儘管

香港法庭通常承認外地的破產程序，

但這是首宗要求承認中國內地破產

程序的申請。

法庭考慮了三個主要問題。首先，法

庭應否承認中國的破產程序？第二，

如承認，應給予中國的管理人甚麼的

協助？第三，債權人申請的絕對第三

債務人扣押令將如何受到影響？

承認

在大陸法律制度 (civil law) 司法管轄

區啟動的破產程序如要獲得承認，必

須符合兩個條件：

• 外地程序必須已在公司的註冊國

家啟動；及

• 外地的破產程序必須是集體破產

程序。

1 Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 167

May 2020 • INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURING 破產與重組


由於上海華信在中國註冊成立，並已

在中國展開破產程序，因此符合第一

個要求。至於第二個要求，法庭指

出，中國的破產程序旨在處理債務人

的所有資產，因此為毫無疑問是集體

程序。的而且確，尋求法庭的承認旨

在保持集體性，以確保債權人獲平等

待遇。由於符合了這兩個要求，香港

法庭願意承認中國的程序。

協助

法庭面對的第二個問題，是應向中國

的管理人提供甚麼協助？香港法庭

會根據香港破產清盤法，為非香港的

管理人提供協助，但香港法庭不會對

非香港的管理人授予與根據香港法

律（即香港法例第 32 章《公司（清

盤及雜項條文）條例》）任命的清盤

人相等的權力。非香港的管理人可獲

授予的權力必須是：

• 限於管理人在香港行使他們在原

屬國家獲授予的權力（但不能行

使他們在原屬國家沒有的權力）；

• 允許管理人履行其他職能所必需

的權力；及

• 符合香港法律。

該裁決最值得注意之處是，法官在考

慮第二個問題時，試圖找出香港與內

地破產法的一些主要相似之處。他特

別指出，《中華人民共和國企業破產

法》（相關的內地破產法）和香港破

產清盤法均有規定：

• 擱置執行債權人的索償；

• 債務人的所有資產將涵蓋在破產

程序中，並按同時及同等地的基

準分配給債權人；及

• 被任命的破產管理人具相類似的

權力和職責。

由於兩個制度之間存在相似之處，法

庭願意向中國內地的管理人提供與

其會對其他司法管轄區相同的協助，

包括擱置對上海華信在香港的訴訟，

情況正如該公司在香港進行清盤一

樣。擱置訴訟為香港法庭提供了機

制，在該公司在原屬國家進行有序清

盤時，限制和監督債權人的行為。

第三債務人扣押令及 Galbraith案最後一個問題是法院頒布的暫止期

是否應阻止債權人就香港的債務索

償獲得絕對第三債務人扣押令。英

國上議院曾在 Galbraith v Grimshaw [1910] AC 508 一案就這議題作出裁

決。在 Galbraith 一案中，債權人獲

得對蘇格蘭債務人的裁決。為了執行

該裁決，債權人試圖向英格蘭法庭申

請扣押債務人應收的英格蘭債務。然

而，發出第三債務人扣押令後，債務

人在蘇格蘭被裁定破產，導致其資產

轉讓至蘇格蘭的破產受託人。但是，

英國上議院裁定，先前英國的第三債

務人扣押令優先於外地（即蘇格蘭）

的破產程序。因此，儘管破產程序已

在蘇格蘭進行，但債權人仍可對英格

蘭的債務強制執行絕對扣押令。

夏利士法官指出，Galbraith 一案「與

當代的跨境破產法不符，其理據 […]

不適用於現代普通法的跨境破產協

助。」因此，他不予跟從，而是決定

內地破產程序應優先於香港的第三

債務人扣押程序。這與在香港承認內

地程序的裁決是一致的。

內地破產

這項裁決引人注目的是，它顯然在一

定程度上針對內地受眾，推斷其原因

有二。首先，夏利士法官解決了一個

棘手的對等問題，即內地法院是否準

備承認外地破產程序。儘管中國主要

的破產法律《企業破產法》第 5 條有

明確預期互相承認的問題，但迄今為

止內地從未承認外地破產程序。法官

指出，在香港，承認外地的破產程序

並無法律上的對等要求。不過，他指

出，香港（及其他地方）的法院日後

向內地破產程序提供協助的程度，可

能會受到內地法院對外地破產程序的

合作和承認程度的影響。第二，與香

港法院不同的是，對等要求是內地法

院承認外地程序的先決條件。因此，

希望內地法院將來決定是否承認香港

的破產程序時，會考慮到香港法院在

本案的判決中，承認內地程序一事。

Reward Science and Technology Industry Group Co., Ltd 案

上海華信案的裁決前數個月，美國紐

約南區破產法庭亦作出了決定，把第

15 章的保護授予中國註冊的消費品

集團 Reward。這意味著 Reward 的離

岸債權人，包括一些曾對申請提出異

議者，均被禁止對 Reward 在美國的

資產執行索償。這被認為是首個涉及

中國企業的有爭議第 15 條於申請。

Reward 公司欠下 13 億美元債務，出

現流動資金危機，因而在去年 4 月

在北京申請破產。其中 2 億美元的債

務是美元離岸債券，其餘債務是來自

中國的貸款。儘管該公司在中國申請

破產，但有兩組債券持有人在紐約提

起訴訟。中國法院指定的管理人向美

國破產法院申請根據第 15 章承認中

國的程序，以擱置在美國對債務人的申索。

債務持有人反對該申請，並提出了許

多理據，包括作為非中國債權人，他

們在中國的破產程序中受到不平等

待遇。儘管如此，美國破產法院還是

頒下有利 Reward 的第 15 章命令，即

離岸債權人不能對 Reward 的離岸資

產執行債權，而必須與 Reward 的在

岸債權人一起參與中國的清盤程序。

富而德律師事務所的紐約和香港辦

事處在此案中代表中國管理人提出第

15 章申請。

加強參與和合作

這兩項裁決顯示，外地法院越來越願

意參與及嘗試了解中國的破產程序。

鑑於許多中國企業面對的財務問題

日益嚴重，這種趨勢可能會持續，但

將取決於外地債權人在中國的破產

程序中是否獲公平對待，以及中國法

院是否一樣會參與和了解外地的程

序。正如夏利士法官在上海華信案的

觀察指出：

「未來向內地［破產程序］提供

多大的協助將因個案而異，而互

相承認的發展將某程度取決於［香

港］法院是否認為內地與香港一

樣提倡統一處理跨國破產。」

• May 2020


By Tammy Yeung, Assistant Solicitor, Ng, Au Yeung & Partners

The Decline of Pigeon Racing in Hong Kong

Just like SARS, a viral respiratory disease which claimed hundreds of lives back in 2003, recent investigation reveals that the primary

source of the new virus behind COVID-19 is likely to be bats.

With an increasing concern for animals and human-animal relationships at present, this finding again reminds us how complicated our relationship with animals can be. On the one hand, we rely on animals as a source of food. We keep them as pets. We even develop hobbies around them. On the other hand, however, we also fear them as they can be sources of disease.

This article will shed light on the complicated relationship between birds and us by investigating how the increasingly restrictive legislation over the years contributed to the decline of pigeon racing in Hong Kong.

Pigeon RacingPigeon racing is a sport or hobby which has a long history. It involves specially trained racing pigeons which are taken to a release point and from where they are to race home. Pigeon racing is nothing short of controversy. There have been reports on the inhumane treatment over the breeding of racing pigeons. Furthermore, animal rights advocates have argued that there are often heavy casualties during competition as the racing pigeons can be attacked by the birds of prey or they can become exhausted for flying home from long distances away. There are also doping scandals surrounding pigeon racing. However, the focus of this article is not the ethics of pigeon racing. Instead, this article will focus on the decline of pigeon racing in Hong Kong.

Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354) (“WDO”)WDO was enacted in 1980. Livestock waste was the main source of pollution of streams and coastal waters in Hong Kong at that time. With the increasing awareness of the importance of environmental protection and the aim to protect the public's health, the Hong Kong Government was of the view that livestock farming was no longer compatible with urban development. As a result, a new Part IIIA was added to WDO in 1987 to prohibit livestock keeping in urban areas and it came into operation in June 1988 (the “1987 Amendment”).

By virtue of the 1987 Amendment, s. 15(1) of WDO provided that no person (other than an exempt person) shall keep "livestock" in or on any premises in a livestock waste prohibition area (which generally covered the urban area). A contravention would be an offence. As per the definitions in s. 2 of WDO, the word “livestock” meant "pigs or poultry" while the word "poultry" meant "chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons and quail". An exempt person included any person who owned or kept in or on his premises in any livestock waste prohibition area not more than 10 poultry (the “Exemption”). In short, the position under the 1987 Amendment was that a person could keep in his premises not more than 10 poultry. The limit was later increased to 20.

Hong Kong Racing Pigeon Association Limited (“HKRPAL”)The 1987 Amendment heavily restricted the keeping of racing pigeons in the urban areas. In Hong Kong Racing Pigeon Association Limited v. Attorney General and Other [HCMP No. 3501 of 1993], HKRPAL took out an originating summons seeking a declaration that all racing pigeons kept by all its members

were not “pigeons” for the purposes of WDO. In short, HKRPAL submitted that the word "pigeons" did not include racing pigeons because a racing pigeon was not poultry. HKRPAL claimed that it was imperative for the active members to keep at least 30 to 40 birds if they were to take the sport or hobby seriously. On 15th July 1994, the matter came before the Hon. Mr. Justice Sears of the High Court. He found against HKRPAL and refused the declaration sought.

HKRPAL then appealed to the Court of Appeal. In Hong Kong Racing Pigeon Association Limited v. Attorney General and Other [CACV No. 158 of 1994], the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a unanimous decision. The Hon. Mr. Justice Nazareth V-P believed that there was simply no ambiguity or obscurity in the definition of “poultry” or the meaning of “pigeon” in WDO. The Hon. Mr. Justice Bokhary JA and the Hon. Mr. Justice Liu JA concurred with his opinion.

Further Amendments to WDOIn 1997, there was an outbreak of avian influenza in Hong Kong. Due to the fear of avian influenza, further restrictions were imposed on livestock keeping in the city. The Exemption was removed in 2006. Thereafter, if a pigeon racing enthusiast wanted to keep any pigeons in his premises, he needed to rely on s. 15AA of WDO under which no person shall keep livestock in or on any premises in a livestock waste restriction area unless (a) he is authorised in writing so to do by the Director of Environmental Protection; or (b) he holds a valid licence so to do issued by the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation (the “Director”) under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance (Cap. 139).

May 2020 • ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 環境法


作者：楊潤甜，Ng， Au Yeung & Partners 律師

香港賽鴿的沒落

Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance (Cap. 139) (“PHABO”)Various sub-legislations in the form of regulations were enacted under s. 3 of PHABO. They provide for the regulation of the issuance of licences by the Director for the keeping of birds for various purposes. Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Licensing of Livestock Keeping) Regulation (Cap. 139L) regulates the issuance of Livestock Keeping Licence while Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Exhibitions) Regulations (Cap. 139F) regulates the issuance of Exhibition Licence.

Livestock Keeping Licence VS Exhibition LicenceIn Lin Kai Yuen v. Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation [HCAL No. 134 of 2009], the Applicant, a pigeon racing enthusiast, applied for judicial review seeking an order to quash a decision from the Director refusing to grant the Livestock Keeping Licence to him to keep his racing pigeons in his premises. The Applicant was however granted the Exhibition Licence to keep those pigeons. It was the Applicant’s case that he should be granted the Livestock Keeping Licence instead of the Exhibition Licence as the commercial nature and purpose of the Exhibition

Licence were inconsistent with his keeping of racing pigeons in his premises which was a residential one. The Hon. Mr. Justice Au rejected the Applicant’s submissions that the Director’s decision was wrongful in law and dismissed the application.

ConclusionThe increasingly restrictive legislation and the judicial decisions mentioned above undoubtedly dealt a severe blow to the pigeon racing enthusiasts in Hong Kong and made it very difficult for them to maintain their sport or hobby. This has contributed to the decline of pigeon racing in Hong Kong. Some animal rights activists may view it as a victory. However, pigeon racing enthusiasts may argue that this has deprived them and the public of an opportunity to appreciate the art of pigeon racing.

To put it in a broader perspective, the legislative history behind the decline of pigeon racing reflects a general trend in the society to discourage the public from interacting with birds due to the increasing fear over the spread of avian influenza and the concern for public health. Birds are an important part of the urban landscape. Yet, we increasingly view them as a nuisance or even a pest problem. Our relationship with

birds has been fraught with difficulties.

In 2017, when workers from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department were pruning trees at a well-known egret colony in Tai Po, more than a dozen hatchlings were dislodged from their nests and killed or injured. The tree pruning operation immediately caused a public outcry. It was suspected that the operation was in response to complaints about bird droppings in the area.

There are also news from time to time regarding the use of bird spikes in public area like pedestrian walkway or the roof of MTR station to prevent feral pigeons from gathering. Yet, their use has been controversial as some of them can easily injure the pigeons.

There are no easy solutions to resolve our conflicts with birds. Yet, I hope this article will encourage people to look into the issue and consider how we should approach the issue in the future. Do we want a more restrictive approach or a more liberal approach? If we want a more liberal approach, what should be done to balance the concern for public health and the animal welfare?

就像 2003 年奪走數百人生命

的病毒性呼吸道疾病 SARS一樣，最近的調查顯示

COVID-19 背後的新病毒的來源很可

能是蝙蝠。

隨著目前人們對動物和人與動物關

係的日益關注，這一發現再次提醒我

們，我們與動物的關係是多麽複雜。

一方面，我們依賴動物作為食物來

源。我們把牠們當寵物養。我們甚至

藉著牠們培養愛好。然而，另一方

面，我們也害怕牠們，因為牠們可能

是疾病的源頭。

這篇文章將透過調查多年來日益嚴格

的法例是如何令香港賽鴿活動衰落，藉

此揭示鳥類與我們之間的複雜關係。

賽鴿

賽鴿是一項有著悠久歷史的運動或愛

好。經過專門訓練的賽鴿會被帶到一

個放飛點，然後從那裏牠們會賽飛回

家。賽鴿是充滿爭議性的。有報道稱，

在繁殖賽鴿的時候賽鴿會受到不人道

的待遇。此外，動物權益倡導者認為，

在比賽中往往會有重大傷亡，因為賽

鴿可能會受到猛禽的攻擊，或者牠們

可能會因為從遙遠的地方飛回巢而筋

疲力盡。關於賽鴿也有興奮劑的醜聞。

然而，這篇文章的重點並不是賽鴿的

倫理問題。取而代之的是，這篇文章

將重點放在香港賽鴿活動的衰落上。

《廢物處置條例》第 354 章

《廢物處置條例》於 1980 年制定。禽

畜廢物是當時香港溪流和沿岸水域的

主要污染源。隨著環保意識的提高，

以及為了保障市民健康，港府認為飼

養禽畜已不能配合市區的發展。因此，

《廢物處置條例》在 1987 年加入新的

第 IIIA 部，禁止在市區飼養禽畜，並於

1988 年 6 月生效（《1987 年修訂》）。

• May 2020


根據《1987 年修訂》，《廢物處置

條例》第 15（1）條規定，任何人（獲

豁免的人除外）不得在禽畜廢物禁制

區（基本上覆蓋市區）內的任何處所

飼養「禽畜」。違反規定即屬違法。

根據《廢物處置條例》第 2 條的定

義，「禽畜」一詞的意思是「豬或家

禽」，而「家禽」一詞的意思是「雞、

鴨、鵝、鴿子和鵪鶉」。獲豁免的人

包括在禽畜廢物禁制區內的處所擁

有或飼養不超過 10 隻家禽的任何人

（「豁免」）。簡而言之，根據《1987年修訂》的規定，任何人在其處所內

飼養的家禽不得超過 10 隻。這一限

額後來被提高到 20 隻。

香港賽鴿會有限公司

（「香港賽鴿會」）

《1987 年修訂》嚴格限制在市區飼

養賽鴿。在 Hong Kong Racing Pigeon Association Limited v. Attorney General and Other [HCMP No. 3501 of 1993] 一案中，香港

賽鴿會發出原訴傳票，

要求宣告其所有會員所

飼養的所有賽鴿並非為

《廢物處置條例》所指

的「鴿子」。簡而言

之，香港賽鴿會提出

「鴿子」一詞並不包括

賽鴿，因為賽鴿不是家

禽。該會聲稱，活躍會

員如要認真對待這項運

動或愛好，必須飼養最少 30 至 40 隻

鳥。1994 年 7 月 15 日，此事提交高

等法院施偉文法官審理。他裁定香港

賽鴿會敗訴，並拒絕所要求的宣告。

香港賽鴿會其後向上訴法庭提出

上訴。在 Hong Kong Racing Pigeon Association Limited v. Attorney General and Other [CACV No. 158 of 1994] 一案

中，上訴法庭以一致裁決駁回上訴。副

庭長黎守律法官認為《廢物處置條例》

中「家禽」或「鴿子」的定義根本沒有

含糊或不清楚之處。上訴庭包致金和

廖子明兩位法官均同意他的見解。

《廢物處置條例》的進一步修訂

1997 年，香港爆發禽流感。由於擔

心禽流感，本港進一步限制了禽畜

飼養。該項「豁免」於 2006 年被取

消。此後，如果一名賽鴿愛好者想在

其處所內飼養任何鴿子，他必須依賴

《廢物處置條例》第 15AA 條。根據

該條，任何人不得在禽畜廢物限制區

內的任何處所飼養禽畜，除非（a）

他獲得環境保護署署長書面授權；或

（b）他持有由漁農自然護理署署長

(「署長」) 根據《公衆衛生（動物及

禽鳥）條例》（第 139 章）發出的有

效牌照，方可在禽畜廢物限制區內的

任何處所飼養禽畜。

《公衆衛生（動物及禽鳥）條例》

（第 139 章）

當局根據《公衆衛生（動物及禽鳥）

條例》第 3 條，以規例形式制定了各

種附屬法例。這些規例就署長為不同

目的而飼養禽鳥所發出的牌照作出

規管。《公衆衛生（動物及禽鳥）（禽

畜飼養的發牌）規例》（第 139L 章）

規管發出禽畜飼養牌照，而《公衆衛

生（動物及禽鳥）（展覽）規例》（第

139F 章）則規管發出展覽牌照。

禽畜飼養牌照與展覽牌照

在 Lin Kai Yuen（連啟元）v. Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation [HCAL No. 134 of 2009] 一案中，申請

人是一名賽鴿愛好者。他申請司法覆

核，要求撤銷署長拒絕批出禽畜飼養

牌照予他在其處所飼養賽鴿的決定。

不過，申請人其實已獲發出展覽牌照

去飼養該等鴿子。申請人表示他理應

獲發禽畜飼養牌照，而非展覽牌照，

因為展覽牌照的商業性質和目的與

他在其住宅處所飼養賽鴿不符。區慶

祥法官拒絕接受申請人所指署長的

決定在法律上是錯誤的，並駁回該申請。

結論

上述那些越來越嚴格的法例和司法

裁決無疑嚴重打擊了香港的賽鴿愛

好者，令他們很難維持自己的運動或

愛好。這是導致香港賽鴿活動衰落的

一個原因。一些動物權利推動者可能

會認為這是一場勝利。然而，賽鴿愛

好者可能會爭辯說，這剝奪了他們和

公衆欣賞賽鴿藝術的機會。

從更廣闊的角度來看，賽鴿活動衰落

背後的立法歷史反映了社會上由於

對禽流感蔓延的恐懼與日俱增，以及

對公衆健康的關注、而不鼓勵市民與

鳥類接觸的大趨勢。鳥類是城市景

觀的重要組成部分。然

而，我們越來越多地將

牠們視為一種騷擾，甚

至是害獸。我們與鳥類

的關係充滿了困難。

2017 年，康樂及文化

事務署的工作人員在大

埔一個著名的白鷺聚居

地修剪樹木時，十多隻

雛鳥被趕出巢穴，造成

死傷。修剪樹木的行動

立即引起了公衆的强烈

抗議。人們懷疑是次行

動是為了回應有關該區有禽鳥糞便

的投訴。

此外，亦不時有消息指有人在行人天

橋或地鐵站頂部等公衆地方設置鳥

釘，以防止野鴿聚集。然而，使用鳥

釘一直存在爭議，因為有些鳥釘很容

易傷害鴿子。

沒有簡單的解決方案可以解決我們

與鳥類的衝突。不過，我希望這篇文

章能鼓勵大家研究一下這問題，並考

慮我們日後應如何處理這問題。我們

想要更嚴格的做法還是更開明的做

法？如果我們想要更開明的做法，我

們又應該如何平衡對公衆健康的關

注和對動物福利的關注呢？

May 2020 • ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 環境法


By Dantes Leung, Partner, Oldham, Li & Nie

Lasmos and Beyond: Have the Cake and Eat It Too?

How should the court deal with an insolvency petition founded solely on an alleged debt that is the subject of an arbitration

clause? The dynamics between arbitration clauses and insolvency petitions has recently given rise to conflicting judgments in the common law world. Although it is generally accepted that insolvency proceedings are not arbitrable hence there is no automatic, mandatory or non-discretionary stay of insolvency proceedings in favour of arbitration, courts in different common law jurisdictions have taken different approaches to the exercise of discretion in deciding whether to stay or dismiss an insolvency petition where an arbitration clause is involved. In particular, the different approaches are that:

1. the petition should only be stayed or dismissed if the alleged debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds (the Traditional Approach);

2. the petition should be stayed or dismissed, save in wholly exceptional circumstances, without investigating whether the alleged debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds at all (the Salford Estates Approach);

3. the petition should generally be dismissed, subject to exceptional circumstances, on condition that the debtor has taken steps required under the arbitration clause (the Lasmos Approach).

The major differences of the above approaches have been thoroughly set out

elsewhere (see for example, “The Effect of Arbitration Clauses on Winding Up Petitions: Arbitration Come What May?”, Hong Kong Lawyer, November 2019) and need not be repeated here. This article will instead critically examine the Lasmos Approach and suggest how the various approaches may be reconciled. It will be argued that to allow the court to decide whether an alleged debt governed by an arbitration clause is genuinely and substantially disputed when it has no jurisdiction to do so is to “have your cake and eat it too”. Finally, it will be respectfully submitted that the Salford Estates Approach is the only logical approach that should be adopted in Hong Kong.

The Lasmos ApproachIt will be recalled that in Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449, Harris J in the Court of First Instance departed from the Traditional Approach and held that an insolvency petition should generally be dismissed, save for exceptional circumstances, if three conditions are satisfied:

1. The company disputes the alleged debt.

2. The contract giving rise to the alleged debt contains an arbitration clause that covers any dispute relating to the debt.

3. The company takes the steps required under the arbitration clause to commence the contractually mandated dispute resolution process.

(the Lasmos Approach)

The first two requirements are uncontroversial. The third requirement deserves closer attention as it represents an innovative compromise between respecting parties’ choice of dispute resolution mechanism and preserving a creditor’s right to petition on the strength of a debt that is the subject of an arbitration clause in restricted circumstances. Whilst Harris J clearly recognised that the court should normally not wind up a debtor company on insolvency grounds when the arbitral tribunal has actually seised the subject dispute, winding-up procedure may still proceed where the company has taken no steps under the arbitration clause. Under this new formulation, it is still not good enough to dispute the debt by “simply pointing at the arbitration clause”.

Observations by the Court of AppealThe Lasmos Approach has been reviewed by the Court of Appeal in two bankruptcy judgments thus far. On both occasions, the appeal was dismissed because the requirements in the Lasmos Approach were not fully complied with. Though

• May 2020


not formally adopted in both cases, the Lasmos Approach essentially lays down the necessary conditions for an insolvency petition to be stayed or dismissed where an arbitration clause is involved. For present purposes, the observations by the Court of Appeal appear intriguing.

In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 4 HKLRD 85, it was observed that a statutory right is conferred on a creditor to petition for winding-up on the ground of insolvency. It is contrary to public policy to preclude or fetter the exercise of the statutory right by requiring the creditor to prove exceptional circumstances upon satisfaction of the three requirements. The Court of Appeal appears to suggest that, notwithstanding the commencement of arbitration, the court may still determine whether the alleged debt is genuinely and substantially disputed. Further, insolvency proceedings were said to be different from ordinary writ actions in the sense that the former are merely to invoke a class remedy which does not involve enforcing a contract or adjudication of parties’ rights and liabilities, so it

would not be anomalous for the court to consider a winding-up petition solely on the ground of an unadmitted debt which is the subject of arbitration. Whilst acknowledging that the Traditional Approach may not have given sufficient weight to the arbitration clause, the Court of Appeal did not state clearly how much weight will indeed be sufficient.

In Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220, the third requirement was said to be “sensible” as it demonstrates to the court that the debtor has a genuine intention to arbitrate, without which “it would make no sense to dismiss or stay an insolvency petition on the mere existence of an arbitration agreement”. Where the debtor has no substantive claim against the creditor, the Court of Appeal suggested that the debtor should still commence an arbitration and seek a declaration of non-liability in order to demonstrate “a genuine intention to arbitrate”.

CritiqueThe adoption of the third requirement in

Lasmos is not without problems. Firstly, its origin is unclear.

Secondly, this requirement oddly reverses the usual burden on the creditor-plaintiff to commence the contractually mandated dispute resolution process and places the same on the debtor-defendant, contrary to the common defence strategy to do nothing but wait for the plaintiffs to take action. Query why this requirement exists at all, especially when Harris J took the view that the objection to requiring a creditor to arbitrate a dispute without first determining whether the debtor company has a bona fide defence is unjustified. It is also unclear what rule of law specifically obliges the debtor to take steps under the arbitration clause at any particular time before the expiry of the relevant limitation period.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there appears to be no logical justification for this requirement. Even if the burden is on the debtor to demonstrate that the debt is in fact bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, as held by

May 2020 • ARBITRATION 仲裁


Barma J (as he then was) in Re Jade Union Investment Ltd [2004] HKEC 306, the existence of an arbitration commenced pursuant to an arbitration clause is irrelevant as it could not by itself discharge that burden. In any event, even if the debtor company fails to take active steps to arbitrate, it does not necessarily follow that it has no genuine intention to dispute the debt when the arbitration is actually commenced by the creditor.

If, as suggested by the Court of Appeal in But Ka Chon, the court may still determine that the debt is indeed not bona fide disputed on substantial grounds despite the commencement of arbitration, then there appears to be no good reason why the creditor should not take the initiative to commence arbitration and petition to wind up the debtor company in parallel. Just as the Court of Appeal in But Ka Chon criticised the debtor for taking no steps to commence arbitration over a period for more than four years, the same could be said of the creditor as well, and much time would have been saved if the creditor took the initiative to commence arbitration, which plaintiffs would normally do anyway. Apparently the court appreciates the sensitivity in interfering with the arbitration once commenced, and hence arbitrarily requires the debtor to seek a declaration of non-liability by way of arbitration, thereby preserving

the creditor’s right to petition against the debtor solely on the strength of a debt that is the subject of an arbitration clause.

Does it make sense to dismiss or stay an insolvency petition on the mere existence of an arbitration clause? Perhaps the sense is this. Where an insolvency petition is made on an alleged debt, ultimately the court must consider whether the company is insolvent (Hollmet AG v Meridian Success Metal Supplies Ltd [1997] 4 HKC 343). If there is no debt, there could be no insolvency. Hence, it would make no sense whatsoever for a court to wind up a company on the ground of insolvency solely on the strength of an alleged debt that is subject to arbitration, when the arbitral tribunal could determine that there is no such debt at all. It simply defies logic to allow the court to decide whether the alleged debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds when it has no jurisdiction as to the substance of the alleged debt. The creditor-petitioner cannot have the cake and eat it too.

On the other hand, Jinpeng group Ltd v Peak Hotels and resorts Ltd BVI HCMAP 2014/0025 and 2015/0003 has been cited as an example where a court exercised the discretion to appoint liquidators despite the commencement of arbitration. True as it may seem, upon closer examination, the case actually does

not support the perceived conclusion.

It should be noted at the outset that the application for the appointment of liquidators in Jinpeng was made on just and equitable grounds (and not on insolvency grounds). Although the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal examined the debt and held that it was not disputed on genuine and substantial grounds, the commencement of arbitration was accepted as “a factor that favours granting a stay of the Originating Application pending the outcome of the arbitration”. Jinpeng therefore demonstrates that it would be a waste of time to examine whether the alleged debt was disputed on genuine and substantial grounds especially when arbitration has been commenced, because balancing that determination with the commencement of arbitration (or the arbitration clause) would not justify the winding-up. In the end, it was the unacceptable circumstance that most of the loan proceeds have gone missing and unaccounted for which ultimately justified the appointment of liquidators. Therefore, Jinpeng is actually consistent with, rather than distinguished from, Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd (No 2) [2015] 3 WLR 491. The unacceptable circumstance in Jinpeng could be said to be “exceptional” (in the language of the Salford Estates

• May 2020


PostscriptAs this article was going to publication, two relevant decisions were made in Hong Kong and Singapore.

In Re Asia Master Logistics Limited [2020] HKCFI 311 (published on 12 March 2020), DCHJ William Wong SC effectively affirmed that Traditional Approach that the debtor company must demonstrate that the debt governed by an arbitration clause is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds in order to stay or dismiss the winding-up proceedings. The strongest argument advanced for the Traditional Approach was that the Court makes no determination on the merits of the alleged debt in insolvency proceedings, such that there is no breach of the arbitration clause. Whilst this is technically correct, with respect, this provides no justification for the logical

contradiction that a company may be wound up on the basis of an alleged unpaid debt (governed by an arbitration clause) which may be determined to be non-existent by the arbitral tribunal.

In Anan Group (Singapore) Ptd Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Compan) [2020] SGCA 33 (published on 7 April 2020), the Singapore Court of Appeal changed course to adopt the Salford Estates Approach. This decision should be welcomed and the elaborate reasoning applauded. However, the Court seems to suggest that it has a wide discretion to wind up a company on an alleged debt governed by an arbitration clause because of the lack of bona fides of the debtor company or abuse of process. With respect, the correctness of such a suggestion is doubted. To use the example given in the case, where a

debtor genuinely disputes a debt which it has expressly and repeatedly admitted on previous occasions, the issue should be whether the debtor may revoke such previous admissions, and that issue should be determined by arbitration. It is respectfully submitted that, unless the winding-up petition is founded on general insolvency or just and equitable grounds (not on the sole basis of a statutory demand of a particular debt governed by an arbitration clause), the court should generally stay or dismiss the petition if the alleged debt is not admitted.

AcknowledgmentThe author would like to thank Professor Anselmo Reyes for his helpful comments. Any errors, omissions and mistakes remain the sole responsibility of the author.

Approach) in the sense that it was unconnected with the subsistence of the alleged debt.

ConundrumGiven the statutory right to petition to wind up on the ground of insolvency and that there is no automatic stay of insolvency proceedings in favour of arbitration, how should the court deal with a winding-up petition founded solely on a statutory demand for an alleged debt over which it has no jurisdiction? This conundrum seems to arise from the fact that the court accepts an alleged debt stated in a statutory demand too readily. This is most apparent in Hollmet when Roger J (as he then was) said that “it seems to me that until it is properly established that there is a dispute, the debt would exist”. With respect, there is no logic in this statement. A debt exists not because the debtor properly establishes that there is a dispute, but because the creditor discharges his burden to prove the debt.

Though not applicable in the winding-up context, section 9 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (which provides that at the hearing the court shall require proof of the debt of the petitioning creditor) and rule 70 of the Bankruptcy Rules

(which requires that any matters which the debtor has given notice to dispute shall be proved) would lend support to the above proposition that the burden to prove the debt lies on the petitioning creditor (Re Glory Garment Factory [1985] HKEC 475).

As recognised by Harris J in Lasmos, whilst the question of whether or not a winding-up order should be made is not arbitrable, it does not follow that a dispute between a petitioner and a company over the debt relied on to establish locus to present a winding-up petition is not. Where an alleged debt is the subject of an arbitration clause, it is not up to the court to decide whether a petitioning creditor has discharged the burden to prove the alleged debt, simply because the court has no jurisdiction over it. The real issue for the court to decide then is, leaving aside the alleged debt, whether there is any other circumstance that justifies a winding-up order (i.e. the exceptional circumstances in the Salford Estates Approach).

SolutionThe obvious solution to this conundrum is to adopt the Salford Estates Approach, which is logically irresistible. Nevertheless, there is no universal

agreement in the common law world at the moment.

No doubt there are some hesitations about the Salford Estates Approach, because it places creditors to an arbitration clause at a disadvantage compared to other creditors, thereby making arbitration less attractive (see “The Effect of Arbitration Clauses on Winding Up Petitions: Arbitration Come What May?”, supra). However, there is no legal policy dictating that arbitration should be the most-favoured dispute resolution mechanism. By agreeing to an arbitration clause that takes away the court’s jurisdiction over an alleged debt, the parties should accept all the logical consequences that come with it.

In any event, as demonstrated by Jinpeng, it is still possible to justify winding-up on just and equitable or general insolvency grounds. The creditors to an arbitration clause would only have to found the petition on the right grounds and put forward evidence and circumstances other than the non-payment of the alleged debt that is the subject of an arbitration clause to justify the winding-up order. It is hoped that the Court of Final Appeal will take the logical approach when a suitable case comes before it.



作者：梁泳澤，高李嚴律師事務所合夥人

Lasmos 案及以後：魚與熊掌可以兼得嗎？

法庭該如何處理就僅基於指稱

債務（其為某仲裁條款之標

的事項）而提出的清盤呈請

呢？仲裁條款與清盤呈請之間的相

互作用，導致近期普通法司法管轄區

中出現互相矛盾的判決。儘管普遍接

受的是，清盤法律程序不具可仲裁

性，因此不存在因仲裁而自動、強制

性或非酌情地擱置對清盤法律程序，

但當以酌情權決定涉及仲裁條款的

清盤法律程序應否予以擱置或撤銷

時，不同普通法司法管轄區法院卻採

納了不同的方案。具體而言，該等不

同方案是：

1. 只有當與指稱債務有關的爭議是

基於真正及充分理由，才應擱置

或撤銷有關呈請（傳統方案）；

2. 除完全例外情況外，應一律擱置或

撤銷有關呈請，而不必調查與該指

稱債務有關的爭議是否真正基於

充分理據（Salford Estates 方案）；

3. 除特殊情況外，呈請一般應予撤

銷，前提是債務人已採取仲裁條

款下規定的步驟（Lasmos 方案）。

上述各方案的主要差別已在其他地方

詳述（例如見《仲裁條款對清盤呈請

的影響：不管怎樣，仲裁解決？》一

文，香港律師，2019 年 11 月號），

在此不予贅述。本文將批判性地探討

Lasmos 方案及提出如何調和各方案，

並主張容許法庭在無管轄權情況下，

裁定某項指稱債務（其為某仲裁條

款之標的的事項）是否存在真正及實

質性的爭議，是要魚與熊掌、二者兼

得。最後，本文會恭敬地提出 Salford Estates 方案是香港應當採納的唯一合

乎邏輯的方案以作總結。

Lasmos 方案

回顧在 Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449一案中，

原訟法庭法官夏利士對傳統方案不

予採納，並裁定倘符合以下三項條

件，一般而言應撤銷清盤申請（除特

殊情況外）：

1. 有關公司對指稱債務提出爭議；

2. 產生指稱債務的合約包含一項仲

裁條款，當中涵蓋任何與該債務

有關的爭議；

3. 有關公司採取仲裁條款所規定的

步驟，以開展合約規定的爭議解

決程序。

（Lasmos 方案）

前兩項要求並不存在爭議。就第三項

要求而言，其值得密切關注的是它代

表了尊重訴訟各方選擇爭議解決機

制與保留債權人就債務（其為仲裁條

款標的事項）在受限情況下提出呈請

之權利兩者間的一個創新妥協。儘管

夏利士法官清楚知悉，仲裁庭假如已

在實際處理相關爭議事項，法庭便不

應以無力償債為由將債務人公司清

盤，但假如該公司並未在有關仲裁條

款下採取任何其規定的步驟，則清

盤程序仍可進行。在這一新看法下，

「僅依據該仲裁條款」就債務提出爭

議仍有欠妥善。

上訴法庭的觀點

目前為止，上訴法庭已在兩宗破產

案件的判案中審視 Lasmos 方案。該

兩宗案件的上訴皆被駁回，原因是

Lasmos 方案中的要求未完全被遵守。

儘管 Lasmos 方案在該兩宗案件中未

獲正式採納，但它實質上訂定了在涉

及仲裁條款的情況下，將清盤呈請予

以擱置或撤銷的必要條件。就本文目

的而言，上訴法庭的看法很有趣。

在 But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 4 HKLRD 85 一案中，上訴法

庭提到債權人獲賦予法定權利，以無

力償債為由提出清盤呈請。要求債權

人在符合該三項要求後證明存在特殊

情況，使該法定權利的行使被排除或

限制，乃違反公共政策。上訴法庭看

來認為，即使已開始進行仲裁，但

法庭仍可裁定該指稱債務是否確實存

在實質性的爭議。此外，清盤程序被

認為有別於以一般令狀提起的訴訟，

原因是前者僅屬於集體補救 (class remedy)，並不涉及強制執行合約或

就當事方之權利及責任作出裁定，因

此法庭僅根據未獲承認的債務（其為

仲裁之標的事項）來審理清盤呈請並

非有違常理。上訴法庭雖然承認傳統

• May 2020


方案可能未給予仲裁條款充份重視，

但並未明確說明多重視才算充分。

在 S i t K w o n g L a m v P e t r o l i m e x Singapore Pte Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220 一

案中，第三項要求被認為是「明智

的」，因為它向法庭證明債務人有真

正的仲裁意圖，而，「僅因為仲裁協

議的存在，便將清盤呈請撤銷或擱置

則是不合常理」。債務人若對債權人

並無實質性申索，上訴法庭認為債務

人仍應展開仲裁程序，並要求作出無

法律責任的宣告，以表明其具有「真

正仲裁意圖」。

評論

採納 Lasmos 的第三項要求並非完全

不存在問題的。首先，此項要求源自

何處尚不清晰。

第二，這項要求反常地扭轉了由債權

人（原告人）展開按合約規定的爭議

解決程序之通常責任，並將該責任置

於債務人（被告人）身上，這與按兵

不動，只等待原告人採取行動的一般

抗辯策略相違背。作者對為何存在此

項要求提出質疑，尤其是夏利士法官

認為，在不首先確定債務人公司是否

具有真正抗辯理由情況下，反對要求

債權人就某項爭議進行仲裁是不合理

的做法。同樣不明確的情況是，是甚

麼法律規則明確規定，債務人須在有

關的時效期限屆滿之前的任何特定時

間根據仲裁條款下採取其列明步驟。

第三，也許亦是最重要的一點是，

這項要求似乎並無邏輯上的依據。

正如鮑晏明法官（其當時的職位）

在 Re Jade Union Investment Ltd [2004] HKEC 306 一案中裁定的，即使債務

人有責任證明有關債務事實上是具

有實質爭議理由而提出，但根據仲裁

條款展開的仲裁，與所需證明無關，

因其本身並不能履行該舉證責任。不

管如何，即使債務人公司並無採取積

極步驟進行仲裁，也並非必然可以說

當債權人實際展開仲裁時，債務人公

司並無真正意圖對債務提出異議。

儘管（如上訴法庭在 But Ka Chon 一

案所提出的）仲裁已展開，但法庭仍

可以裁定有關債務並非真正在具有

充分理由的情況下提出的爭議，則

似乎並無好的理由說債權人不應主

動展開仲裁並同時提出將債務人公

司清盤的呈請。正如上訴法庭在 But Ka Chon 一案中批評債務人逾四年時

間並未採取任何步驟展開仲裁一般，

這批評同樣也可以加諸於債權人上，

況且假如債權人主動展開仲裁（原告

人通常會作如此），將可節省許多時

間。法庭顯然了解對一旦展開的仲裁

進行干預所具的敏感性，因此要求債

務人藉仲裁尋求宣告沒有法律責任，

從而保留債權人僅憑債務（其為某項

仲裁條款之標的事項）而向債務人提

出呈請的權利。

僅根據仲裁條款的存在而撤銷或擱

置清盤呈請，此舉是否合理呢？道理

也許是這樣。如果是就某項指稱債務

而提出清盤呈請，法庭最終必須考

慮該公司是否無力償債（Hollmet AG v Meridian Success Metal Supplies Ltd [1997] 4 HKC 343）。假如債務不存

在，便不可能有無力償債情況的出

現。因此，當仲裁庭可以裁定根本無

債務存在時，法庭僅基於受仲裁管轄

的指稱債務，便以無力償債為由將一

家公司清盤，這做法並不合理。在法

庭對指稱債務的實質並無司法管轄

權情況下，讓其裁定關於指稱債務的

爭議，是否真正具有實質理由而提

出，絕對是有違邏輯。債權人（呈

請人）不可能兼得魚與熊掌的。

另一方面，Jinpeng group Ltd v Peak Hotels and resorts Ltd BVI HCMAP 2014/0025 案及 2015/0003 案被引用

作為儘管仲裁已展開但法庭仍行使

酌情決定權任命清盤人的例子。看雖

如此，但經仔細審視，該案事實上並

不支持表面看似的結論。



首先應當指出的是，在 Jinpeng 案中

任命清盤人的申請是基於公平公正

理由而提出（而並非基於無力償債理

由）。雖然東加勒比上訴法庭對債務

進行了審視，並認為並非基於真正及

實質性的理由提出爭議，但仲裁的展

開被認為是「一項有利於批准擱置

原訴申請以等待仲裁結果的因素」。

Jinpeng 案因此帶出對指稱債務的爭

議是否基於真實及實質性理由而提

出來進行審視是浪費時間，尤其是在

仲裁已展開的時候，因為在該項決定

與仲裁展開之間作出權衡並不能為

清盤提供理據。最終，任命清盤人的

理據是絕大部分貸款收益都不知所

蹤而無從作出交待這個無法被接受

的情況。因此，Jinpeng 案實際上與

Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd (No 2) [2015] 3 WLR 491 案是相符而非

有所區別的。Jinpeng 案的該等令人

不可接受的情況可說是「例外」（按

Salford Estates 方案的說法），原因

是它與指稱債務的存續無關。

難題

鑑於以無力償債為由提出清盤呈請

的法定權利，以及並不存在自動擱置

清盤法律程序以利進行仲裁的做法，

法庭應如何處理一項僅就某項指稱

債務而提出之法定索求，而其在當中

並無司法管轄權的清盤呈請？這項

難題的出現，似乎是由於法庭太快接

納一項在法定索求中提出的指稱債

務。這情況在 Hollmet 一案中最為顯

見。羅傑志法官（其當時的職位）當

時稱：「在我看來，在某項爭議獲得

適當確立之前，債務將會存在」。個

人認為，這一說法屬不合邏輯。債務

之所以存在，並非因為債務人適當確

立爭議的存在，而是因為債權人履行

了其債務舉證責任。

儘管並不適用於清盤情況，《破產條

例》第 9 條（其規定在聆訊過程中，

法庭必須要求證明呈請債權人的債

務）及《破產規則》第 70 條（其規

定凡債務人已給予爭議通知的事項

均須予以證明）可就上述主張提供

支持，即就債務進行舉證的責任是

在呈請債權人身上（Re Glory Garment Factory [1985] HKEC 475）。

正如夏利士法官在 Lasmos 案內被認

可的是，儘管應否作出清盤令的問題

屬於不可仲裁，但並不能因此認為，

呈請人與該公司之間與就確立呈遞

清盤呈請書之地點而依據的債務有

關之爭議同樣是不可仲裁的。某項指

稱債務倘為仲裁條款之標的事項，那

麼法庭便無權裁定呈請債權人是否

已履行與指稱債務有關的舉證責任，

原因是法庭對此並無司法管轄權。因

此，法庭接下來要裁定的真正問題

是，除了該指稱債務外，是否還有其

他情況可以證明清盤令的作出是有

理據的（即是在 Salford Estates 方案

中提及的特殊情況）。

解決方法

解決這項難題的明顯處理方法是採用

Salford Estates 方案，而它在邏輯上

是無法反駁。然而，目前在普通法領

域中對此尚沒有普遍共識。

毫無疑問，Salford Estates 方案的確

讓人產生一些疑慮，因為與其他債權

人相比，Salford Estates 方案使仲裁

條款下的債權人處於劣勢，從而使仲

裁的吸引力降低（參看《仲裁條款對

清盤呈請的影響：不管怎樣，仲裁解

決？》一文，同上）。然而，並無法

律政策規定仲裁應成為最受惠的爭

議解決機制。通過同意接納一項將法

庭對指稱債務之司法管轄權奪走的

仲裁條款，當事方應接受所有隨之而

來的合理的後果。

不管怎樣，正如 Jinpeng 案所顯示的，

現時仍然能以公正公平理由或以一般

的無力償債理由來為清盤提供理據。

仲裁條款下的債權人僅須提出在沒有

支付指稱債務（其作為仲裁條款之標

的事項）以外的證據及情況來為清盤

令提供理據。最後，本文期望當有適

當案件在終審法院席前受審理時，終

審法院會採取合乎邏輯那個方案。

附言

在本文出版的過程時，香港和新加

坡作出了兩個相關的判決。

在 Re Asia Master Logistics Limited [2020]HKCFI 311（於 2020 年 3 月

12 日頒布）案中，暫委高等法院法

官王鳴峰資深大律師切實地肯定了

在傳統方案下債務人公司必須證明

受仲裁條款管轄的債務是真正具有

實質理由而被爭議才可擱置或撤銷

清盤訴訟程序。對傳統方案最有力

的論點是，法院在清盤程序中沒有

對指稱債務的是非曲直（merits）作出裁定，因此不違反仲裁條款。

雖然這在技術上是正確的，但冒昧

地說，這並不能為一個邏輯上的矛

盾提供任何解說，即一家公司可能

會因被指控的未付債務（其為仲裁

條款所管轄）而被清盤，而仲裁庭

有可能判定該債務並不存在。

在 Anan Group (Singapore) Ptd Ltd 訴

VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33（於 2020 年 4 月 7日頒布）案中，新加坡最高法院上訴

法庭改變筆鋒地採納 Salford Estates方案。這判決應當受到歡迎，其中闡

述的理據也值得稱讚。然而，該法

院似乎認為，法院有廣寬的酌情權，

基於其指稱債務（其為仲裁條款所管

轄）上，對該公司進行清盤（原因是

債務人公司缺乏真誠（bona fides）或濫用程序）。冒昧地說，這種建議

的正確性備受懷疑。以那案中的例子

為例，如果債務人對其以前明確和反

復承認的債務提出確實的爭議，爭論

點應是債務人是否可以撤銷其以前

的承認，而此爭論點應通過仲裁裁

定。在此謙卑地指出，除非清盤呈請

書是基於一般破產或公正公平的理

由（並非僅基於仲裁條款管轄下特定

債務的法定要求償債書），否則如果

該指稱債務未被承認，法院一般應擱

置或駁回該呈請書。

致謝

作者在此感謝 Anselmo Reyes（芮安

牟）教授對本文題材提供的寶貴意

見。任何錯誤、遺漏和錯失全是作

者自己的責任。

• May 2020


業界透視

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The Rule in Browne v Dunn Examined by the Court of Appeal: HKSAR v CHAN Hing Kai CACC 65/2017/[2019] HKCA 172, Date of Judgment: 24 January 2020

BackgroundThe Applicant was convicted of drug-trafficking at the High Court and appealed his conviction on the basis that the Judge had misdirected the jury by inviting them to conclude a lack of credibility in the Applicant as certain matters had not been put to a material witness and/or had not been raised in the Applicant’s examination in chief (sometimes known as “a lack of puttage”). The Court of Appeal examined the scope of the rule in Browne v Dunn (originally a civil case) which ensures that a witness has the opportunity to explain a matter of substance if the opposing party intends to later contradict or discredit the witness in relation to it.

DecisionIn giving the Judgement of the Court, Zervos JA examined the rule’s application in criminal cases. There are two aspects to the rule:

1. That it is a rule of practice or procedure designed to achieve fairness to witnesses and a fair trial between the parties; and

2. That it is a rule relating to weight or cogency of evidence.

Citing a number of Australian authorities, Zervos JA derived the following summary of the relevant principles:

1. The rule in Browne v Dunn is a rule of professional practice and of fairness designed to allow witnesses to confront and respond to any proposed challenges to their evidence.

2. The rule does not apply to criminal proceedings in the same way or with the same consequences as it does in civil proceedings, due to the accusatorial nature of criminal trials and the different obligations placed on the prosecution and defence.

3. The rule admits to flexibility and requires considerable care and circumspection in it application.

4. The extent of the obligations that arise under the rule in a particular case will be informed by the nature of the defence case and the forensic context of the trial. A cross-examiner must not only disclose that the evidence of the witness is to be challenged, but also how it is to be challenged.

5. Where counsel does not comply with the rule, the trial judge has a discretion as to how to remedy any unfairness that may result and the actions he takes will depend on the circumstances of the case.

6. Measures should be employed to avoid having to direct the jury about a breach of the rule, such as, drawing the attention of counsel to the need to put matters to the witness, and permitting a witness to be recalled to be cross-examined and questioned on the matters omitted. Other measures may also be available depending upon the nature of the breach of the rule and the circumstances of the case.

7. Where an apparent failure to comply with the rule is followed by judicial comment to the jury, it is important to consider the substance of the comment, the purpose of which may differ depending on the circumstances.

8. Where the trial judge considers that it is necessary to direct the jury about the effect that failure to comply with the rule may have on their assessment of the contradictory evidence, the judge should:

i. outline the rule in Browne v Dunn and its purpose;

ii. tell the jury that, under the rule, the witness should have been challenged about the relevant matters, so that he or she had an opportunity to deal with the challenge;

iii. tell the jury that the witness was not challenged, and thus was denied the opportunity to respond to the challenge; and

iv. tell the jury that they have therefore been deprived of the opportunity of hearing his or her evidence in response.

9. Only in exceptional cases should the trial judge consider directing the jury that an adverse inference as to credibility may be drawn against the accused in consequence of a breach. It is one thing to remark upon the fact that a witness or a party appears to have been treated unfairly, but it is another thing all together to comment that the evidence of a

May 2020 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視


which rendered the conviction unsafe. The appeal was allowed and a re-trial ordered.

Comments The Court emphasised that there are remedial measures available to minimise any unfairness that may arise from a lack of puttage. Enquiry can be made as to the reason for the lack of puttage and if it arises from the fault of counsel, not the accused, then this can be pointed out to the jury. Witnesses can also be recalled for further cross-examination about the contradictory evidence. Discussion between the Bar and the Bench on the appropriate directions to be given can take place. The rule in Browne v Dunn requires flexibility in its application and care and circumspection in the measures employed to address any breach.

– Morley Chow Seto

刑事法

上訴法庭審視的 Browne v Dunn 一案規則：香港特別行政區訴陳慶佳 CACC 65/2017/[2019]HKCA172，判決日期：2020 年 1 月 24 日

person should be disbelieved, perhaps as a recent invention, because it raises matters that were not put in cross-examination to other witnesses by that person’s counsel. Such a direction will only be appropriate where the circumstances surrounding the failure to put the allegation to the witness raise a “prominent hypothesis” that the contradictory evidence is a recent invention or is otherwise a fabrication.

10. Such a direction is fraught with difficulty and should only be given with considerable care and circumspection and must be accompanied with an explanation that other inferences may be drawn on why a party failed to comply with the rule with examples of those inferences.

In applying these principles to the present case, the trial Judge had invited the jury to take into account the lack of puttage in order to determine his overall credibility and directed that the matter coulf have been a recent invention and fabrication. These directions exceeded proper bounds and constituted a material irregularity which created a real possibility of the jury engaging in impermissible reasoning

背景申請人在高等法院被判販毒罪名成立，並就其定罪提出上訴，理由是法官誤導陪審團，引致陪審團斷定申請人缺乏可信度，因為某些事項沒有向重要證人提出和 / 或在申請人的主問中沒有被提出（有時稱為「puttage」）。上訴法庭研究了Browne v Dunn（原為民事案件）一案中規則的範圍，該規則確保，如果對方日後有意就該事項反駁證人或就該事項質疑證人時，證人有機會解釋該實質事項。

判決在作出法院判決時，上訴法庭薛偉成法官審視了該規則在刑事案件中的適用情況。該規則有兩個方面：

1. 這是一項實務或程序的規則，旨在達致對證人公平及雙方當事人之間的公平審訊；及

2. 這是一項與證據的份量或說服力有關的規則。

上訴法庭薛偉成法官引用了一些澳大利亞的典據，得出了以下相關原則的摘要：

1. Browne v Dunn 案中的規則是一項專業慣例及公平性的規則，旨在容許證人面對及回應對其證供提出的任何質疑。

2. 由於刑事審訊的控罪性質，以及控方和辯方承擔的責任不同，所以該規則應用於刑事法律程序時，其方式或後果不同於民事法律程序。

3. 該規則容許具有靈活性，在應用時需要相當小心和謹慎。

4. 在某一案件中，根據該規則產生的責任的範圍將由辯方所申辯案情的性質和審判的法醫背景所告知。盤問人不僅要披露證人的證供將受到質疑，還披露證供是如何受到質疑。

5. 如大律師不遵守規則，主審法官有權酌情決定如何補救可能導致的任何不公平情況，而他採取的行動將視乎案件的情況而定。

6. 應採取措施，避免須就違反規則

• May 2020


一事向陪審團作出指示，例如提醒大律師注意向證人提出事項的需要，以及准許傳召證人就遺漏事項接受盤問和質詢。還可以採取其他措施，這取決於違反規則的性質和案件的情況。

7. 如果明顯地沒有遵從規則，之後向陪審團提出司法評論，在這情況重要的是考慮該評論的實質內容，而該評論的目的可能視乎情況而有所不同。

8. 如果主審法官認為有需要指示陪審團，說明不遵從規則可能對陪審團評估對立證據時的影響，法官應：

i. 概述 Browne v Dunn 案中的規則及其目的；

ii. 告訴陪審團，根據該規則，證人本應就有關事宜接受質詢，以便他或她有機會處理該項質疑；

iii. 告知陪審團該證人沒有被質疑，因而被剝奪就該項質疑作出回應的機會；及

iv. 告知陪審團，他們因此被剝奪聽取他或她的證供回應的機會。

9. 只有在特殊情況下，主審法官才應考慮指示陪審團，可因違反規定而就可信度作出不利的推論。評論證人或當事人似乎受到不公平對待是一回事，但同時評論某人的證供不應被人相信、可能是最近的虛構故事、因為它提出了該人的大律師沒有向其他證人盤問的事項，則是另一回事。如果（未能向證人提出說法的）情況導致「明顯的假設」，即對立的證據是最近虛構的或在其他方面是捏造的，這樣的指示才是合適。

10. 這樣的指示困難重重，只應相當小心和審慎地作出，並必須附有解釋，說明可就一方為何沒有遵從規則作出其他推論，並附以該等推論的例子。

在將這些原則應用於本案時，主審法官請陪審團考慮到沒有 puttage 以確

定他的總體可信度，並指示該事項可能是最近虛構和捏造的。這些指示超出了適當的界限，構成了重大的不合常規之處，造成陪審團確實有可能進行不允許的推理，從而使定罪變得不穩妥。上訴獲准，並下令重審。

評論法院强調，有補救措施可用來儘量減少因沒有 puttage 而可能產生的任何不公平情況。可以查詢沒有 puttage的原因，如果是因為大律師的過錯，而不是被告的過錯，那麽可以向陪審團指出這一點。證人也可以被召回，就對立的證供作進一步的盤問。大律師公會和法官之間可以就應給予的適當指示進行討論。Browne v Dunn 一案中的規則需要在應用時具有靈活性，以及使用措施處理任何違反行為時需要小心和謹慎。

– 麥樂賢•周綽瑩•司徒悅律師行

DATA PRIVACY

Balancing Privacy Right Against Public Interests Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic

Privacy is a fundamental human right. However, the right to privacy is by no means absolute. It has to be balanced against other human rights and public interests.

COVID-19 has spread over 200 countries and territories. As of 20 April 2020, over 2.2 million people have been infected and over 150,000 died as a result worldwide. Given its novel, contagious, and potentially deadly nature, this pandemic continues to pose a grave danger to global public health. At a media briefing on 16 March 2020, the World Health Organisation stated there needed to be more technological measures for tracking the novel coronavirus outbreak - “You cannot fight a fire blindfolded. And we cannot stop this pandemic if we don’t know who is infected.” This begs nevertheless the question on how far we can go to compromise privacy for public health.

Right to privacy is not absoluteIn Hong Kong, privacy right is guaranteed

by Article 30 of the Basic Law and protected generally under Article 14, section 8, Part II of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Chapter 383 of the Laws of Hong Kong, BORO). The latter is a mirror image of Article 17(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Unlike the right to life, which according to the General Comments of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (published in November 2018) is a supreme right and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights, privacy right is not absolute but subject to restrictions. Article 4(1) of the ICCPR provides that “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. Similar provisions are also found in section 5 of the BORO.

In times of a life-threatening pandemic, privacy right comes second to protecting public health. This view is echoed by data protection authorities around the world. On 17 March 2020, the Global Privacy Assembly (a global forum for more than 120 data protection and privacy authorities) expressed in a statement that data protection requirements shall not hinder efforts tackling the COVID-19 pandemic, but instead shall enable the use of data in the public interest while providing the protection as the public expects. In Hong Kong, section 59 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance exempts the use limitation requirement of personal data if such use is necessary for safeguarding the health of the data subjects or other individuals. Further details can be found in the media statement https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/media/media_statements/press_20200226.html. Similar exemptions are also found in data protection law of other jurisdictions, such as Articles 6(1)(d) and 9(2)(c) of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and Schedule 3, Part 2 of the UK Data Protection Act 2018. In the U.S., penalties for violating certain provisions



of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (the law protecting patients’ medical data) have been waived by the government amidst the COVID-19 pandemic to enable more effective treatment and control of the disease.

Proportionality, Transparency and ExplainabilityAlthough privacy is a qualified right, derogation from this fundamental human right shall only be “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation” as required by section 5 of the BORO. In other words, all privacy-intrusive measures shall be necessary for and proportionate to the legitimate purpose they seek to achieve. The Court of Final Appeal (CFA) in Hysan Development Company Limited v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372 amended the proportionality test whereby public authorities will have to decide “(i) whether the intrusive measure pursues a legitimate aim; (ii) if so, whether it is rationally connected with advancing that

aim…; (iii) whether the measure is no more than necessary for that purpose”; and (iv) “whether a reasonable balance has been struck between the societal benefits of the encroachment and the inroads made into the constitutionally protected rights of the individual”. The CFA revised the test by including the fourth question by weighing the detrimental impact of the decisions against the societal benefits gained.

In Hong Kong, the devices and measures used by the Government for enforcing quarantine and tracking the whereabouts of the infected are examples of the need to strike a proper balance between privacy protection and public health. That said, the Government still needs to comply with other personal data protection principles including minimum data collection, retention of which should not be longer than necessary, and no unauthorised disclosure or loss of the personal data collected and kept.

In order to dispel doubts and build trust,

organisations, and employers alike, should be transparent about and be able to explain the proposed measures, spelling out whether and what personal data will be collected, how the personal data will be used, shared and transferred, as well as adopting the kinds of data security measures in the combat of the virus and for homeworking.

I would like to repeat what the UK Information Commissioner’s Office rightly stated in that the fight COVID-19 strategies should be proportionate and avoid any measures that may be seen as extreme from the public’s point of view.

– Stephen Kai-yi WONG, Barrister, Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data,

Hong Kong

個人資料私隱

在 2019 冠狀病毒病疫情中平衡私隱權和公眾利益

私隱是基本人權。然而，私隱權並不是絕對的，它必須與其他人權和公眾利益取得平衡。

2019 冠狀病毒病於超過 200 個國家和地區蔓延。截至 2020 年 4 月 20日，全球已有超過 220 萬人受此病毒感染，超過 15 萬人死亡。鑑於此病毒屬新型的、具高傳染度和潛在致命性，這場疫症繼續對全球公共衞生構成嚴重威脅。世界衞生組織在 2020年 3 月 16 日的記者會上表示，需要有更多的技術措施以追踪冠狀病毒病的爆發，並表示「誰都不可能蒙住雙眼撲火。如果不知道誰感染了，就無法阻止這場大流行。」然而，這依然帶出一個問題，就是為了維護公眾健康，我們究竟可以在多大程度上對保障私隱作出妥協？

私隱權並非絕對的權利在香港，私隱權受《基本法》第三十條保障，並受《香港人權法案條例》（香港法例第 383 章）第 II 部第 8 條之下的第十四條 ( 即節錄自《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第十七條第一款的內容 ) 的普遍保障。私隱權與生存的權利不同；根據聯合國人權委員會的一般性評論（於 2018 年 11 月發布），生存的權利是一項至高無上的權利，較其他所有人權為先。私隱

• May 2020


權不是絕對的權利，而是受到限制的。《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第四條第一款規定，「在社會緊急狀態威脅到國家的生命並經正式宣佈時，本公約締約國得採取措施克減其在本公約下所承擔的義務，但克減的程度以緊急情勢所嚴格需要者為限。」《香港人權法案條例》第 5 條亦有類似的規定。

在危及生命安全的大流行時期，私隱權是次於保護公眾健康。這觀點於世界各地資料保障機構也如出一轍。2020 年 3 月 17 日，「環球私隱議會」（一個由 120 多個資料及私隱保障機構組成的全球論壇）發表了一份聲明，表示資料保障的規定不應阻礙對抗 2019 冠狀病毒病疫症，而應在合乎公衆對私隱保障期望的同時，能夠使用數據以符合公衆利益。在香港，《個人資料（私隱）條例》第 59 條出於對保障資料當事人或其他人士的健康的需要，豁免了資料當事人的個人資料免受限制使用資料的規管。詳情請參閱新聞稿：https://www.pcpd .org .hk/tc_chi/media/media_statements/press_20200226.html。其他法域區的資料保護法也有類似的豁免，例如歐盟《通用數據保障條例》第 6(1)(d) 條和第 9(2)(c) 條，以及 2018 年英國《保障資料法令》附表 3 第 2 部。在美國，在 2019 冠狀病毒病大流行期間，政府已經免除了對違反《健康保險可携帶性和責任法案》（保護病人醫療資料的法律）某些條款的處罰，以更有效的治療和控制這種疾病。

合乎比例、透明度和可解釋性雖然私隱權是一項有限制的權利，但根據《香港人權法案條例》第 5 條的規定，對這項基本人權的減免，只限於「在此種危急情勢絕對必要之限度內」。換句話說，所有侵擾私隱的措施，於採取該些措施而達至合法目的而言是必要的，也是合乎比例的。終審法院在希慎興業有限公司訴城市規劃委員會一案 (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372 修訂了合乎適度的測試，規定公共機構須決定「（i）侵擾性措施是否追求合法目的；（ii）若是，是否與推展該目的有合理關連……；（iii）該措施是否不超乎該目的所需」；及（iv）「是否已在侵犯行為帶來的社會利益與侵犯受憲法保護的個人權利之間取得合理平衡」。終審法院修改了測試，加入了第四個問題，權衡了

這些決定的有害影響與獲得的社會利益。

在香港，政府用來實施檢疫和追查受感染人士所在的裝置和措施，便是在保障私隱和公衆健康之間取得適當平衡的例子。話雖如此，政府仍須遵守其他保障個人資料的原則，包括收集最少量的資料、資料保留期不應超過實際所需，以及禁止未獲授權的披露，或遺失所收集和保存的個人資料。

為了消除疑慮和建立信任，機構（包括僱主）應該對建議的措施保持透明度和能够解釋該等措施，說明會否收集個人資料，以及會收集哪些個人資料，如何使用、分享和轉移個人資料，以及在對抗病毒和在家工作時採取何種資料保護措施。

英國資訊專員辦公室的說法不錯，我希望在此引用：打擊 2019 冠狀病毒病的策略應該是合乎比例的，避免作出一些被公衆人士視為極端的措施。

– 香港個人資料私隱專員黃繼兒大律師

TECHNOLOGY

Defective Software: Deciding Your Liability Terrain (Part 2) Implied Terms for Software

“The pessimist complains about the wind, the optimist expects it to change, the realist adjusts the sails” - William Arthur Ward

IntroductionFrom a litigator’s perspective, in every contractual dispute, while the client is synonymous to an army (where their attitude and resources will shape size and disposition of forces at your disposal), the contract signed between the opposing parties is synonymous to the terrain from which a litigation battle is to be fought.

Similarly, the drafting of a contract is synonymous to campaigning where each side will strive to manoeuvre to the best possible position, dictating how engagement will follow.

And where drafting fails as a result of circumstances, it falls to imply terms (synonymous to divine intervention) to decide the legal terrain of such dispute. Such implied terms can be drawn from statute or common law. Implied terms introduced by statute (eg merchantable quality and fitness for purpose) will be of special importance.

Statutory Application: Are Software Goods, Services or Something Else Entirely?Illustrated in the case of St Albans City and District Council v International Computers [1996] 4 All ER 481, it was held by the Courts that

“By itself hardware can do nothing. The really important part of the system is the software”.

St Albans further noted that programmes are pre-determined instructions and command telling what hardware will do. An analogy was therefore drawn that a defective software is akin to an ‘ill-worded instruction manual’ and thus, no distinction can made whether the product was ‘tangible’.

Unfortunately, such ruling resulted in software being deemed as goods only when delivered on tangible media (such as on a DVD). This leaves services delivered via the Internet (eg by download) as sui generis and unprotected under the Sale of Goods Ordinance (SOGO). The ASX Operations and others v Pont Data Australia [1990] 27 FCR 460 is the case authority:

“it does not follow … that it should be read as if there was a further inclusion, by way of extension of the ordinary meaning of 'goods', so as to draw within the definition encoded electrical signals.”

Common Law Application: Implied Terms for SoftwareIllustrated in the classical authority of Trollope & Colls vs North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board (1973) 1 W.L.R. 601 at 609 (H.L.),

“An unexpressed term can be implied if and only if the court finds that the parties must



have intended that term to form part of their contract”.

In this connection, it was held in St Albans that, subject to contrary words, there would be an implied term that programme ought to be reasonably fit.

As such, whilst software delivered by internet can have the implied term of fit for purpose, the standard of merchantability may not be applicable.

All in all, the application of statute and case authorities to determine liability leaves far too much room for uncertainty. Therefore, instead of relying on what is akin to divine intervention of the Courts, it is far better to have the terrain crystallise by way of contract.

The Importance of Mode of DeliverySoftware programmers should keep in mind that the medium of which they decide to deliver a software will effect what sort of implied terms might be applicable and as such, must take a different approach as to how to crystallise the contractual terrain:

1. Where by Disc, illustrated in ASX, physically delivered software will mean that statutes such as SOGO will apply. To achieve clarity of terms and avoid application of implied terms where possible, suppliers usually attempt to use shrink wrap licence (physical contracts shrunk to fine print so that they can be enclosed in the plastic packaging) to limit their liability.

2. Where by Internet – placing in physical shrink wrap licence will be impossible. To achieve clarity of terms, suppliers usually attempt to use ‘clickwrap’ or ‘access wrap’ to impose a contract (acceptance of terms before access/download is allowed). This will, however, place the software under the auspices of the Electronic Transaction Ordinance.

Key Take-AwayAlways remember, it is far better to be diligent at the beginning and have software terms well-drafted and agreed to by the parties than to resort to reliance

on the Court’s intervention in which decisions can end up in any direction.

– Joshua Chu, Solicitor Amanda Wu, Trainee Solicitor

ONC Lawyers

科技

有缺陷的軟件：確定責任範圍 ( 第二部分 ) 軟件的隱含條款

「悲觀者抱怨風向，樂觀者期待風向改變，務實的人調整船帆。」— 威廉•亞瑟•沃德

導言從律師的角度來看，在每次合同糾紛中，若將客戶比作一支軍隊 ( 他們的態度和資源將決定你擁有的力量 )，那當事方簽訂的合同則如同打訴訟戰的戰地地形。

合同的起草亦類似競選活動，雙方盡量取得最佳位置，才能支配追隨者。

若合同的起草因各種原因失敗，隱含條款將會決定爭議的法律戰地地形。這些隱含條款可來自成文法或普通法。通過法規引入的隱含條款 ( 例如適銷質量和適用目的 ) 將變得尤為重要。

法律的適用：軟件是商品、服務還是其他？在 St Albans City and District Council v International Computers [1996] 4 All ER 481 一案中，法院裁定：

「硬件本身不能做甚麼。軟件才是系統真正重要的部分。」

St Albans 案進一步指出，軟件程序是用於指示硬件執行操作而預設的指令和命令。有缺陷的軟件類似「措辭不佳的說明書」，因此無法區分一件產品是否為「有形的」。

不幸的是，這個裁決導致軟件僅通過有形媒介 ( 例如 DVD) 使用時才會被視為商品。因此，通過互聯網 ( 例如通過下載 ) 提供的服務便成為了一種特殊類別，不受《商品銷售條例》保障。ASX Operations and others v Pont Data Australia [1990] 27 FCR 460 是一個支持該裁決案例：

「不跟從……應該通過擴展『商品』的一般含義，進一步將『電子信號』也包含在『商品』的定義當中。」

普通法的適用：軟件的隱含條款T r o l l o p e & C o l l s v s N o r t h W e s t Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board (1973) 1 W.L.R. 601 at 609 (H.L.) 是典型的案例，

「只有在法院裁定當事方確定有意將某未列明的條款構成其合同的一部分時，才能證明該未列明的條款是一條隱含條款。」

就此，St Albans 案裁定，軟件程序應具有符合合理適用的隱含條款。

因此，儘管通過互聯網取得的軟件可能具有應符合一定用途的隱含條款，但適銷性標準則可能不適用。

總而言之，確定賠償責任的適用法規和案例有很大的不確定性。因此，與其依靠法院干預，不如通過合同來使法律的戰地地形更具體化。

提供方式的重要性軟件程序員應注意，提供軟件的媒介將影響適用的隱含條款，因此應採取不同方法令合同更加明確：

3. 通過光碟—ASX 案例顯示，《商品銷售條例》等條例適用於實體交付的軟件。為了使條款清晰，並盡可能的避免使用隱含條款。供應商通常會使用拆封許可 ( 在塑料包裝內附上縮小印刷的合同 )以限制他們的責任。

4. 通過互聯網—因不可能使用拆封許可，為了使條款更清晰，供應商通常會通過「點擊授權」或「訪問授權」的方式來落實合同 ( 訪問/ 下載前必須接受條款 )。但是，這樣軟件就受《電子交易條例》規管。

關鍵要點應注意，較佳的做法是一開始就訂明清楚軟件條款，並獲得各方的認可和同意，而非依靠法院的干預，因為裁決的方向將難以預料。

– 柯伍陳律師事務所朱喬華律師

吳清然見習律師

• May 2020


LAND LAW

To What Extent Can a Hong Kong Tenant Rely on a Force Majeure Clause in the Current Coronavirus Outbreak? (Summary)

The unfolding coronavirus has devastated the Hong Kong economy. In one of the world’s most expensive commercial property markets, it is not surprising that the possibility of invoking force majeure clauses has grabbed the attention of many business amidst an environment of difficulties and uncertainties.

What Is a Force Majeure Clause?It is common for commercial contracts to include a force majeure clause to deal with certain events (usually out of the control of the parties) that may significantly disrupt the parties’ ability to perform their contractual obligations. In the case of such unforeseen events, the party may rely on the force majeure clause to excuse itself from performing the contract.

Who Can Rely on the Force Majeure Clause?In order to rely on a force majeure clause, the party seeking to rely must satisfy the following requirements:

1. First of all, the party must ensure that there is a force majeure clause in the contract. Without an express clause, parties cannot imply a force majeure clause into the contract. However, some contracts may incorporate a force majeure clause without the term “force majeure”. To identify whether there is an equivalent clause, the party may look for the following characteristics:

a. Definition of triggering events, such as “events beyond the reasonable control of a party”, together with a non-exhaustive list of events which fall into such definition, eg war, Acts of God;

b. Formalities that the party must follow after a triggering event occurs; and

c. The consequences of the triggering event occurring; usual consequences include an extension of time or full/partial discharge of the contractual obligation.

2. Parties wishing to rely on a force majeure clause must ascertain the scope of the clause and show that the current event falls within the definition of force majeure events.

3. The party must show that the force majeure event is beyond its control and that it has unforeseeably prevented or delayed its performance of the contractual obligation. A causal link between the force majeure event and the party’s failure to perform the contract is essential.

4. The party must demonstrate that it has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event.

5. The party must show that it has complied with the relevant notice formalities stated in the force majeure clause. As there is usually a time limit for notice to be given, parties are strongly advised to proceed in a timely manner.

While the impact of the coronavirus outbreak is certainly unforeseeable and significant, whether such event constitutes a force majeure event still depends on construction of the clause. Tenants should always review it with prudence. Legal assistance should be sought, where necessary, to ensure the parties’ interests are protected.

The major hurdle appears to lie in the third requirement above. Tenants’ primary contractual obligation under the tenancy agreements would be to pay rent in accordance with the terms. It is an established principle that the force majeure clause does not release a party from a contract simply because it becomes difficult for a party to perform its obligations after signing. Therefore, in the absence of extreme incidents (eg government-ordered shutdown of the premises for quarantine purpose for a significant period of time), it is unlikely that tenants can invoke the force majeure clause to excuse themselves from performing the tenancy agreement.

The Common Law Principle of Frustration as an Alternative?If it is not possible to rely on the force majeure clause, the frustration doctrine



under common law may provide some relief for tenants. Pursuant to this doctrine, a contract may be discharged “when something occurs after the formation of the contract which renders it physically or commercially impossible to fulfil the contract or transforms the obligation to perform into a radically different obligation from that undertaken at the moment of the entry into the contract”. However, the scope of frustration is narrow and case authorities suggest that the threshold for relying on this doctrine is high. Similarly, a contract cannot be frustrated simply because it is more difficult to perform.

Consequences of Breach of Tenancy AgreementIf the tenant defaults in paying rent but is unable to invoke a force majeure clause or the doctrine of frustration, it would amount to a wrongful repudiation of the tenancy agreement and the landlord would be entitled to claim damages. The compensation recoverable is not limited to accrued rent and security deposits, but in some case may also include rent for the remaining unexpired lease. Therefore, tenants is advised to seek independent legal advice should they intend to invoke the force majeure clause in the tenancy agreement.

– Damien Laracy (Partner), Nicole Wong (Associate)

Hill Dickinson Hong Kong

Editorial Note: This is a summary of the article “To What Extent Can a Hong Kong Tenant Rely on a Force Majeure Clause in the Current Coronavirus Outbreak?” which was circulated via Hong Kong Lawyer eNewsletter and posted on Hong Kong Lawyer website in March 2020.

土地法

在當前疫情下，香港租戶在何種程度上可援引不可抗力條款？（摘要）

冠狀病毒疫情持續，嚴重影響香港經濟。香港是全球最昂貴的商業房地產市場之一，許多企業難免想知道，在困難而不確定性的情況下，援引不可抗力條款的可能性。

何謂不可抗力條款？商業合同通常包含不可抗力條款，以處理某些 ( 通常當事方不能控制的 )事件，這些事件可能會嚴重破壞當事方履行合同義務的能力。發生此類不可預見的事件時，當事方可以援引不可抗力條款，拒絕履行合同。

誰可援引不可抗力條款？尋求援引不可抗力條款的一方必須符合以下要求：

1. 首先，當事方必須確保合同包含不可抗力條款。若然沒有明確的條款，當事方不得暗示合同中有不可抗力條款。然而，有些合同可能包含不可抗力條款，但沒有註明「不可抗力」字眼。為了確定是否存在等效條款，當事方可以尋找以下特徵：

a. 觸發事件的定義，例如「超出合理控制範圍的事件」，以及屬於該定義事件的不完整清單，例如戰爭、天災；

b. 觸發事件發生後，當事人必須遵循的手續；和

c. 觸發事件發生的後果；通常的後果包括延長時間或解除全部/ 部分合同義務。

2. 希望援引不可抗力條款的當事方必須確定該條款的範圍，並證明當前的事件符合不可抗力事件的定義。

3. 當事方必須證明不可抗力的事件超出其控制範圍，並不可預見地阻止或延遲了合同義務的履行。不可抗力事件與未履行合同之間的因果關係至關重要。

4. 當事方必須證明已採取一切合理步驟來減輕不可抗力事件的影響。

5. 當事方必須證明已遵守不可抗力條款中規定的相關通知形式。由於通常會有通知的時間限制，因此強烈建議各方及時進行。

雖然冠狀病毒疫情的影響重大而難以預計，是否構成不可抗力事件仍取決於條款本身，租戶應謹慎審閱，必要時應尋求法律協助，以確保各方利益受到保障。

主要障礙在於上述第三個要求。租賃協議中租戶的主要合同義務是按照條款支付租金。根據不可抗力條款的既定原則，並非僅因為當事方在簽署協議難以履行義務，就能解除合同。因此，若沒有出現極端事件 ( 例如政府命令關閉場所一段相當長的時間以作隔離疫檢 )，租戶不太可能援引不可抗力條款來避免履行租賃協議。

可以普通法的合同落空原則替代嗎？若不能援引不可抗力條款，普通法的合同落空原則或可為租戶提供一些紓困。根據這個原則，「合同形成後發生某種事情，使在物理上或商業上無法履行合同，或把義務變為與簽訂合同時承諾的義務完全不同時」，可解除合同。然而，合同落空的範圍很窄，使用的門檻亦很高。同樣地，並非僅僅因為難以履行合同，就能使用落空原則。

違反租賃協議的後果若租戶拖欠租金，但無法援引不可抗力條款或合同落空原則，則構成不法拒絕履行租賃協議，業主有權要求賠償。除了租金和保證金，在某些情況下還可要求賠償剩餘的未到期租賃的租金。因此，租戶若打算援引租賃協議中的不可抗力條款，建議尋求獨立的法律意見。

Damien Laracy（合夥人） Nicole Wong（合夥人）

Hill Dickinson Hong Kong

編者按：這是一篇名為《勝者自慎 — 香港法院駁回逾期

執行仲裁裁決的企圖》 ("To What Extent Can a Hong Kong Tenant Rely on a Force Majeure Clause in the Current Coronavirus Outbreak?") 的

文章摘要，該文章通過《香港律師》

電子報分發，並於 2020 年 3 月張貼在

《香港律師》

PROFESSION

Legal Advice Privilege and Multi-Addressee Emails

In Jet2.com Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority [2020] EWCA Civ 35, the English Court of

• May 2020


Appeal held that a "dominant purpose" test applies to the underlying rationale for legal advice privilege (as it does to litigation privilege). This should be of interest to practitioners in Hong Kong because Hong Kong has adopted a controlling "dominant purpose" test for legal advice privilege since the landmark judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Re Citic Pacific Ltd (No. 2) [2015] 4 HKLRD 20.

Indeed, the English common law's adoption of a "dominant purpose" test puts its rationale for legal advice privilege on the same footing as that in Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong. However, these jurisdictions disavow a narrow meaning of a client in a corporate context, which (apparently, under English common law) purports to limit legal advice privilege to those employees that are formally tasked with seeking and receiving legal advice. In short, Hong Kong common law adopts a more expansive approach to the meaning of "client" in a corporate context – the "client" is the corporation and it can seek advice and give instructions through those employees authorised to act for it in the process of obtaining legal advice.

As such, answering the first principal issue for determination in Jet2.com, the English Court of Appeal adopted a classic description of legal advice privilege – namely, any confidential communication between a client and a lawyer for the dominant (or sole) purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.

The second principal issue for determination in Jet2.com was the proper approach to determining the privileged status of emails between multiple parties, where one of the senders or recipients is a lawyer (for example, see paras. 2 and 100 of the judgment). This is a difficult issue in practice and fact dependent. Some general observations may be made.

• Multi-addressee communications (for example, emails) are preferably to be considered as separate bilateral communications between the sender and each recipient. In determining whether each communication is

privileged, one applies a "dominant purpose" test. Where a multi-addressee communication seeks both legal advice and non-legal (for example, commercial) advice, the communication to and from a lawyer will be privileged. The multi-addressee communication to or from non-lawyers will not be privileged, unless the "dominant purpose" test is satisfied.

• As regards multi-addressee emails to or from lawyers (including, in-house lawyers), the status of the sender or recipient as a lawyer suggests a lot. In most cases why else does a client or a client's representative contact a lawyer if it is not ultimately to obtain legal advice? Such is the wide meaning of concepts such as "legal advice", "relevant legal context" and "continuum of the communications", that almost anything exchanged in confidence between a lawyer and a client is privileged (Ma JA, as he then was, Yau Chiu Wah v Gold Chief Investment Ltd & Anor [2003] 3 HKLRD 553). Indeed, it is

difficult to see how a court can consider what is privileged without reference to what only a client knows or did.

• Applying traditional principles, the courts are more likely to allow claims to legal advice privilege with respect multi-addressee communications sent to lawyers than they are with respect to communications sent to non-lawyers. While this may be stating the obvious it does emphasise the importance of instructing lawyers as early as possible and of trying to keep requests for legal advice distinct from communications for other purposes (for example, commercial advice). Jet2.com as an explanation of the underlying rationale for legal privilege is not a particularly easy read, but a crucial passage in the judgment is worth remembering (para. 93(iii)):

"Legal advice privilege is a privilege, and those who wish to take advantage of it should be expected to take proper care when they do so".



• Some basic precautions should be taken in order to protect claims to legal advice privilege (see Industry Insights, September 2019, "In-house Lawyers and Client Privilege"). This is particularly true for lawyers operating as part of "deal teams" or in "data rooms" or in competition investigations, in respect of which it is generally better not to share privileged information – where privileged information is shared, ensure that it is done through the lawyers and pursuant to strict confidentiality and non-waiver agreements. In this regard, the role of in-house lawyers has rarely been more important.

There is a final lesson from Jet2.com and one that is too often forgotten (for example, see paras. 10-15 of the judgment). Email is not a substitute for a phone call. It is a written communication that is legible and potentially disclosable to a court, tribunal or regulator. The same formalities that apply with respect to letters should also apply to emails. This is especially true for anyone "working from home".

– Warren Ganesh, Senior Consultants, RPC

專業

法律意見保密特權及多位收件人電子郵件

在 Jet2.com Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority [2020]EWCA Civ 35 一案中，英國上訴法院認為，「主要目的」測試適用於法律意見保密特權的基楚理據（就像其適用於訴訟保密特權一樣）。香港的法律從業者應該會對此感興趣，因為自香港上訴法庭對 Re Citic Pacific Ltd (No. 2) [2015] 4 HKLRD 20 作出里程碑式的判決以來，香港已就法律意見保密特權採用了控制性的「主要目的」測試。

事實上，英國普通法採用「主要目的」測試，使其享有法律意見保密特權的理據，與新加坡、澳洲和香港的有相同基礎。然而，這些司法管轄區不承認在法團的背景下當事人的狹義意思，在該背景下，這（顯然，根據英國普通法）旨在將法律意見保密特權限制在那些正式負責尋求和接受法

律意見的員工身上。簡而言之，香港普通法對「當事人」一詞的意思，在法團的背景下的涵義採取了更寬廣的處理方法—「當事人」就是指法團，而在徵詢法律意見的過程中，該法團可透過獲授權代表其行事的僱員尋求意見和作出委託。

因此，在回答 Jet2.com 案中的第一個主要待確定問題時，英國上訴法院採用了法律意見保密特權的經典描述 - 即當事人與律師之間出於提供或接受法律意見的主要（或唯一）目的而進行的任何保密通信。

Jet2.com 案中待確定的第二個主要問題是確定多方之間電子郵件的特權地位的適當方法，而其中發件人或收件人之一是律師（例子見判決書第 2 及100 段）。這是一個實踐中的難題，也是一個依賴於事實的問題。可以做一些一般性的觀察。

• 多位收件人的通信（例如電子郵件）最好被視為發送者和每個接收者之間的單獨雙邊通信。在確定每一次通信是否享有特權時，應採用「主要目的」測試。如果多位收件人的通信同時尋求法律意見和非法律（例如商業）意見，則與律師之間的通信將享有特權。除非符合「主要目的」測試，否則與非律師之間的多位收件人的通信將不享有特權。

• 關於與律師（包括企業內部律師）之間的多位收件人電子郵件，發件人或收件人的律師身份很能說明問題。在大多數情況下，如果最終不是為了獲得法律意見，當事人或當事人代表為什麽要聯繫律師？「法律意見」、「相關法律背景」和「溝通的連續體」等概念的廣泛含義是如此的廣泛，以至於律師和當事人之間幾乎任何秘密交流都是享有特權的（上訴法庭馬道立法官（當時官階），Yau Chiu Wah v Gold Chief Investment Ltd & Anor [2003] 3 HKLRD 553）。事實上，如果不參考只有當事人知道或做過的事情，法院如何才能考量什麽是特權，這是很難理解的。

• 運用傳統原則，與發送給非律師的通信相比，法院更有可能允許對發送給律師的多位收件人通信方面的法律意見保密特權的權利要

求。雖然這可能說明了顯而易見的事實，但確實强調了儘早委託律師的重要性，並保持將法律意見的請求與其他目的（例如商業意見）的通信區分開來。Jet2.com一案作為對法律特權的基礎理據的解釋並不是特別容易解讀，但判決中的一個關鍵段落值得記住（第 93（iii）段）：

「法律意見保密特權是一種特權，那些希望利用這一特權的人應該在他們這樣做時，要適當地小心行事。」

• 應採取一些基本預防措施，以保護對法律意見保密特權的權利要求（見 2019 年 9 月「業界透視」專欄的《企業律師和當事人保密特權》一文）。對於作為「交易團隊」的一部分或在「數據室」或在競爭調查中工作的律師來說尤其如此；就這些情況，通常最好不要分享保密特權信息 – 然而在分享保密特權信息的情況下，要確保通過律師並根據嚴格的保密和不豁免協議進行。在這方面，企業內部律師的作用從未如此重要。

還有來自 Jet2.com 案的最後一課，也是經常被遺忘的一課（例子見判決書的第 10-15 段）。電子郵件不能代替電話。這是一種可讀的、可能會被法院、審裁處或監管機構披露的書面通信。適用於信件的相同形式也應適用於電子郵件。對於任何「在家工作」的人來說尤其如此。

–RPC 高級顧問莊偉倫

TECHNOLOGY

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Hong Kong Courts Adapt to the World of Bitcoin and iPhones (Summary)

Two recent Hong Kong High Court judgments provide a glimpse into how courts are applying long-standing legal concepts to the ever-evolving digital world. Given the interconnectivity of global markets, these decisions bear implications for both victims and alleged

• May 2020


perpetrators beyond Hong Kong’s borders.

Victims of Cryptocurrency Fraud can use Traditional Tools to Pursue Recovery On 1 November 2019, the Court of First Instance granted a Mareva injunction freezing assets including bitcoins. The plaintiff in the case, Nico Constantijn Antonius Samara v Stive Jean Paul Dan [2019] HKCFI 2718, alleged that he transferred bitcoins to the defendant’s digital wallet on a Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency exchange so that the defendant could sell them for the plaintiff. When the defendant purportedly stopped remitting sale proceeds, the plaintiff applied for, and obtained, a freezing order over assets including the bitcoins that remained accessible through the defendant’s exchange-based wallet.

Although Samara did not explicitly address whether bitcoin is property, the English High Court recently did, recognising cryptocurrencies as property under English law (AA and Persons Unknown & Ors, Re Bitcoin [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)).

With this recognition, victims of digital currency fraud can now more confidently apply for injunctive relief to freeze cryptocurrency in common law jurisdictions. (Victims should, however, monitor likely appeals of the above and similar cases.)

Victims should also understand that, contrary to popular belief, users of cryptocurrencies are not categorically anonymous and untraceable. Instead, wrongdoers are potentially identifiable because of two common features: First, cryptocurrencies utilise distributed ledger technology like blockchain. A fundamental aspect of distributed ledgers is that the historical transaction sequence of any given distributed ledger-based cr yptocurrency is immutable, publicly accessible and traceable.

That said, a second piece of information is needed to tie a particular distributed

ledger-based cryptocurrency transaction to an identifiable individual beyond a pseudonym. Victims who can trace transactions to crypto-exchanges are increasingly in a better position to secure this information because many crypto-exchanges are now adopting know-your-client requirements. Consequently, victims increasingly may be able to use traditional discovery tools to seek relevant disclosures from these exchanges about potential wrongdoers.

Moreover, victims who obtain liability-based judgments against wrongdoers may then be able to enforce them against disparate assets in various jurisdictions using existing cross-border judgment recognition laws.

Regulator Access to Smartphones Increases Defendant Global ExposureDefendants facing financial misconduct allegations are also learning that existing regulatory laws already capture life’s cutting-edge conveniences, leading to cross-border exposure for investigatory targets.

On 14 February 2020, the Court of First Instance dismissed a challenge to the Securities and Futures Commission’s (“SFC”) investigative powers in Cheung Ka Ho Cyril v. Securities and Futures Commission [2020] HKCFI 270. Among other things, the court held that the SFC not only can seise digital devices such as smartphones, but also compel disclosure of passwords necessary for it to open the devices. As smartphones are a gateway to a wealth of information about the user, this judgment results in a significantly scaled-up exposure unique to contemporary digital life.

In practice, subject to legal professional privilege and privacy protections, the SFC will be legally limited to only seeking information relevant to its investigation or authorised under a valid warrant. The SFC can, however, share such information with foreign authorities under certain conditions, thus creating potential global exposure. This will be particularly relevant in situations where foreign authorities — who are outside the SFC’s practical control — may see the SFC’s powers as a



potential workaround for getting critical information that they would otherwise have difficulty obtaining.

How a foreign regulator may use such information will depend on local laws. Therefore, to mitigate cross-border exposure, a defendant’s legal representatives must hold local and foreign regulators to the relevant information restrictions applicable to any given circumstance. This requires understanding at an early stage a defendant’s rights and protections available in all relevant jurisdictions and maintaining a unified global defense strategy.

Whether a fraud victim or a putative defendant, it is critical to recognise how traditional legal tools can be adapted to new technology, extending one’s rights and vulnerabilities around the world. Recognising and leveraging the applicability of these tools is a crucial step towards obtaining a favourable outcome in Hong Kong, common law jurisdictions and beyond.

– Calvin Koo, Kobre & Kim

Editorial Note: This is a summary of the article “The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Hong Kong Courts Adapt to the World of Bitcoin and iPhones” which was circulated via Hong Kong Lawyer eNewsletter and posted on Hong Kong Lawyer website in April 2020.

科技

香港法律以不變應萬變：香港法庭適應比特幣和iPhone 世界（摘要）

香港高等法院最近兩次判決，略微透露了現今法庭怎樣把悠久的法律概念應用到日新月異的數碼世界。全球市場相互連通，這兩次裁決不論對受害人及香港邊境以外的涉嫌犯罪者皆有影響。

加密貨幣詐騙案的受害人可以利用傳統工具進行追討2019 年 11 月 1 日，原訟法庭批出資產凍結令（Mareva Injunction），令狀下被凍結的資產包括比特幣在內。Nico

Constantijn Antonius Samara v Stive Jean Paul Dan [2019] HKCFI 2718 案的原告人聲稱，他將比特幣轉入被告人在香港加密貨幣交易所的一個數碼錢包，僱用被告人代售那些比特幣。被告人停止匯款時，原告人經申請取得凍結資產令，凍結的資產包括那些仍可透過被告人在交易錢包買賣的比特幣。

雖然 Samara 案沒有明確地處理比特幣是否財產的問題，但英國最高法院最近在 AA and Persons Unknown & Ors, Re Bitcoin [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)案中，則確認加密貨幣為英國法所指的財產。

因此，隨著加密貨幣被確認為財產，數碼貨幣詐騙案的受害人可以更有把握地申請禁制式濟助，以凍結普通法司法管轄區內的加密貨幣。（不過，受害人應當密切注意可有任何就上述案件及相近案件提出的上訴。）

受害人亦應當理解一件事：與人們普遍的觀念相反，加密貨幣用家不絕對是無名無姓就無法追蹤；相反，違法者有可能被識別出來，因為加密貨幣有兩個常見的特徵：一、加密貨幣利用分布式分類帳技術 (DLT)，最出名的就是區塊鏈；二、記錄在分布式分類帳技術的資料是不可改動的，這點極為重要，意味任何特定的加密貨幣只要是利用分布式分類帳技術記帳，其歷來按序排列的交易都可以被公眾瀏覽和追蹤。

要把某項利用分布式分類帳技術記帳的加密貨幣交易和某名可識別身份的人連在一起，還需要多一點資料。可以追蹤到保密貨幣交易所的受害人越來越容易拿到這一點資料，因為很多加密貨幣交易所現在傾向採用合適的「認識您的客戶」確認客戶身份的程序規定。因此，受害人越來越能夠利用傳統的搜證工具，從這些交易所尋找與潛在違法者有關的相關披露。

此外，受害人如果取得以承擔法律責任為判決基礎而裁定違法者敗訴的裁决，他們以後或可利用現存跨境判決認可的法律機制，針對不同司法管轄權區內全然不相干的資產，強制執行那一項以法律責任為基礎的判決。

監管機構取得智能手機，被告人全面曝光風險增面對金融失當行為指控的被告人亦在

了解一件事，就是現有的規管法例已經擄住尖端生活的便利，導致調查目標得承受跨境曝光的風險。

2020 年 2 月 14 日在 Cheung Ka Ho Cyr i l v . Secur i t ies and Futures Commission [2020] HKCFI 270 案，原訟法庭駁回了一個司法覆核申請。法庭裁定證監會不但可以沒收數碼設備，例如智能手機，而且可以強迫一方披露用來打開智能手機所需要的密碼。

智能手機是通往大量用家資料的門戶，這次判決導致當代數碼生活獨有的曝光風險大幅增加。實際上，除法律專業保密權和私隱保護另有規定外，證監會被法律限制，只可以查詢與調查有關的資料，或有效手令授權查詢的資料。但是，在某些情況下，證監會可以與外國機構分享這些資料，因而製造資料有可能全面曝光的風險。這尤其關係到外國機構──機構在證監會實際控制範圍之外──可能把證監會的權力視為一種潛在的變通辦法，用來拿取機構原本很難取得的重要資料。

外國監管機構怎樣利用此等資料將取決於當地的法律。因此，要減低跨境曝光的風險，被告人的法律代表必須使本地和外國監管機構遵守適用於任何特定情況的相關資料限制。這需要在初步階段了解在所有相關的司法管轄區可供被告人享有的權利和保護，以及堅持一套統一的全面防禦策略。

不論是詐騙案的受害人還是指認被告人，至為重要的是了解傳統的法律工具可以怎樣適應新技術，從而在世界各地擴展個人的權利和增加遭攻擊的可能性。在香港、普通法司法管轄區以內及以外地區，認識並利用這些工具的適用範圍是邁向勝訴結果的關鍵一步。

–Calvin Koo, Kobre & Kim

編者按：這是一篇名為《勝者自慎—

香港法院駁回逾期執行仲裁裁決的

企圖》("The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Hong Kong Courts Adapt to the World of Bitcoin and iPhones") 的文章摘要，該文章通過

《香港律師》電子報分發，並於 2020年 4 月張貼在《香港律師》的網站上。

• May 2020


案例撮要

CASES IN BRIEF

ARBITRATION

GM1 v KC

[2020] 1 HKLRD 132, [2019] HKCFI 2793, [2019] HKEC 3793

Court of First Instance

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings No 60 of 2019)

Mimmie Chan J in Chambers

8, 14 November 2019

Arbitration — court-ordered interim measures — anti-suit injunction as interim measure under s. 45 — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609)

There were pending arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong between P1 and D pursuant to a guarantee between them (“Guarantee”) and related arbitration proceedings between P1 and D’s wholly owned subsidiary. A challenge was made to the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Ps, comprising P1 and P2, an affiliate of P1 which was not a party to the Guarantee, applied for an anti-suit injunction requiring, inter alia, D to withdraw legal proceedings commenced against Ps in a court in the PRC. D argued that where a party sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings based on an arbitration agreement, the proper jurisdiction basis was s. 21L of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4) (HCO), not s. 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (AO).

Held, granting an interim injunction pending the conclusion of the substantive hearing of the application, that:

1) The injunction sought was within the scope of interim measures covered by s. 45 of the AO (Cap. 609). Section 45 should be read in light of the object and principles of the AO as set out in s. 3. The AO was based on the important principle that parties to a dispute should be free to agree on how the dispute should be resolved. An injunction to enforce the positive promise of a party to arbitrate disputes and the negative right not to be vexed by foreign proceedings could be viewed as an interim order which maintained the status quo of parties which had already commenced their arbitration, as here, in accordance with the rights conferred under their arbitration agreement (The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87, Donahue v Armco Inc [2002] CLC 440, Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40, AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] 1 WLR 1889, Ever Judger Holding Co Ltd v Kroman Celik [2015] 3 HKC 246, Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin Po International Logistics Ltd (2016) 19 HKCFAR 586, Giorgio Armani SpA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd [2019] 2 HKLRD 313 considered). (See paras. 12–14.)

2) Even if the injunction were exclusively covered by s. 21L of the HCO, the claim was within O. 11 r. 1(1)(d) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub.Leg.). Any arbitration in Hong Kong was governed by Hong Kong law. (See paras. 15–16.)

3) The Hong Kong Court could and should grant the injunction to

recognise and enforce Ps’ prima facie right not to be vexed by having to resist D’s proceedings in Mainland China. The Arbitral Tribunal should be allowed to rule on its own competence and jurisdiction and its decision could then be reviewed by the Hong Kong Court as the supervisory court. When an award was made by the Arbitral Tribunal and was sought to be enforced on the Mainland, it would be open to D to resist enforcement if the arbitration agreement could be challenged before the Mainland Court. The fact that the foreign court might insist on its own jurisdiction was irrelevant to the court of the seat of arbitration when it dealt with an arbitration provision governed by its own law (The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v ST-CMS Electric Company Private Ltd [2007] EWHC 1713 (Comm), Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2011] 1 AC 763, S Co v B Co [2014] 6 HKC 421 applied). (See paras. 20–24.)

4) Although P2 was not a party to the Guarantee and arbitration agreement, anti-suit relief might be granted in relation to proceedings commenced against a third party, if the arbitration agreement could be construed as covering claims against the contracting party’s non-contracting affiliates or associates. There was a serious question to be tried that D’s claims against P2 in the Mainland proceedings in relation to the existence, validity and binding effect of the Guarantee and the arbitration agreement contained therein should

May 2020 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要


be dealt with by the same arbitral tribunal (Giorgio Armani SpA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd [2019] 2 HKLRD 313 applied). (See para. 25.)

ApplicationThis was an application by the plaintiffs for an anti-suit injunction against the defendant based on an arbitration agreement, to inter alia, require the defendant to withdraw Mainland Chinese proceedings against them. The facts are set out in the judgment.

仲裁

GM1 v KC

[2020] 1 HKLRD 132, [2019] HKCFI 2793, [2019] HKEC 3793

原訟法庭

建築及仲裁訴訟 2019年第 60號

原訟法庭法官陳美蘭內庭聆訊

2019年 11月 8日、14日

仲裁—法庭頒令的臨時措施—根據第 45條以禁訴令作為臨時措施—《仲裁條例》（第 609章）第 45條

當前有兩宗仲裁程序，一宗是第一原告人和被告人在香港依據雙方訂立的保證（該保證）而展開的仲裁程序，仲裁程序仍未了結；一宗是第一原告人和被告人的全資擁有附屬公司之間的仲裁程序，仲裁程序與前述仲裁程序有關聯。仲裁庭的組成受到質疑。兩名原告人，即第一和第二原告人，申請禁訴令，除了別的以外，要求法庭命令被告人撤回在中國法院針對兩名原告人展開的法律程序；第二原告人不是該保證的一方，它是第一原告人的相關聯公司。被告人辯稱，凡一方尋求禁訴令制止另一方依據仲裁協議在外國展開法律程序，司法管轄權的適當依據是《高等法院條例》（第4 章）第 21L 條，不是《仲裁條例》（第609 章）第 45 條。

裁決—在有關兩名原告人的申請的實質聆訊沒有完結前，發出臨時禁制令：

1) 尋求的禁制令是在《仲裁條例》（第 609 章）第 45 條涵蓋的臨時措施範圍之內。第 45 條應當按照第 3 條列出的《仲裁條例》的目的和原則來解讀。《仲裁條例》建基於一個重要的原則：爭議各方應可自由協定解決爭議的方法。如果各方像本案的各方一樣，已經根據仲裁協議賦予的權利展開仲裁，那麼禁制令，只要是強制執行一方以仲裁解決爭議的正面承諾及強制執行不被外國法律程序纏擾的消極權利的，可被視為維持各方現狀的臨時命令（考慮 The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87、Donahue v Armco Inc [2002] CLC 440、Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40、AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] 1 WLR 1889、Ever Judger Holding Co Ltd v Kroman Celik [2015] 3 HKC 246、Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin Po International Logistics Ltd (2016) 19 HKCFAR 586、Giorgio Armani SpA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd [2019] 2 HKLRD 313）。（見第 12–14 段）

• May 2020


2) 即使禁制令唯獨在《高等法院條例》第 21L 條涵蓋範圍之內，申索所屬範圍是《高等法院規則》（第4A 章，附屬法例）第 11 號命令第1(1)(d) 條規則。香港任何仲裁都是由香港法例規管（見第 15–16 段）

3) 香港法庭可以並且應該發出禁制令，阻止被告人在中國內地展開法律程序，藉以確認並強制執行兩名原告人的表面權利。仲裁庭應可就其本身的勝任能力和司法管轄權作出裁定，之後，作為監督法庭的香港法庭可覆核其決定。在仲裁庭作出了裁決而一方尋求在內地強制執行該裁決的時候，被告人如果能夠在內地法院席前質疑相關的仲裁協議，就可以反對強制執行該裁決。外國法庭事實上可以堅持其本身的司法管轄權，但既然仲裁地的法庭所處理的是一條受其本身法例規管的仲裁條文，這個事實就無關緊要（引用 The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87、Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v ST-CMS Electric Company Private Ltd [2007] EWHC 1713 (Comm)、Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2011] 1 AC 763、S Co v B Co [2014] 6 HKC 421）。（見第20–24 段）

4) 儘管第二原告人不是該保證或仲裁協議的一方，但只要仲裁協議可被詮釋為涵蓋針對締約方的非締約相關聯公司或聯營公司而提出的申索，法庭就可以就針對第三方展開的法律程序發出禁制訴訟的濟助。有認真可作審訊的問題之時，被告人在中國內地就該保證及該保證所包含的仲裁協議的存在、有效性及約束力而針對第二原告人提出的申索，應由同一仲裁機構處理（引用Giorgio Armani SpA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd [2019] 2 HKLRD 313）。（見第 25 段）

申請這是一宗處理禁訴令申請的案件。兩名原告人依據一份仲裁協議申請禁訴令，除了別的以外，要求法庭命令被告人撤回在中國內地針對他們展開的法律程序。案情已在判決書詳細列出。

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE

HKSAR v Wong Yu Wing

[2020] 1 HKLRD 761, [2019] HKCA 1432, [2019] HKEC 4128

Court of Appeal

Criminal Appeal No 209 of 2018

Yuen, McWalters and Zervos JJA

29 November, 19 December 2019

Criminal law and procedure — trial — summing-up — summing-up on issue as to drawing of inferences would be unbalanced if it did not deal with defence case, as well as prosecution case, on issue

Criminal law and procedure — retrial — factors for and against ordering retrial

D stood trial in the High Court on a count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He pleaded not guilty to trafficking in those drugs but tendered a plea of being guilty of possessing them. The jury found D guilty of trafficking as charged. He was sentenced to 82 months and 15 days’ imprisonment. With leave, he appealed against his conviction. The first ground of appeal was essentially that the summing-up was unbalanced in that the Deputy Judge referred only to the prosecution case, but not to the defence case, when directing the jury on inferences. The respondent conceded that the first ground of appeal was meritorious, and indicated that the appeal against conviction on that ground would not be opposed. A retrial was sought by the prosecution but opposed by D who asked instead for the substitution of a conviction for simple possession. In opposing a retrial D contended as follows: (a) without his disputed admissions, the circumstances were insufficient for the drawing of an inference of trafficking; (b) he would suffer irreparable prejudice if retried as the first trial had enabled police officers to acquire knowledge of the defence case and to rehearse their testimony; (c) allowing for remission for good behaviour, he had already served a term greater than any that would have been imposed on him

for simple possession; (d) he had already endured a lengthy trial which lasted 25 days; and (e) there would be a time lapse before any retrial.

Held, allowing the appeal to quash the conviction and ordering a retrial, that:

1) The prosecution’s concession on the first ground of appeal was properly made. (See para. 33.)

2) On its face, the case against D was a strong one. His admissions, which were ruled admissible after a voir dire, were of what had come to be known as “social trafficking”. And they were supported by the circumstantial evidence. Allowing for remission for good behaviour, D had served about half his sentence for trafficking. All of these factors in respect of an offence as serious as drug trafficking would, absent strong countervailing factors, lead inevitably to a conclusion that it was in the interests of justice to order a retrial. (See para. 34.)

3) The countervailing factors relied upon by D were not at all strong. It was not for the Court of Appeal to pre-empt the jury by assessing what weight they would give the admissions should the same again be ruled admissible. The so-called “prejudice” put forward would be suffered by every defendant facing a retrial and was not a reason for not ordering a retrial. There was nothing to suggest that the length of the trial was due to any fault of the prosecution. (See para. 35.)

4) In all the circumstances, the interests of justice dictated that a retrial be ordered. (See para. 36)

Appeal against convictionThis was an appeal against conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs imposed by Deputy Judge Douglas Yau in the Court of First Instance. The facts are set out in the judgment.

Editorial note: This judgment addresses — and illustrates the operation of — the factors on each side of the question of whether a retrial should be ordered in any given case.



刑事法及訴訟程序

HKSAR v Wong Yu Wing

[2020] 1 HKLRD 761, [2019] HKCA 1432, [2019] HKEC 4128

上訴法庭

刑事上訴案件 2018年第 209號

上訴法庭法官袁家寧上訴法庭法官麥偉德上訴法庭法官薛偉成

2019年 11月 29日、12月 19日

刑事法及訴訟程序—審訊—總結辭—關於推論問題的總結辭如果除了處理控方關於爭議點的案情之外，沒有處理辯方關於爭議點的案情，內容會偏頗

刑事法及訴訟程序—重審— 支持和反對命令重審的因素

被告人被控一項販運危險藥物罪，在高等法院接受審訊。他不承認販運那些危險藥物，只承認管有它們。陪審團裁定被告人犯了被控的販毒罪。他被判處監禁 82 個月零 15 日。他獲批許可後針對定罪提出上訴。第一個上訴理由基本是：總結辭內容偏頗，因為暫委法官在指引陪審團作出推論的

時候，只提述控方案情，沒有提述辯方案情。答辯人承認第一個上訴理由有理可據，表示不會反對上訴人基於那個理由針對定罪提出上訴。控方要求重審但遭被告人反對，被告人反而是要求以純粹管有罪代替原本的罪名。被告人反對重審，爭辯理據如下：(a) 沒有了他的受爭議的招認，情況就不足以得出販毒的推論；(b) 第一次審訊讓警員能夠得知辯方案情，他們因而可以排練證供，如果重審，他會蒙受難以彌補的損害；(c) 他因為行為良好而獲准縮減刑期，已服刑期比他因為純粹管有罪而會被判處的任何刑罰更重；(d) 他忍受了歷時 25 天的漫長審訊；及 (e) 重審會相距一段時間才進行。

裁決—判上訴得直，撤銷定罪，命令重審：

1) 控方接受第一個上訴理由是恰當的。（見第 33 段）

2) 不利被告人的案情表面上是有力的。他招認的是現今被稱為「社交販毒」的罪行，在案中案後被裁定可獲接納。該招認有環境證據支持。被告人因為行為良好獲准縮減刑期，已服刑期約為因販毒而被判的刑期的一半。在缺乏有力的抗衡因素的情況下，這些

與販毒罪一樣嚴重的罪行所相關的因素，全部必然會得出一個結論，就是命令重審是符合司法公平原則的。（見第 34 段）

3) 被告人依憑的根本是無力的抗衡因素。倘若同一招認被裁定可獲接納，上訴法庭無權評估陪審團會給該招認多大比重，從而預先制止他們。被告人認為自己會蒙受的損害是每名面臨重審的被告人都會蒙受的，但所謂的「損害」不是法庭不命令重審的理由。審訊所需時間不能說成是控方犯錯所致。（見第 35 段）

4) 在涉案所有情況下，命令重審才符合司法公正的原則。（見第 36 段）

針對定罪的上訴這是一宗上訴案。原訟法庭暫委法官游德康裁定被告人販運危險藥物罪名成立，被告人針對定罪提出上訴。案情已在判決書詳細列出。

編者按：涉案問題是：是否在任何特

定個案中都應當命令重審？這次判決

處理了問題方方面面的因素──並且

說明那些因素如何操作。

• May 2020


CIVIL PROCEDURE

West Coast International Trading Ltd v Chelesa Art Co Ltd[2020] 1 HKLRD 841, [2020] HKCFI 243, [2020] HKEC 186

Court of First Instance

High Court Action No 1636 of 2010

Coleman J in Chambers

20, 22 January 2020

Civil procedure — costs — sanctioned offer or payment — plaintiff accepted defendant’s sanctioned payment — exceptional circumstances justifying departure from general rule under O. 22 r. 20(1) that plaintiff entitled to costs up to date of acceptance of payment — appropriate costs order under “otherwise proviso” to O. 22 r. 20(1) — Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A, Sub.Leg.)

P and D were art dealers. T, an ex-employee of P, stole various paintings from P. Four were sold to D, who sold them on without notice of the theft in good faith. D was able to return all but one of them to P, before P commenced these conversion proceedings against D in 2010. It was initially thought that the issue was valuation of the unreturned painting (2nd Painting). However, in 2013, when D presented an image of a “Water Village” painting (1994 Painting) to P for the purpose of the proceedings, it transpired that the real issue was the identity of the 2nd Painting, which had hitherto only been described as “An oil painting by Chen Yifei by the name of ‘Water Village’”, a generic name commonly used in the trade to refer to a particular series of the artist’s landscape paintings. P only disclosed an image of the 2nd Painting in 2017, which was clearly different from the 1994 Painting. Many steps were taken in the context of absence of any such image. Costs were reserved in interlocutory proceedings concerning issues of authenticity, amendments to pleadings, updating of valuations, and expert evidence. After sight of the image of the 2nd Painting in 2017, P’s expert valuation of the 2nd Painting was

reduced from HKD4.2 million to RMB2.8 million (approximately HKD3.2 million). D then made a Calderbank offer of HKD3.2 million with no order as to costs (the 2017 Settlement Proposal). P counter-proposed RMB4.5 million plus its costs (Counter-proposal). On 18 June 2019, P accepted D’s sanctioned payment of HKD3.2 million made on 23 May 2019, acknowledging that it would then face an application for a costs order under the “Otherwise Proviso” to O. 22 r. 20(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub.Leg.) (RHC). D now sought an order under the Otherwise Proviso that it pay 25% of P’s costs of these proceedings, including any costs reserved, up to 18 June 2019.

Held, ordering D to pay 70% of P’s costs, including the costs reserved, that:

Applicable principles1) The prima facie rule in O. 22 r. 20(1)

of the RHC, that the plaintiff was entitled to costs of his proceedings up to the date of serving notice of acceptance, should apply unless: (a) the defendant discharged the burden of showing exceptional circumstances that justified a departure; and (b) he had given a prior warning to the plaintiff that he would apply to invoke the Otherwise Proviso on acceptance of the sanctioned payment or sanctioned offer (Etratech Asia-Pacific Ltd v Leader Printed Circuit Boards Ltd [2013] 2 HKLRD 1184 applied). (See paras. 7–9.)

2) What constituted “exceptional circumstances” was a matter in the court’s discretion to be exercised judicially. Examples included where the terms of the ultimate settlement were the same as an offer made previously. Applications under the Otherwise Proviso were not to be taken as an opportunity generally to revisit the procedural history or merits of the particular piece of litigation, and to apply the broader exercise of discretion on costs as might in appropriate circumstances be applicable outside the context of O. 22. (See paras. 10, 14.)

3) Reserved costs fell to be dealt with under O.22 r.22(5)(b), instead of r.20(1)

(Golden Tonn Industrial Ltd v Hong Kong Cyberport (Ancillary Development) Ltd [2015] 3 HKC 226 applied). (See para. 15.)

The present application4) This was one of those rare cases where

the Otherwise Proviso was triggered. The image of the 2nd Painting was at all times held by P and the failure to find and disclose the image much earlier was the result of the failure properly to look for it. That failure had a significant impact on valuation and was central to the issue of identity. This created exceptional circumstances permitting departure from the prima facie rule. Nevertheless, the Court also took into account that (on the evidence) D might have been able to obtain and present at least an image of the 1994 Painting somewhat earlier than April 2013. (See paras. 44, 49.)

5) As for P’s rejection of the 2017 Settlement Proposal, the Counter-proposal was not a reasonable response. There was no basis on the pleadings for claiming almost twice P’s own expert’s valuation. P ultimately accepted a monetary figure which it had been offered 18 months earlier and in the knowledge that it would then face this application under the Otherwise Proviso. These matters also triggered the Otherwise Proviso. (See para. 47.)

6) Regarding the steps taken by P to contest the authenticity of the 1994 Painting, this issue was a largely irrelevant and unnecessary side excursion. (See paras. 32, 45.)

7) On D’s complaint concerning particulars in the claim, where the identity of the painting did not appear to be at issue, the original pleading was probably sufficiently particularised. While it might be better if more detailed particulars of the 2nd Painting had been given, this matter did not constitute the necessary exceptional circumstances for triggering the Otherwise Proviso. As for D’s reliance on P’s combative approach and late withdrawal of



unreasonable claims, these points alone would not suffice to trigger the Otherwise Proviso but might however be considered in the overall context. (See para. 43, 46.)

Result8) The “otherwise” order was to be

approached on a relatively broad-brush basis. That basis would also include taking into account those costs which had been so far reserved, though it would be necessary to look at the specific applications on which they had been reserved. The fair and appropriate costs order to make in the exercise of the Judge’s discretion was to order D to pay 70% of P’s costs, including those costs reserved. This properly took into account the principle which underlay the prima facie rule in O. 22 r. 20(1), as well as the various matters above. It also took into account the fact that P had ultimately recovered what it said was the value of the lost 2nd Painting, but at the end of the proceedings which had been increased in length and complexity for ultimately no good, or little good, purpose. (See paras. 51–52.)

ApplicationThis was an application by the defendant for a costs order under the “otherwise proviso” to O. 22 r. 20(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub.Leg.). The facts are set out in the judgment.

民事訴訟程序

West Coast International Trading Ltd v Chelesa Art Co Ltd

[2020] 1 HKLRD 841, [2020] HKCFI 243, [2020] HKEC 186

原訟法庭

高院民事訴訟案 2010年第 1636號

原訟法庭法官高浩文內庭聆訊

2020年 1月 20日、22日

民事訴訟程序—訟費—附帶條款和解提議或付款—原告人接受被告人的附帶條款付款—特殊情況支持徧離第 22號命令第 20(1) 條規則的一般規定，即支持徧離原告

人有權獲付他截至接受付款的日期的訟費規定—根據第 22號命令第20(1) 條規則的「另有命令」作出的合適訟費令—《高等法院規則》（第 4A章，附屬法例）第 22號命令第 20(1) 條規則

原告人和被告人是藝術品經銷商。T是原告人的前員工，她偷走了原告人數幅油畫。其中四幅賣了給被告人，被告人不知道偷畫一事，真誠地賣掉了油畫。除了其中一幅油畫之外，被告人能夠在 2010 年原告人針對被告人展開這些換算油畫價值的法律程序之前，歸還其餘所有油畫給原告人。起初以為爭議點是未歸還的那幅油畫（第二幅油畫）的估值。但是在 2013年，被告人呈示油畫《水鄉》（1994年油畫）的影像，以便進行法律程序的時候，真正的爭議點才出現，那就是 1994 年油畫是不是被偷的第二幅油畫，至此為止，第二幅油畫只一直被形容為「一幅陳逸飛油畫，名為《水鄉》」，這是買賣常用的通用名稱，意指那位畫家某一系列的風景畫。原告人到 2017 年才披露第二幅油畫的影像，那影像明顯與 1994 年油畫不一樣。許多步驟在還未有第二幅油畫的任何影像之前進行了。就油畫真假的爭議、狀書的修改、估值的更新，以及專家證據而展開的非正審法律程序的訟費己被保留。2017 年第二幅油畫的影像被披露之後，原告人的專家對第二幅油畫的估值，由港幣 420 萬元減至人民幣 280 萬元（大約港幣 320 萬元）。被告人其後提出Calderbank 提議的建議，在法庭不就訟費作出命令的情況下付款港幣 320萬元（2017 年和解建議）。原告人反建議人民幣 450 萬元另加它的訟費（反建議）。2019 年 6 月 18 日，原告人意識到它那時會面對根據《高等法院規則》（第 4A 章，附屬法例）第 22 號命令第 20(1) 條規則的「除非法庭另有命令」（但書）提出的訟費令申請之後，接受被告人在 2019 年 5月 23 日提出的港幣 320 萬元的附帶條件付款。被告人現以但書為依據，要求法庭命令它支付原告人截至 2019年 6 月 18 日止在相關法律程序的訟費（包括任何保留訟費）的 25%。

裁決—命令被告人支付原告人的訟費（包括保留訟費）的 70%：

適用的原則1) 《高等法院規則》第 22 號命令

第 20(1) 條規則的表面規定是，原告人有權獲付他截至送達接受通知書的日期的法律程序的訟費；法庭應當引用這條規則，唯兩種情況例外：(a) 被告人履行舉證責任，證明有支持偏離規定的特殊情況；及 (b) 他已經預先警告原告人他（指被告人）會引用第 22號命令第 20(1) 條規則關於接受附帶條款和解提議或附帶條款付款的但書（引用 Etratech Asia-Pacific Ltd v Leader Printed Circuit Boards Ltd [2013 ] 2 HKLRD 1 184）。（見第 7–9 段）

2) 「特殊情況」的構成是由法庭依法行使酌情權決定的。例子包括最終和解的條款與先前提出的建議一樣。在一般情況下，根據但書提出的申請不應被理解為重新檢視特定訴訟的程序歷史或理據的機會，也不應被理解為有機會在第 22 條規則的範圍之外，運用在合適情況下可以較寬鬆地行使的訟費酌情權（見第 10、14 段）

3) 保留訟費屬於根據第 22 號命令第 22(5)(b) 條規則處理的事宜，而不是根據第 20(1) 條規則處理的事宜（引用 Golden Tonn Industrial Ltd v Hong Kong Cyberport (Ancillary Development) Ltd [2015] 3 HKC 226）。（見第 15 段）

現今這個申請4) 這是觸發但書的罕有案件之一。

第二幅油畫的影像由始至終都在原告人手上，沒有在更早時間找到並披露該影像是因為原告人沒有好好尋找。這對估值有重大影響，是雙方爭議的 1994 年油畫是不是第二幅油畫的核心。這製造了准許偏離表面規定的特殊情況。然而，法庭亦（根據證據）考慮到被告人也許一直以來至少能夠取得一張 1994年油畫的影像，而那影像也就可以稍早於 2013 年 4 月呈示。（見第 44、49 段）

5) 至於原告人拒絕 2017 年和解建議，反建議不是一個合理的回應。申索金額差不多是原告人自己專家的估值的兩倍，但原告人的作訴沒有理據。原告人最終接受的金額數字是被告人 18 個月前提議過的，並且是意識到它那時會面

• May 2020


對是項根據但書提出的申請才接受。這些事情亦觸發但書的應用。（見第 47 段）

6) 至於原告人為了質疑 1994 年油畫的真實性而採取的步驟，這個爭議在很大程度上無關緊要，弄清楚這個爭議就更不必要（見第32、45 段）

7) 1994 年油畫是不是原告人被偷走的那幅似乎不是申索的爭議點，根據被告人有關申索細節的投訴，原本的狀書大概已夠具體。雖然第二幅油畫的資料越詳細越好，但這不構成觸發應用但書所

必要的特殊情況。被告人以兩點為依據，即原告人的處理方法挑起事端及很遲才撤回無理的申索；可是單憑這兩點不足以觸發但書的應用，不過可被放在整體背景中去考慮（見第 43、46 段）

結果8) 處理「另有」命令的準則比較粗

略籠統。該準則亦會兼顧目前為止已保留的訟費，不過會有需要考慮保留訟費所依據的特定應用。法官行使酌情權作出公平合適的命令，被告人按命令須支付原告人的訟費（包括保留訟費）的 70%。訟費令妥善地

考慮上述多項事宜之外，亦考慮到第 22 號命令第 20(1) 條規則的表面規定所依據的原則。它亦考慮了原告人最終收回它所說的第二幅油畫的價值，不過是在法律程序完結束之時才收回；法律程序根本沒有正確的目的或目的正確但完全微不足道，審訊時間因而加長了，複雜性也增加了（見第 51–52 段）

申請被告人根據《高等法院規則》（第4A 章，附屬法例）第 22 號命令第20(1) 條規則的但書，申請訟費令。案情已在判決書詳細列出。



FU JING傅婧FANGDA PARTNERS方達律師事務所

SO NORMAN WAYNE HORNE蘇永瀚FANGDA PARTNERS方達律師事務所

TONG TSZ LING唐紫菱LINKLATERS年利達律師事務所

TSE KA HO謝嘉豪JUN HE LAW OFFICES君合律師事務所

MAK CARMEN PAO WEN麥寶文

會員動向

PROFESSIONAL MOVES

Newly-Admitted Members 新會員

Partnerships and Firms 合夥人及律師行變動Changes received as from 1 March 2020 取自2020年3月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

FAN SIU LEUNG樊兆樑

KAN E-TING MARTIN簡亦霆

KONG KA WANG江嘉宏JUN HE LAW OFFICES君合律師事務所

LAM CHI CHUNG林智聰CHINA MINSHENG FINANCIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION LIMITED

LAU HOK HIM劉學謙

LEE JOHIME TREVOR 李祖謙

TANG TIN HANG鄧天行SLAUGHTER AND MAY司力達律師樓

WU YUI MAN胡睿文

• AU KEUNG FUK JAMES became a partner of H.Y. Leung & Co. LLP as from 01/04/2020.區強福自2020年4月1日成為梁浩然律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人。

• BOWERS KEVIN RICHARD commenced practice as the sole practitioner of Bowers as from 01/04/2020.BOWERS KEVIN RICHARD 自2020年4月1日獨資經營BOWERS。

• CHAN HUNG YUEN ROBERT ceased to be a partner of Robert Chan & Co., LLP as from 01/04/2020 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Chan remains as a partner of So, Lung & Associates.陳鴻遠自2020年4月1日不再出任ROBERT CHAN & CO., LLP合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。陳律師仍繼續擔任蘇龍律師事務所合夥人一職。

• CHAN KA WANG KELVIN ceased to be a partner of Hom & Associates as from 01/04/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm .陳家宏自2020年4月1日不再出任譚百全律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• May 2020


• CHAN SIU PAN ceased to be a partner of H.Y. Leung & Co. LLP as from 01/04/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm .陳少彬自2020年4月1日不再出任梁浩然律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• CHAN SIU WING SELWYN became a partner of H.Y. Leung & Co. LLP as from 01/04/2020.陳兆榮自2020年4月1日成為梁浩然律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人。

• CHEUNG LAI YIN became a partner of Chiu & Partners as from 01/04/2020.張勵研自2020年4月1日成為趙不渝馬國強律師事務所合夥人。

• CHEUNG WAI LEUNG EDWARD ceased to be a partner of Jia Yuan Law Office as from 02/04/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm.張偉樑自2020年4月2日不再出任嘉源律師事務所合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• CHOI SANNY joined Bond Ng Solicitors as an assistant solicitor as from 11/03/2020 and became a partner of the firm as from 01/04/2020.蔡倩盈自2020年3月11日加入伍展邦律師行為助理律師，並於2020年4月1日成為該行合夥人。

• CHOW PO YEE VERONICA became a partner of Yu, Chan & Yeung as from 01/04/2020.周寶儀自2020年4月1日成為余陳楊律師行合夥人。

• DU SHU became a partner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom as from 01/04/2020.杜樞自2020年4月1日成為世達國際律師事務所合夥人。

• EDDINGS GEORGE MARK THOMAS ceased to be a partner of Holman Fenwick Willan as from 01/04/2020.EDDINGS GEORGE MARK THOMAS 自2020年4月1日不再出任夏禮文律師行合夥人一職。

• FANG GUANYU joined Allen & Overy as a partner as from 02/03/2020.方冠玉自2020年3月2日加入安理國際律師事務所為合夥人。

• FENN DAVID commenced practice as the sole practitioner of David Fenn & Co. as from 10/03/2020.范德偉自2020年3月10日獨資經營范德偉律師事務所。

• FONG PING WAH commenced practice as a partner of FPW Lawyers as from 29/03/2020 and remains as a partner of Fongs and a consultant of Yang Chau Law Office.方炳華自2020年3月29日成為新開業FPW LAWYERS合夥人，並仍繼續擔任方氏律師事務所合夥人及瀛洲律師事務所顧問二職。

• HE JUNHUA ceased to be a partner of DLA Piper Hong Kong as from 18/03/2020 and joined Ashurst Hong Kong as a partner on the same day.何俊華自2020年3月18日不再出任歐華律師事務所合夥人一職，並於同日加入亞司特律師事務所為合夥人。

• HEATON GREGORY TAVIS joined Hauzen LLP as a partner as from 23/03/2020.HEATON GREGORY TAVIS 自2020年3月23日加入浩宸律師行有限法律責任合夥為合夥人。

• HO KIN MAN ELLEN became a partner of Liu, Chan & Lam as from 01/04/2020.何健敏自2020年4月1日成為廖陳林律師事務所合夥人。

• KHOO ELAINE MARIA ceased to be a partner of Lily Fenn & Partners as from 01/03/2020 and joined the firm as a consultant as from 23/03/2020.邱綺玲自2020年3月1日不再出任范家碧律師行合夥人一職，並於2020年3月23日加入該行為顧問。

• KWONG TAT HOI DANIEL became a partner of Johnny K.K. Leung & Co. as from 18/03/2020.鄺達開自2020年3月18日成為梁家駒律師行合夥人。

• LAM KAM MAN ceased to be a partner of Rebecca Lo & Co. as from 01/04/2020 and the firm closed on the same day.林錦文自2020年4月1日不再出任盧孟莊律師事務所合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。

• LAU CHUN KIT MICHAEL became a partner of ONC Lawyers as from 01/04/2020.劉俊傑自2020年4月1日成為柯伍陳律師事務所合夥人。

• LAU SIU FUNG QUEENIE became a partner of Liu, Chan & Lam as from 01/04/2020.劉小鳳自2020年4月1日成為廖陳林律師事務所合夥人。

• LEE YAT WAH WALTER ceased to be a partner of Gallant as from 01/04/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm.李日華自2020年4月1日不再出任何耀棣律師事務所合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• LEE YU CHEUNG ceased to be a partner of Y.C. Lee, Pang & Kwok, Solicitors as from 01/04/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm.李宇祥自2020年4月1日不再出任李宇祥，彭錦輝，郭威，霍健琳律師事務所合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• LEUNG KA YAN CATHERINE became a partner of Lewis Silkin as from 01/04/2020.梁家茵自2020年4月1日成為世勤律師事務所合夥人。

May 2020 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向


• LIU LEI ceased to be a partner of Anthony Siu & Co. as from 01/04/2020 and joined Jia Yuan Law Office as a partner on the same day.劉磊自2020年4月1日不再出任蕭一峰律師行合夥人一職，並於同日加入嘉源律師事務所為合夥人。

• LO MANG CHONG REBECCA ceased to be a partner of Rebecca Lo & Co. as from 01/04/2020 and the firm closed on the same day.盧孟莊自2020年4月1日不再出任盧孟莊律師事務所合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。

• LO MING KIN commenced practice as a partner of Lo & Lawyers as from 03/03/2020.勞銘健自2020年3月3日成為新開業勞氏律師行合夥人。

• LO WAI YAN WINNIE commenced practice as a partner of FPW Lawyers as from 29/03/2020 and remains as a partner of Fongs.盧蔚恩自2020年3月29日成為新開業FPW LAWYERS合夥人，並仍繼續擔任方氏律師事務所合夥人一職。

• LUN KING SHAN FLORENCE commenced practice as a partner of Lo & Lawyers as from 03/03/2020 and remains as a consultant of CW Lawyers.倫敬珊自2020年3月3日成為新開業勞氏律師行合夥人，並仍繼續擔任王慧珊律師事務所顧問一職。

• LUNG SIU WING ceased to be a partner of Robert Chan & Co., LLP as from 01/04/2020 and the firm closed on the same day.龍紹榮自2020年4月1日不再出任ROBERT CHAN & CO., LLP合夥人一職，而該行亦於同日結業。

• SCHMIERER STEFAN CHRISTIAN ceased to be a partner of Robinsons, Lawyers as from 01/04/2020 and joined David Ravenscroft & Co. as a partner on the same day.SCHMIERER STEFAN CHRISTIAN 自2020年4月1日不再出任羅本信律師行合夥人一職，並於同日加入李榮覺律師行為合夥人。

• TAM TAK HING BERNARD ceased to be a partner of King & Company as from 01/04/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm.譚德興自2020年4月1日不再出任譚德興程國豪劉麗卿律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• TONG MAN PUI BILL commenced practice as the sole practitioner of Bill Tong & Co., Solicitors as from 09/03/2020.唐文標自2020年3月9日獨資經營唐文標律師行。

• TSANG HOW LEUNG HOWARD ceased to be a partner of Wilkinson & Grist as from 01/04/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm.曾效良自2020年4月1日不再出任高露雲律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• WONG CHUN PENG STEWART ceased to be a partner of YTL LLP as from 01/04/2020 and joined AH Lawyers as a consultant on the same day.黃俊鵬自2020年4月1日不再出任梁延達律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人一職，並於同日加入何升偉律師事務所為顧問。

• WONG KONG YAU ceased to be the sole practitioner of Peter Wong & Partners as from 20/03/2020 and the firm closed on the same day.王港有自2020年3月20日不再出任王港有律師行獨資經營者一職，而該行亦於同日結業。

• WONG LOK YAN joined Y.T. Chan & Co. as a partner as from 23/03/2020.黃樂欣自2020年3月23日加入陳應達律師事務所為合夥人。

• WONG PIE YUE CLERESA joined P.C. Woo & Co. as a partner as from 01/04/2020.黃碧如自2020年4月1日加入胡百全律師事務所為合夥人。

• YEUNG MING FAI became a partner of Patrick Mak & Tse as from 01/03/2020.楊銘輝自2020年3月1日成為麥家榮律師行合夥人。

• YU KAM SING RAYMOND ceased to be the sole practitioner of Raymond Yu & Co., Solicitors as from 01/04/2020 and the firm closed on the same day. Mr. Yu remains as a partner of Howell & Co.余錦勝自2020年4月1日不再出任余錦勝律師行獨資經營者一職，而該行亦於同日結業。余律師仍繼續擔任何和禮律師行合夥人一職。

• YU KIM FUNG ceased to be a partner of Johnny K.K. Leung & Co. as from 18/03/2020 and remains as a consultant of the firm.余劍鋒自2020年3月18日不再出任梁家駒律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• YUEN PUI KWAN became a partner of Gall as from 11/03/2020.袁佩筠自2020年3月11日成為高嘉力律師行合夥人。

• ZHANG HAO became a partner of ONC Lawyers as from 01/04/2020.張昊自2020年4月1日成為柯伍陳律師事務所合夥人。

• May 2020


Cooking at Home During COVID-19By: Julienne Jen, Principal Lecturer at the Faculty of Law,

University of Hong Kong

My late father used to teach me that crisis creates opportunities. The COVID-19 crisis provided me an excellent opportunity to set up my cooking blog – something which I had never imagined I would do,

as I am a legal professional, not a chef!

How did This all Start?During the start of the work from home set up, it was my younger daughter who cooked the meals as my children had no school and I was busy with my job. We were spoilt with all the scrumptious meals which she prepared for the family for weeks but, following her usual school timetable, her online classes started. I decided to take over preparing our lunches and had also started posting my dishes I cooked on my Facebook page. My Chicken a la King became so popular. I did not anticipate the requests for the recipe as I had been cooking that dish since secondary school and I did not have a recipe for it. So, when two of my friends then invited me to do a live show for their social media channel, I decided to share how to cook my Chicken a la King dish. After the show, requests came flooding. I was asked about simple cooking ideas and I received messages from people saying they haven’t cooked for a long time but were all inspired by my live demonstration and started cooking again. A lot of people (most of them unknown to me) even sent photographs of their Chicken a la King dish sharing how happy they were as their family enjoyed their cooking. I was touched by the responses, inspiring me to do more.

Why Start up your Cooking Blog?Many people from my generation and later generations were brought up with domestic helpers so we did not have to cook. When we then start our careers, we can’t find a time to cook and once we start our families, rely on domestic helpers to prepare our meals.

With the effect of COVID-19 pandemic, meetings and appointments got cancelled, and we seem to have a lot more time on our hands.

May 2020 • LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情


We then start thinking about our basic needs at home, like food. It dawned on me that perhaps many people would like to start cooking but did not know where to begin. So, I decided to set up my blog to share cooking ideas with easy to follow recipes and simple ingredients so that those who are new to cooking could find a place to start. I also hoped to inspire more confident home cooks to share their cooking ideas so we could learn from each other. We don’t know how long this crisis would last and ideas will run out, so it makes sense to share.

On my blog, I also share basic video tutorials: like how to fry an egg and how to marinate meat. My students know that I usually adopt a building block approach in teaching – start with the basics, then move on to more complex ideas. The same approach is applied on my cooking demonstration videos, breaking down everything into small steps so the viewers would find it easier to follow. I hope that I can combine my teaching and my cooking skills to do something positive to motivate others.

What have you Learnt From Setting up your Blog?What started off as an ad hoc idea generated into a more routine pass-time

for me during this period. I started to explore dishes that I have never cooked and shared before on my page. I cook together with my mom so I could learn more Shanghainese dishes from her, and I spend more time with my daughters in producing the videos. I not only learnt new cooking skills, but I also had to think about planning and hosting a video demonstration, editing photos, editing videos, learning how to do voiceover and adding English subtitles to my video clips. I thought a lot about audience engagement, and I believe this will, in the long run, enhance my teaching and my experience with audience interaction through the different types of media that is available nowadays.

I guess the most important thing that I have learnt is that relationships can be strengthened through engagement in the simplest things in life, as long as my family stayed together. Although we were all stuck in the same place for a long period, which could be a recipe for disaster, my family worked together on a project where we all contributed our skills, with my husband as the food critic. It was a great opportunity to work together as a family and, I suppose parenting experts would agree, this is an ideal situation for deeper bonding. I do encourage families

to find something to engage in together to create good memories for what might otherwise be a distressing period.

How do you Juggle your Time?I am used to juggling commitments which is all a matter of priority and planning. I try to plan our meals and cook something new now and then so that I could take photos and videos while cooking. Everything is stored on my phone, and if there is an idle time, I edit the videos. I do video editing during breakfast and would stop by the time I must start working. As the late Professor Michael Wilkinson had taught me – it is all about discipline and setting aside a fixed time as a routine for what you are working at.

What will Happen Next?I do not know whether I would still be able to continue with my blog once the social distancing period is over, but I do plan to carry on with it. Maintaining this blog is a big challenge for me but I will try my best. I have made a big step out of my comfort zone and tried many new things and have also improved myself in the process. During this COVID-19 social distancing period, why don’t you also step out of your comfort zone and try something new? Perhaps you will also find that you have gained something afterwards.

• May 2020


2019 冠狀病毒病期間在家烹飪作者：任文慧，香港大學法律學院首席講師

我的已故父親曾經教導我，危

機創造機會。「2019 冠狀病

毒病」危機給了我一個極好

的機會來建立我的烹飪博客 - 這是我

從未想過會做的事情，因為我是一名

法律專業人士，而不是一名厨師！

這一切是怎麽開始的？

在家工作開始的時候，因為我的孩

子們沒有上學，而我正在忙於工作，

所以做飯的都是我的小女兒。她幾周

來為全家準備的美味飯菜都把我們

寵壞了，但按照她通常的學校時間

表，她的網上課程開始了。我決定

接手製作我們的午餐，並開始在我

的 Facebook 頁面上載我做的菜式。

我的「Chicken a la King」變得很受歡

迎。我沒有想到有人要求菜譜，因為

我從中學開始便做這道菜，而且我沒

有這菜譜。因此，當我的兩個朋友邀

請我為他們的社交媒體頻道做直播

節目時，我決定與大家分享如何做我

的「Chicken a la King」菜式。演出結

束後，請求蜂擁而至。我被問及簡單

的烹飪想法，我收到人們的信息，說

他們很久沒有做飯了，但都受到了我

的現場演示的啓發，又開始做飯了。

很多人（他們中的大多數人是我不認

識的）甚至發來了他們的「Chicken a la King」照片，分享他們的家人享受

他們的烹飪時有多快樂。我被這些

回應所感動，激勵著我要做更多的事情。

為什麽要開你的烹飪博客呢？

我們這一代人和很多後輩都是在家

庭傭工的照顧下長大的，所以我們不

用做飯。當我們開始我們的職業生涯

時，我們沒有足夠時間做飯，一旦我

們開始成立自已的家庭，我們就依靠

家庭傭人來準備我們的飯菜了。

受「2019 冠狀病毒病」疫情的影響，

會議和約會都被取消，我們似乎有更

多的時間可用。然後我們開始考慮家

庭的基本需要，比如食物。我突然意

識到，也許很多人都想開始烹飪，但

不知道從何開始。因此，我決定建立

我的博客來分享烹飪心得，分享容易

遵循的菜譜和簡單的配料，這樣那些

剛學烹飪的人就可以知道怎樣開始。

我也希望激勵更多有經驗的家庭厨

師分享他們的烹飪心得，這樣我們就

可以相互學習。我們不知道這個疫情

會持續多久，一個人的烹飪的想法會

用完，所以分享是有意義的。

在我的博客上，我還分享了基本的視

頻教程：比如如何煎蛋和如何腌制肉

類。我的學生都知道，我通常採用積

木式的教學方法 - 從基礎開始，之後

轉向更複雜的做法。我的烹飪演示視

頻也採用了同樣的方法，將一切分成

小步驟，這樣觀衆就會覺得更容易理

解。我希望我能把我的教學和我的烹

飪技巧結合起來，做一些積極的事情

來激勵別人。

你從建立博客中學到了什麽？

在這段時間裏，最初只是一個臨時的

想法變成了我的更常規化消遣。我開始

探索我以前從未烹飪過的菜肴，並在

我的網頁上分享。我和媽媽一起烹飪，

這樣我就可以從她那裏學到更多的上

海菜式，我也會花更多的時間和我的女

兒們一起製作視頻。我不僅學到了新的

烹飪技巧，還不得不考慮策劃和主持

一場視頻演示、編輯照片、編輯視頻、

學習如何做旁白，並為我的視頻剪輯添

加英文字幕。我想了很多關於觀衆參與

的事情，我相信，從長遠來看，通過現

在可用的不同類型的媒體，將會加强我

的教學和我與觀衆互動的體驗。

我想我學到的最重要的一件事是，只

要我和家人在一起，就可以通過參

與生活中最簡單的事情來加强關係。

雖然我們都被困在同一地方很長一

段時間，但這可能是應對災難的處

方—我的家人共同參與了一個項

目，我們都貢獻了自己的技能，而我

的丈夫則擔任美食評論家。這是作為

一個家庭一起工作的絕佳機會，我想

育兒專家也會同意，這是加深家庭團

結的理想環境。我確實鼓勵大家尋找

一些可以與家人一起參與的事情，為

原本可能是艱難的時期創造美好的

回憶。

你是怎樣安排你的時間？

我習慣於每一天做很多的事情，這都

是一個優先事項和規劃的問題。我試

著計劃我們的飯菜，時不時地煮一些

新的東西，這樣我就可以在做飯的時

候拍下照片和視頻。所有東西都存

儲在我的手機內，如果有空閒時間，

就可以編輯視頻。我在早餐時做視頻

編輯，當我必須開始工作時就會停下

來。正如已故教授 Michael Wilkinson教我的那樣—這一切都關乎紀律，

和關乎為你正在從事的工作分配固

定的時間作為例行的公事。

接下來會發生什麽？

我不知道一旦社交疏離期結束，我是

否還能繼續寫我的博客，但我確實計

劃繼續寫下去。維持這個博客對我來

說是一個巨大的挑戰，但我會盡我最

大的努力做。我已經邁出了一大步，

走出了我的舒適區，嘗試了很多新事

物，也在這個過程中提升了自己。在

這個「2019 冠狀病毒病」社交疏離

期，為什麽你不也走出你的舒適區，

嘗試一些新的東西呢？也許你以後

也會覺得你有所收穫。

May 2020 • LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情


法學院新聞

CAMPUS VOICES

Online Resources The COVID-19 pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to Hong Kong and the world. In this challenging time, the Faculty has made the following online resources available:

網上資源

新型冠狀病毒病對香港以至全世界有前所未有的深遠影響。在抗疫的日子，法律學院提供以下網上資源：

• HKU Law Video ArchiveThe Archive (https://video.law.hku.hk/) launched in December 2018 houses video and audio files of major academic events held at the Faculty, including public lectures by Faculty members and visiting scholars, local and overseas judges; presentations and speeches at conferences and seminars; our Faculty’s own graduation ceremonies, etc.

• 普法視像檔案館

檔案館 (https://video.law.hku.hk/) 於 2018 年

12 月推出，把學院多年來舉辦之學術活動如講

座、會議、畢業禮等過千部影片及錄音陸續整

理，透過網上平台與社群大眾分享本地及海外

知名學者、法官及領袖的真知灼見，藉以加深

對香港法律制度及核心價值的了解。

• May 2020


• Andrew Li ExhibitionThe Honourable Andrew Li Kwok Nang has donated various items of interest from his working life, including items of court dress, to the Faculty. Despite the temporary closure of the Lui Che Woo Law Library, where the Exhibition is housed, its online gallery (https://www.andrewli.hku.hk/) allows virtual visitors to explore the collection.

• 李國能藏品展

法律學院獲前終審法院首席大法官李國能先生送贈多件藏品，包括歷史物品、執業及擔任法官時的法庭服飾等，於

呂志和法律圖書館作展出，雖然圖書館暫時關閉，各界仍可透過網上展覽 (https://www.andrewli.hku.hk/)，欣賞這些

藏品及其背後有趣的故事。

• Online SeminarsA Webinar Series “Coping with Legal Challenges Arising from the Pandemic” is launched, featuring Faculty members discussing the most pressing legal topics arising from the pandemic such as digital finance and crisis; the ethical and legal relationship between healthcare professions and the state in the context of the Hong Kong response to COVID-19 etc. The weekly broadcast can be revisited at https://video.law.hku.hk/. Please check out our other online seminars at https://www.law.hku.hk/events/.

• 網上研討會

學院會於不同的網上平台舉行講座及研討會，詳情請

瀏覽 https://www.law.hku.hk/events/。其中「大流行

疾病帶來的法律議題」研討會系列，每星期由學院教

員主講，討論大流行疾病所帶來的法律議題，例如數

碼金融及危機、以及在應付新型冠狀病毒病中，醫護

人員與政府之間的道德及法律關係等，研討會亦可於

https://video.law.hku.hk/ 重溫。

May 2020 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞


HONG KONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WIN INAUGURAL IRON TECH LAWYER INVITATIONAL BY CREATING AI-POWERED PLATFORM TO ASSIST INJURED WORKERSFour students from the University of Hong Kong won the inaugural Iron Tech Lawyer Invitational organised by Georgetown Law with an AI-powered casebank to assist injured workers to get the compensation they deserve.

The Iron Tech Lawyer Competition has been held for Georgetown Law students for 10 semesters by Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law and Policy. In 2020, for the first time, Georgetown Law created an Invitational for students from other law schools around the world who participated in academic courses or supervised independent study to incorporate technology for access to justice (A2J) projects with non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Originally, the student teams from around the world were scheduled to attend the finals in Washington DC. Alas, with the COVID-19 pandemic and suspension of travel and universities, the initial preliminary round, finals, and subsequent faculty workshop on teaching A2J technology, were held virtually across 5 time zones via Zoom.

The HKU team won first prize on April 17 by overcoming rigorous competition from 10 different student teams around the world. Many of the participating teams qualified for the Invitational only after being selected over competing teams in their own schools. All told, over 100 students

以人工智能創數據庫助傷病工人港大生於首屆鐵技律師邀請賽奪冠

四位香港大學的學生，以人工智能建立職業傷病

訴訟案例數據庫，於喬治城大學（喬大）科技法

律及政策研討所 (Institute for Technology Law and Policy) 的首屆鐵技律師邀請賽 (Iron Tech Lawyer Invitational) 取得冠軍。

鐵技律師校內賽已辦了十個學期，2020 年是喬

大首辦邀請賽，邀請全球研究將尋求司法公正

科技和非政府機構結合、或修讀相關課程的學生參加。

決賽原定於華盛頓進行，由於 2019 冠狀病毒病

令各地停航停學，初賽、決賽、尋求司法公正科

技的工作坊，均透過 Zoom 橫跨五個時區進行。

4 月 17 日港大隊伍擊退十支來自世界各地的隊伍

奪得冠軍。不少晉身邀請賽的隊伍需先在校內賽

勝出，而整個邀請賽共有過百名學生參與，提出

• May 2020


participated in creating projects for the Invitational, producing over 25 different projects for non-profit organizations.

Participating US law schools included Georgetown Law School, University of Pennsylvania - Carey Law School, University of California Davis - King Hall School of Law, Brooklyn Law School, University of Arizona - James E Rogers College of Law, Albany Law School and Richmond School of Law. International law schools included University of Hong Kong, University of Alberta - Faculty of Law and University of Melbourne – Melbourne Law School.

The finals judges were esteemed leaders in access to justice in the United States, comprising Karen Lash (former Executive Director of the White House Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable); Jim Sandman (president emeritus of Legal Services Corporation) and Miguel Willis (founder of Access to Justice Tech Fellows Program and inaugural Presidential Innovation Fellow at Law School Admission Council).

Competition judge Miguel Willis said: “I was very impressed with the winner of this year’s Iron Tech Lawyer Invitational - The University of Hong Kong team’s EC Casebank solution takes a novel and highly sophisticated approach to enhance the legal capability of injured workers’ to receive just compensation for their claims - within a simple and easy to use interface… showing much promise to empower workers to be active participants in the resolution of their claims. “

The winning team comprised project leader Chloe Lok Wing Chan, UX designer and programmer Cuthbert Chow, natural language processing (NLP) and data management lead Jasmine Chi Man Poon and business management lead Iverson Chun Ming Wong. The students were part of the first cohort of students of the LITE course held at Hong Kong University, which is part of LITE Lab@HKU, a new interdisciplinary and experiential programme to foster law, innovation, technology and entrepreneurship (LITE) led by founding executive director Brian Tang. During the first semester LITE course, class students also created legal-related projects using video animation, document automation and chatbots. In the second semester LITE Lab course, students are working with real-world tech startups and social entrepreneurs from Cyberport, iDendron and the Fintech Association of Hong Kong on cutting-edge legal-related projects. Mr Tang had previously been the organiser of LegalRegTechHack in conjunction with Global Legal Hackathon Hong Kong, where in its first year in 2018, the top team from Hong Kong won the top prize in New York, and LITE Lab@HKU currently invites lawyers and technologists from around the world to participate in its S.O.S e-Challenge to Save Our Small Businesses, Social Entrepreneurs and Startups as part of virtual FT Innovative Lawyers – Global Legal Hackathon Challenge due to COVID19.

As undergraduates, the four students were also the youngest Invitational participants, three of whom are law students and the fourth an arts and design student. The original idea arose when project leader Chloe Chan identified the lack of a user-friendly database when she worked at a personal injuries lawyer’s firm, and during the LITE course, the team worked with Neighbourhood and Worker’s Service Centre to better understand the needs of the relevant NGOs and injured workers, and then created a process and platform for collecting new data from that and other Hong Kong NGOs to add to the judicial decisions to feed to the open-source NLP engine from Allen Institute.

“The experience of bringing about EC Bank has boosted my sensitivity towards the closer connection between technological possibilities and legal realities, as well as getting acquainted with the adoption of LegalTech in streamlining legal processes,” said project leader Chloe Chan. Ms. Chan

超過 25 份為非政府機構設計的項目。

參賽的美國法學院包括：喬治城大學法學院、賓

夕法尼亞大學法學院、加州大學戴維斯分校法學

院、布魯克林法學院、阿利桑那大學法學院、奧

爾巴尼法學院、里士滿大學法學院。外地大學

則有香港大學、阿爾伯塔大學、墨爾本大學法學院。

決賽評審都是美國尋求司法公正界別的知名領袖

（Karen Lash（前白宮法律援助機構間圓桌會議行

政總監）；Jim Sandman（法律服務機構名譽會長）

及 Miguel Willis（尋求司法公正科技院士計劃創辦

人及法學院招生委員會首任會長創新院士 )。

當中 Miguel Willis 對港隊的表現尤其印象深刻：

「勝出隊伍的 EC 案例數據庫 (EC Casebank)，手

法新穎但成熟，用簡單易明的介面，加強對傷病

工人法律方面的支援，協助他們取得賠償，助工

人充權，在索償個案中更主動。」

港隊成員包括隊長陳洛穎、UX 設計及編碼員周

博彥、NLP 及數據管理人潘姿文、及業務管理人

黃俊銘。四人是港大 LITE Lab 旗下 LITE—法律 (Law)、創新 (Innovation)、科技 (Technology) 及

創業精神 (Entrepreneurship) 課程的首批學生。有

份創辦課程的課程主任陳華利，於 2018 年曾辦

與「全球法律科技黑客松（香港站）」一併舉行

的「法律規管科技黑客賽(LegalRegTechHack)」，

其時港隊已於紐約勝出。至於 LITE 課程，學生

需於第一學期時，運用影像、動畫、文件自動化

系統、聊天機器人，設計與法律相關之項目，然

後於第二學期和數碼港的初創企業及社企、港大

iDendron、以及香港科技金融協會合作，開發前

沿法律相關項目。目前 LITE Lab 正邀請世界各地

的律師和技術專家，參與因 2019 冠狀病毒病而

設、由「虛擬金融時報創新律師—全球法律科

技黑客松」支持的「SOS—拯救小企業、社企

及初創大挑戰」。

作為本科生，四位同學是邀請賽中最年輕的參賽

者，三人是法學生，一人是文學及設計生。得獎

作品的意念，來自隊長陳洛穎在專責人身傷害的

律師樓工作時，留意到行內並無易用的數據庫，

於是在 LITE 的課堂上，向街坊工友服務處（街工）

了解相關非政府機構和工人的需要，收集街工和

其他香港非政府機構、有關裁決，運用艾倫研究

所的開源 NLP 引擎，分析法庭案例及判決理據。

隊長陳洛穎：「開發案例數據庫的經驗，使我對

如何連繫科技應用和法律現況更敏感、且更熟習



said that some of her learnings included “having [to] overcome obstacles such as the building a trustful and collaborative relationship with the participating NGOs, designing a UX/UI that best fits the product users and obtaining their feedback back and forth, as well as choosing and finetuning the key factors to be extracted from court judgements.”

Design student Jasmine Poon first because acquainted with LITE Lab@HKU and legaltech through participating in a LITE Lab@HKU mentored team for the Law Society of Hong Kong’s Belt & Road Justice Challenge. “The [LITE] course's projects have been a hackathon of sorts and a crash course for law students to touch upon the basics of entrepreneurship and technology.”

"It was very exciting to see student teams from around the world - including from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and the United States — present projects they had completed in a single semester,” said organiser Professor Tanina Rostain of Georgetown Law. “All the projects were spectacular, in each case thoughtfully designed to address an important civil legal problem using very sophisticated digital tools. It was especially inspiring in these terrible times to see students who are deeply committed to using technology to improve access to civil justice — and who will be carrying forward this commitment as they embark on their careers as lawyers and technologists. Congratulations to Hong Kong, UC Irvine, Melbourne, and all the other teams who participated."

After the course and their competition submission, the students have been busy. They recruited new student team members with computer science backgrounds; competed and won the AI Future Tense Pitch Competition organised as part of Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups’ HSBC Future Skills Training Programme; incorporated a company and named it Litex Limited (after the course); and have been accepted into Hong Kong Science and Technology Park’s Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Program.

LITE Lab@HKU’s Brian Tang was very proud of his students. “LITE Lab@HKU provides a sandbox and support for diverse students to connect, develop design-thinking and computational law mindsets and skillsets and create solutions through “hackathon as pedagogy”. Full credit goes to this driven team who showed a lot of initiative and ingenuity to not only come up with and prototype a unique solution, but who also want to find a sustainable way to maintain the project and potentially expand into personal injuries. We look forward to supporting them in their impactful endeavours.”

For further information, please contact the following: Brian Tang Founding executive director LITE Lab@HKU [email protected]

如何使用法律科技以簡化法律程序」，更學到「克

服不同難題，例如和合作的非政府機構建立互信

和協作的關係、取得用家的意見、繼而設計最適

合用家的 UX/UI、從法庭裁決提取決定性因素。」

設計學生潘姿文首次接觸 LITE Lab 和法律科技，

是因為參加了港大隊伍，在 LITE Lab 指導下參加

了香港律師會的一帶一路公正挑戰賽。「課程上

的項目，正是讓法學生認識創業精神和科技的基

本的速成班。」

喬大 Tanina Rostain 教授：「能看到來自世界各

地—澳洲、加拿大、香港和美國的學生，以及

他們用了一個學期預備的項目，實在令人興奮。這些項目都相當精彩，成熟地運用數碼工具，

對應當前重要的民事法律問題。特別在這艱難時

刻，能看到同學致力投入，運用科技來改善尋求

司法公法，真是令人安慰，恭喜所有參賽同學，

亦盼望他們日後無論成為律師還是技術專家，都

繼續帶著這份使命。」

完成課程和比賽的同學並未有停下來，他們繼續

招募有計算機科學底子的新成員；參加香港青年

協會「滙豐未來技能培訓計劃」的人工智能將來

式 (AI Future Tense) 比賽並且勝出；而成立的公

司「說法」，更獲香港科學園認可加入科技企業

家計劃 (STEP)。

港大 LITE Lab 陳華利為學生感到非常自豪：「LITE Lab@HKU 提供了沙盒，幫助來自不同學科的同

學連結、發展設計思維、計算法思維和技巧，以

黑客松為教學法，讓學生學習解難。全靠這支充

滿主意和獨創性的隊伍，他們不但提出獨特解決

方法，而且繼續將意念延續、延伸。我們期望繼

續支持他們的工作。」

如有查詢，請聯絡 LITE Lab@HKU 陳華利 ([email protected])。

• May 2020


Congratulations! Success of CUHK LAW Students in Vis Mooting Competitions 2020

恭喜！中大法律學院學生於 2020 年 Vis 國際模擬法庭比賽再創佳績

Winner of the Vis East Moot 2020

CUHK LAW was winner of the 17th Willem C. Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot (Vis East Moot)!

This year the Vis East Moot was held virtually from 22-29 March 2020. A total of 71 schools from 21 jurisdictions in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America, including top law school students from Harvard University, University College London, the University of Basel and Tsinghua University participated. To get to the final, the CUHK LAW team mooted against teams from Brazil, Germany, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam. The final was debated before a distinguished panel of international arbitration practitioners, including Ms. Paula HODGES QC, President of the London Court of International Arbitration, United Kingdom; Dr. Sabine STRICKER-KELLERER, an international lawyer and arbitrator from Germany; and Ms. Winnie TAM SC, JP, former Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association (2015-2017). The CUHK LAW team prevailed against the University of Sao Paulo Largo San Francisco from Brazil in the final round and won the moot championship. In addition, team member FAN Yin Cheung Kasper, a LLB student, received an Honourable Mention for his advocacy. (Further details: https://qrgo.page.link/EYjWp)

2020 年 Vis East Moot 國際模擬法庭比賽冠軍

中大法律學院贏得第 17 屆 Willem C. Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot (Vis East Moot) 國際模擬法庭比賽冠軍！

今年的 Vis East Moot 比賽於 3 月 22 至 29 日透過視像

平台舉行，有 71 間來自亞洲、大洋洲、歐洲、北美洲

和南美洲，合共 21 個司法地區的院校參賽，學生來自

全球多所頂尖法律學院，包括哈佛大學、倫敦大學學

院、巴塞爾大學及清華大學等。中大法律學院隊伍與

來自巴西、德國、印度、印尼、新加坡、台灣及越南

的團隊進行多輪比賽，取得決賽的資格。進入決賽的

隊伍於傑出國際仲裁員評判團面前進行辯論，他們包

括英國倫敦國際仲裁院 (London Court of International Arbitration) 主席 Paula Hodges 御用大律師、德國國際

法律師和仲裁員 Sabine Stricker-Kellerer 博士及香港大

律師公會前主席 (2015-2017) 譚允芝資深大律師，JP。

中大團隊最終擊敗巴西聖保羅大學 (University of Sao Paulo Largo San Francisco)，贏得冠軍；修讀法律學士

課程的范彥璋同學更憑著精湛的訟辯技巧，取得個人榮

譽獎 Honourable Mention。（更多詳情：https://qrgo.page.link/EYjWp）



Success in the Vis Vienna Moot 2020

Further to their victory in the Vis East Moot, the CUHK LAW team also excelled in the 27th Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (Vis Vienna Moot) held virtually from 4-9 April 2020.

The virtual Vis Vienna Moot attracted over 240 teams from top institutions around the globe, including King’s College London, New York University, University of Heidelberg, etc. The CUHK LAW team defeated teams from Czechia (former Czech Republic), Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Switzerland in the competitive rounds and advanced to the quarter final. In a fiercely contested quarter final, the CUHK LAW team was eliminated by West Bengal National University of Juridical Science from India, who went to win the championship of the competition.

The CUHK LAW team was proud to have received a number of awards, including the Honourable Mentions (top 10%) for their Memorandum for the Claimant and for their Memorandum for the Respondent, and two Honourable Mentions (top 10%) for advocacy (LAM Ka Long Patrick and LIU Tsz Yat).

The Willem C. Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot and its sister moot, The Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, are the largest international arbitration mooting competitions in the world. The CUHK LAW students who took part in the competitions this year include CHOI Ho Yin (LLB), FAN Yin Cheung Kasper (LLB), GONG Runtong (PCLL), LAI Wing Sum Winsome (LLB), LAM Ka Long Patrick (LLB), LEUNG Ching Hang Christie (LLB), LI Yunyi Lucy (JD), LIU Tsz Yat (LLB), LOO Fai Yang Ferdinand (PCLL), LUI Kiu Yu Donald (JD) and WONG Lap Yan Michelle (JD). The team was coached by Professor Peter RHODES and supported by student coaches CHAN Chun Hei Alex (PCLL), HO Ngai Sum Esther (PCLL) and LEE Yu Tung Sharon (LLB), who were former Vis East Moot team members and shared their valuable competition experience and legal knowledge with the team.

Well done and congratulations again to the team for their remarkable achievements in the competitions!

2020 年 Vis Vienna Moot 國際模擬法庭比賽再獲佳績

中大法律學院隊伍延續他們在 Vis East Moot 的勝利，

於 2020 年 4 月 4 至 9 日透過視象平台舉行的第 27 屆

Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (Vis Vienna Moot) 國際模擬法庭比賽中再次取得佳績。

今年的 Vis Vienna Moot 吸引來自全球頂尖學府，逾 240個團隊參賽，包括倫敦國王學院、紐約大學、海德堡大

學等。中大法律學院隊伍擊敗來自捷克、德國、立陶宛、

波蘭、斯洛文尼亞和瑞士的團隊，晉級八強。在激烈

的八強賽事中，中大法律學院隊伍被印度 West Bengal National University of Juridical Science 的團隊淘汰，該

團隊其後贏得比賽冠軍。

中大法律學院隊伍在比賽中獲得多個獎項，包括

Honourable Mention for Memorandum for the Claimant 和

Honourable Mention for Memorandum for the Respondent榮譽獎。此外，林家朗同學和廖子逸同學亦憑著出色的

訟辯技巧，分別取得個人榮譽獎 Honourable Mention。

The Willem C. Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot 與其姊妹賽 The Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 均為全球最大規模的國際仲裁模擬法庭

比賽。今次代表中大參與兩項賽事的學生包括蔡皓賢（法

律學士）、范彥璋（法律學士）、龔閏通（法學專業證

書）、賴詠琛（法律學士）、林家朗（法律學士）、梁

婧珩（法律學士）、李芸逸（法律博士）、廖子逸（法

律學士）、盧暉洋（法學專業證書）、雷翹語（法律博士）

和王立欣（法律博士）。此外，曾參加 Vis East Moot 比

賽的陳俊熹（法學專業證書）、何藝心（法學專業證書）

和李于曈（法律學士）則擔任學生領隊，與一眾成員分

享他們寶貴的比賽經驗和法律知識。

團隊的表現十分出色，學院再次恭賀他們在兩項比賽中

的傑出成就！

CUHK LAW team members LIU Tsz Yat (left) and LAM Ka Long Patrick (right) received Honourable Mentions (top 10%) for their advocacy at the Vis Vienna Moot 2020.中大法律學院團隊成員廖子逸同學 ( 左 ) 和林家朗同學 ( 右 ) 於今年 Vis Vienna Moot 比賽中分別取得個人榮譽獎 Honourable Mention。

CUHK LAW team of the Vis East Moot and Vis Vienna Moot and the Faculty Coach, Professor Peter Rhodes (2nd right, front row)參加今次 Vis East Moot 和 Vis Vienna Moot 的中大法律學院團隊成員與教練羅德士教授 ( 前排右二 ) 合照。

• May 2020


New Courses 2020-21CUHK LAW will offer the following new courses in the academic year 2020-21:

• Legal Technologies (LLB, JD and LLM elective) – the course provides a broad introduction to the future of the legal profession in times when legal technologies are rapidly gaining importance.

• Law and Film (LLB, JD and LLM elective) – the course examines the ways in which law and the legal system are represented in a variety of films. It also considers the ways in which films engage with legal debates and controversies.

• Transnational Law After Empire (JD and LLM elective) – the course discusses the development of the common law during times of decolonization.

• Colonial Governance and the Rule of Law (JD and LLM elective) – the course explores the manner in which the history of empire has shaped both national and international legal orders.

New Courses 2020-21中大法律學院將於 2020-21 學年開辦下列新課程：

• 法律科技（法律學士、法律博士及法學碩士選修科）：

法律科技日益重要，本課程廣泛介紹法律專業的未來。

• 法律和電影（法律學士、法律博士及法學碩士選修

科）：本課程探究各種電影如何呈現法律和法律制

度，並討論電影如何演繹法律辯論和爭議。

• 英治期後的跨國法（法律博士及法學碩士選修科）：

本課程討論去殖民化時期普通法的發展。

• 殖民統治與法治（法律博士及法學碩士選修科）：本

課程探索英治歷史如何影響國內和國際的法律秩序。

Online Greater China Legal History SeminarsTHANK YOU for your support! CUHK LAW organised two online Greater China Legal History Seminars in April 2020 with record registrations of over a thousand each, filling the available quotas per seminar.

大中華區法律史網上研討會

感謝支持！中大法律學院於 2020 年 4 月舉行兩場網上研討會，均錄得滿額過千的登記人數。



“Collectors and Collections of Chinese Art and Antiquities: Problems with Gifts, Trusts and Legacies”

This CPD webinar delivered by CUHK LAW Professor Steven Gallagher on 3 April discussed the issues in forming, maintaining and disposing of collections, in particular of Chinese art and antiquities. The main focus was on issues involving title, authenticity and provenance in the acquisition and disposal of a collection of art and antiquities. This included problems with looted and stolen items and restrictions on the trade in art and antiquities including endangered species, for example ivory, and even human remains. Professor Gallagher concluded by considering the problems of disposing of collections – whether by selling, destroying or donating.

「中國藝術品和古物的收藏家與收藏品：

禮品、信託和遺產的問題」

此網上 CPD 研討會於 4 月 3 日舉行，由中大法律學院

Steven Gallagher 教授主講，討論收藏品，尤其是中國藝

術品和古物的保存和處置等議題。研討會重點探討收藏家

在獲取藝術品和古物時面對藏品的所有權、真偽和來源問

題，包括掠奪和盜竊物品，以及對藝術品和文物買賣（包

括瀕危物種，例如象牙，甚至人類遺骸）的限制等問題。

Gallagher 教授在總結中談及處理收藏品的問題—不論

是出售、銷毀還是捐贈。

Professor Steven Gallagher spoke on “Collectors and Collections of Chinese Art and Antiquities: Problems with Gifts, Trusts and Legacies”.Steven Gallagher 教授主講「中國藝術品和古物的收藏家與收藏品：禮品、信託和遺產的問題」。

• May 2020


“The Origins of Hong Kong’s Basic Law”

This CPD webinar discussed the origins and development of Hong Kong’s Basic Law. It was delivered by Professor Albert Chen, Cheng Chan Lan Yue Professor of Constitutional Law at The University of Hong Kong, on 17 April. The seminar started off with a detailed analysis on the negotiation processes between the British and Chinese governments and how it has laid the foundation for the guiding principle of one country two system prescribed in the Basic Law. Drawing from different archival sources, Professor Chen further presented a fascinating analysis pertinent to the genesis of the Basic Law and the roles and perspectives of different actors towards the future of Hong Kong. Professor Chen concluded by emphasising the potential for Hong Kong to reorient and move forward in constitutional development.

Watch the seminar video at https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/en/multimedia/greater_china_legal_history_seminar_series_1920_6_full.php.

「香港基本法的淵源」

此網上 CPD 研討會討論了香港《基本法》的歷史淵源和

發展。研討會於 4 月 17 日舉行，由香港大學法律學院鄭

陳蘭如基金憲法學教授陳弘毅教授主講。研討會首先詳細

分析了英國和中國政府之間的談判過程，以及它如何為

《基本法》所規定的一國兩制的指導原則奠定基礎。陳教

授利用不同的檔案資料，就有關《基本法》的產生和不同

人士對香港前程的角色和觀點，進行了精彩的分析和解

說。陳教授在總結時強調香港在憲政發展方面重新定位和

前進的潛力。

重溫研討會內容，請瀏覽 https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/en/multimedia/greater_china_legal_history_seminar_series_1920_6_full.php。

CUHK LAW Professor Lutz-Christian Wolff chaired the webinar on 17 April 2020.中大法律學院鄔楓教授主持 2020 年 4 月 17 日舉行的網上研討會。

Professor Albert Chen spoke on “The Origins of Hong Kong’s Basic Law”.陳弘毅教授主講「香港基本法的淵源」。



Upcoming Online Seminar - “The Development of Hong Kong’s Aviation Law after WWII” (22 May 2020)

In response to the enthusiastic support to the series, CUHK LAW is holding an additional online seminar “The Development of Hong Kong’s Aviation Law after WWII” by Professor Jae Woon Lee on 22 May 2020. Although aviation law does not have a long history, it has been rapidly developed since the World War II. The international nature of aviation underlines the need of international harmonisation. Therefore, aviation-specific multilateral treaties play a key role, while domestic aviation law retains an important place at the same time. The seminar will also review Hong Kong’s specific aviation law issues in chronological order.

For details and registration, please visit https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/en/event-page/20200522.php.

下一場網上研討會：「第二次世界大戰後香港航空法的發展」（2020 年 5 月 22 日）

為嚮應熱烈支持，中大法律學院將於 2020 年 5 月 22 日加開一場網上研討會，題為「第二次世界大戰後香港航空法

的發展」，講者是李載雲教授。儘管歷史不長，但航空法自第二次世界大戰以來迅速發展。航空的國際性質顯示了國

際協調的重要性，故針對航空的多邊條約在航空法中起著關鍵作用，而國內航空法則同時保持重要地位。研討會還將

順時回顧香港的航空法議題。

詳情及登記，請瀏覽 https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/en/event-page/20200522.php。

CUHK LAW e-Newsletter April 2020Read the latest CUHK LAW e-Newsletter at https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/eNewsletter/202004/

2020 年 4 月中大法律學院電子通訊

瀏覽最新一期中大法律學院電子通訊： https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/eNewsletter/202004/

• May 2020


Upcoming Online Conferences in June 20202020 年 6 月網上學術會議

“Directions in Legal Education 2020” – Call for Papers Extended to 31 May 2020

CUHK LAW has decided to take the conference “Directions in Legal Education 2020” online because of the present health concerns. In accordance with the change, the call for papers of the conference is now extended to 31 May 2020.

This online conference to be held on 18-20 June 2020 will serve as a hub for open discussion about the future of legal education in Hong Kong and around the world between international and local participants, including but not limited to educators, practitioners and students.

CUHK LAW welcomes abstract submissions on any themes and aspects related to legal education. The abstract in 250 words (with title of paper, author name(s), institutional affiliation and email address included) should be sent with the email subject “CUHK LAW abstract submission - (speaker name)” to Ms. Vivian Chen ([email protected]) on or before the extended deadline.

To attend the conference and learn more about the call, please visit www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/conf/2020/legal_education. Participation is free and early registration is encouraged.

「法律教育方向 2020」（論文提案截稿日延至 2020 年 5 月 31 日）

新冠肺炎疫情蔓延全球，考慮到健康原因，中大法律學院決定將「法律教育方向 2020」學術會議改為網上進行，會議論文提案截止日期亦會延長至 2020 年 5 月 31 日。

是次會議將於 2020 年 6 月 18 至 20 日舉行，將成為國際和本地參加者，包括但不限於教育工作者、從業員和學生之間就香港以及全球法律教育的未來進行公開討論的中心。

學院歡迎任何與法律教育相關的論文提案。有興趣參加者須將一份 250 字的論文提案（內含論文題目、作者姓名、所屬機構名稱和電郵地址），以「CUHK LAW abstract submission - (speaker name)」為題，於截稿日或之前電郵給陳慧華女士（[email protected]）。

如欲參加會議和了解更多論文提案的細節，請瀏覽 www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/conf/2020/legal_education。會議費用全免，請盡早報名。

“The Role of the Law of Unjust Enrichment in Asia”

The law of unjust enrichment is more or less recognised in all modern jurisdictions. The name suggests that nobody should enrich herself at the expense of another party. Details of even very fundamental aspects of the law of unjust enrichment are, however, highly disputed everywhere. In particular, in Asia the law of unjust enrichment seems to lead a shadow existence, is under-researched and creates practical problems even in the more developed jurisdictions such as Hong Kong or Singapore.

To explore related issues, CUHK LAW will hold an online conference “The Role of the Law of Unjust Enrichment in Asia” on 26 June 2020. For details and registration, please visit www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/conf/2020/unjust_enrichment.



Past and Upcoming Online Seminars回顧及即將舉辦的網上講座

「不當得利法在亞洲的角色」

不當得利法（law of unjust enrichment）在所有當代司法地區中或多或少得到認可。顧名思義，不當得利法的意思是任何人都不應該犧牲另一方的利益來令自己得益。然而，不當得利法的各個層面（小至非常基本層面的細節）在世界各地均存著具大爭議。尤其在亞洲，不當得利的法律似乎乏人問津和研究，甚至在較發達的司法地區（如香港和新加坡）產生實際問題。

為了探討相關議題，中大法律學院將於 2020 年 6 月 26 日舉行「不當得利法在亞洲的角色」網上學術會議。詳情及登記，請瀏覽 www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/conf/2020/unjust_enrichment。

Second Female Legal Leaders Seminar

CUHK LAW has organised the Female Legal Leaders Seminar series. It aims to enhance awareness regarding gender issues through sharing by speakers of their lives, their career highlights and how they have become who they are.

Following the highly successful inaugural seminar held in November 2019, CUHK LAW hosted the second Female Legal Leaders Seminar virtually on 23 April 2020. The seminar featured three distinguished speakers: Her Honour Judge Sharon MELLOY, Family Court Judge, District Court of Hong Kong; Ms. Sylvia W.Y. SIU, Consultant of Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum; and Ms. Winnie TAM, SC, JP, former Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association. The seminar was chaired by CUHK LAW Dean Professor Lutz-Christian Wolff and had a very good turnout of participants including students, alumni, academics and practitioners.

第二場女性法律領袖研討會

中大法律學院舉辦「女性法律領袖研討會」系列，目的

是透過講者的分享，包括她們的生活、職業及如何成為

現在的自己，從而提高參加者對性別議題的認識。

繼 2019 年 11 月首場研討會取得圓滿成功，中大法律學

院於 2020 年 4 月 23 日以網上形式舉行第二場「女性

法律領袖研討會」，由三位傑出女士主講，包括：香港

區域法院家事法庭法官麥莎朗法官、薛馮鄺岑律師行顧

問蕭詠儀女士，JP，以及香港大律師公會前主席譚允芝

女士，SC，JP。研討會由中大法律學院院長鄔楓教授主

持，出席者眾多，包括學生、校友、學者和業界人士。

The second Female Legal Leaders Seminar was delivered by three distinguished female legal leaders on 23 April 2020. 第二場女性法律領袖研討會於 2020 年 4 月 23 日舉行，由三位法律界的傑出女士主講。

The inaugural Female Legal Leaders Seminar organised in November 2019 was delivered by the Honourable Mrs. Justice Audrey CAMPBELL-MOFFAT, Ms. Emma DAVIES and Ms. Anna WU Hung-yuk.2019 年 11 月舉行的首場女性法律領袖研討會講者為金貝理法官、Emma Davies 女士及胡紅玉女士。

• May 2020


“Chinese Shipwrecks and the Law of Treasure Hunting”

The University has organised the “Class Acts” CUHK Online Talk Series which helps students in ongoing learning at home and self-improvement by acquiring knowledge in different areas during the pandemic. On 1 April 2020, CUHK LAW Professor Steven Gallagher gave the fifth talk on “Chinese Shipwrecks and the Law of Treasure Hunting”. He spoke about shipwrecks and treasure and explained the definition of people who find treasure and who can keep treasure. He also talked about the importance of Chinese shipwrecks in the development of the international law on treasure. Video of the seminar will be available on the CUHK website in due course.

「中國沉船與尋寶法」

中大舉辦「博文在線」網上公開講座，讓學生在疫情下仍能在

家中自我增值，學習不同領域知識，並展示中大優良的學術氛圍。

2020 年 4 月 1 日，法律學院 Steven Gallagher 教授主講第五場講座，題為「中國沉船與尋寶法」。Gallagher 教授在講座中圍繞沉船與

寶藏的主題，講解尋寶者、寶藏保管者的定義，以及中國沉船對推進有關尋寶國際法的重要性。講座的影片將上載至中大網頁。

“Legal Technologies and the Future of the Legal Profession”

On 27 March 2020, an online CPD talk on the highly relevant and current topic of “Legal Technologies and the Future of the Legal Profession” was hosted by Professor David Donald for CUHK LAW alumni. The talk examined commercial law in transition as data analytics allow many evaluative and transactional processes to be automated.

Upcoming Comparative Constitutional Law Research Forum Online Seminar: “Intersectional Discrimination” (4 May 2020)

CUHK LAW will hold a Comparative Constitutional Law Research Forum Online Seminar “Intersectional Discrimination” on 4 May 2020. The speaker, Professor Shreya Atrey from the University of Oxford, will talk about her new book Intersectional Discrimination (Oxford University Press 2019). The book examines the concept of intersectional discrimination and the difficulties that jurisdictions around the world have faced in redressing it in the field of discrimination law. For details and registration, please visit https://qrgo.page.link/wtwSC.

「法律科技與法律專業的未來」

2020 年 3 月 27 日，中大法律學院蕭大衛教授為畢業生主講

名為「法律科技與法律專業的未來」網上 CPD 講座。是次講

座題目非常合時和切身，探討了資料分析交易過程自動化給

商業法帶來的轉變。



Upcoming Corporate Law and Governance Cluster Online CPD Seminar: “Institutional Investors and Voting in Chinese Stock Markets” (18 May 2020)

The Corporate Law and Governance Cluster of the CUHK LAW Centre for Comparative and Transnational Law is hosting a CPD webinar “Institutional Investors and Voting in Chinese Stock Markets” by Professor Chao Xi on 21 May 2020. In his seminar, Professor Xi will present his empirical findings of a multi-year research project funded by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong on Shareholder Voting in China. His research constructs a unique dataset of the votes cast at the shareholders’ meetings of all Chinese A-share companies listed on the Main Board during the 2002-2017 period. It provides the first direct evidence of how shareholders (including institutional investors) vote in China’s A-share markets.

For details and registration, please visit www.law.cuhk.edu.hk.

下一場比較憲法研究論壇網上研討會：「交織歧視」（2020 年 5 月 4 日）

中大法律學院將於 2020 年 5 月 4 日舉辦比較憲法研究論壇網上研討會，題為「交織歧視」。講者牛津大學 Shreya Atrey 教授將

在會上主講她的新書《交織歧視》（Intersectional Discrimination ）（牛津大學出版社 2019）。該書探討了交織歧視的概念和世

界各個司法地區在反歧視法方面所面對的困難。詳情及報名，請瀏覽 https://qrgo.page.link/wtwSC。

公司法和治理專案組網上 CPD 研討會：「中國股市的機構投資者與投票權」（2020 年 5 月 18 日）

中大法律學院比較法與跨國法研究中心公司法和治理專案組（Corporate Law and Governance Cluster）將於 2020 年 5 月 18 日舉

行「中國股市的機構投資者與投票權」網上 CPD 研討會，由習超教授主講。習教授將於會上就香港研究資助局資助的一項有關

中國股東表決權的多年研究專案，發表其實證研究成果。他的研究構建了一個獨特的資料庫，收集 2002 至 2017 年期間在主機

板上市的所有中國 A 股公司股東大會上的投票情況。該研究為股東（包括機構投資者）如何在中國 A 股市場投票提供了第一個

直接證據。

詳情及報名，請瀏覽 www.law.cuhk.edu.hk。

Upcoming Online Cross-Border Legal Issues Dialogue Seminar: “The Effectiveness of Jurisdiction Clauses in Settling Hong Kong Forum Disputes” (8 May 2020)

CUHK LAW has initiated the Cross-Border Legal Issues Dialogue Seminar Series which provides a forum for practitioners, academics, the business community and the general public to engage in a dialogue on various issues arising from cross-border legal matters.

On 8 May 2020, the first virtual CPD seminar of the series will be given by Mr. Alan Gibb of CUHK LAW on the topic “The Effectiveness of Jurisdiction Clauses in Settling Hong Kong Forum Disputes”. For details and registration, please visit www.law.cuhk.edu.hk.

跨境法律問題網上對話會：「司法管轄權條款在處理香港法

庭糾紛中的效力」（2020 年 5 月 8 日）

中大法律學院舉辦跨境法律問題對話會系列，旨在提供對話

平台，讓從業員、學者、商界人士及公眾就跨境法律問題引發的各種議題展開對話。

首場網上 CPD 對話會將於 2020 年 5 月 8 日舉行，由中大法律學院 Alan Gibb 先生主講，題目是「司法管轄權條款在處理香港

法庭糾紛中的效力」。詳情及登記，請瀏覽 www.law.cuhk.edu.hk。

• May 2020


CityU has been awarded the Fali Nariman Award for the Best Respondent Memorandum in the 2020 Vis East Moot

The School of Law at City University of Hong Kong is pleased to announce that their team has been awarded the Fali Nariman Award for the Best Respondent Memorandum in the 17th Willem C. Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot.

Coaches: Campbell Herbert and Navin G. Ahuja

Team: LO Loras Yuen Sing (LLB), Chung Wan Ying Wannie (LLB), Peng Yanbing Sandra (LLMArbDR), Megan Fanning (LLMArbDR), Hong Wah Ngai Andy (PCLL), Cho Siu Man Linda (PCLL)

The Moot was held virtually in Hong Kong from 22-29 March 2020. The Willem C. Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot is a competition for law students from all countries. The Moot consists of the preparation of a memorandum for claimant, a memorandum for respondent and oral hearings. This year’s Moot Problem involved complex international commercial arbitration issues as well as challenging international sales law issues arising from the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”). This year’s rules are the LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014).

Apart from the Vis East Moot, the team was also awarded an Honourable Mention for the Best Memorandum for Respondent in the 27th Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot.

From left: Chung Wan Ying Wannie (LLB), Peng Yanbing Sandra (LLMArbDR), LO Loras Yuen Sing (LLB), Megan Fanning (LLMArbDR), Hong Wah Ngai Andy (PCLL), Cho Siu Man Linda (PCLL)



香港城市大學法律學院學生於 2020 Vis East Moot 國際模擬法庭比賽榮獲 Fali Nariman Award for the Best Respondent Memorandum

香港城市大學代表隊於第 17 屆 Willem C. Vis East 國際模擬法庭比賽勇奪 Fali Nariman Award for the Best Respondent Memorandum。

教練：Campbell Herbert 及 Navin G. Ahuja

成員：盧元勝 (LLB)、鍾韻盈 (LLB)、彭岩冰 (LLMArbDR)、Megan Fanning (LLMArbDR)、洪華毅 (PCLL)、左兆雯 (PCLL)

今年的比賽於 2020 年 3 月 22 至 29 日在網上進行。Willem C. Vis East 國際模擬法庭比賽每年吸引來自世界各地的法

律學生參加。比賽項目包括為原告準備書面備忘錄，為答辯人準備書面備忘錄和口頭辯論。今年比賽題目牽涉複雜的

國際商事仲裁議題以及由《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》衍生的問題。今年的適用規則為倫敦國際仲裁院仲裁規則 (2014)。

城大法律學院除了在 Vis East 取得佳績，他們亦在維也納的第 27 屆 Willem C. Vis 國際模擬法庭比賽獲得 Honourable Mention for the Best Memorandum for Respondent。

Top (from left): Hong Wah Ngai Andy (PCLL), Cho Siu Man Linda (PCLL), LO Loras Yuen Sing (LLB) Bottom (from left): Megan Fanning (LLMArbDR), Chung Wan Ying Wannie (LLB), Peng Yanbing (LLMArbDR)

• May 2020


Coronavirus: How the education system could cope with a shutdownIn February, The University of Law (ULaw) launched a number of initiatives at its Hong Kong campus, including suspension of all face to face teaching, due to the outbreak of Covid-19 in the city.

For all Universities, of utmost importance is ensuring continuity of study for students and to that end that institutions are able to continue to deliver online workshops and lectures in real-time, to ensure students are receiving their scheduled training from home.

Here are some ideas Universities should consider:

1. Follow the advice from the GovernmentTo ensure the safety of staff and students, Universities should follow the advice of the Government at all times.

2. Virtual classroomsStudents and staff should be provided with links to access the virtual classrooms and staff should have a document to hand that is easy to access, providing the links for the virtual classrooms for each campus.

3. Student wellbeingEnsure dedicated members of staff are on hand to contact students frequently to check on their wellbeing and answer any questions or concerns they may have - this can be done via virtual systems that providers may introduce. Staff should make sure each student knows they’re fully supported throughout this process and that their wellbeing and studies are extremely important to the university.

4. Extracurricular activities The social distancing affects everyone both staff and students, therefore try and schedule extracurricular sessions for students to engage in online. We recommend Universities consider running a broad range of activities to keep both staff and students engaged, whilst continuing learning and development throughout the process.

5. Regular and consistent communicationSharing newsletters with both staff and students during the closure will ensure both parties are kept informed of relevant business updates. This gives Universities the opportunity to communicate any further plans or actions that are being put into place with staff and students.

No one had planned for this outbreak, however, there are many measures providers can put into place to continue educating. I can’t stress enough the importance of following government guidelines and putting strict measures in place based on its recommendations.

新冠病毒：教育制度如何配合停課安排

因應香港的新型冠狀病毒疫情，英國法律大學

（The University of Law）香港分校於 2 月推出多

項措施，包括全面暫停以面授形式授課。

對於各大院校而言，當務之急是確保學生可繼續

學習，以及院校能繼續實時提供網上工作坊及講

課，確保學生可在家中參與已編排的課堂。

以下是各大院校應予考慮的若干意見：

1. 遵循政府的建議

為確保教職員和學生的安全，各大院校應時刻

遵循政府的建議。

2. 虛擬課室

各大院校應為學生和教職員提供進入虛擬課堂

的連結，教職員應有便於存取的文檔，提供各

個校園虛擬課堂的連結。

3. 學生福祉

確保有專職人員經常與學生保持聯繫，掌握他

們的健康狀況並解答他們可能碰上的問題或疑

慮，這可透過教育機構可能採用的虛擬系統來

辦到。教職員應確保每名學生都知道校方在此

期間會給予他們全力支持，並且十分關心他們

的健康和學習情況。

4. 課外活動

保持社交距離對每位教職員和學生皆造成影

響，因此，請嘗試為學生安排可於網上參與的

課外活動。我們建議各大院校可考慮在停課期

間舉辦各類活動，令教職員和學生可參與其

中，同時可繼續學習和發展。

5. 保持恆常溝通

停課期間，與教職員和學生分享學校通訊，確

保雙方掌握有關情況的最新發展。這將有助各

大院校向教職員和學生傳達將會實施的任何進

一步計劃或行動。

雖然沒有人會一早為這場疫情的出現而作出任何

計劃，但教育機構可採取多項措施確保可繼續授

課。我必須一再強調，我們必須遵循政府指引並

根據政府建議採取嚴格的措施。


• December 2017


LEGAL TRIVIA #62

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

Legal Trivia Quiz #61 Winner: Mengwei (Maria) Ma, Legal Counsel, Credit Suisse (Hong Kong) Limited

By Navin G. Ahuja

1. An exporter in the People’s Republic of China sells a container of goods to an importer in Germany. The parties agree in writing that French law would govern their contract. The parties have a disagreement regarding the applicable law to their contract. Which law should the judge or arbitrator find applicable to the parties’ contract?A. French law should apply as per the

parties’ written agreement in the contract.

B. Chinese law should apply as that is of the seller’s jurisdiction.

C. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) as both parties are from CISG Contracting States and the parties have not opted out of the CISG. French law might also apply if the dispute touches on areas not covered by the CISG.

2. In relation to international tort, which House of Lords decision has commonly been described as difficult to comprehend and perceived by some as not having a ratio at all?A. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850B. Chaplin v Boys [1971] AC 356C. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners

Ltd [1964] AC 465

3. Who fits the following description: He was a law graduate, a gentleman-soldier, a mathematician, a natural philosopher and a metaphysician who kept his home address a secret as his rationale was “he who lives well-hidden, lives well”. He actively encouraged people to think believing that it was vital, which might be the reason why he never got out of bed before 11am. He coined the phrase - “cogito, ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am”.A. René DescartesB. Ronald DworkinC. John AustinD. Immanuel Kant

4. A type of passing off where people fraudulently copy the websites of for example banks, so as to fool visitors to the site into believing that they are visiting the true website of the institution concerned is legally referred to as:A. BaitB. FishingC. Phishing

5. A shop in Hong Kong displays a “no refund” or “no guarantee” sign. A consumer purchases an item from that shop which is, shortly after, found to be defective. The consumer is not entitled to a refund on the basis that the signs posted are binding on the consumer.A. TrueB. False

6. In the area of medical negligence, which UK Supreme Court decision departed from the clichéd and out of control Bolam test thereby restoring it to its intended scope of matters of medical expertise in negligence? A. Sidaway v Board of Governors of the

Bethlem Royal HospitalB. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health BoardC. Chester v Afshar

7. The carriage of goods by sea is governed by a fragmentation of laws. A. True. First came the Hague Rules. Some

States were not satisfied with some of the provisions and subsequently adopted the Hague Visby Rules. Some States were not satisfied with some or all of the provisions and subsequently adopted the Hamburg Rules.

B. False. Only the Hamburg Rules currently governs the law on carriage of goods.

C. False. Only the Rotterdam Rules currently governs the law on carriage of goods.

8. Which Convention consisting of a total of 16 Articles covering more than 4 pages is perceived as one of the most successful treaties in international trade law?A. The ICSID ConventionB. The CISGC. The New York Convention

9. One of the key features of international arbitration is that arbitral awards can be enforced internationally through the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the New York Convention”). There are 163 jurisdictions (“Convention States”) that are party to the New York Convention. By so adopting the New York Convention, these Member States have undertaken to enforce arbitral awards as though they were final judgments of their own highest courts. This means that a party can take an arbitral award made in one New York Convention State and seek to enforce it in another New York Convention State through a relatively simple enforcement process. However, one of them recognizes less than half of the 163 Convention States. Which one is it?A. IndonesiaB. IranC. IndiaD. IsraelE. Iceland

• May 2020


法律知識測驗 #62

競賽規則：

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

第 61 期「法律知識測驗」獲獎者：

馬夢蔚，法務，瑞士信貸（香港）有限公司

作者：Navin G. Ahuja

1. 中華人民共和國的一名出口商向德國

的一名進口商出售一個貨櫃的貨物。

雙方書面同意以法國法律管轄他們的

合約。一旦發生爭議，案件就會提交

法院或仲裁庭。雙方對其合約的適用

法律存在分歧。法官或仲裁員應該認

為哪一種法律適用於當事人的合約？

A. 根據雙方在合約中的書面約定，

應該用法國法律。

B. 應該用中國法律，因為那是賣方

所在司法管轄區的法律。

C. 《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》

（《銷售公約》），因為雙方都來

自《銷售公約》締約國，而且雙

方都沒有選擇退出《銷售公約》。

如果爭議涉及「銷售公約」未涵

蓋的領域，法國法律也可能適用。

2. 關於國外的侵權案，上議院的哪項裁

決通常被描述為難以理解，並被一些

人認為完全沒有判決理由？

A. Bolton v Stone[1951]AC 850

B. Chaplin v Boys[1971]AC 356

C. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd[1964]AC 465

3. 誰適合這樣的描述：他是法律系畢業

生、紳士軍人、數學家、自然哲學家

和形而上學學者。他對自己的家庭住

址保密，因為他的理由是「誰住得隱

蔽，誰就生活得好」。他積極鼓勵人

們思考，聲稱這是至關重要的，這可

能是他在上午 11 點之前從未起床的原

因。他有一句名言：「我思，故我在」。

A. 勒內．笛卡爾 (René Descartes)

B. 羅納德．德沃金 (Ronald Dworkin)

C. 約翰．奧斯汀 (John Austin)

D. 伊曼紐爾．康德 (Immanuel Kant)

4. 人們作出一種假冒行為，欺詐地複製

例如銀行的網站，以欺騙網站的訪問

者，使其相信他們訪問的是有關機構

的真實網站，這種類型的冒充行為在

法律上稱為：

A. 誘餌

B. 釣魚

C. 網絡釣魚

5. 香港的一家商店展示「不退款」或「不

擔保」的標誌。一名消費者從那家商

店購買了一件商品，但不久後該商品

就被發現是有瑕疵的。消費者無權獲

得退款，因為張貼的標誌對消費者具

有約束力。

A. 真實

B. 虛假

6. 在醫療過失方面，英國最高法院的哪個

案件偏離了陳詞濫調和失控的「保林驗

證標準」（Bolam test），從而使其恢

復到其預期的醫療過失事項範圍？

A. Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital

B. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

C. Chester v Afshar

7. 海上貨物運輸受各種各樣法律的管轄。

A. 真實。首先是《海牙規則》。一

些國家對其中一些條款不滿意，

隨後採納了《海牙維斯比規則》

（Hague Visby Rules）。一些國家

對部分或全部規定不滿意，隨後

採納了《漢堡規則》。

B. 虛假。目前只有《漢堡規則》管

理關於貨物運輸的法律。

C. 虛假。目前只有《鹿特丹規則》

管理關於貨物運輸的法律。

8. 哪項公約共有 16 條條款、超過 4 頁，

被認為是國際貿易法中最成功的條約

之一？

A. 《國際投資爭議解決中心公約》

B. 《銷售公約》

C. 《紐約公約》

9. 9. 國際仲裁的一個主要特點是，仲裁

裁決可以通過《承認及執行外國仲裁

裁決公約》（《紐約公約》）在國際

上執行。有 163 個司法管轄區（「公

約國」）是《紐約公約》的締約國。

通過《紐約公約》，這些成員國承諾

執行仲裁裁決，就猶如這些裁決是本

國最高法院的最終判決一樣。這意味

著當事各方可以接受在一個「紐約公

約國」作出的仲裁裁决，並通過相對

簡單的執行程序尋求在另一個「紐約

公約國」執行該裁决。然而，其中一

個國家承認不到一半的 163 個公約國

家。是哪一個？

A. 印度尼西亞

B. 伊朗

C. 印度

D. 以色列

E. 冰島

May 2020 • LEGAL TRIVIA QUIZ 法律知識測驗

• December 2017


1. C. The following have found that the CISG does apply to Hong Kong:• UNITED STATES FederalDistrict Court [Arkansas] (Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Electric Motors, Ltdet al.) 23

December 2009, http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/091223u1.html;• UNITED STATES Federal District Court [Illinois] (CNA Int’l, Inc. v.Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings et al.) 3

September 2008, http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080903u1.html.

The following have found that the CISG does not apply to Hong Kong:• FRANCE, Cour de cassation(Telecommunications products case) 2 April 2008 http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/

cases/080402f1.html; • UNITED STATES. Federal District Court [Georgia] (Innotex PrecisionLimited v. Horei, Inc., et al.) 17 December

2009 http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/091217u1.html;• AUSTRALIA Federal Court [South AustraliaDistrict] 24 October 2008 (Hannaford v Australian Farmlink Pty Ltd)

http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081024a2.html; • Yongping and Long Weidi, Selected Topics on the Application of the CISG in China, 20 Pace Int’l L. Rev. 61, 79

(2008);• John Mo, Transfer of Sovereignty and Application of an International Convention:Case of CISG in the Context of

‘One Country, Two Systems’ (2015) 2:1 JICL 66.

2. A. It was in 1990, when Hong Kong became the first Asian jurisdiction to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

3. C. “Big Crook” was Chan-Nai-Ming’s nickname: see Chan Nai-Ming v HKSAR [2007] 3 HKC 255.

4. B. Tort is a French word for civil wrong. Action is a French word for action.

5. A. Section 22B(1) Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap. 23) states: “If a child is born disabled as the result of such an occurrence before its birth as is mentioned in subsection (2) and a person (other than the child’s own mother) is under this section answerable to the child in respect of the occurrence, the child’s disabilities are to be regarded as damage resulting from the wrongful act of that person and actionable accordingly at the suit of the child.”

6. C. Known as the double actionability rule.

7. A. See s. 44A High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4).

8. A. Prior to 1971, the Qing/Tsing law applied to a Chinese intestate.

9. B. It has been suggested that Hong Kong’s organ donation rate is among the lowest in the world.

10. C. Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) “applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward.”

Answers to Legal Trivia Quiz #61

• May 2020


1. C.以下案例裁定《銷售公約》適用於香港：• 美國聯邦地區法院 [ 阿肯色州 ] (Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Electric Motors, Ltdet al.) 2009年 12月 23日，

http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/091223u1.html；• 美國聯邦地區法院 [ 伊利諾伊州 ] (CNA Int'l, Inc. v.Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings et al.) 2008年 9月 3日，http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080903u1.html.

以下案例及資料顯示《銷售公約》不適用於香港：

• 法國，Cour de cassation(Telecommunications products case) 2008年 4月 2日 http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080402f1.html；

• 美國。聯邦地區法院 [ 佐治亞州 ] (Innotex PrecisionLimited v. Horei, Inc., et al.) 2009 年 12 月 17 日， http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/091217u1.html；

• 澳大利亞聯邦法院 [ 南澳大利亞區 ] 2008 年 10 月 24 日 (Hannaford v Australian Farmlink Pty Ltd) http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081024a2.html；

• Yongping and Long Weidi, Selected Topics on the Application of the CISG in China, 20 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 61, 79 (2008)；

• John Mo, Transfer of Sovereignty and Application of an International Convention:Case of CISG in the Context of ‘One Country, Two Systems (2015) 2:1 JICL 66.

2. A. 1990年，香港成為亞洲第一個採納《聯合國國際貿易法委員會國際商事仲裁示範法》的司法管轄區。

3. C. 陳乃明訴香港特別行政區 [2007] 3HKC 255：陳乃明的綽號是「古惑天皇」

4. B. Tort是法語中民事過錯的意思。Action是法語中民事訴訟的意思。

5. A. 《法律修訂及改革（綜合）條例》（第 23章）第 22B（1）條述明：「如兒童在出生前受到第（2）款所述的事故影響，以致在出生時殘疾，而根據本條，某人（兒童的母親除外）須就該事故對該兒童負責，則

須視該兒童的殘疾為該人的錯誤作為所引致的損傷，而該兒童可據此而提出訴訟。」

6. C. 稱為雙重可訴性規則。

7. A. 見《高等法院條例》（第 4章）第 44A條。

8. A. 1971年以前，清朝法律適用於中國無遺囑者。

9. B. 有人指出，香港的器官捐贈率是世界上其中一個最低的地方。

10. C. 《統一國際航空運輸某些規則的公約》（《蒙特利爾公約》）第 1條第（1）款「適用於所有由航空器為報酬而進行的人員、行李或貨物的國際運輸。」

法律知識測驗 #61 的答案

May 2020 • LEGAL TRIVIA QUIZ 法律知識測驗


Bringing Clarity to an Area of Confusion The Unruly New Territories: Small Houses, Ancestral Estates, Illegal Structures and Other Customary Land Practices of Rural Hong Kong, by Malcolm Merry, published by Hong Kong University Press

Great Britain’s acquisition of the New Territories, courtesy of the 1898 Convention of Peking, was hardly

a harmonious affair – perfectly understandable since the area’s 100,000 inhabitants had not been consulted about it. The formal taking-over ceremony on 16 April the following year, at a camp on a hill outside Taipo, took place amid fierce fighting. Several thousand men – bands of clan members supplemented with mercenary Chinese soldiers – offered uniformed, trained and armed resistance and caught the new rulers by surprise, first bombarding the camp with artillery and then attacking it in numbers. The British, with their modern weapons and superior training, plus support from the guns and crew of a Royal Navy destroyer, HMS Fame, quickly snuffed out the rebels, leaving some 500 resisters dead with the rest scattered to the hills.

Hong Kong’s new governor, Sir Henry Blake, knowing he needed co-operation from inhabitants if the new arrangement was to have any hope of working, was magnanimous in victory while clan elders who had organised the uprising quickly understood further resistance was futile. The two sides soon came to a working understanding,

much of it based on pragmatism and mutual distrust, thus setting the template for the next century.

Vivid descriptions of those wild and chaotic times pepper the opening pages of Malcolm Merry’s new book, The Unruly New Territories: Small Houses, Ancestral Estates, Illegal Structures and Other

Customary Land Practices of Rural Hong Kong, which offers what may come to be regarded as the definitive guide to

Chinese custom and rule of law in the large expanse of land north of Kowloon.

The author, a barrister and adjunct professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, expertly picks his way through the bewildering complexities that arise when incoming administrators are compelled to impose their modern rules and regulations on a civilisation that has been doing things differently for centuries. The divisions – and quite often they were yawning gaps – between local custom and common law form the backbone of this exhaustive study.

Essentially, the relationship between the rural landowners a n d t h e a u t h o r i t i e s downtown, both before and after 1997, has been a marriage of convenience. The former have been tenacious in asserting their rights, the latter have swung between appeasement and occasional confrontation, with each side

only picking fights they think they can win. The author, with his natural appreciation of fairness and equality, does not hide his disdain for either party when he feels they overstepped the mark.

Reviewed by Fiona Chan,Partner, Boase Cohen & Collins

• May 2020


The Heung Yee Kuk, or Rural Representative Council, the foundations of which were formed in 1926, started out with the intention of promoting the welfare of the people of the New Territories, but the author notes: “Within a generation of the absorption of the area into the vibrant Western-style colony of Hong Kong, native leaders had resolved to exploit the opportunities it created. They have been doing so ever since. Making difficulties for the government has been part of their method, and a successful one.”

Similarly, he is somewhat withering in his appraisal of how the controversial Small House Policy – which makes land available at preferential prices to male villagers so they can build a house for their families – was presented and introduced by the government in 1972. The then district commissioner for the New Territories, Denis Bray, first negotiated with the Heung Yee Kuk and then drew up a confidential discussion paper for the Executive Council. The author concludes: “The overall impression given by the paper is of a subtly deceptive presentation of a sensitive change of position materially favouring one section of the rural population, dressed up as a major reform aimed at improving health and safety

and preserving village identity.”

Having called out the Small House Policy in such fashion, the book details the inevitable building boom which followed and how a delighted Mr Bray attributed it to a “terrific pent-up demand for legitimate development”. Not so, says the author, who opines: “It would have been more accurate to say there was a terrific demand for speculative gain.” He goes on to devote an entire chapter to what he diplomatically calls “exploitation”, carefully avoiding more judgmental descriptions such as “abuse” and “misuse”, as one after another villager declined to live in his new house and instead sold it to an outsider at a handsome profit.

A further chapter is devoted to the lawfulness of the Small House Policy and here the author lasers in on gender inequality, stating: “The policy discriminates blatantly against women. Its discriminatory character has been implicitly acknowledged by the colonial Hong Kong government, the HKSAR government and the PRC government, each of whom have at various times excepted the policy from measures taken to combat sex discrimination.”

He concludes the book with a long lament

regarding the state of the modern New Territories –swathes of land covered with concrete or hardcore, used as builders’ yards, car dumps, storage areas and container depots, or simply fenced off and left to the weeds. In surveying the ugliness of these “brown field” sites, he analyses how the administration lost control over the use of land in the last two decades of the 20th century as land values were rising, agriculture declining and cross-border trade booming. At a time when we are more aware than ever of the need for environmental protection, it is a sorry tale.

In summarising the unique history of the New Territories and the indigenous people living there, the author is typically forthright: “Looking back over the past 120 years, if one were seeking a distinguishing feature of rural people who can trace their ancestors to the villages of 1898, it would not be sense of place or reverence for the past but rather disdain for the rules.”

Malcom Merry is to be congratulated for bringing clarity and perspective to a hugely complex and often misunderstood subject. His comprehensive study is surely destined to become standard reading for law students and legal professionals alike.

給一個混亂的領域帶來澄清"The Unruly New Territories: Small Houses, Ancestral Estates, Illegal Structures and Other Customary Land Practices of Rural Hong Kong" 作者：Malcolm Merry 著，香港大學出版社出版

書評撰寫者：陳展樑布高江律師行合夥人

英國根據 1898 年《北京條約》

取得新界，但這並不是一件

和平的事件，這是完全可以

理解的，因為當地的十萬居民沒有就

此事獲得進行磋商。次年 4 月 16 日，

在激烈的戰鬥進行中，於大埔郊外

山上的一個營地舉行了正式的接管

儀式。數千名男子 – 由宗族成員組

成的團體，並由中國僱傭兵支援—

獲提供了制服、訓練，作出武裝抵

抗，讓新統治者措手不及。他們先用

大炮轟炸了營地，然後又對其進行了

大量攻擊。英國人憑藉其現代化的

武器和卓越的訓練，加上皇家海軍

驅逐艦 HMS Fame 的槍支和船員的支

持，迅速撲滅了反抗，留下約五百

名死亡的抵抗者，其餘人分散逃到山上。

May 2020 • BOOK REVIEW 新書速遞


香港新任總督卜力爵士（Sir Henry Blake）知道，如果新安排要有任何

奏效的希望，他需要居民的合作。他

在勝利中表現得寬宏大量，而組織起

義的宗族長老很快就明白，進一步的

抵抗是徒勞的。雙方很快達成了有用

的諒解，其中很大部分是基於實用主

義和相互的不信任，也從而為下個世

紀設定了模板。

Malcolm Merry 在其新書“The Unruly New Territories: Small Houses, Ancestral Estates, Illegal Structures and Other Customary Land Practices of Rural Hong Kong”的開篇，

對那些狂野和混亂的時代進

行了生動的描述，這本書可

以被視為有關九龍以北這大

片土地上中國習俗和法治的

明確指南。

作者是一名大律師，也是香

港大學法學院的一名兼任教

授，他深入淺出地闡釋了一

些困惑的複雜問題，例如當

時即將上任的行政人員被迫

將他們的現代規章制度强加

於一個幾個世紀以來一直在

以不同方式行事的社會而引

起的問題。當地習俗和普通

法之間的分歧—而且往往

是巨大的差距—構成了這

項詳盡研究的主題。

從本質上說，1997 年前和

1997 年後，農村土地擁有者

和市中心權力當局之間的關

係一直是一種權宜之計。前

者一直頑强地維護自己的權

利，後者在綏靖和偶爾的對抗之間

搖擺，雙方都只挑起他們認為自己

能贏的戰鬥。作者對公平和平等有

著與生俱來的欣賞，當他覺得任何

一方越界時，他都毫不掩飾他對他

們的蔑視。

鄉議局成立於 1926 年，初衷是促進

新界居民的福祉，但作者指出：「在

將該地區併入充滿活力的西式殖民

地香港不到一代人的時間裏，當地領

導人就決心利用它創造的機會。從那

以後，他們就一直在這麽做。給政府

添麻煩一直是他們其中一種方法，也

是一種成功的方法。」

同樣，他在評估有爭議的「小型屋宇

政策」時也有些退縮—該政策讓

男性村民可以優惠的價格獲得土地，

這樣他們就可以為家人建造一座房

子—政府在 1972 年提出和引入了

這一政策。當時的新界民政署署長黎

敦義（Denis Bray），先與鄉議局磋

商，然後向行政局提交一份機密討論

文件。作者的結論是：「這份文件給

人的總體印象是一種微妙的欺騙性

陳述，展示了一種敏感的立場轉變；

它實質上有利於一部分農村人口，卻

僞裝成一項旨在改善健康和安全、保

持村莊特徵的重大改革。」

這本書以這種方式宣揚了「小型屋宇

政策」，詳細描述了隨之而來的不可

避免的建築熱潮，以及欣喜若狂的黎

敦義先生如何將其歸因於「對合法發

展的被壓抑的巨大需求」。但作者認

為並非如此，他認為：「更準確的說

法是，對投機性收益的需求非常旺

盛。」當一位又一位村民拒絕住進他

們的新房子裏，卻轉而把它們賣給外

人，賺取了豐厚的利潤時，他接著用

整整一章的篇幅講述了他外交辭令

中所說的「剝削」，並小心翼翼地避

免了「濫用」和「誤用」等更具批判

性的描述。

另一章專門討論了「小型屋宇政策」

的合法性，作者在這裏對性別不平等

進行了猛烈抨擊，他說：「這

項政策公然歧視婦女。殖民

地時期的香港政府、香港特

別行政區政府和中華人民共

和國政府都默許了這項政策

的歧視性，並在不同時期將

這項政策排除在打擊性別歧

視的措施之外。」

他在書的結尾對現代新界的

狀況進行了長篇大論的哀

嘆—大片土地被混凝土或

碎石塊墊層覆蓋，被用作建

築工場、汽車傾倒場、儲藏

區和貨櫃箱倉庫，或者只是

用柵欄隔開，導致雜草叢生。

在調查這些「棕地」的醜陋

之處時，他分析了在 20 世紀

最後 20 年，隨著地價上漲、

農業衰落、跨境貿易蓬勃發

展，政府是如何失去對土地

使用的控制。在我們比以往

任何時候都更加意識到環境

保護的時候，這是一個令人

遺憾的故事。

在總結新界的獨特歷史和居

住在當地的原居民時，作者直言不

諱：「回顧過去 120 年，如果要尋找

農村人的一個特色，他們的祖先可以

被追溯到 1898 年的村莊，但這不是

對過去的地方感或崇敬，而是對規則

的蔑視。」

Malcom Merry 為一個極其複雜且經常

被誤解的主題帶來了清晰認知和新

視角，值得祝賀。他的綜合研究結果

注定會成為法律系學生和法律專業

人士的標準讀物。

• May 2020


By Michael Gregory, ASA, CVA, NSA, MBA, Qualified Mediator with the Minnesota Supreme Court

Addressing Revenge in Negotiations

Most people understand each other’s positions and often the interests of each other. The hang up can instead relate

to other issues such as personalities, values, history and other elements not directly related to the conflict. In these types of conflicts, the desire for revenge, getting even and even hurting the other person can be stronger than the desire to resolve the issue. There are three things to consider in these types of negotiations. These are considering interests and values separately, engaging with each other to build a positive relationship and working to reconcile differences.

Think about this as an attorney with your clients. In a messy divorce think about one spouse wanting to really stick it to the other spouse. Think about this with a client that is so angry about the dispute with the other party they simply can’t think straight. All you have to do is bring up the other party and they can go on for several minutes about what a bad person(s) the other party is. That person cannot be trusted, they are evil, they are the devil incarnate. So what should you do to help the situation and your client.

Consider Interests and Values SeparatelyThis can be hard, but every effort should be made to separate the person from the

problem. The focus should be to be tough on the problem and gentle on the people. Some people are so angry it is very hard for them to do this. By focusing on building connecting relationships and actively listening to demonstrate true concern, empathy and understanding, it may be possible to make this happen. Once the relationship has been established focus on each individual issue one at a time. This may take a representative of each party who is truly there to promote

understanding (not revenge). This is not an advocate, but a mediator to help the parties listen to each other.

Engage Each Other to Build Positive RelationshipsWhen two individuals are negatively impacted towards each other, it can be very hard for either of them to build a positive relationship with each other. Often a third-party building trust with both or with each of the parties can help. You as an attorney

addressing collaboration with another attorney or acting as a mediator may be that person. Having a trusted person working with them may be necessary. This trusted person should be there to help them build positive relationships so that emotional interests can be addressed. Having a common interest can go a long way towards building understanding. Emphasis should be on building bridges for common understanding. Focusing on common values rather than trying to

change anyone’s beliefs is critical. By working with each other on common interests it may be possible to break down what seem to be insurmountable barriers.

The pain associated with what caused the underlying conflict needs to be addressed. However, given empathy, listening and understanding it may be possible to build trust. A third party can either promote understanding or fuel the fire towards revenge. Be careful on reaching out to other

parties to help with the situation. Those promoting understanding can save emotional and physical toil, money and time. Those fueling the fires for revenge can promote anger and frustration actually increasing emotional and physical toil and taking up valuable resources such as money, time and emotional wellbeing.

Working to Reconcile DifferencesWhere there are differences it is important

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay.

May 2020 • PRACTICE SKILLS 實踐技能


Editorial note: A version of this piece was published by Michael Gregory Consulting LLC (www.mikegreg.com).

to spell them out and why there are these differences. When two parties are very angry with each other often they cannot see the other person’s perspective. Sometimes they can. Knowing this one party may simply want to be vindictive. An issue like this needs to be pointed out and addressed. When the issue is addressed head on it may be possible to create an opportunity where none could have been seen beforehand. This can lead to further understanding, forgiveness and reconciliation. Unless this approach is tried, how else is it possible to know if it may work?

Does this Always Work?No, this doesn’t always work, but at a minimum it can foster additional understanding. As each of the parties clarifies positions, interests and values, it may be possible to address issues in the future if not now. This can take a very long time. Look at South Africa and Ireland from a global perspective. In both of these instances, each party had to overcome long held beliefs and stereotypes. This was necessary to move on to reconciliation. Both sides experienced real pain. By being empathetic and working with each other to understand interests they were able to overcome real differences. It is messy. It is not easy. Perseverance, patience and

understanding are key ingredients. One of the critical steps is helping the parties to listen to one another.

What About Mediation?Mediation is not about coming to a solution everyone likes. Rather it is all about developing a solution that the parties can live with. This is a mental shift away from winning and losing. We are hard wired to think of the world as black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. It takes a real strength of character to move off of this position. Our reptilian brain prefers this approach. However, our pre-frontal cortex can override our amygdala in our reptilian brain. This allows us to consider a broader perspective. Taking a broader perspective can lead to forgiveness and reconciliation. When this happens, it can be beneficial to both parties.

On a local level, with neighborhood disputes, public housing issues, landlord tenant issues racially charged police shootings and similar issues the emotions are just as strong. Having volunteered in these areas and professionally addressed issues with the taxing authorities, business to business and within businesses, patience, building trust with the parties and listening are key. Pausing to paraphrase, summarise, and empathise are needed. Asking

open ended questions of the parties so that they too can look at the issue more broadly helps. In the end it is up to the parties. It is their decision whether they want to work together to reconcile differences. It behooves everyone involved to promote understanding even in very difficult situations. Attorneys with this focus are really looking out for their client’s best interests.

Consider those with whom you have had real differences of opinion and those that you know that have real differences of opinion with others. Perhaps the ideas presented here can help you or could help them. Feel free to pass this on.

To read more on this topic explore this article (https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dispute-resolution/four-negotiation-strategies-for-resolving-v a l u e s - b a s e d - d i s p u t e s / ? u t m _source=WhatCountsEmai l&utm_medium=daily&utm_date=2019-12-17-13-30-00&mqsc=E4105239) from the Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation that was the inspiration for writing this blog.

作者：Michael Gregory，ASA，CVA，NSA，MBA，明尼蘇達州最高法院認可調解員

化解談判者的復仇心態

大多數人彼此之間是相互明白

對方立場，通常也相互明白

對方利益所在的。煩擾人的

可能反而是其他問題，例如個性、價

值觀、歷史往事及其他與衝突不直接

相關的因素。在這類衝突之中，想復

仇、想算帳，甚至想傷害另一人的慾

望，可能比較想解決問題的慾望更為

強烈。就這類衝突展開談判要顧及三

件事：個別地考慮利益和價值觀、設

法使雙方建立正向關係，以及一邊談

判一邊消除分歧。

以律師身份設想這事發生在你客戶

身上。在一場難辦的離婚個案中，試

想想一方想全然反抗另一方。設想這

事發生在你客戶身上，他與另一方為

着一場爭議而非常生氣，他們完全不

能夠清晰地思考。你只有一件事需要

去做：跟客戶談談另一方，他們可以

數分鐘不停的數落那個人的不是。那

人不可信、他們是壞人、他們是魔鬼

的化身。要是這樣，你應該做些什麼

去改善情況，做些什麼去幫助你的客

戶呢？

個別地考慮利益和價值觀

這件事可能很難做到，不過應當用盡

一切努力將人和問題分開。重點應當

是，嚴謹處理問題，寬容對待他人。有

些人太生氣了，很難做得到。只要聚焦

於建立溝通關係之上，主動聆聽以示

真心關注，感同身受及衷心體諒，這件

事就有可能發生。一旦建立了關係，把

焦點放在個人問題之上，每次處理一

個。這可能需要每一方有一名真心幫

忙的代表來促進瞭解（不是挑起復仇

之心）。幫助各方相互聆聽心聲的不是

• May 2020


出庭代訟人，而是調解員。

設法使雙方建立正向關係

每當兩個人彼此受到對方的負面影

響，要二人彼此建立正向關係可能是

一件非常困難的事。通常，已經與兩

方或每一方建立信任關係的第三方

幫得到忙。作為律師與另一律師處理

合作事宜的你，或作為律師以調解員

身份行事的你，可以是那個人。他們

可能需要一個備受信任的人在身邊。

這個被信任的人應該在他們身邊幫

助建立正向關係，好使情感上的利益

得到處理。先有共同利益才建立到互

諒關係，不過過程可能很漫

長。應將重點放在築起橋樑

達成共識之上。至關重要的

是，將焦點放在共同價值觀

之上，而不是嘗試改變任何

人的信念。彼此努力找出共

同利益，就有可能衝破看起

來無法衝破的障礙。

需要消除的是引致根本衝突

的那件事所帶來的痛楚。然

而，如果感同身受、聆聽並

體諒對方，信任關係是有可

能建立的。第三方可以促進

諒解，也可以挑起復仇之心。

向其他各方伸手以幫助改善

情況之時，務要謹慎。那些促

進諒解的，能夠減省情緒上

和體力上的勞累、錢和時間。

那些煽風點火，挑起復仇之

心的，能夠挑動怒氣和不滿，

實際上加添情緒上和體力上

的勞累，佔用有價值的資源，

例如錢、時間和情緒健康。

一邊談判一邊消除分歧

在分歧存在的情況下，重要的是清楚

說明分歧所在，以及知道這些分歧存

在的原因。兩方如果彼此憎惡，通常

不能明白另一人的觀點。有時他們能

夠。要知道，一方可能只不過是想報

復。需要做的是指出並解決這一類問

題。直接把問題解決了，就有可能製

造出一個從來沒有出現過的機會來。

這樣可使雙方進一步瞭解、寬恕及和

解。除非這個方法試過了，否則可以

怎樣知道它是否奏效呢？

這個方法永遠奏效嗎？

不，這個方法不是永遠奏效，只是最

低限度能夠加快兩方進一步了解。每

一方都闡明本身的立場、利益所在及

價值觀，問題即使不可能馬上解決，

也有可能在將來解決。這可能需要花

費很長時間。從全球的角度去看看南

非和愛爾蘭。在這兩個例子中，每一

方都得壓倒長期以來的信念和舊框

框。想達成和解就需要這樣。兩方都

經歷切膚之痛。只要感受他人所感受

的，彼此努力明白利益所在，他們就

能夠克服真正的分歧。這是相當棘

手，不易做到。堅持、忍耐、體諒是

關鍵因素。重要的一步是幫助兩方互

相聆聽對方的心聲。

調解好嗎？

調解不是要去達到每個人都喜歡的

解決方案，而是生出一個各方都忍受

到的解決方案。這是心理上的轉移，

不論輸贏。我們死搬硬套，以為世

事只有黑白或對錯或好壞之分。人

需要真正堅強的性格去離開這個狀

況。我們的「爬行動物腦」（reptilian brain）偏好這個處理方法。然而，

前額葉皮質可以壓倒爬行動物腦中

的杏仁體。這讓我們可以考慮到更廣

濶的觀點。用更廣濶的觀點就可以做

到寬恕別人，達成和解。果真如此，

雙方都可以受惠。

從地區層面去看，鄰里間的紛爭、公

屋問題、業主與租客的爭議、涉及種

族歧視的警員開槍事件，以及類似的

問題，引起的情緒可以是一樣的強

烈。不論是在企業之間還是企業內

部，自願加入這些方面，專業地與稅

務機關解決問題的，就會知道忍耐、

與各方建立信任關係和聆聽心聲是

關鍵所在。需要停一停去變換措辭、

做總結，還有感受別人的感受。向各

方詢問開放式的問題，好使

他們同樣可以從更廣濶的角

度考慮問題；這是有用的。

結果如何由各方決定，由他

們決定是否想一起努力消除

分歧。即使境況非常艱難，

每個參與其中的人都應該促

進瞭解。以此為重點的律師

才是真正為客戶尋求最大的

利益。

想想有哪些人是你與他們在

意見上有實質分歧的，有哪

些人你知道是與其他人在意

見上有實質分歧的。本文提

出的想法可能幫助到你或幫

助到他們。歡迎隨時將它傳

開去。

如有興趣閱讀更多與本

文題目有關的文章，可

瀏覽 Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation 的

一篇文章 (https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dispute-resolution/four-negotiation-strategies-for-resolving-v a l u e s - b a s e d - d i s p u t e s / ? u t m _s o u r c e = W h a t C o u n t s E m a i l & u t m _medium=daily&utm_date=2019-12-17-13-30-00&mqsc=E4105239)；這篇文

章是筆者寫作本博客的靈感來源。

編者按：本文另一版本由 Michael Gregory Consulting LLC 發表（www.

mikegreg.com）。

Image by InspiredImages from Pixabay.

May 2020 • PRACTICE SKILLS 實踐技能


Driving Change in How We Work – the Mindful Business CharterBy Mohammed Talib , Senior Associate, Pinsent Masons

Stephanie Ching, Trainee Solicitor, Pinsent Masons

Working around the clock and checking emails 24/7, long hours and stress are endemic throughout the legal

profession. Lawyers thrive under pressure and are expected to willingly embrace it. The added strain caused by the on-going outbreak of COVID-19 across the globe has made it more important for the legal profession to manage our stress, mental health and wellbeing. Extraordinary times demand different approaches. The Mindful Business Charter ("MBC"), launched in 2018, is the perfect tool to eliminate unnecessary workplace stress by identifying long-needed changes in the working practices of the legal sector.

From Global to Local – the MBC Journey The MBC came about through conversations between Barclays, Pinsent Masons and Addleshaw Goddard in London in 2018 about a need to change the rules of engagement between clients and lawyers to safeguard mental health and wellbeing. Given that it is impossible, and undesirable, to eliminate all workplace stress, the MBC prioritises small but significant changes to working practices which can have a big impact on mental health and wellbeing.

Since its launch, the MBC has gained increasing acceptance across the legal and financial services sectors with 38 signatories, including the UK businesses of Goldman Sachs, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest, RBS, Ashurst, Baker McKenzie, Clifford Chance, Eversheds Sutherland, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Herbert Smith Freehills, Hogan Lovells, Paul Hastings, Simmons and Simmons and Squire Patton Boggs. At Pinsent Masons, we have launched the MBC in the Hong Kong office as part of our global programme to do the right thing for our employees, clients and communities. Other law firms in Hong Kong are also looking to do the same.

The MBC has been embraced widely because its aim is clear: drive positive change through targeted adjustments in our daily work, and ultimately, across businesses and professions to make our work lives sustainable and more

resilient. The MBC can be adopted by law firms and other businesses across the globe to drive this important change.

Why the MBC?Anxiety, depression and stress, late nights, working on holidays and constantly pinging mobiles are a fact of life for every lawyer. While technology advances have made our lives easier, life as a lawyer may not have become better. Clients and supervisors expect excellent performance and quick turnarounds. This causes long hours, high workloads and poor people management. Many firms adopt an adversarial culture, in which colleagues are competitors. When coupled with miscommunication and

individual differences in working behaviour and style, there can be detrimental impacts on business performance and employee wellbeing.

In recent years, the legal profession has become increasingly aware of the negative impact of 'business as usual' on lawyers' performance, productivity and retention. To tackle this problem, law firms have sought to improve employee mental health and wellbeing, ranging from offering counselling services to subsidised gym membership. However, little has been done to tackle the underlying working practices that cause unnecessary stress.

The MBC PrinciplesThe MBC sets out to tackle unnecessary stress by setting out best practice and behavioural principles that will result in people feeling happier, valued and positive about their work. Its commitments are made at both the organisational and individual levels through four key pillars.

(i) Openness and RespectCentred on building trust and effective communication, the first pillar reminds us to discuss upfront with colleagues about their preferred method of communication. Whilst some prefer face-to-face interactions, others may prefer emails and these preferences can change based on circumstances. The MBC emphasises being conscious and mindful of an individual's preferences and working patterns.

Face-to-face interactions are often perceived as most efficient in generating dialogue and ideas. However, after a full day of meetings it is natural for people to need some "me-time" to check through emails. The MBC reminds us that

• May 2020


we can each take the extra step to be more observant or proactive about preferred modes of communication and to adapt our style to suit our colleagues and clients.

(ii) Smart Meetings and EmailsOur inboxes are overflowing and our diaries packed. The MBC reminds us that we do not need every person to attend every meeting in person. It advocates providing dial in details as a default unless it is imperative that everyone attends in person. We can all be more mindful by ensuring only the right people are copied into emails and making use of clear subject lines to accurately reflect the email's content.

The COVID-19 pandemic can be seen as a turning point for many businesses and firms in Hong Kong and across the globe have adopted agile working and smart meeting arrangements. Advancements in communications and collaboration technology mean that effective meetings are being run by parties that are miles apart every day.

To integrate these modern ways of working is to recognise something that the MBC champions: businesses should take advantage of the opportunities afforded by technological advancements and reconsider the need for a face time culture in favour of one based on trust, understanding and respect.

(iii) Respecting Rest PeriodsGiven the nature of legal work, lawyers are always connected and have oftentimes forgotten the need to "disconnect". The COVID-19 outbreak, which has made agile working even more common around the globe, has made the boundary even harder to draw. The MBC asks us to be considerate and find the right balance between our professional and personal lives. Annual leave is part of the period for us to recharge and the MBC calls for this to be respected.

When support is required outside of core working hours, options should be given for when the work needs to be done if it is not truly urgent. For many lawyers, the default assumption is that "everything the client needs is urgent". However, the stress this sudden work brings on the team can be reduced by asking a simple

question: how necessary is this?

Consider the following – a firm's banking team received an email from its client on late Friday afternoon requesting a facility agreement to be drafted by the following Monday. The lead partner resisted the default assumption and instead emailed the client to ask if there was a pressing need to finalise the agreement within the stipulated timeline. He explained that this would require the team to work flat out over the weekend. He got an immediate reply - the agreement was only needed by the business on the following Wednesday. One simple question made a positive

difference in safeguarding the wellbeing of the team. The MBC is not a 'slacker's charter' and the legal team would have gotten the agreement done by Monday if that was required. What the MBC calls for is a change in default behaviours that can cause avoidable stress.

(iv) Mindful DelegationLawyers often work as part of a bigger team, and the MBC reminds us to adopt a mindful approach to collaboration, instruction and delegation. Providing sufficient context and information when delegating a task and explaining the purpose, timetable and ultimate recipient can help ensure that the task

is properly understood and results in better task performance. The MBC also encourages teams to negotiate rather than impose deadlines and to speak up when a deadline is unachievable.

Just months into its launch of the MBC, Pinsent Masons' Hong Kong office is seeing a clear change on this front. Email subject lines headed "Not for today" or "Not urgent – till next week" are being increasingly adopted which allow the recipient to prioritise tasks appropriately. Not only are junior lawyers willing to speak up if a deadline is unrealistic, senior lawyers increasingly look to engage their junior counterparts upfront on their expectations when delegating tasks.

Transforming OrganisationsAt the organisational level, the MBC asks law firms to (i) drive forward the actions and change necessary to support the MBC; (ii) promote a culture of openness about mental wellbeing; (iii) include performance against the MBC / responsible business during relationship review meetings with clients; (iv) include responsible business as an area of assessment during significant procurement; and (v) promote and introduce the MBC to new members.

The MBC Journey AheadThe MBC is a collaborative exercise that brings together the legal profession and their clients to agree that we can do things differently and that, when we do, both service quality and delivery will improve. There is no magic wand to wellbeing nor can improved mental health happen overnight. They are important goals to strive for and the

MBC is making a tangible difference to the wellbeing of the profession as a whole. With the growing importance of the issues it seeks to address and the tested solutions it proposes, the MBC can drive forward better mental health and wellbeing for all, across all sectors, over time.

Find out more about the MBC at https://mindfulbusinesscharter.com/. We are actively engaging with law firms and other professions to promote the MBC more widely in Hong Kong. If anyone reading this article is interested please get in touch with us.

By every small change we can make a big difference.

May 2020 • PRACTICE MANAGEMENT 實務管理


推動改變我們的工作方式— 《以人為本的企業約章》

作者：Mohammed Talib，品誠梅森律師事務所高級律師 Stephanie Ching，品誠梅森律師事務所見習律師

日以繼夜地工作，不分晝夜查看電

子郵件，長時間工作和壓力在整

個法律界都很普遍。律師在壓力

下茁壯成長，他們被預期會心甘

情願地接受壓力。全球持續爆發

的新冠肺炎造成的額外壓力，使

法律界在管理他們自己的壓力、

心理健康和福祉方面變得更加重

要。非常時期需要不同的方法。

2018 年推出的《以人為本的企

業約章》（The Mindful Business Charter: MBC）是消除不必要的

工作壓力的理想工具，它推動了

法律界工作慣常做法中需要已久

的變革。

從全球化到本地化—

MBC 之旅

2018 年，巴克萊銀行（Barclays）、

品誠梅森律師事務所（Pinsent Masons）和安勝恪道律師行

（Addleshaw Goddard）在倫敦，

就改變客戶和律師之間的業務

規則，以改善心理健康和福祉

的必要性攜手合作，由此產生了

MBC。鑒於消除所有職場上的工

作壓力是不可能的，也是不可取

的，MBC 優先考慮對可能對心理

健康和福祉產生重大影響的工

作慣常做法進行微小但重要的

改變。

自推出以來，MBC 已獲得法律和金融

服務界越來越多的認受，有 38 間機構

簽署，包括高盛（Goldman Sachs）、勞

埃德銀行集團（Lloyds Banking Group）、

國民西敏寺銀行（NatWest）、蘇格蘭

皇家銀行（RBS）、亞司特律師事務所

（Ashurst）、貝克 ‧ 麥堅時律師事務

所（Baker McKenzie）、高偉紳律師行

（Clifford Chance）、安睿順德倫國際律

師事務所（Eversheds Sutherland）、富

而德律師事務所（Freshfield Bruckhaus

Deringer）、史密夫斐爾律師事務所

（Herbert Smith Freehills）、霍金路偉

律師行（Hogan Lovells）、普衡律師事

務所（Paul Hastings）、西盟斯律師行

（Simmons and Simmons）及翰宇國際

律師事務所（Squire Patton Boggs）。在

品誠梅森律師事務所，我們香港的辦事

處率先推行了 MBC，這是我們全球計劃

的一部分，目的是為我們的員工、客戶

和社群做正確的事情。香港的其他律師

事務所也在尋求同樣的做法。

MBC 之所以受到廣泛歡迎，是因為它的

目標很明確：通過有針對性地調整我們

的日常工作，最終在各個行業和專業推

動積極的變化，使我們的工作生活可持

續和更具彈性。全球各地的律師事務所

和其他企業都可以採用 MBC 來推動這

一重要變化。

為什麽是 MBC ？

焦慮、抑鬱和壓力，熬夜，節假

日工作，響過不停的手機，是每

個律師生活中的現實情況。雖然

技術進步讓我們的生活變得更容

易，但律師的生活可能並沒有變

得更好。客戶和主管期望出色的

業績和快速的周轉。這導致了長

時間工作、高工作量和人員管理

不善。許多公司採用一種敵對的

文化，在這種文化中，同事就是

競爭對手。當再加上溝通不暢以

及工作行為和風格的個人差異，

可能會對企業業績和員工福祉產

生不利影響。

近年來，法律界愈來愈意識到「一

切照常」對律師的表現、生產力

和留任的負面影響。為應對這個

問題，律師事務所尋求改善員工

的心理健康和福祉，範圍從提供

輔導服務到補貼健身中心會員資

格。然而，行內幾乎沒有採取任

何措施來應對那些造成不必要壓

力的相關工作慣常做法。

MBC 原則

MBC 旨在通過制定最佳做法和行為原則

來應對不必要的壓力，這些原則將使人

們對自己的工作感到更快樂、更有價值

和更積極。該約章通過四個主要支柱在

個人和機構兩個層面作出承諾。

(i) 開放和尊重第一個支柱以建立信任和有效溝通

為中心，提醒我們預先與同事討論他

們首選的溝通方法。雖然有些人更喜

歡面對面的互動，但另一些人可能寧

以電子郵件與人溝通，這些偏好可能

• May 2020


會根據情況而變化。MBC 强調有意

識地注意個人的喜好和工作模式。

面對面的互動通常被認為是產生對

話和想法的最有效的方式。然而，

在一整天的會議之後，人們可能需

要一些「獨處時間」來查看電子郵

件，這是很自然的。MBC 提醒我

們，我們每個人都可以採取額外的

措施，並主動調整我們的溝通方式，

以迎合我們的同事和客戶。

(ii) 智能會議和電子郵件我們的收件箱堆滿了郵件，我們的

日記也寫得滿滿的。MBC 提醒我

們，我們不需要每個人都親

自出席每一次會議。除非每

個人都必須親自出席，否則

MBC 主張預設做法為預先

提供遠程會議的撥號詳情。

我們都可以多加注意，以確

保只有相關的人才被複製到

電子郵件中，並使用清晰的

標題來準確地反映電子郵件

的內容。

對於香港和全球許多企業和

公司來說，新冠肺炎的大流

行可以被視為一個轉折點，

它們已經採用了靈活的工作

方式和智能會議的安排。通

訊和協作技術的進步意味著

相距以英里計的各方都能在

同一時間參與會議。

整合這些現代工作方式，就

是要認識到 MBC 所擁護的

概念：企業應該利用技術進

步帶來的機遇，重新計畫是

否需要以建立在信任、理解

和尊重基礎上的文化，來考

慮面對面互動的確切需要。

(iii) 尊重休息時間鑒於法律工作的性質，律師總是保

持聯繫的，往往忘記了「離線」的

需要。新冠肺炎的爆發使得靈活工

作方式在全球變得更加普遍，也使

得這條邊界更難劃定。MBC 要求我

們考慮周到，在我們的職業生活和

個人生活之間找到適當的平衡。年

假是我們充電的一部分，MBC 呼籲

我們尊重這一點。

當在核心工作時間之外需要支援時，

如果工作不是真正緊急，則應提供

何時需要完成的選項。對於許多律

師來說，一般的假設是「客戶需要的

一切都是緊急的」。然而，這種突如

其來的工作給團隊帶來的壓力可以

通過一個簡單的問題來減輕：這有

多大的必要性？

考慮以下幾點：一家律師行的銀行

團隊在周五下午收到客戶的電子郵

件，要求在下周一之前起草一份融

資協議。主要合夥人打破了慣常的

假設，向客戶發送電子郵件，詢問

是否有迫切需要在規定的時間內敲

定協議。他解釋說，這將需要團隊

在周末全力以赴地工作。他立即得

到了回覆 -，企業只是在接下來的

周三才需要這份協議。於此，一個

簡單的問題對保障團隊的福祉產生

了積極的影響。MBC 不是一個「懶

人約章」，如果需要的話，法律團

隊會在周一之前完成協議。MBC 呼

籲的是改變那種可能會造成可避免

的壓力的既定行為。

(iv) 工作分配律師通常是更大的工作團隊的一部

分，MBC 提醒我們要採取謹慎的方

式進行合作、指導和委派任務。在

委派任務時提供充分的背景資料和

信息，並解釋任務的目的、時間

表和最終接收人，將有助於確保正

確理解工作指示並提高任務績效。

MBC 還鼓勵團隊進行商議，而不是

强加最後期限，並主動提出無法達

到或實現的最後期限。

在推出 MBC 僅僅幾個月後，品誠梅

森律師事務所的香港辦事處就看到

了這方面的明顯變化。電子郵件標

題為「今天不用」或「不急—下周」

的電子郵件主題越來越多地被採用，

這樣收件人就可以適當地安排工作

的優先順序。不僅初級律師願意

主動提出不能實現的最後期限，

高級律師也越來越多在提出工作

指示時提前與初級律師就他們的

期望進行探討接觸。

轉變組織

在組織層面，MBC 要求行內企

業 (i) 推動支持 MBC 所需的行動

和變革；(ii) 促進關於精神健康

的開放文化；(iii) 在與客戶的關

係檢討會議上，納入對 MBC /「負

責任企業」的表現的討論；(iv)在重大採購期間將「負責任企

業」列為評估範圍；以及 (v) 向

新成員宣傳和介紹 MBC。

未來的 MBC 之旅

MBC 是一項互助互諒的計劃，

讓法律界和他們的客戶達致共

識，我們可以以不同的方式行

事，而當我們這樣行事時，服務

質素都會有所改善。我們理解，

心理健康的改善不可能一蹴而

就。這些都是需要努力實現的重

要目標，MBC 正在對整個行業

的福祉產生切實的影響。隨著尋

求解決的問題的重要性與日俱增，以及

經過測試的解決方案的提出，MBC 可以

在一段時間內，推動所有界別改善所有

人的心理健康和福祉。

欲瞭解更多有關 MBC 的信息，請瀏覽

https://mindfulbusinesscharter.com/。

我們現正積極與律師行和其他專業人士

合作，在香港更廣泛地推廣 MBC。如果

任何讀者有興趣，請與我們聯繫。

專注每一個小小的改變就能帶來巨變。



COVID Guidance for Law FirmsBy Susheela Rivers, Office Managing Partner of Hong Kong and Co-Chair of Global Real Estate Sector

After two and a half months under lockdown China is on the path to recovery. As it emerges from self-imposed isolation, the country’s

unprecedented public health response now offers a lesson for companies across Asia, which is that the most successful route to recovery is to prioritise the health, safety and wellbeing of employees, to be available and very responsible to clients, be pre-emptive about our business and finally stay connected with efficient communication.

As a global law firm, we are dealing with these issues directly ourselves in real-time all over the world. As companies consider how they can prepare for a return to business, law firms should act with purpose to help both their clients and employees take measured steps to overcome the immediate and longer-term challenges they face.

We can expect disruption for some time to come, which means the role of the trusted legal adviser has become essential in helping clients manage the short, medium and longer term responses to the crisis, while

also supporting the planning and execution of their commercial goals. The situation has amplified the need to be vigilant for our clients and to give relevant and actionable advice in front of company executives who are facing difficult choices.

Law firms should provide a wide range of guidance for businesses and their legal teams and take steps to actively engage with them on these issues in this current environment. Very importantly, we must listen to our clients to understand how they want their lawyers to support them.

The DLA Piper Back to Business guide for clients operating in China addresses sector-specific concerns with insight into these issues and the key measures taken by government. With increased levels of remote working and because events have been postponed or cancelled, we are also hosting a series of online webinars for COVID-19 related issues. All guidance is shared online in our Coronavirus Resource Center, a central repository for companies across jurisdictions and industries.

Featured below are some of the key legal challenges businesses face, outlined in the DLA Piper Back to Business guide, as they resume operations and adapt to an economic and regulatory environment overshadowed by the impact of COVID-19. This advice provides a framework for how law firms can support company executives and navigate their journey back to business.

China Back to Business Guidance

Are there any legal requirements that employers must comply with before they send their people back to work and reopen physical premises? The requirements to re-open physical premises vary among different locations and may change over time. Some of cities have stricter requirements and re-opening will need approval from the disease control authorities, while other locations may only require notification or filing with the building management. Employers may need to ask employees to fill-in certain forms to self-declare health status and contact/travel history. In Beijing and Shanghai, for example,

• May 2020


the self-declaration is done through an app in individuals’ mobile phones, which needs to be scanned when entering buildings/office premises.

As we reopen post-COVID-19 lockdown, what are the health and safety obligations employers need to pay attention to around the physical premises? The detailed requirements are changing over time. Some locations are stricter than others, eg generally speaking Beijing is stricter than Shanghai. Within a city, even different buildings may enforce the requirements differently. In general, employers are required to:

1. Check the employee’s temperature daily;

2. Set an isolation area in the work place;

3. If the employee has suspected symptoms, the organisation will require the employee to be isolated in the isolation area;

4. Report any suspected and confirmed cases to the department of disease control;

5. Assist the employee with symptoms to go to the nearest infectious disease hospital;

6. Close and sterilise affected areas;

7. Prohibit other people from entering infected areas;

8. Cooperate with the government’s disease control work, including assistance on tracking close contacts amid the outbreak of COVID-19; including following protocols

on how to deal with the rest of the employees.

Some locations will still require employees to wear face masks while working in the office. In addition, employers may be required to provide education and infection information to its employees such as disease control materials as well as remind employees to cooperate with the organisation’s management and government led protocols.

Can employers ask employees to take medical tests or show test results or medical certificates before returning to work? The organisation may collect information about their employees' travel history, travel plans, health conditions and close contacts of suspected patients during the outbreak period with the consent of the employee. Such information must be kept confidential and not used improperly. Employers should follow the principles of necessity and minimisation when collecting and processing personal data. Personal information may not be disclosed without the consent of the employees. Employers will need to implement strict technical and management measures to prevent privacy breaches or misuse of personal information.

Do the Cybersecurity Law, and related guidelines, including Personal Information Security Specification remain applicable during the business resumption period? Yes, organisations should continue, as far as possible, to comply with relevant

data protection laws. This said, there are circumstances in which, given the current situation, certain entities (in particular government and healthcare bodies) may be exempted from complying with all of the usual privacy obligations in the context of COVID-19 prevention and control.

Is consent still required to collect personal information in the context of COVID-19 prevention and control? Yes, however organisations should first check to see whether they have already obtained sufficient consent from their employees at onboarding (for example, many organisations set out in their standard employee privacy notices/contracts that personal information may be collected for health control reasons). As noted above, certain organisations (such as government entities or healthcare bodies) may be permitted to collect and process personal information without consent in the context of COVID-19 prevention and control.

What privacy issues may arise by allowing our personnel to work from home? How can we manage these? Working from home arrangements may increase the risks in privacy and cyber related incidents. It is, therefore, important that organisations ensure that there is proper communication and reminders to employees around maintaining compliance with internal protocols and procedures. Organisations should also ensure that its IT software and security systems are up-to-date and proper technical measures are adopted to minimise the occurrence and impact of any incident.

有關律師事務所的「2019 冠狀病毒病」指導

作者：Susheela Rivers，歐華律師事務所香港辦公室管理合夥人、全球房地產部門聯席主席

在經過了兩個半月的隔離之

後，中國正走上復蘇之路。

隨著中國從自我强加的隔離

中走出來，該國史無前例的公共衛

生措施現在給亞洲各地的公司上了

一課，那就是，最成功的復蘇途徑

是優先考慮員工的健康、安全和福

祉，對客戶保持提供服務和保持非

常負責任的態度，對我們的業務未

雨綢繆，最後藉著有效的溝通保持

聯繫。

作為一家全球性的律師事務所，我

們正在世界各地直接、實時地處理

這些問題。正如公司考慮如何為恢



復業務做準備，律師事務所應該有

目的地幫助客戶和員工採取謹慎的

步驟，以克服他們面臨眼前的和長

期的挑戰。

我們可以預計在未來一段時間內會

出現混亂，這意味著值得信賴的

法律顧問的角色已經變得相當重

要，可以幫助客戶管理應對危機

的短期、中期和長期措施，同時

也支援他們商業目標的規劃和執

行。這種情況使我們更加需要對我

們的客戶保持警惕，並在公司高管

面臨艱難選擇時提供相關和可行的建議。

律師事務所應該為企業及其法律團

隊提供廣泛的指導，並主動在當前

環境下，就這些問題與他們進行接

觸。非常重要的是，我們必須聽取

客戶的意見，以瞭解他們希望律師

如何支援他們。

《DLA Piper Back to Business》是

針對在中國運營的客戶而推出的指

南，通過深入瞭解這些問題和政府

採取的關鍵措施，解決了行業某些

特別的擔憂。隨著遠程工作水平的

提高，以及由於活動的被推遲或取

消，我們還將舉辦一系列與冠狀病

毒相關問題的在線網絡研討會。所

有指南都在我們的「冠狀病毒資源

中心」在線共享，這是為跨司法管

轄區和行業的公司而設的中央儲存庫。

以下是《 D L A P i p e r B a c k t o Business》指南中概述了當企業正在

恢復運營，並適應被冠狀病毒影響

的經濟和監管環境時所面臨的一些

關鍵法律挑戰。這一建議為律師事

務所如何支援公司高管並引導他們

重返業務之旅提供了一個框架。

在中國回復商業活動的指導

僱主在遣送員工返回工作崗位和

重新開業之前，是否有任何法律

規定必須遵守？

重新開放實體處所的規定因地點不

同而有所不同，並可能隨著時間

的推移而變化。一些城市有更嚴

格的要求，重新開放需要疾病控

制部門的批准，而其他地方可能

只需要通知或向物業管理部門備

案。僱主可能需要要求員工填寫某

些表格來自我聲明健康狀況和接觸

者 / 旅行歷史。例如，在北京和上

海，自我申報是通過個人手機中

的一款應用程式完成的，進入建

築物 / 寫字樓時需要掃描這款應用程式。

當冠狀病毒後我們重新開放隔離時，

僱主需要注意實體處所周圍的健康

和安全責任是什麽？

詳細的規定會隨著時間的推移而變

化。有些地方比另一些地方嚴格，

例如，一般來說，北京比上海嚴格。

在一個城市內，即使是不同的建築

物也可能執行不同的要求。一般而

言，僱主須：

1. 每天檢查員工體溫；

2. 在工作場所設置隔離區；

3. 如果員工有可疑症狀，機構將要

求員工隔離在隔離區；

4. 向疾病控制部門報告疑似、確診

病例；

5. 協助有症狀的員工就近到傳染病

醫院就診；

6. 封閉和消毒受影響的範圍；

7. 禁止他人進入受感染範圍；

8. 配合政府的疾病控制工作，包

括協助在冠狀病毒爆發期間

追踪密切接觸者；包括遵

守如何處理其他員工的協議方案。

一些地點仍將要求員工在辦公室工

作時戴口罩。此外，僱主可能會

被要求向員工提供教育和感染信

息，如疾病控制材料，並提醒員

工配合機構的管理和政府主導的方案。

僱主可否要求僱員在復工前

接受身體檢測或出示檢測結果或

醫療證明書？

經員工同意，該機構可收集有關員

工在疫情爆發期間的旅行記錄、旅

行計劃、健康狀況和與疑似患者的

密切接觸者的資料。此類資料必

須保密，不得不當使用。僱主在收

集和處理個人資料時，應遵循「必

要」和「儘量減少」的原則。未

經員工同意，不得泄露個人資料。

僱主將需要實施嚴格的技術和管

理措施，以防止侵犯私隱或濫用個人資料。

在恢復營業期間，《網絡安全法》和

包括《個人信息安全規範》在內的

相關準則是否仍然適用？

是的，機構應盡可能繼續遵守相關

的數據保護法律。儘管如此，在某

些情況下，鑒於目前的情況，某

些實體（特別是政府和醫療機

構）在預防和控制冠狀病毒方面

可能會被豁免遵守所有通常的私隱責任。

在預防和控制冠狀病毒方面

收集個人資料是否仍然需要

徵得同意？

是的，然而機構應首先檢查在員工

入職時，機構是否已獲得員工的充

分同意（例如，許多機構在其標準

員工私隱通知 / 合約中規定，出於

健康控制的原因，可能會收集個人

資料）。如上所述，在預防和控制冠

狀病毒的情況下，某些機構（如政

府實體或醫療保健機構）可能獲允

許在未經同意的情況下收集和處理

個人資料。

允許我們的員工在家工作可能會

產生哪些私隱問題？我們怎樣才能

管理好這方面呢？

在家工作的安排可能會增加私隱和

網絡相關事件的風險。因此，重要

的是，機構應確保與員工進行適當

的溝通和作出提醒，以保持遵守內

部協議和程序。機構還應確保其資

訊科技軟件和安全系統是最新的，

並採取適當的技術措施，將任何事

故的發生和影響降至最低。

• May 2020

Regulatory 3+ Years|Hong Kong

Excellent in-house opportunity for a financial services regulatory lawyer. You should have prior experience

from a reputable International law firm, financial institution and/or regulator. Fluent English and

Cantonese are essential. Work-life balance on offer. HKL8166

M&A/PE/VC 1-4 Years|Shanghai

A top US law firm is looking for a corporate lawyer in Shanghai.

Opportunity for a junior lawyer looking to work on M&A, FDI, PE, VC matters. US JD, US LLM, or a PRC law degree

from a top law school required. US qualification preferred but not a must. Native Mandarin and fluent English

skills are essential. HKL8352

Customs 1-5 Years|Hong Kong

A boutique US firm is looking to add a customs lawyer to its Asian offices. You must have relevant experience in dealing with legal matters in relation to customs

tariffs, supply chain, and logistics in the APAC region. Asian language

skills will be an advantage. HKL8350

Commercial Disputes 4-8 Years|Hong Kong

Opportunity with a well-established US law firm within its commercial Litigation team. You will have strong experience within commercial litigation matters, as well as prior insolvency exposure from

a highly regarded law firm. You must be Hong Kong qualified, speak Mandarin

and have court room experience. HKL8349

Equities/Prime Brokerage 8+ Years|Hong Kong

A global investment bank is looking to add a lawyer to its legal team. You will be responsible for advising on a range of transactions in relation to structured

products and derivatives across APAC. Excellent legal regulatory experience from an International

firm or investment bank is essential. HKL8249

Insurance 5+ Years|Hong Kong

A well-known insurance company is looking to add a financial services

legal counsel to its established team in Hong Kong. Prior experience with ISDA Master Agreements is

preferred. Prior in-house exposure would be a bonus. Cantonese

language skills are essential. Stable career platform on offer.

HKL8342

Commercial 10+ Years|Hong Kong

European chemical technology company is looking for a senior lawyer to head up its legal and compliance function in the APAC region. This role will be general

commercial, and you will be expected to manage a team in the region. Business

level Chinese skills are required. HKL8331

Investment Banking 4-10 Years|Hong Kong

Reputable investment bank with strong presence in Asia is

seeking a mid to senior level legal counsel. You will be part of an

established team and have broad coverage across ECM, M&A, and structured finance. Mandarin skills

are preferred, as well as prior experience at another reputable

organization. HKL8346

Construction Disputes 4+ Years|Hong Kong

Great opportunity for lawyers to join a leading construction disputes team. You should have experience

in construction contracts and disputes, or general commercial

litigation and arbitration experience with an interest in specialising in construction. Fluency in English

and Chinese preferred. HKL8336 Corporate M&A

7-12 Year|Hong Kong

A top tier US law firm is looking for an experienced corporate lawyer that specialises in private M&A. You should have experience in

leading transactions from another International or US law firm.

Applications from overseas will be considered. Strong track to

partnership on offer. HKL8347

Practical guidance and trusted answers when you need them mostThomson Reuters Practical LawLegal guidance and know-how that gives you a better starting point, so you hit the ground running.

For more information or free trial:

[email protected] (for North Asia)[email protected] (for ASEAN)

Law + Tech vs COVID-19 - Hong Kong Lawyer

Documents

Transcript of Law + Tech vs COVID-19 - Hong Kong Lawyer