201409 hk lawyer[1]

二零一四年九月

HK$280

h k - l a w y e r . org

September 2014

Cover Story

Face to Face with

Frank Poon Solicitor General HKSAR

封面專題

專訪

潘英光 香港特別行政區 法律政策專員 CONTRACTS 合 約

Consumers and Unfair Contract Terms: Inadequate Legal Protection and Suggestions for Reform 消費者及不公平合約條款： 法律保障不足及相關改革建議

FINANCE 金融

The Growing Trend of Listed Bond Issuance in Hong Kong 香港的上市債券發行增長趨勢

DATA PRIVACY 個 人 資 料 私 隱

Evolving Data Protection Regimes in the Asia-Pacific Arena and Their Impact on Litigation: Overview of International Policies Governing Cross-Border Data Transfer 在亞太舞臺上不斷變化的資料保護制度及其對訴訟的影響： 關於跨境資料轉移之國際策略概述

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

Editorial Board 編輯委員會 Chairman 主席 Huen Wong 王桂壎 Jenkin SF Chan 陳少勳 Peter CH Chan 陳志軒 Charles CC Chau 周致聰 Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰 Steven B Gallagher Warren P Ganesh Minkang Gu 顧敏康 Julienne Jen 任文慧 Dave Lau 劉子勁 George YC Mok 莫玄熾 Anne Scully-Hill Michele Tsang 曾憲薇 Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟 Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華 Tony Yen 嚴元浩

www.hk-lawyer.org

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

Inside your September issue 九月期刊內容

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

President 會長 Stephen WS Hung 熊運信 Vice-Presidents 副會長 Thomas ST So 蘇紹聰 Melissa K Pang 彭韻僖

Y 20 COVER STOR

Council Members 理事會成員 Ambrose SK Lam 林新強 Dieter LT Yih 葉禮德 Junius KY Ho 何君堯 Huen Wong 王桂壎 Peter CL Lo 羅志力 Michael J Lintern-Smith 史密夫 Billy WY Ma 馬華潤 Sylvia WY Siu 蕭詠儀 Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華 Kenneth SY Ng 伍成業 Joseph CW Li 李超華 Amirali B Nasir 黎雅明 Angela WY Lee 李慧賢 Brian W Gilchrist 喬柏仁 Gavin P Nesbitt 倪廣恒 Denis G Brock 白樂德 Charles CC Chau 周致聰 Secretary-General 秘書長 Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰 Law Society’s Contact: www.hklawsoc.org.hk 與律師會聯繫

Tel: +852 2846 0500 Annual Subscription 全年訂閱 : HK$3,360

Thomson Reuters 10/F, Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2847 2088 www.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.

36 CONTRACTS

4 EDITOR’S NOTE 6 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 10 CONTRIBUTORS 12 FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 14 LETTERS TO HONG KONG LAWYER 18 FROM THE SECRETARIAT 20 COVER STORY

Face to Face with

Frank Poon

Solicitor General HKSAR

30 LAW SOCIETY NEWS 36 CONTRACTS Consumers and Unfair Contract Terms:

Inadequate Legal Protection and Suggestions for Reform

編者的話 會長的話 投稿者 理事會議題 給《香港律師》的信 律師會秘書處資訊 封面專題 專訪

潘英光 香港特別行政區 法律政策專員

律師會新聞 合約 消費者及不公平合約條款： 法律保障不足及相關改革建議

September 2014 二零一四年九月

HK$280

Editor 編輯 Cynthia G Claytor

cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com Tel: +852 2847 8053

Managing Editor 執行主編 Ranajit Dam 鄧文杰 ranajit.dam@thomsonreuters.com Tel: +65 6870 3393

Design and Production 設計及制作 Samson Pang 彭振生 Translation team 翻譯組: InfoPower Matty Kwong Tang Mei Kwan Special thanks to Hong Kong Law Reports & Digest and Reuters News 特別感謝 香港法律彙報與摘錄 及 路透社新聞

For marketing/promotion opportunities please contact:

44 FINANCE

The Growing Trend of Listed Bond Issuance in Hong Kong

50 DATA PRIVACY Evolving Data Protection Regimes in the Asia-Pacific

金融 香港的上市債券發行增長趨勢

個人資料私隱 在亞太舞臺上不斷變化的資料保護制度

Arena and Their Impact on Litigation: Overview of 及其對訴訟的影響：關於跨境資料轉移 International Policies Governing Cross-Border Data Transfer 之國際策略概述

58 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS

業界透視

72 CASES IN BRIEF

案例撮要

86 PROFESSIONAL MOVES

會員動向

90 ASIDE

Regional Guidance on Difficult Employment Issues in China

隨 筆

96

CAMPUS VOICES

有關中國僱傭難題的地區指引

法學院新聞

100 LEGAL MARKET

職場資訊

104 LEGAL HISTORY QUIZ

法律史測驗

Henry Cheng 鄭裕康 henry.cheng@thomsonreuters.com Tel: +852 2847 2016 Jessie Cheung 張學智 jessie.cheung@thomsonreuters.com Tel: +852 2847 2005

Sales and Marketing Director 銷售總監 Jane Lewis 劉真美 For subscriptions contact:

Traffic Administrator 統籌 Gloria Ng 吳傲宜 gloria.ng@thomsonreuters.com Tel: +852 2843 6415

Publisher 出版人 Amantha Chia 謝京庭 amantha.chia@thomsonreuters.com Tel: +65 6870 3917

44 FINANCE

Managing Director 執行總監 Klaus Pfeifer 范梓樺 klaus.pfeifer@thomsonreuters.com

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.

Y 50 DATA PRIVAC

90 ASIDE

• September 2014

EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話 The impact of the worldwide expansion of data privacy laws and regulations are being felt with increasing regularity in the litigation arena.

Given the vast quantities of data involved in modern litigation and the increasingly severe penalties for improper disclosure, a party involved in litigation would do well to understand the potential implications of production.

與個人資料私隱有關的法例在世界各地不斷發展，且屢

To help readers better understand and stay abreast of regional data privacy law developments, this issue features an article discussing data privacy regimes and policies that regional organisations have developed to govern cross-border data transfers in the Asia-Pacific region (p. 50). Next month’s follow-on feature will discuss more significant country-specific implementations of data privacy laws and ways to ensure compliance during litigation productions.

展，今期有一篇專題詳談各區域組織發展出怎樣的資料

This issue also features an article that explores guidance notes issued by regional courts and employment arbitration institutions in major cities in China that concern various employment law issues that are problematic under Chinese labour law. Although the recent guidance notes are not binding, the authors conclude that the guidance reflects positions likely to be taken by relevant regional judicial and arbitral bodies (p. 90).

構於近日發布的指引，其目的是處理中國勞動法下難於

We have also included a feature that analyses how effective the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance (Cap. 458) is in protecting consumers against unfair terms in standard form contracts (p. 36) and an article that explores the recent expansion of Hong Kong’s listed bond market (p. 44).

準格式合約不公平條款方面成效如何(見第40頁)，另外

Additionally, the author of our Legal Market article evaluates law firm associate hiring trends in the first half of 2014, concluding that Hong Kong’s legal recruitment market is maturing and that there will be steady hiring across a variety of practice areas for the rest of the year.

We also are bringing back our Hong Kong Legal History Quiz contest (p. 104). The first reader to email me with all ten correct quiz question answers will receive a bottle of Ch. La Croizille 2005 from Global Vintage Wines Centre.

屢出現於訴訟中，影響可見一斑。鑑於現代訴訟涉及的 資料數量龐大，而且不當披露的罰則日益嚴厲，與訟方 應好好了解披露資料有何潛在影響。 為了讓讀者深入了解亞太區有關私隱的法規及最新發 私隱制度和策略，去規管區內的資料轉移(見第54頁)。 下期的後續專題將討論私隱法在個別國家的具體實施情 況，以及如何確保與訟方在訴訟過程中遵守披露資料的 規定。 另一篇專題會探討內地大城市的地區司法和人事仲裁機 解決的問題。指引雖不具約束力，但撰文者認為它們反 映了相關地區的司法和仲裁機構很可能會採取的立場(見 第93頁)。 今期亦會分析《不合情理合約條例》(第458章)在打擊標 亦會探討近期擴展中的香港上市債券市場(見第48頁）。 今期「職場資訊」一欄的作者分析了2014年上半年律師 行招聘律師方面的趨勢，並指香港的法律招聘市場漸趨 成熟，本年餘下時間各個執業範疇的招聘情況將維持穩 定。 另外，我們再次舉辦香港法律史測驗(見第105頁)，首 名把全部十條問題的正確答案電郵給本人的讀者，可獲 贈由名酒坊送出的2005年Ch.La Croizille 美酒乙支。

Cynthia G. Claytor

Cynthia G. Claytor Editor, Hong Kong Lawyer Legal Media Group Thomson Reuters cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com

《香港律師》編輯 Legal Media Group 湯森路透

cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com Contest: The first reader who sends in all ten correct answers to cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com will receive a bottle of Ch. La Croizille 2005 (as per the attached photo) from Global Vintage Wines Centre. The decision of Thomson Reuters is final and conclusive. 競賽：首名把全部十條問題的正確答案以電郵發送至cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com 的讀者，可獲贈由名酒坊送出的2005年Ch.La Croizille 美酒乙支（見圖）。湯森路透擁有最 終決定權。

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

• September 2014

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話 Review of Criminal Legal Aid Fee System A Long Battle

legally-aided clients.

The Law Society of Hong Kong has been engaged in discussions with the Administration on the review of the criminal legal aid fee system since March 2006. However, no satisfactory progress has been made in spite of the broad consensus that the fee system should be improved. The crux of the matter principally lies with the resources the Administration is prepared to put into the criminal legal aid system to assist citizens who cannot afford private legal representation in criminal trials.

As a result, solicitors taking on criminal legal aid assignments are struggling hard to defend their clients, when they confront the full weight of the Government’s investigative and prosecution resources, especially in pre-trial preparation.

No Level Playing Field for Those Facing Criminal Charges We have reviewed the annual expenditure on criminal legal aid of the Legal Aid Department (“LAD”). In the years 2006 to 2011, for instance, we note that there has been no general increase in LAD’s expenditure despite general inflation and increases in the overheads for law firms in the same period of time.

By contrast, the financial provision for the Prosecution Division of the Department of Justice has steadily increased year on year in the same period of time. The Prosecution Division is receiving ever-increasing financial resources from the Government to prosecute cases, but solicitors instructed by the LAD have not been provided with similar or adequate budgetary adjustments to defend

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

Such inequality of arms between the prosecution and defence seriously prejudices the basic rights of those facing criminal charges.

This plight of inequality is exacerbated by the fact that criminal investigations are getting ever more complicated and extensive. The advances in communications and technology, the increases in the number of prosecutions involving law enforcement agencies from around the world, the greater use of expert and surveillance evidence, and the complex laws that require more specialist knowledge, significantly impact upon the preparation work that has to be done if defendants are to be properly represented.

It is time to “level the playing field” and make available to individuals who cannot privately afford their own defence the same adequacy of resources as is available to the Prosecution.

While public money should be used prudently, the chronic underfunding of the criminal legal aid system should be

examined in the correct perspective, in particular when it comes to allegations on crimes which affect people’s reputations and liberty. For years, to uphold justice, a lot of solicitors have in effect been subsidising the criminal legal aid system through their own private resources, by offering advice and taking up criminal defence work on a pro bono basis.

The Administration owes it to the community to address the fundamental resource issues that concern citizens’ rights in criminal trials.

Loss of Talent in Criminal Legal Aid Defence Lawyers The hourly rates and fees are prescribed in Rule 21 of the Legal Aid in Criminal Cases Rules (Cap. 221D). Notwithstanding the most recent amendments to these rules in November 2013, the criminal legal aid hourly rates are still significantly lower than the civil legal aid rates. A criminal solicitor, in certain circumstances, may be working at a charging rate comparable to that of a paralegal working on civil legal aid work. This raises a perception problem (ie, criminal legal aid is only a second class service) when compared to civil legal aid work which is remunerated more generously.

The above impression is most unfortunate and certainly not

September 2014 •

correct. On the other hand, there is no justification whatsoever for the huge difference between the two sets of legal aid rates.

Given the derisory criminal legal aid rates and faced with hefty increases in the overheads, solicitors and firms cannot afford to take on only, or specialise in, criminal defence work on legal aid. When experienced practitioners choose to stay away from criminal legal aid work, the pool of competent solicitors will dry up. This will lead to an irrecoverable loss of expertise in criminal defence.

The problem is aggravated when the above perception is entrenched in the younger generation of solicitors and no new blood is attracted to criminal legal aid defence work.

The Law Society is advocating that the hourly rate in criminal legal aid should be on par with the civil legal aid rates, payable and/or taxed on a party-toparty basis.

Factors that Should be Considered in the Biennial Review In advocating the above position, we note that in the latest (2012) biennial review, the Administration indicated that the following factors were taken into account: • inflation/deflation; and • whether there had been difficulties in engaging the services of solicitors and counsel.

However, various other relevant factors which should have been considered were left out from the equation. These include the increase in the costs of operating a law firm – the rising cost of labour generally; the significant increase in office rents; and also the difficulties in the retention of a pool of experienced solicitors and paralegals to undertake

criminal litigation work.

We also consider that the significant disparity between civil and criminal hourly rates should be factored in. In considering the parity between the two sets of rates, the Law Society has researched practices in various overseas jurisdictions and concluded that criminal legal aid rates are not necessarily lower than civil legal aid rates. In some jurisdictions, the criminal legal aid rates are similar to or even higher than the civil legal aid rates.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會 長 的 話

objective, the Government should devote adequate resources to ensure that the basic civil and legal rights of those of inadequate means or who are otherwise underprivileged are properly protected.

We will continue our dialogue with the Administration to advocate a level playing field for the protection of the rights of those facing criminal prosecutions.

Apart from the above issues which affect the rates of criminal legal aid work, the structure of payment should be addressed, as well.

One structural issue is the fact that solicitors have been granted higher rights of audience as Solicitor Advocates since March 2013, but their rates have not been considered. In this biennial review, the hourly rates of Solicitor Advocates should be examined.

Stephen Hung, President

The other issue relates to the payment of conferences. Instructing solicitors may engage the assistance of their clerks to attend conferences with counsel. Under the current practice, such work will be disregarded and the instructing solicitors will not be paid if they do not attend the conference in person. This practice is unfair and unjustified and should be discontinued.

The Government’s stated policy objective is to better protect the rights and wellbeing of the less privileged members of society. To fulfill its responsibility and comply with the policy

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

• September 2014

刑事法律援助費用制度檢討

• 通脹/通縮；及 • 聘用律師和大律師時是否出現困難。

一場持久戰

雖然公帑應謹慎用之，但刑事法援制度撥

自2006年3月以來，香港律師會一直與

款長期不足，當局應以正確的角度審視，

然而，當局並沒有將多項其它相關因素加

政府當局就刑事法律援助費用制度的檢討

尤其若涉及刑事指控，人們的聲譽和自由

入考慮之列，包括律師行的營運成本上升

進行討論。可是，儘管各界已達致廣泛共

均會受到影響。多年來，許多律師為維護

(員工薪酬普遍持續上升)、寫字樓租金顯

識，認為費用制度需要改善，但迄今進度

公義，以義務形式提供法律意見及承接刑

著增加，以及難以挽留經驗豐富的律師和

未能令人滿意。問題的癥結，主要在於

事辯護工作，實際上就是以自己的私人資

法律輔助人員去承接刑事訴訟工作。

當局準備投放多少資源於刑事法律援助制

源補貼刑事法援制度。

我們亦認為，民事和刑事在每小時收費率

政府當局須對社會負責，解決此基本的資

上的顯著差距，亦應列為考慮因素之一。

源問題，因這關係到市民在刑事審訊中的

律師會在考慮劃一兩組收費制度時，研究

權利。

了多個海外司法管轄區的做法，並得出以

度，去幫助在刑事審訊中無法負擔私人法 律代表的市民。

面臨刑事指控者未獲提供公平的競爭環 境 我們審閱過法律援助署(下稱「法援署」) 每年在刑事法援上的開支。例如，我們注 意到在2006年至2011年間，儘管整體通 脹持續，而且律師行的經常性開支有所增 加，但法援署的同期支出並沒有普遍上 升。

下結論：刑事法援的收費不一定應低於民

刑事法援辯護律師人才流失

事法援的收費。在某些司法管轄區，刑

每小時收費率和費用由《刑事案件法律援

事法援跟民事法援的收費相約，甚或乎更

助規則》(第221D章)第21條規則訂明。

高。

儘管當局在2013年11月已對這些規則作

除了上述各項影響刑事法援工作收費的因

出修訂，但刑事法援的每小時收費率仍大

素外，付款的結構亦應加以處理。

幅度低於民事法援。某些情況下，刑事律 師的收費可能相當於從事民事法律援助工

相比之下，律政司刑事檢控科在同一時期

作的法律輔助人員。這引申出一個觀念上

的財政撥款卻按年遞增。刑事檢控科從政

的問題，就是相比起待遇較好的民事法援

府支取用於檢控的財政資源不斷增加，但

工作，刑事法援僅屬次等服務。

受法援署委託為法援客戶辯護的律師卻沒 有獲得類似或充足的預算調整。 結果是，面對政府分量十足的調查和檢控 資源時，承接刑事法援案件的律師要格外 吃力為客戶抗辯，尤其是審訊前的準備工 作。

如此看法實在令人遺憾，而且肯定不正 確。另一方面，兩類法援工作的收費相距 之大，並無道理可言。

其中一個結構上的問題，是自2013年3月 起，律師可申請成為訟辯律師，享有較高 級法院出庭發言權，但他們的收費迄今仍 未予以考慮。在是次兩年一度的檢討中， 我們應審議訟辯律師的收費。 另一個問題是出席會議的費用。發出指示 的律師可能需要其文員與大律師一起出席 會議。根據現行制度，該文員的工作不可

鑑於刑事法援的收費率如此低微，經常性

收費，如果發出指示的律師不親自出席會

開支又大幅增加，律師和律師行不能只承

議，他們亦不可以收取費用。這種做法既

接或者專門從事刑事法援的辯護工作。當

不公平亦不合理，不應繼續採用。

控辯雙方出現這種一方較另一方佔優的情

資深執業者選擇不再承接刑事法援案件，

況，會嚴重損害面臨刑事檢控者的基本權

能勝任的律師便買少見少。這會令刑事辯

利。

護的人才流失，致無法挽回的地步。

刑事調查愈見複雜，而且牽涉層面日廣，

當上述看法植根於年輕一代的律師心中，

即使是經濟能力有限或者屬於弱勢社群的

令這種不平等的境況加劇。今時今日，通

再沒有新血加入刑事法援辯護工作的行列

人士，他們的基本公民和法律權利亦得到

訊和科技日新月異，世界各地執法機關的

時，問題便更見嚴重。

適當的保障。

律師會主張把刑事法援與民事法援兩者的

我們將繼續與政府當局對話，提倡公平競

每小時收費率劃一，並按「訴訟各方對

爭環境，保障面臨刑事檢控者的權利。

檢控數字上升，加上廣泛使用專家和監視 監聽證據，律師又要具備更多專門知識以 應付複雜的法例，倘若要由恰當的律師代 表被告人，則這些因素對預備工作皆有顯

群的權利和福祉。為了履行其責任及符合 政策目標，政府應投放充足資源，以確保

評」基準支付及/或評定費用。

著影響。

在兩年一度的檢討應考慮哪些因素

現在是時候提供一個公平的競爭環境，讓

在提倡上述立場時，我們注意到當局在最

不能負擔聘請私人律師進行抗辯的人士，

近的(2012年)兩年一度檢討中表示會考慮

能夠與控方一樣，得到足夠的資源。

以下因素：

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

政府訂下的政策目標，是加強保護弱勢社

熊運信 會長

• September 2014

CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者 Lee Mason

Lee Mason

The University of Hong Kong, Assistant Professor of Law

香港大學法律系助理教授 Lee Mason擁有英格蘭及威爾斯的大律師

Lee Mason is called to the Bar of England and Wales and is a CEDR and HKMAAL Accredited Mediator. As an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong, he has written extensively on the Law of Contract and is currently conducting research in the area of Consumer Protection.

資格，亦是CEDR及香港調解資歷評審協 會的認證調解員。作為香港大學法學系助 理教授，他在合約法方面著作甚豐，目前 正進行保障消費者權益方面的研究。

Jeffrey Mak

麥振興

DLA Piper Hong Kong , Partner

香港歐華律師事務所合夥人

Jeffrey Mak advises on securities and corporate transactions.

He undertakes a broad range of legal work relating to public mergers and acquisitions, restructuring of pre-listed, China-based businesses, initial public offerings, securities and bond placements, share repurchases, spin-offs, privatisations, schemes of arrangement and restructurings, secondary listings, rights issues, open offers and other regulated transactions relating to listed companies.

麥振興律師專就證券及企業交易的事務提

Jeffrey also acts for listed companies when they are subjected to regulators’ enquiries on compliance matters.

He represents clients in a variety of sectors including banking and financial, infrastructure, property, information and technology, retail, consumer goods, natural resources and civil aviation.

Jeffrey is regarded as knowledgeable in drafting contract and disclosure documentations, as well as advising on the adjustments to conversion prices.

供意見。他從事的法律工作種類廣泛，包 括公眾企業併購、中國企業上市前重組、 首次公開招股、證券及債券配售、股份回 購、分拆、私有化、安排計劃及重組、第 二上市、供股、公開招股，以及其他與上 市公司相關的受規管交易。 麥律師亦不時代表上市公司處理監管機構 就合規事宜提出的查詢。 他代表的客戶來自各行各業，包括銀行和 金融、基建、房地產、資訊科技、零售、 消費品、天然資源和民用航空。 麥律師以擅於草擬合約及披露文件，以及 就調整換股價提供意見而見稱。

Mike Wright

Mike Wright

Pure Search, Associate Director, Private Practice

Pure Search 聯席董事 – 私人執業

Mike is responsible for the recruitment of private practice lawyers across Asia and works with international law firms in Hong Kong, China, Singapore and Japan. Mike has experience recruiting across all areas of law and has successfully completed numerous associate-level searches across the Asia Pacific region from the newly qualified to counsel level.

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

Mike負責招聘亞洲的私人執業律師，並和 位於香港、中國、新加坡及日本的國際律 師事務所合作。Mike擁有招聘所有法律範 疇律師的經驗，並在整個亞太區成功完成 不少助理律師層面(從新入職至代表律師 程度)的人才發掘工作 。

September 2014 • CONTRIBUTORS

S. Richard Carden

S. Richard Carden

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Partner

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP 合夥人

S. Richard Carden is a partner with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. Mr. Carden has experience in all areas of patent and trademark law practice, with particular emphasis on litigation, client counseling, and patent procurement in the chemical and biotechnological arts. His patent litigation experience spans diverse technologies, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic equipment, trading software, telecommunications products, injection-molding systems, and automotive refrigerants. He has also litigated trademark, trade dress, and unfair competition issues. His trial experience includes both jury and bench trials.

S. Richard Carden為McDonnell Boehnen

投稿者

Hulbert & Berghoff LLP的合夥人。他在 專利和商標法的各個領域皆經驗豐富， 尤其擅長訴訟、客戶諮詢及化學和生物 科技藝術的專利申請。他在專利訴訟方 面處理過的科技種類繁多，包括藥物、 醫療器材、診斷設備、交易軟件、通訊 產品、塑膠注塑系統及車用製冷劑。他 亦處理過有關商標、商業外觀和不公平 競爭事宜的訴訟。由陪審團或法官進行 審理的案件，他都甚具經驗。

Karen Ip

葉倩嫻

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, Partner

史密夫斐爾律師事務所合夥人

Karen advises on doing business in China, including establishing and operating representative offices, wholly foreign-owned enterprises and joint ventures. According to Chambers Asia-Pacific 2009, she is noted for “her capacity to really understand clients’ problems and give the most appropriate response in a timely manner”.

葉律師專門就中國營商提供諮詢，包括成立

Karen is principally involved in private equity investment projects, merger and acquisition transactions and greenfield investments in the manufacturing, infrastructure and financial institution sectors. She also advises on regulatory issues in China.

葉律師主要從事製造業、基建及金融機構

Karen was ranked as a leading individual in mergers and acquisitions (foreign firms), China in IFLR 1000 2011. Fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin, she is admitted as a solicitor in Hong Kong and England and Wales.

際金融法律評論1000強》(IFLR 1000)評為

和營運代表處、外商獨資企業和合資企業。 據2009年《錢伯斯指南》(Chambers

Asia

Pacific)，她以「有能力真正了解客戶的問 題，並及時給予最適當的回應」而著稱。

業的私募股權投資項目、併購交易及綠地 投資。她亦就中國監管事務提供意見。

IFLR 10002011葉律師獲2011年《國 中國傑出併購律師(外國律師行)。她能操流 利英語、粵語和普通話，並擁有香港及英 格蘭及威爾斯律師兩地的律師資格。

Jasmine Chen

陳雲曉

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, Associate

史密夫斐爾律師事務所律師

Jasmine is an associate in Herbert Smith Freehills’ Shanghai office. She is now mainly involved in foreign investment, mergers and acquisitions, and general corporate matters. Jasmine obtained her LL.M. degree from Fudan University, Shanghai. She passed the PRC National Bar Exam in 2007. Jasmine is fluent in Mandarin, Cantonese and English.

陳律師是史密夫斐爾律師事務所上海 辦事處的律師。她目前主要從事外商投 資、併購和一般企業事務。她擁有上海 復旦大學法學碩士學位，並於2007年通 過中國國家司法考試。她能操流利普通 話、粵語和英語。

www.hk-lawyer.org 11

• September 2014

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

Consultation Paper on Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance (Cap. 561) – Prohibition of Advertisement of Sex Selection through Reproductive Technology Procedures The Food and Health Bureau (“FHB”) recently conducted a consultation on the prohibition of advertisement of sex selection through Reproductive Technology Procedures. The consultation was initiated in view of increases in local press advertisements and promotion activities on sex selection in obstetric services involving the use of RT procedures to be carried out overseas. The FHB proposes to tighten the existing regulatory framework by amending the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance (Cap. 561) (“HRTO”) to: (i) prohibit advertisements and promotion of sex selection services on nonmedical grounds, irrespective of whether the service is rendered inside or outside Hong Kong; (ii) impose prohibition on advertisement and promotional materials which appear on the internet and other media; and (iii) impose penalty for contravention of the abovementioned prohibition; the level of proposed penalty would be similar to the current penalty for the prohibition of advertisement relating to surrogacy arrangement and commercial dealings of embryos / gametes.

The Law Society reviewed the proposal and in general supports the objectives of the proposed legislative amendments. The Law Society also invited FHB to raise public awareness of the HRTO. The Law Society’s submissions can be found at http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/ submissions/20140806.pdf.

Property Management Services Bill Property management companies and property management practitioners currently are not subject to any regulatory control. The Administration proposed a regulatory regime for property management under the Property Management Services Bill which was published in the Gazette on 25 April and introduced into the Legislative Council on 7 May. The Bill aims to: (a) establish a Property Management Services Authority (“Authority”) to regulate and control the provision of property management services with power to enforce the statutory provisions, issue a Code of Conduct and institute disciplinary actions; (b) introduce a single-tier mandatory licensing regime for property management company; 12 www.hk-lawyer.org

《人類生殖科技條例》(第561章)諮詢文 件 – 禁止有關透過生殖科技程序選擇性 別的廣告 食物及衛生局近日就禁止有關透過生殖科技程序選 擇性別的廣告進行諮詢。當局展開諮詢，是考慮到 本港出現有關性別選擇產科服務的報章廣告和宣傳 活動日漸增多，而這些服務涉及在海外進行生殖科 技程序。食物及衛生局建議修訂《人類生殖科技條 例》(第561章)(下稱「《條例》」)，以加強現行的 規管架構，包括： (i) 禁止基於非醫學理由而進行的性別選擇服務的廣 告和宣傳，不論有關服務是否在香港境內提供； (ii) 對在互聯網和其他媒體出現的廣告及宣傳資料施 加禁制；及 (iii) 對違反上述禁制者施以罰則，而建議的罰則將與 現時禁制代母安排及胚胎/配子的商業交易的罰 則類似。 律師會已審議相關建議，大致上支持法例修訂建議 的目的。律師會亦已促請食物及衛生局加深公眾對 《條例》的認識。律師會提交的意見書已上載至以 下網頁：http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/ news/submissions/20140806.pdf。

《物業管理服務條例草案》 目前，物業管理公司及物業管理人不受任何監管。當 局建議在《物業管理服務條例草案》(下稱「《條例 草案》」)下設立一套物業管理的規管制度。《條例草 案》已於4月25日刊憲，並於5月7日提交立法會。 《條例草案》旨在： (a) 成立物業管理業監管局(下稱「監管局」)，以規 管及管制物業管理服務的提供，並賦權監管局執 行法例條文、發出操守守則及作出紀律處分； (b) 為物業管理公司引入單一級別的發牌制度； (c) 為在提供物業管理服務方面擔任監督和管理角色 的物業管理人，引入兩個級別的發牌制度，分別

September 2014 •

(c) introduce a two-tier mandatory licensing regime for property management practitioners who take up a supervisory or managerial role in the provision of property management services – “registered professional property manager” and “licensed property management officer”; and (d) introduce a levy to be paid by purchasers under a conveyance on sale (“Levy”) to finance the Authority.

The Law Society’s Property Committee has reviewed the Bill. While the Law Society in principle supports the Bill which will enhance the standard and quality of property management, there are concerns about various aspects of the Bill, such as uncertainties and difficulties arising out of certain definitions/ terms. Clarification on the exemptions, the scope of documents to be disclosed by property management companies and the burden of the cost for providing such documents is also needed.

Imposition of the Levy is not justifiable as there is no direct relevance between the Levy and the conveyances on sale and not all owners can benefit from the proposed regime. The enforcement mechanism proposed by the Bill will also make the title checking process even more complicated and uncertain.

As many details are left to be dealt with by subsidiary legislation, the Administration should release such details as soon as possible after adequate consultation with stakeholders.

The full submissions can be found at the Law Society’s website at http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20140806a.pdf.

Consultation Paper on Proposal to Amend Publication Requirements Relating to Offer and Redemption Prices or Net Asset Value and Notices of Dealing Suspension under the Code on Unit Trusts and Mutual Funds

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理 事 會 議 題

為「註冊專業物業經理」及「持牌物業管理主 任」；及 (d) 引入徵款制度，由售賣轉易契的買家繳交徵款 (下稱「徵款」)，作為監管局的經費。 律師會的物業委員會已審議條例草案。律師會雖然原 則上支持《條例草案》，認為可提高物業管理的標準 和質素，但亦對《條例草案》多個方面表示關注，例 如某些定義/用語可引起變數和難度。當局亦需要釐 清相關豁免、物業管理公司須披露的文件範圍，以及 提供這些文件的費用由誰負擔。 徵款與售賣轉易契之間沒有直接關聯，而且並非所有 業主均可從擬議制度中受惠，因此施加徵款並非有理 可據。《條例草案》建議的執行機制亦會使查核業權 的程序更加複雜和難以確定。 由於許多細節乃留待予附屬法例處理，當局充分諮詢 各持分者後，應盡快公布這些細節。 意見書全文已上載至律師會網站：http:// www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/ submissions/20140806a.pdf。

有關建議修訂《單位信託及互惠基金 守則》下關於發售價及贖回價或資產淨 值，以及暫停交易通知的公布規定的諮 詢文件 證券及期貨事務監察委員會(下稱「證監會」)於6月

The Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) published a one-month consultation paper on 24 June on proposals to amend the Code on Unit Trusts and Mutual Funds (the “Code”).

24日就《單位信託及互惠基金守則》(下稱「《守

The existing regime requires publication of certain information by newspaper.

In light of practices in overseas jurisdictions such as Australia, Singapore and the EU, the SFC proposed to amend the Code to:

澳洲、新加坡和歐盟等海外司法管轄區採取的做法，

(i) give collective investment schemes greater flexibility in determining the appropriate manner for publishing their offer and redemption prices (“Prices”), net asset value (“NAV”) and notices of dealing suspension; and

則》」)的建議修訂，展開為期一個月的諮詢。 現行制度規定某些資料須經報章公布。證監會考慮過 建議修改《守則》如下： (i) 讓集體投資計劃享有更大彈性，自行決定公布 發售價及贖回價(下稱「價格」)、資產淨值及暫 停交易通知的適當方式；及

(ii) require dissemination of Prices and NAVs by collective investment schemes on each dealing day.

(ii) 集體投資計劃須在每個交易日發布價格及資產

The Law Society’s Investment Products and Financial Services Committee has reviewed the Consultation Paper. Given the advances in information technology, the Law Society agrees with the proposal of the SFC. However, the SFC is invited to clarify the status of its Circular issued in 2001 regarding suspension of dealings of authorised funds as to whether it is still applicable or will be updated in light of the proposals.

律師會的投資產品及金融服務委員會已審議該諮詢文

The responses to all the consultation questions are set out in a submission which can be viewed at the Law Society’s website at http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20140723.pdf.

律師會已在意見書列出對各諮詢問題的回應，詳情請

淨值。

件。鑑於資訊科技發展迅速，律師會贊同證監會提出 的建議。然而，我們促請證監會澄清，其於2001年 發出有關認可基金暫停交易的通函，是否仍然適用， 抑或會因應有關建議而進行修訂。

瀏覽律師會網站：http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/ pub_e/news/submissions/20140723.pdf。 www.hk-lawyer.org 13

• September 2014

Letters to Hong Kong Lawyer 給《香港律師》的信 Judicial Recognition Mechanism Required for Hong Kong-China Cross-Border Insolvencies

By Emily Lee, Assistant Professor

T

he signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on 19 December 1984 declared that Hong Kong would be returned to China as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) on 1 July 1997 and that Hong Kong’s freedoms and pluralism under the rule of law would remain unchanged for 50 years.

Within six years of the handover, on 29 June 2003, the Mainland and the HKSAR sought to foster and facilitate bilateral trade between the two economic entities by signing the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (“CEPA”) which laid out the basis for economic integration between the HKSAR and the Mainland under the political arrangement of the “One Country, Two Systems” principle so that the HKSAR’s capitalist and the Mainland’s socialist economies can coexist under the same sovereign nation but operate within separate legal and business frameworks. Yet the Mainland and the HKSAR still remained, and continue to remain, two separate judicial jurisdictions. As a result, judicial recognition of court judgments and orders remains a problem between the HKSAR and the Mainland.

After Hong Kong became the HKSAR, the first formal judicial recognition mechanism for cross-border instances lies with the Arrangement on Reciprocal

14 www.hk-lawyer.org

Faculty of Law at The University of Hong Kong Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Pursuant to Choice of Court Agreements between Parties Concerned (also known as the “2006 Arrangement”), which was signed in the HKSAR on 14 July 2006 and took effect on 1 August 2008. However, as suggested by its name, the 2006 Arrangement applies only to civil and commercial matters and does not cover crossborder corporate insolvencies between the HKSAR and the Mainland (“HKChina CBI”). It is important to note that the 2006 Arrangement cannot be adapted to create a new judicial recognition mechanism for HK-China CBI cases unless it is revised. The 2006 Arrangement builds around the parties’ choice of jurisdiction (to be in either the HKSAR or the Mainland); this is not suitable for cross-border insolvency matters because in many of these cases, the court’s jurisdiction is established on a non-consensual basis.

The problems of HK-China CBI issues have direct relevance to the needs of the HKSAR in maintaining its reputation as a key international financial centre in the world while maintaining strong economic ties with the Mainland. The HK-China CBI judicial recognition mechanism should be made available

for companies and insolvency practitioners in the HKSAR and the Mainland so as to simplify as well as unify the insolvency procedures in both jurisdictions. Otherwise, insolvency practitioners must be innovative and strategically plan for any subsequent insolvency proceedings to take place in the Mainland: changing legal representatives and management personnel of Chinese subsidiary companies is one important way to achieve this aim, although this would mean that administrative measures would be employed to achieve a result that a clearly stated insolvency procedure should bring forth as a matter of course and with legal certainty for all concerned parties.

Judicial recognition for cross-border insolvency cases is strongly desired for simplifying and expediting the insolvency procedure, without which creditors in the HKSAR, in order to enforce a favourable judgment (ruled by the HKSAR courts), would be forced to pursue another insolvency procedure in the Mainland. The dangers of duplicated law suits are not merely wasted judicial resources, time and costs; without judicial recognition, similarly-situated creditors may be awarded different judgments by different courts, creating an incentive for forum shopping by creditors. n

September 2014 •

LETTERS TO HONG KONG LAWYER 給《 香 港 律 師 》的 信

香港與內地跨境清盤案件所需的司法認可制度 李香慧助理教授 香港大學法學院

1

984年12月19日簽署的《中英聯合

內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和

認可機制，應為在內地和香港特區處理

聲明》，宣布香港於1997年7月1日

執行當事人協議管轄的民商事案件判決

企業與破產事宜的法律執業者提供，從

以香港特別行政區(「香港特區」)的身份

的安排》(「《2006年的安排》」)之下

而簡化和統一兩地的破產程序。否則，

回歸中國，而香港在法治之下所享有的

產生，《2006年的安排》在2006年7月

處理破產事宜的執業者必須具有創新思

自由和多元化將保持五十年不變。

14日簽署，並於2008年8月1 日生效。

維，並在策略上有計劃地讓日後的破產

不過，《2006年安排》顧名思義只適

訴訟於內地展開：更換中國子公司的法

用於民事和商業案件，並不涵蓋中港之

律代表和管理人員是達成這目標的重要

間的企業跨境破產情況(“中港企業跨

一步，雖然此舉意味著必須採取行政措

境破產”)。我們須注意的是，除非是對

施，從而得以遵循明確的破產程序，並

《2006年安排》進行修訂，否則不能對

為各方當事人帶來法律上的確切性。

回歸後的六年內，在2003年6月29日， 內地和香港特區為促進兩地雙邊貿易而 簽訂《內地與香港關於建立更緊密經貿 關係的安排》(下稱CEPA)。CEPA奠下了 內地和香港特區在“一國兩制”原則下 經濟融合的基礎，香港特區的資本主義 經濟與內地的社會主義經濟可在同一主 權國之下並存，但在各自不同的法律制 度和營商環境中運作。話雖如此，內地 和香港特區始終一直並繼續分別實行兩 個不同的司法制度。因此，法院判決和 命令在香港特區和內地司法機關之間的 互相認可是一直存在的問題。 香港成為特別行政區之後，第一個關於 跨境事項的正式司法認可機制在《關於

它作出調整，以設立一個處理中港跨境 破產案件的新司法認可機制。《2006年 安排》是建基於當事人對司法管轄區的 選擇 (或是在香港特區，或是在內地) ﹔ 這並不適用於跨境破產事宜，因為在許 多此類案件中，法院對案件的管轄權， 並非建基於當事人的相互同意。

設立跨境破產案的司法認可制度確有殷 切需要，因為這種制度可簡化和加快破 產程序。否則香港特區的債權人如要執 行香港特區法院所頒發的勝訴判決，便 無可選擇地需要在內地另外展開破產程 序。重複法律程序，其壞處不僅是浪 費司法資源、時間和費用﹔更嚴重的後

中港跨境破產的問題對香港特區在維

果，是在沒有司法認可機制的情況下，

持其作為全球主要金融中心之一的聲

處境相若的債權人可能會在不同法院取

譽，並同時與內地維繫緊密經貿往來方

得不同的判決，而這變相鼓勵他們尋找

面有著直接關係。中港跨境破產的司法

對其較有利的司法管轄區來興訟。 n

On the Concept of De Facto and Shadow Directors

By Patrick Sherrington, Partner Allan Leung, Partner Mark Lin, Partner Chris Dobby, Partner

T

Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells

he English Court of Appeal has given useful guidance on how to determine whether a person is a de facto or shadow director, in Smithton Ltd (formerly Hobart Capital Markets Ltd) v Naggar (10 July).

the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) and at common law. Even a single directorial act could lead to liability in an exceptional case.

This question is of crucial importance as persons, such as directors of the holding company, may be considered de facto or shadow directors of a subsidiary despite not having been formally appointed as a director, on account of their function and status. They would therefore be subject to additional obligations under

In Smithton, the claimant, formerly Hobart, was a brokerage company.

Hobart was initially set up as a division of a group of financial service companies (“DDI”), of which the defendant (Naggar) was chairman.

Later, Hobart was spun off into a separate joint venture company in

The Case

which DDI was a majority shareholder.

Although under the joint venture agreement Hobart had three directors and three appointees from DDI, Naggar was not one of them.

As part of its work, Hobart undertook contracts for difference (“CFDs”). In February 2007, Naggar concluded that certain shares were undervalued and Hobart began writing CFDs for them, some of which were placed with clients Naggar recommended. In order to hedge the CFDs, Hobart purchased the physical shares and the shares www.hk-lawyer.org 15

• September 2014

declined in value. DDI collapsed and Hobart sought to recoup its losses of some £4 million by seeking an indemnity from Naggar claiming, inter alia, that Naggar had been either a de facto or shadow director of Hobart and had acted in breach of his duties owed to Hobart.

The trial judge Rose J dismissed this claim, holding that Naggar was neither a de facto nor shadow director. Firstly, there was nothing that went beyond the involvement that one would have expected to see from a person who combined the roles of major client and chairman of the majority shareholder.

Secondly, there was no evidence Inside the UK Supreme Court 在英國最高法院內 that the majority of Hobart’s board were accustomed to acting in accordance with Naggar’s that person to be a director and held instructions. him out as such; and The Court of Appeal confirmed Rose J’s decision and dismissed Hobart’s appeal on the grounds that there was no basis for setting aside the judge’s conclusion that Naggar had been involved with Hobart’s affairs other than in his capacity as a director of DDI or some other capacity than that of director of Hobart.

Comment While the Court held that there was no definitive test to determine who was a de facto director, this is a noteworthy decision because the Court clarified the factors it will consider when determining whether a person is a de facto or shadow director. It explained that it will generally examine: • the company’s corporate governance structure to decide whether a person assumed the status and function of a director (eg, by performing acts directorial in nature) so as to make himself responsible as if he were a director; • whether the company considered 16 www.hk-lawyer.org

• whether third parties considered that he was a director.

In a more complex scenario, the court may also consider in what capacity the director was acting. For instance, in the case of a person who was a director of a holding company that is its subsidiary’s corporate director, so long as what that person did was done entirely within the ambit of his duties and responsibilities as a director of the corporate director/ holding company, his acts would not make him a de facto director of that subsidiary (as in the present case).

As regards the concept of a shadow director (ie, a person in accordance with whose instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act), the Court noted that a person can be both a shadow director and a de facto director at the same time. Also, the role of a de facto or shadow director need not extend over the whole range of a company’s activities. Ultimately, the question of whether a person was a de facto or shadow director is a question of fact and degree. n

從概念上決定何謂實質 董事和影子董事 施百祥合夥人 梁鎮宇合夥人 林文傑合夥人 陶哲思合夥人

霍金路偉律師行

英

國上訴法院在Smithton Ltd

(formerly

Hobart

Capital

Markets Ltd) v Naggar 一案中 (本年 7月10日)，就某人士是否實質董事或影 子董事提供有用的指引。 這是一個關鍵問題，理由在於像控股公 司的董事等人士可能會在沒有被正式委 任的情況下，基於其職能和地位而被視 為子公司的實質董事或影子董事。他們 因此須承擔在《公司條例》(第622章) 和 普通法下的額外義務。在例外情況下， 即使單一的董事性質作為，也有可能導 致法律責任產生。

案情簡述 在Smithton一案中，前身為Hobart公司的 申索人是一家經紀公司。Hobart在成立

September 2014 •

LETTERS TO HONG KONG LAWYER 給《 香 港 律 師 》的 信

初時是某金融服務集團(“DDI”)的附屬

Naggar既非實質董事，也非影子董事。

否擔當董事的地位或職能

公司，而被告人(Naggar)則為該集團的主

首先，在一名同時身兼主要客戶和大股

行事屬董事工作之性質)，從而須承擔

席。其後，Hobart被歸入另一家以 DDI為

東公司主席的人士身上，看不到他的參

像董事一般的責任；

大股東的獨立聯營公司旗下。雖然根據

與程度超過一般人的預期。再者，並沒

聯營協議，Hobart有權任命三名董事，

有證據顯示Hobart董事會的大多數成員

而另外三名董事則由DDI任命，但Naggar

是慣常遵從Naggar的指示行事。

並非當中的一員。

上訴法院維持原審法官的判決，並駁回

Hobart的工作之一，是不時與他方簽訂

Hobart的上訴，理由是原審法官確認

在較為複雜的情況下，法庭或會考慮董

差價合約。2007年2月，Naggar認為

Naggar是單純以Hobart的董事身份，而

事是以什麼身份行事。例如，身為子公

某種股份的價格被低估，Hobart便開始

並無以DDI的董事或其他身份參與Hobart

司機構董事的控股公司董事，若他所做

就此制訂差價合約，而部分合約給予由

的事務。要推翻原審法官的這一結論並

的事完全沒有超越其擔任該機構董事/控

Naggar推薦的客戶。要為該批差價合

無實質理據。

股公司之董事的職責範圍，則其行事不

約做對沖，Hobart購入了實質股份，但

評論

案的案情)。

雖然法庭裁定並無任何明確測試可供確

至於影子董事的概念(即公司的董事慣常

定某人是否實質董事，但由於法庭在本

聽從其指示來行事)，法庭指出某人可同

案中澄清了確定某人是否實質董事或影

時作為影子董事及實質董事。此外，實

子董事時所考慮的因素，因此這項裁決

質董事和影子董事的職能無需涵蓋公司

有其值得關注的地方。法庭指出它一般

的一切業務。最終，某人是否一名實質

會檢視：

董事或影子董事，須就相關事實與程度

• 公司的企業管治架構，以確定某人是

來確定。n

有關股份後來跌價。DDI最終倒閉，而 Hobart為了彌補其所蒙受的四百多萬英 鎊損失，要求Naggar作出彌償，理由是 Naggar 曾經是Hobart的實質董事或影 子董事，並曾違反其須對Hobart履行的 職責。 原審法官Rose J 撤銷上述申索，認為

(例如，其

• 公司是否將該名人士視作董事，並以 此來看待他；以及 • 第三者是否認為該名人士是董事。

會使他成為該子公司的實質董事(一如本

www.hk-lawyer.org 17

• September 2014

FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

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

Partnership Associations between Hong Kong Law Firms and Mainland Law Firms in Guangdong Province The Secretariat has recently received enquiries from Hong Kong law firms about the procedure of obtaining a certificate of standing in support of an application to establish a partnership association with a Mainland law firm in Qianhai.

The Pilot Implementation Measures for Partnership Associations between Hong Kong Law Firms and Mainland Law Firms in Guangdong Province (“Pilot Measures”) have come into effect since 1 September 2014.

It has been 10 years since the concept of a structured association between Hong Kong law firms and Mainland law firms was introduced under the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (“CEPA”) signed on 29 June 2003. In Annex 4 of the Main Text of CEPA, Hong Kong law firms that have set up representative offices in the Mainland are allowed, with effect from 1 January 2004, to operate in association with Mainland law firms, except in the form of partnership.

Over the past decade, this association model has been further developed and liberalised with respect to the eligibility requirements on the size, standing and geographical location of the associated firms as well as on the number of firms in the association. Specific developments include: (a) Supplement II to CEPA signed on 18 October 2005 allows a Hong Kong law firm that has set up a representative office in the Mainland to operate in association with one Mainland law firm situated in the province, autonomous region or municipality where its representative office is situated. (b) Supplement III to CEPA signed on 27 June 2006 waives, with effect from 1 January 2007, the requirement on the number of full-time lawyers employed by Mainland law firms that operate in association with Hong Kong law firms. (c) Supplement VI to CEPA signed on 9 May 2009 allows, with effect from 1 October 2009, Hong Kong law firms which have set up representative offices in the Mainland to operate in association with Mainland law firms in Guangdong Province if those firms have been established for one year or more and at least one of the firm’s partners has five years or more of legal practice experience.

香港律師事務所與 內地律師事務所在廣東省實行合夥聯營 近日，有些香港律師事務所就辦理與內地律師事務所在 前海成立合夥聯營申請，向秘書處查詢向律師會申請證 明書的手續。 《香港律師事務所與內地律師事務所在廣東省實行合夥 聯營試點辦法》(下稱「《試點辦法》」)已於2014年9 月1日實施。 自2003年6月29日兩地簽署《內地與香港關於建立更緊 密經貿關係的安排》(下稱「《安排》」)，引入由中港 兩地律師事務所有系統地聯營的概念，至今已屆十年。 《安排》主體文件的附件四列明，由2004年1月1日 起，已在內地設立代表機構的香港律師事務所可與內地 律師事務所聯營，但聯營組織不得以合夥形式運作。 過去十年來，這種聯營模式在門檻上不斷發展和開放， 包括聯營組織的規模、地位、地點，及合組聯營組織的 律師事務所數目。具體發展如下： (a) 2005年10月18日簽訂的《安排》補充協議二中， 允許已在內地設立代表機構的香港律師事務所，與 其代表機構住所地所在的省、自治區或直轄市的一 間內地律師事務所聯營。 (b) 2006年6月27日簽訂《安排》補充協議三訂明，自 2007年1月1日起，對與香港律師事務所進行聯營 的內地律師事務所的專職律師人數不作要求。 (c) 2009年5月9日簽訂的《安排》補充協議六訂明， 自2009年10月1日起，允許已在內地設立代表機構 的香港律師事務所，與成立時間滿一年或以上，並 至少有一名合夥人具有五年以上執業經驗的廣東省 內地律師事務所聯營。

(d) Supplement VIII to CEPA signed on 13 December 2011 makes a commitment to further develop closer cooperation between the legal professions of the Mainland and Hong Kong and to explore ways of improving the mode of association of law firms of the two places.

(d) 2011年12月13日簽訂的《安排》補充協議八中， 承諾進一步密切內地與香港律師業的合作，探索完 善兩地律師事務所聯營方式。

(e) Supplement IX to CEPA signed on 29 June 2012 allows, with effect from 1 January 2013, Hong Kong law firms that have set up representatives offices in the Mainland to operate in association with one to three Mainland law firms.

(e) 2012年6月29日簽訂的《安排》補充協議九訂明， 自2013年1月1日起，允許已在內地設立代表機構 的香港律師事務所，與一至三間內地律師事務所實 行聯營。

18 www.hk-lawyer.org

September 2014 •

FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律 師 會 秘 書 處 資 訊

The association model has finally evolved to a partnership model, which was expressly prohibited back in 2003. Pursuant to the commitment in Supplement VIII to CEPA, the Pilot Measures introduce on a trial basis, from 1 September 2014, a partnership model in three locations in Guangdong Province, namely, Qianhai in Shenzhen, Nansha in Guangzhou and Hengqin in Zhuhai.

聯營模式終於發展成合夥模式，早在2003年，這種模式

In this model, one or more Hong Kong firms can form a partnership with one Mainland firm in accordance with the Pilot Measures. The partnership requires a total capital injection of not less than RMB5 million. If there is one Hong Kong partner firm in the partnership, its capital injection ratio should not be less than 30 percent or more than 49 percent of the total. If there is more than one Hong Kong partner firm, their total capital injection should not be more than that of the Mainland partner firm.

在這個聯營模式下，一間或多間香港律師事務所可以與一

The partnership offers legal services under its own name and each partner firm can second its own lawyers (each lawyer with not less than three years of practice experience) to practise in the partnership. The legal services that it can offer include litigation in civil and commercial matters as well as all non-litigation matters. However, it is expressly provided that it cannot engage in any criminal or administrative litigation where the Mainland law applies.

To be eligible to become a Hong Kong partner firm in this type of partnership association, a Hong Kong firm has to fulfill certain criteria: (a) the firm has been in practice for not less than five years; (b) the firm has over 10 practising lawyers and its principal has to be a Hong Kong practising lawyer (if there is more than one Hong Kong partner firm, at least one of them has to fulfill this requirement and each of the other Hong Kong partner firms must have over five practising lawyers); (c) the firm can provide legal services in Hong Kong law and the law of other jurisdictions in which it is qualified; and (d) the firm has no disciplinary record in the three years prior to its application.

卻是明文禁止的。根據《安排》補充協議八所訂的承諾， 《試點辦法》以試行形式，由2014年9月1日起，在廣東 省三個地點推出合夥模式，包括深圳前海、廣州南沙和珠 海橫琴。

間內地律師事務所，按照《試點辦法》的規定成立合夥聯 營。合夥聯營的總出資額不得少於人民幣500萬元。如果 參與合夥聯營的香港一方只有一間律師事務所，則其出資 的比例不得低於30%，亦不得高過49%。如果參與合夥 聯營的香港一方有多於一間律師事務所，則他們的出資比 例應低於內地律師事務所的出資比例。 合夥聯營以自己的名義提供法律服務，聯營各方可派駐各 自的律師(其執業經驗不得少於三年)到合夥聯營執業。聯 營可承辦民事和商業的訴訟，以及所有非訴訟事務。然 而，《試點辦法》列明，合夥聯營不得從事任何涉及內地 法律適用的刑事或行政訴訟事務。 香港律師事務所必須符合下列條件，方可申請成立這類合 夥聯營： (a) 已經營滿五年； (b) 擁有十名以上執業律師，及其負責人須為香港執業律 師(如果參與合夥聯營的香港律師事務所有兩間或以 上，至少其中一間律師事務所須符合這項要求，而其 他香港律師事務所須擁有超過五名執業律師)； (c) 能夠辦理香港法律事務，以及中國以外獲准律師執業 的其他國家和地區的法律事務；及 (d) 申請聯營前三年內未受過紀律處分。

To support the fulfillment of the above criteria, Hong Kong firms may have to make an application for a certificate of standing from the Law Society and we stand ready to assist. Enquiries on the application procedure for a certificate of standing can be directed to our Registration Section. The Pilot Measures are also posted on the Law Society’s website in the Practice Management Section of the Members’ Zone.

為了展示已符合上述條件，香港律師事務所可能需要向律 師會申請證明書，而我們已準備就緒提供協助。如對申請 證明書的手續有任何疑問，可與秘書處註冊部聯絡。《試 點辦法》亦已上載到律師會會員區執業管理一欄。

Profile of the Profession — Updated Statistics

業界最新統計資料

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

律師會會員不時要求秘書處提供與業界有關的統計資

Members (with or without practising certificate) Members with practising certificate Trainee Solicitors Registered foreign lawyers Hong Kong law firms Registered foreign law firms Civil Celebrants Reverse Mortgage Counsellors Solicitor Advocates

9,184 8,033 903 1,303 826 78 1,944 354 24

料。下列是一些最新的業界統計數字(截至2014年7 月底)： 會員(持有或不持有執業證書) 持有執業證書的會員 實習律師 註冊外地律師 香港律師行 註冊外地律師行 婚姻監禮人 安老按揭輔導法律顧問 訟辯律師

9,184 8,033 903 1,303 826 78 1,944 354 24 www.hk-lawyer.org 19

• September 2014

“As we continue to surf the waves of globalisation, it is time to consolidate and rethink so that we can all stand together steadfastly to help Hong Kong scale new heights as a leading global financial and commercial centre.”

20 www.hk-lawyer.org

September 2014 •

COVER STORY 封 面 專 題

Face to Face with

Frank Poon Solicitor General HKSAR

By Cynthia G. Claytor

This month, Frank Poon, Solicitor General of Hong Kong who heads the Legal Policy Division of the Department of Justice, speaks to Hong Kong Lawyer about the development of legal and dispute resolution services in Hong Kong, as well as the importance of promoting the rule of law and maintaining an independent Judiciary.

T

he rule of law is no mere slogan for Frank Poon, who has ardently championed this core principle throughout his tenure at the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”).

For Poon, it’s an emblem, a golden thread that runs through the fabric of Hong Kong’s legal system. Despite the phrase being bandied about in light of recent controversial events, this important principle remains untarnished in his eyes.

“The rule of law is the bedrock upon which Hong Kong’s success is, and will continue, to be built,” Poon contends as if making his opening statement in court; and over the course of our conversation in the Queensway Government Offices, where the DOJ is headquartered, he clearly and thoroughly makes his case.

As the Solicitor General Since his appointment in 2010, Poon’s

focus has been on promoting the rule of law in Hong Kong and promoting the City as a legal and dispute resolution hub. As Solicitor General, Poon also advises the Government on constitutional law and public interest issues and oversees co-operative efforts between Hong Kong and the Mainland on legal matters.

Poon joined the DOJ (then Legal Department) as a Crown Counsel in 1991 after qualifying as a solicitor in England. Throughout his tenure as a Government lawyer, he has served in the DOJ’s Civil, International Law and Legal Policy Divisions. Some of his major achievements include overseeing the passage of the Arbitration Bill (Cap. 609) and the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill (Cap. 597) by the Legislative Council and taking part in the negotiation of a number of international agreements

as a representative for the Hong Kong Government, including the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

Law, however, is a second career for Poon, who spent the first ten years of his career as civil servant for the Government, focusing on public administration issues. To Poon, his public administration background has proved helpful, as it has enabled him to better understand administrative challenges the government faces and public interest issues that affect Hong Kong.

The Rule of Law is the Bedrock of Hong Kong’s Success Hong Kong’s success can be attributed to a confluence of factors, but the most important factor, Poon says, is the rule of law.

www.hk-lawyer.org 21

• September 2014

“Hong Kong’s independent judiciary and rule of law give it a competitive advantage over other cities,” Poon explains. “Hong Kong’s lifeblood flows from the financial and insurance industries, but to attract this type of economic activity the City had to build a legal system to back up developments generated from their business operations. Without a track record of safeguarding the rule of law or an independent judiciary, Hong Kong could not have achieved its current level of success. Banks, financial institutions and large multinational corporations would have never come to Hong Kong if they were not rest assured that their investments and interests were protected by a good legal system and impartial courts.”

“The rule of law, not only provides stakeholders, but all individuals in Hong Kong, with a secure and predictable environment so that everyone knows what their rights and obligations are,” Poon states. “It ensures a level playing field for all businesses, which is why Hong Kong is one of the leading legal and global financial centres.”

Judicial Independence “Judicial independence is critical to safeguarding the rule of law, and its importance cannot be overstated,” says Poon.

Events over the last few months in Hong Kong, such as the publication of the White Paper by the Central People’s Government and the disturbance at the Legislative Council, have highlighted as much. “Not only is it a necessary pre-condition for long-term sustainable economic growth, it is also crucially important for the development of our society and an open and accountable government,” Poon emphasises.

“Under the Basic Law, judicial independence is constitutionally guaranteed. This has allowed Hong Kong judges to command respect and trust of the people in Hong Kong and 22 www.hk-lawyer.org

the international business community.

Hong Kong was ranked 12th out of 144 countries / territories in the 2012 World Economic Forum Report, and was among the best in Asia in so far as judicial independence is concerned,“ explains Poon.

“The City’s Court of Final Appeal (the “CFA”), specifically, has garnered the respect of the international community.

Since its establishment in 1997, when Hong Kong cut ties with the Privy Council in relation to final appeals, the CFA has been comprised not only of the best judicial talents from within Hong Kong, but also top judges from other common law jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand,” says Poon. Hong Kong continues to invite eminent overseas common law judges to sit as non-permanent judges of the CFA – a practice that Poon believes has enabled the City to maintain a strong link with other common law jurisdictions. “It has no doubt enriched the common law in Hong Kong and preserved the continuity of our common law tradition,” he says.

The judgments of the CFA are also well regarded and frequently cited in other jurisdictions. “Time and again our judges have demonstrated their independence by providing wellreasoned and impartial decisions which may go against the Government. A good example is the famous “W” case concerning the right of post-operational transsexual persons to marry,” notes Poon.

“I have complete confidence that judges will continue to uphold the rule of law in Hong Kong without fear or favour, and without being affected by any controversy about the quality required of our judges which is already laid down in the Basic Law.”

Protection of Human Rights While it is crucial for Hong Kong to protect businesses and financial stakeholders, Poon explains that

protecting human rights and adequately addressing public interest issues are also indispensable elements to promoting and safeguarding the rule of law. And while public interest issues may not be directly relevant to protecting the business interests of financial and business stakeholders, comprehensive protection of human rights and freedoms is very important to the international business community and the people of Hong Kong.

“In Hong Kong, the Basic Law contains important provisions safeguarding fundamental human rights and freedoms. Major international covenants such as the ICCPR (“International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”) are applicable in Hong Kong. Rights to property, the ownership of enterprises and investment from outside Hong Kong are also protected by law. Another key strength of Hong Kong is its zero tolerance towards corruption,” Poon says.

A Strong Diversified Legal Profession Another prominent feature of Hong Kong’s legal system is its sophisticated legal sector, which is comprised of first-class practitioners from over 28 jurisdictions. “The DOJ works diligently to not only maintain and enhance the competitiveness of our legal services, but also to create more opportunities for legal professionals in Hong Kong and abroad,” Poon says.

“Currently, we are working to consolidate our local industry and create more options for international and local law firms by updating our local liability regulations,” explains Poon.

One update will bring local liability regulations in line with international frameworks by allowing law firms practising in Hong Kong to establish limited liability partnerships (“LLPs”).

The second will allow lawyers to practise in the form of solicitors’ corporations.

September 2014 •

COVER STORY 封 面 專 題

At present, lawyers can only operate as sole proprietors or general partnerships with the latter imposing unlimited liability on partners.

Hong Kong’s Lawyers Edge over Foreign Lawyers “Lawyers in Hong Kong are wellconnected with Mainland legal service providers and enjoy an edge over foreign lawyers under CEPA (the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement). As such, the DOJ works closely with Hong Kong’s legal and dispute resolution community to further promote their legal services in the Mainland and other parts of the world, including emerging markets in the Asia Pacific region,” Poon explains.

“Under CEPA, it is easier for Hong Kong lawyers to form associations with Mainland law firms, set up representative offices in the Mainland, as well as gain access to the vast legal service market in the Mainland.”

As far as the Mainland legal service market is concerned, Poon says that the DOJ has been increasing its efforts to put forward proposals for “pilot measures” on legal and dispute resolution services under the framework of CEPA, with a focus on new development areas such as Qianhai in Shenzhen, Nansha and Hengqin in Guangdong, and the Free Trade Zone in Shanghai. As a pilot measure, from 1 September 2014, a Hong Kong law firm may enter into a brand new form of association with a Mainland law firm in Qianhai, Nansha or Hengqin. Partner law firms in such an assoication may share profits and serve their clients in matters involving both Hong Kong and Mainland laws thereby providing a onestop service.

“Other initiatives we have been pursuing,” Poon continues to explain, “include proposals to allow enterprises in the Mainland to choose Hong Kong laws as the applicable law for their

The Honourable Chief Justice, Mr. Geoffrey Ma Tao-li (third right), and the Solicitor General, Mr. Frank Poon (third left), with the finalists of the 1st Law Reform Essay Competition on 30 June 2014.

2014年6月30日，終審法院首席法官馬道立先生(右三)及法律政策專員潘英光先生(左三)，與首屆法 律改革徵文比賽的得獎者合照。

commercial contracts, to choose Hong Kong as a venue for arbitration should disputes arise, and to allow Hong Kong arbitration bodies to provide services directly in the Mainland. We believe that development in these new areas in the Mainland will present opportunities for Hong Kong’s legal and dispute resolution professionals to further enhance their practice in both Hong Kong and the Mainland.”

Poon predicts that this scheme will enable Mainland enterprises to capitalise on the strengths of Hong Kong legal and dispute resolution services, and potentially enhance the environment for doing business in the Mainland.

Dispute Resolution Services “The Hong Kong Government, in particular the DOJ, continually strives to enhance the City’s role as an international legal and dispute resolution hub in the Asia Pacific Region.

The existence of effective and diverse dispute resolution facilities in Hong Kong gives international investors the

assurance that any commercial dispute can be efficiently and fairly dealt with, both in and out of the court system. This provides investors with a strong incentive to move their money and establishments here,” says Poon.

Arbitration In the context of arbitration, Hong Kong recently re-vamped its arbitration legislation, with the aim of unifying its domestic and international arbitration regimes. One innovation the new legal framework brings about is the ability for arbitral tribunals and the courts to make orders for interim measures of protection to support arbitrations. “Hong Kong is one of the first jurisdictions in the world to strengthen the powers of our courts to make such orders, as well as provide for the enforcement of interim measures made by foreign courts or arbitral tribunals presiding over arbitral proceedings seated abroad,” Poon states.

In 2013, the Arbitration Ordinance was further amended to allow Hong Kong courts to enforce relief granted by an emergency arbitrator, whether made

www.hk-lawyer.org 23

• September 2014

in or outside of Hong Kong. “With these amendments, our arbitration regime has become clearer, more userfriendly and more readily accessible to arbitration users and practitioners from around the world,” affirms Poon.

The Government has also taken active steps to enhance the enforcement network of arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. In January 2013, it concluded an arrangement with Macao on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards which took effect in December 2013, whilst a similar arrangement with the Mainland has been in effect since the year 2000.

“Together with the enforcement network under the New York Convention,” Poon explains, “Hong Kong arbitral awards are enforceable in over 140 different jurisdictions in the world.”

Internationalism “A key to Hong Kong’s success as a regional centre for legal and dispute resolution services is internationalism,” says Poon. Apart from its home-grown Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre which offers globally-recognised independent and efficient arbitration services in the region, Hong Kong has welcomed other major international arbitration bodies, such as the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICCICA”) in 2008 and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) in 2012. The China Maritime Arbitration Commission (“CMAC”) has also confirmed it will set up a branch office in Hong Kong in 2014, which will be its first branch office outside of the Mainland.

“No doubt, this would further entrench Hong Kong’s position as a leading maritime centre in the region,” says Poon.

Apart from international arbitral bodies, the Asia Pacific Regional Office of the Hague Conference on Private International Law was set up in Hong 24 www.hk-lawyer.org

Kong in 2012. The Hague Conference promotes a number of conventions on international judicial co-operation in the areas of civil litigation, commercial law as well as the protection of family and children. “The Hague Conference may further develop its work and extend its influence through its regional office in the City,” explains Poon.

“Looking ahead, the Government will continue to engage in discussions with reputable international legal and dispute resolution institutions to explore the feasibility of their establishing a presence in Hong Kong. This includes the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a leading international institution providing services on resolution of international investment disputes. Their presence would fortify Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a regional hub for legal and dispute resolution services.”

Mediation Mediation has proven to be a popular alternative dispute resolution method.

It is a flexible and more client-oriented process, which has the potential of facilitating settlement at lower costs, and at the same time saving business relationships.

“While mediation also has long established a foothold in Hong Kong in areas such as family disputes and construction contract disputes, the Government is making efforts to promote its use over a broader array of disputes ranging from complex commercial disputes to conflicts among ordinary citizens,” says Poon.

The establishment of the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre (“FDRC”) in June 2012 is a good example of the Government’s work in this respect.

FDRC impartially administers a scheme under which monetary disputes between individual consumers and financial institutions are resolved by way of “mediation first, arbitration next.”

“The Government is also committed

to building up a legislative framework to facilitate mediation. Hong Kong’s new Mediation Ordinance (Cap. 620), which came into force in January 2013, sets out a legal framework for the conduct of mediation with emphasis on the protection of confidentiality of mediation communications. Further, the Hong Kong Mediation Accreditation Association Limited (“HKMAAL”), which was established in 2012, provides an effective accreditation system aiming at ensuring the quality of mediators.

It also handles matters concerning training standards and disciplinary issues.”

The China Factor Hong Kong is strategically positioned as the gateway to Mainland China.

Thanks to the “One Country, Two Systems” design, Hong Kong is the only common law jurisdiction within the whole of China. “It seems fair to say that common law remains principally the legal backbone upon which international business is being transacted. Whilst the China factor has always been, and will continue to be, the comparative advantage Hong Kong enjoys over other cities in the region, we shall continue to do our utmost to fully utilise our unique and strategic position,” says Poon.

To foster closer legal co-operation with the Mainland, the Government concluded an arrangement to facilitate mutual enforcement of court judgments concerning certain commercial disputes in 2006. The Arrangement, which took effect in August 2008, covers money judgments given by a designated court of either the Mainland or Hong Kong exercising its exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to a choice of court agreement. Poon was pleased to report that there are already successful registrations of Mainland judgments in Hong Kong under that Arrangement.

“I am particularly encouraged by this development because of the difficulty

September 2014 •

COVER STORY 封 面 專 題

of enforcing Mainland judgments in Hong Kong under the common law due to questions on the finality of Mainland judgments,” Poon says.

“We are maintaining a dialogue with the Mainland side as well as stakeholders in Hong Kong on the operation of the existing legal co-operation arrangements and finding ways to further improve them. We are also exploring with the Mainland side co-operation in other areas, for example the recognition and enforcement of court orders in family matters.”

Building Up Hong Kong Strengths It is indisputable that Hong Kong has done very well as a financial centre in the region. However, for Hong Kong to continue to lead the way as an international financial and legal hub, it will have to address its current regulatory and infrastructure issues in the face of real and increasing competition from Shanghai and Singapore, who are both becoming increasingly aggressive and ambitious in their growth plans.

“In light of fierce competition, the Hong Kong Government remains committed to reworking its regulatory framework to keep pace with global market developments. It understands that the underlying principles of an effective regulatory regime are: to maintain a level playing field; to promote fair competition; and to balance the interests of different stakeholders, such as investors and consumers. All of this falls within our efforts to promote and safeguard the rule of law in Hong Kong,” concludes Poon. n

www.hk-lawyer.org 25

• September 2014

專訪

潘英光 香港特別行政區 法律政策專員 作者 Cynthia G. Claytor

「在全球化的大勢下，此時我們 要重新思考並團結一致，以鞏固 香港作為全球金融和商業活動的 樞紐地位，使香港創新高峰。」

掌管香港律政司法律政策科的法律政策專員潘英光本月接受《香港律師》專訪，談論 本港法律和解決爭議服務的發展，以及維護法治和保障司法機構獨立的重要。

在

潘英光心中，法治不單只是個口

亦就憲法、公眾利益等事務向政府提供意

號，而是他效職律政司期間一直

見，並監督香港與內地之間的司法協作事

法治乃香港賴以成功的基石 香港成功的因素眾多，但潘先生指當中的

熱心捍衛的核心原則。

宜。

對潘先生而言，法治是香港法律制度的象

潘先生於英國取得律師資格後，於1991

徵，是貫穿整個制度的金線。儘管這個詞

「獨立的司法機構和法治使香港比其他城

年加入律政司(時稱律政署)擔任檢察官，

語在近日的紛爭中備受爭議，但這一重要

市更具競爭優勢，」他解釋：「雖說金融

先後在律政司民事法律科、國際法律科及

原則在他眼中絲毫無損。

和保險業是香港經濟的命脈，但此類經濟

法律政策科工作。他主要的成就包括：

活動和商業運作帶來的發展都依賴穩健的

《仲裁條例草案》(第609章)和《內地判

法律制度。如香港過往沒有維護法治或保

決(交互強制執行)條例草案》(第597章)

障司法機構的獨立，香港就不可能擁有現

在他監督下獲立法會通過，而他亦代表港

時的成就。如缺乏完善的司法制度和不偏

府參與多項國際協議的談判，例如《海牙

不倚的法院保護它們的投資和權益，銀

選擇法院協議公約》。

行、金融機構和大型跨國企業根本不會來

法律其實是潘先生的第二事業，他效職

港投資。

政府的頭十年專責公共行政事務。早期

「持份者乃至香港所有人都應享有法治所

自2010年上任後，潘先生工作的重點就

經歷使他更深入瞭解政府行政面對的挑

提供的安全、可預測的環境，讓他們知道

是維護本港法治和促進香港成為法律及解

戰和影響香港公眾利益的議題，對他現

他們的權利和義務。」他續道：「法治確

決爭議樞紐。身為法律政策專員，潘先生

時工作裨益甚深。

保所有商業活動都享有公平的競爭空間，

「法治是香港成功依賴的基石，將來亦如 是。」潘先生語氣堅定，如在庭上作開案 陳詞，而我們在律政司位於金鐘道政府合 署的總部對談時，他亦多次清晰、仔細地 重申這個論點。

司職法律政策專員

26 www.hk-lawyer.org

關鍵乃是法治。

September 2014 •

COVER STORY 封 面 專 題

這也是香港成為全球其中一個最重要的法

題與保障金融及商業持份者的商業利益未

他表示，在內地法律服務市場方面，律政

律和金融中心的原因。」

必有直接關係，全面的人權和自由的保障

司已在《經貿安排》的框架下，就法律和

對國際商界和香港市民來說是十分重要。

解決爭議服務提出更多的「先行先試」措

司法獨立 潘先生指出：「司法獨立是維護法治的關 鍵，其重要程度不容置疑。」

「香港的《基本法》內有多條關於保障基 本人權和自由的重要條文。《公民權利 和政治權利國際公約》（ICCPR）等主要

本港過去數月發生的事件，如中央政府發

的國際公約亦適用於本港。除了私有財

表的《白皮書》和立法會內的爭議，正

產權、企業所有權和外來投資均受法律保

正顯示司法獨立何其重要。潘先生強調：

護，對貪污行為的零容忍政策亦是香港另

「司法獨立不僅是經濟長期持續發展必需

一主要優點」他說。

的基本元素，更是社會發展和一個公開且

施的建議，並以深圳前海、廣東的南沙和 橫琴及上海自由貿易試驗區等新發展區為 重點。由2014年9月1日起，香港律師事 務所可以與內地律師事務所在前海、南沙 或橫琴以「先行先試」方式，申請進行一 種全新類型的聯營。聯營的律師事務所可 分享盈利，亦可以向其客戶就涉及香港及 內地的法律事宜提供一站式的法律服務。

可靠的政府的必備條件。」

穩健、多元化的法律專業

「我們正在推動的其他建議，」潘先生繼

「根據《基本法》，司法獨立是受到憲法

「香港法律制度的另一大特色，是其優良

續解釋：「包括容許內地企業選擇以香港

層面的保障。此條件使本港法官獲得香港

的法律專業。業界擁有來自超過28個司

法律作為其商業合約的適用法律、發生爭

市民和國際商界的尊重和信任。在2012

法管轄區、經驗豐富的頂尖人才。律政司

議時選擇在香港進行仲裁，以及准許香港

年世界經濟論壇報告中，香港於144個國

不但竭力保持及提升本港法律服務的競爭

仲裁機構直接在內地提供仲裁服務。我們

家/區域中排行第12，是亞洲地區其中一

力，亦不斷為本港及海外法律界人士創造

相信內地新發展區的發展會帶來機遇，讓

個最獨立的司法體系」他解釋。

機遇。」潘先生說。

本港法律界及解決爭議的專業人士能同時

「香港的終審法院尤獲國際社會尊重。自

「目前，我們正在修訂本地的法律責任規

它於1997年成立後，香港的終審權不再

例，藉此鞏固本地法律行業，同時為國際

潘先生預計此計劃落實後，內地企業將可

屬於英國樞密院。香港終審法院不僅擁有

及本地律師事務所提供更多選擇。」他解

善用香港法律及解決爭議服務的強項，內

本港最優秀的法律人才，還有來自英國、

釋。

地營商環境亦可能因此獲得改善。

澳洲、新西蘭等其他普通法適用地區的法

為了使本地法律責任規例配合現時國際通

官」他說。香港持續邀請這普通法適用地

用架構，其中一項修訂將准許在港執業的

區內具威信的法官來港擔任終審法院的非

律師事務所成立有限法律責任合夥經營模

「香港政府，特別是律政司，一向竭力提

常任法官。潘先生認為，這個做法使香港

式(LLPs)。另一項修訂則容許律師以成立

升本港在亞太區域中擔任國際法律和解決

能與其他普通法適用地區保持緊密聯繫：

律師法團方式執業。

爭議樞紐的角色。本港擁有有效且多元化

「這個做法無疑加強了本港的普通法體

在香港和內地進一步拓展他們的業務。」

解決爭議服務

的解決爭議服務，向國際投資者提供保 目前，律師只能以獨資經營者或普通合夥

證，不論在法院制度內或外，任何商業爭

人身份執業，後者更須為其他合夥人承擔

議皆能獲得有效且公平的解決。這對投資

無限法律責任。

者來港投資及經營生意提供了強烈誘因」

的法院引用。潘先生指出：「本港法官不

香港律師比外地律師擁有的優勢

潘先生說。

時作出具充分理據、不偏不倚但異於政府

「由於《內地與香港關於建立更緊密經貿

仲裁

立場的判決，這顯示出他們的獨立性。著

關係的安排》(下稱「《經貿安排》」)，

名的W案就是個好例子，該判決保障了經

香港律師與內地法律服務業關係密切，相

手術變性人士結婚的權利。

比外地律師更具優勢。因此，律政司與本

系，讓普通法的傳統得以延續。」 香港終審法院的判決亦廣受其他普通法管 轄區的重視，且經常被其他普通法管轄區

「我很有信心，香港的法官會繼續無畏無 懼、不偏不倚地維護本港法治；法官的質 素於《基本法》中已有清楚要求，因此並 不會受任何爭議影響。」

保護人權

港法律及解決爭議業界緊密合作，在內地 和世界其他地方(包括亞太區的新興市場) 加強推廣本港的法律服務」，潘先生解 釋。

為了統一本地及國際仲裁制度，香港最近 改革了其仲裁法。新設法律框架其中一項 新措施，賦予香港仲裁庭及法院權力，頒 令臨時保護措施以支持仲裁。潘先生指 出：「香港是世界上最早賦予法院權力頒 布這類命令的司法管轄區之一；新措施亦 允許本地法院執行外地法院或外地仲裁庭

「基於《經貿安排》，本港律師可以比以

所頒令的臨時措施。」

往更容易地與內地律師事務所進行聯營、

潘先生解釋，除了金融及商業持份者，維

《仲裁條例》於2013年獲得進一步修

在內地設立代表機構，並能進入內地龐大

護人權和保障公眾利益也是提升和捍衛法

訂，不論緊急仲裁員在香港或香港以外地

的法律服務市場。」

方批給緊急濟助，香港法院均可執行。潘

治中不容忽視的一環。雖然公眾利益的議

www.hk-lawyer.org 27

• September 2014

先生對這些修訂給予充分肯定：「這些修 訂使本港的仲裁法更清晰、易於應用和方 便世界各地使用仲裁服務的人士和執業人 員。」 此外，港府亦積極完善本地仲裁裁決的執 行網絡。2013年1月，港府與澳門特區簽 訂相互認可和執行仲裁裁決的安排。該安 排由2013年12月起生效，另外與內地的 同類安排則早於2000年已經生效。「連 同《紐約公約》的執行網絡，」潘先生解 釋：「本港作出的仲裁裁決能在超過140 個司法管轄區強制執行。」

The Solicitor General, Mr. Frank Poon (second right), attending the United Nations Human Rights Committee hearing (12 March 2013, Geneva time) on the third report of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government regarding the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 法律政策專員潘英光先生(右二)(在日內瓦時間2013年3月12日)出席聯合國人權事務委員會就香港特別行 政區參照《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》提交的第三次報告舉行之審議會。

國際化 「國際化，是香港作為法律及解決爭議服 務區域樞紐的一個成功關鍵」潘先生說。 本地創立的香港國際仲裁中心為區域提供 獨立、有效且全球認可的仲裁服務。此 外，國際商會國際仲裁院和中國國際經濟

「調解在本港家庭、建築工程合約等類別

互認可和執行當事人協議管轄的民商事判

的爭議應用已久，港府現正努力推廣以調

決的安排(下稱《判決安排》)。《判決安

解解決更多範疇和不同類別的爭議，包括

排》由2008年8月起生效，涵蓋由指定的

複雜的商業爭議以至一般市民之間的衝

內地法院或香港法院依據商業協約行使其

突」潘先生說。

司法管轄權所作出須支付款項的判決。潘

貿易仲裁委員會亦分別於2008和2012年

於2012年成立的金融糾紛調解中心(下稱

在香港成立辦事處。中國海事仲裁委員會

「調解中心」)就是港府努力的證明。調

亦將於2014年於香港設立首個境外的辦

解中心以「先調解，後仲裁」的爭議解決

事處。「無疑，本港的海事樞紐地位將更

程序，持平地協助金融機構與客戶解決雙

穩固」潘先生說。

方牽涉金錢的爭議。

除了國際仲裁組織，海牙國際私法會議

「港府亦努力建立一個能促進調解的法

（下稱「海牙會議」）亦於2012年在香

律架構。於2013年1月新實施的《調解

港設立亞太區域辦事處（下稱「區域辦事

條例》(第620章)為調解過程訂立法律框

處」）。海牙會議倡議多項有關國際司法

架，着重使調解通訊得以保密。此外，於

合作的公約，範疇包括民事訴訟、商業法

2012年以擔保有限公司形式註冊的香港

和保護家庭及兒童等。「海牙會議可透過

調解資歷評審協會有限公司，設立了一套

香港的區域辦事處，進一步拓展其工作，

有效的資歷評審機制，確保調解員符合標

增強在亞太區內的影響力」潘先生解釋。

準，並制訂調解員訓練的標準和處理調解

「展望未來，港府將繼續積極與知名的國 際法律及解決爭議組織商討，探討它們來 港設立辦事處的可能性，對象包括以提供 國際投資解決爭議服務著名的國際組織海 牙常設仲裁法院。這些國際組織來港設立

員紀律等事宜。」

中國因素 香港是通往中國內地的策略性通道。基於 「一國兩制」，香港是全中國唯一的普通

先生分享說，目前已有根據《判決安排》 申請在香港登記內地判決的成功個案： 「由於以內地判決作為最終判決引起疑 問，以普通法在香港執行內地判決相當困 難。目前的進展讓我感到特別鼓舞。」 「就現時司法合作安排的運作情況，港府 一直保持與內地有關方面和本地持份者溝 通，尋求進一步的改善方法。同時，律政 司與內地正研究其他範疇的合作可能性， 包括家事判決的相互認可和執行。」

提升香港競爭力 香港無疑已是區內十分出色的金融中心； 然而，若要保持其國際金融和法律中心的 地位，香港必須面對競爭力不斷提升的上 海和新加坡，正視它們越來越積極進取的 發展計劃，及時處理現時本地的規管架構 和基建問題。

法司法管轄區。潘先生認為：「普通法可

潘先生的結論是：「面對日趨激烈的競

以說仍然是國際商業交易的主要法律支

爭，港府會繼續致力完善其規管架構，配

柱。一直以來，中國的因素都讓香港比亞

合全球市場發展。港府明白到有效的規管

調解

太區內其他城市擁有優勢，將來亦如是。

制度的基本原則是：保持公平的競爭空

調解是相當受歡迎的另類解決爭議方法，

我們將繼續竭盡所能，充分利用我們獨特

間、推廣公平競爭及平衡與不同持份者的

其過程靈活，並較能配合客戶需求，不但

的策略位置。」

權益，例如投資者與消費者等。這一切都

有機會讓客戶以較低成本達至和解，更可

為了與內地建立更緊密的司法合作關係，

能挽救商業合作關係。

港府與最高人民法院於2006年簽訂了相

辦事處，將有效提升香港作為法律及解決 爭議服務區域樞紐的競爭力。」

28 www.hk-lawyer.org

在我們維護和提升香港法治的努力範圍之 內。」 n

REUTERS/LUCAS JACKSON

COMPLIANCE AND AND COMPANY COMPANY COMPLIANCE SECRETARIAL PRACTICE PRACTICE OF OF SECRETARIAL HONG KONG KONG COMPANIES COMPANIES HONG

REUTERS/LUCAS JACKSON

A practical guide for company secretaries, practitioners and A practical guide for company secretaries, practitioners and business professionals to perform the compliance function business professionals to perform the compliance function of a listed company by applying the respective laws, rules of a listed company by applying the respective laws, rules and regulations in different fictitious scenarios and regulations in different fictitious scenarios Pub Date: September 2014 Pub Date: September 2014 ISBN: 9789626615348 ISBN: 9789626615348 List Price: HK$1,200 List Price: Softback HK$1,200 Format: Format: Authors:Softback Andrew Tsang, Natalie L.Y. Chan Authors: Andrew Tsang, Natalie L.Y. Chan

www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk

+852 2847 2000 +852 2847 2000

smhk.salesenquiries@thomsonreuters.com smhk.salesenquiries@thomsonreuters.com

• September 2014

LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞 Meeting with the Competition Commission The Law Society met with a group of representatives from the Competition Commission on 23 July to discuss key issues raised in the Commission’s discussion paper on the implementation guidelines required under the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619).

Members from the Competition Law Committee (“CLC”), Intellectual Property Committee (“IPC”), Probate Committee, Property Committee and Reverse Mortgage Committee (“RMC”) attended the meeting.

From left: Ms. Kally Lam, Assistant Director of Practitioners Affairs, Law Society; Mr. Kenneth Fok, Director of the Practitioners Affairs, Law Society; Mr. Angus Forsyth and Mr. Henry Wheare, Members of the CLC; Mr. Billy Ma, Chairman of the Probate Committee and RMC; Mr. Huen Wong, Chairman of the Council’s Sub-committee on the Competition Ordinance; Ms. Rose Webb, Senior Executive Director of the Commission; Mr. Philip Monaghan, Executive Director (General Counsel) of the Commission; Mr. Tim Lear, Executive Director (Operations) of the Commission; Mr. Raymond Wong, Member of the Property Committee; and Mr. Kenny Wong, Chairman of the IPC. 左起：律師會執業者事務部副總監林嘉麗律師、律師會執業者事務部總監霍永權律師、競爭法委員會成員Angus Forsyth律師及 Henry Wheare律師、遺產事務委員會兼安老按揭委員會主席馬華潤律師、理事會轄下之《競爭條例》附屬委員會主席王桂壎律師、 競爭事務委員會高級行政總監韋樂思女士、競爭事務委員會行政總監(法律顧問)馬立恆先生、競爭事務委員會行政總監(行動)李賢 先生、物業委員會成員黃文華律師，以及知識產權委員會主席黃錦山律師。

與競爭事務委員會會晤 律師會於7月23日與競爭事務委員會的代 表會晤。競爭事務委員會為《競爭條例》 (第619章)規定發出的實施指引發表了討論

文件，雙方在會上就文中提到的主要議題 進行討論。律師會競爭法委員會、知識產 權委員會、遺產事務委員會、物業委員會 及安老按揭委員會的成員均有出席會議。

Young Partners’ Roundtable – Young Leaders’ Night On 26 June, over 100 guests and members celebrated the first anniversary of the Young Partners’ Roundtable (“YPR”) at a club in Lan Kwai Fong, while mingling with young business leaders and elites from a variety of organisations and professional bodies.

Current and aspiring leaders from a variety of industry associations and professional bodies attended the Young Leaders’ The YPR was established under the Night.

Practice Management Committee to 多個業界聯會及專業團體的現任及未來領袖，亦賞光出席年青領袖之夜。 provide members with a networking forum. It specifically caters to the needs and interests of those members admitted to partnership or who have been running their own practice for less than five years.

年青合夥人圓桌會議 – 年青領袖之夜 過百名嘉賓和會員於6月26日聚首於蘭桂芳一所酒吧一同慶祝年青合夥 人圓桌會議成立一週年，多個機構及專業團體的年青商界領袖和精英均 有出席，藉以互相交流。 年青合夥人圓桌會議隸屬於執業管理委員會，其成立的目的是為會員提 供一個拓展人脈的平台。此會專為滿足年青合夥人的興趣和需要而設， 亦即是獲晉升至合夥人或自行經營律師行不多於五年的會員。

30 www.hk-lawyer.org

From left: YPR Founding Members Ms. Rita Ku and Mr. Brian Ho; then-Vice President Stephen Hung; then-President Ambrose Lam; Ms. Melissa Pang, Council Member; Mr. Charles Chau, Council Member & YPR Founding Chairman; and YPR Founding Member Mr. Nelson Chung. 左起︰年青合夥人圓桌會議創會成員古明慧律師及何百全律師、時任副會長熊運信律 師、時任會長林新強律師、理事彭韻僖律師、理事暨年青合夥人圓桌會議創會主席周致 聰律師及年青合夥人圓桌會議創會成員鍾浩怡律師。

September 2014 •

LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律 師 會 新 聞

Law Society Rolls out New Version of App as 3D Blockbuster Hits Big Screen On 27 June, the Law Society officially introduced its new Mobile App at the “Transformers: Age of Extinction Movie Premier Launch Party” at an iMax theatre in Tsim Sha Tsui.

The Mobile App was redesigned to enhance user experience. The new App’s minimalistic tile-based layout enables users to more quickly identify and access content. The Photo Gallery and Event Calendar features have also been optimised so that users can share photos and synchronise their calendars with the Law Society Events Calendar.

The App now provides instant access to the Judiciary’s Practice Directions in addition to the Law Society Circulars and Hong Kong Lawyer, as well as introduces an advanced search feature for the Law List.

The Launch Party was attended by over 380 members and commenced with a two-minute video introducing the new App and its enhanced features.

Then-President Ambrose Lam gave a speech to kick-start the long-anticipated screening of Transformers. Mr. Nick Chan, Chairman of the Working Group on the Law Society’s App and the emcee of the night, also led a calculation game.

The Law Society would like to thank the Technology Committee as well as the Working Group on the Law Society’s App for their tireless effort during the last year to update the original App. Since the App’s introduction in June 2014, the download rate has risen almost threefold – from 1,500 to over 4,200 downloads.

Members and trainees can download or update the new App from the iTunes App Store or Google Play by simply searching “Law Society App”.

Over 380 members attended the Law Society’s New Mobile App Launch Party . 逾380名會員出席律師會舉行的新流動應用程式發佈派對。

律師會舉辦3D巨片首映 同場推出應用程式新版本 律師會於6月27日假尖沙咀一所iMax影院舉行「《變形金剛：殲 滅世紀》電影首映暨發佈派對」，同場正式推出律師會的新流動 應用程式。 為提升用戶體驗，該應用程式經過重新設計，新版面以簡約的方塊 磚為主，讓會員能夠更快搜索和查閱內容。新應用程式亦優化了照 片庫和行事歷功能，讓會員能夠分享照片和使其日曆與律師會活動 日程同步。此外，現在透過新應用程式，會員可即時查閱司法機構 的《實務指示》、律師會會員通告以及《香港律師》之內容，另外 法律界名錄亦增設了進階搜尋功能。 發佈派對吸引逾380名會員出席。首映上，我們先播出一段兩分鐘的 影片，介紹新應用程式和已提升的功能。隨後由時任會長林新強律師 致辭，為大家期待已久的《變形金剛》揭幕。此外，律師會流動應用程 式工作小組主席兼當晚司儀陳曉峰律師亦帶領參加者進行算術遊戲。 律師會非常感謝科技委員會以及律 師會流動應用程式開發工作小組，

Then-President Ambrose Lam gave a speech to kick-start the Launch Party. 時任會長林新強律師在發佈派對開始時致辭。

在過去一年努力不懈為原有的應用 程式更新。新應用程式自2014年6 月推出以來，下載率由1,500次， 上升至逾4,200次，增加近兩倍之 多。 會員和實習律師只需輸入「Law Society App」搜尋新的應用程式， 便可從iTunes App Store或Google Play進行下載或更新。 Members eagerly participating in a calculation game at the launch party. 會員在發佈派對上踴躍參與計算遊戲。

www.hk-lawyer.org 31

• September 2014

YSG Distinguished Speaker’s Luncheon with Dr. York Chow

等機會委員會主席周一嶽醫生，在午餐講座

On 28 June, the Young Solicitors’ Group (“YSG“) held its first Distinguished Speaker’s Luncheon of the year at a club in Central. At the Luncheon, Dr. York Chow, the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission (“EOC”), shared his views on the top three challenges the EOC currently faces. Afterwards, YSG members discussed issues of discrimination against transgender persons, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities and Mainlanders with Dr. Chow in a lengthy Q&A session.

關變性人、殘疾人士、少數族裔及內地人遭

上大談平機會目前面臨的三大挑戰。年青律 師組成員在隨後的問答環節與周醫生討論有 歧視的問題。 我們有幸邀得周醫生為我們擔任演講嘉賓， 謹此深表謝意。我們亦感謝所有出席的年青 律師組成員，以及負責籌辦是次講座的秘書 處及工作小組人員。

文穎翹律師 年青律師組委員會成員

Dr. York Chow not only shared the top three challenges facing EOC these days, he also discussed with young members his views on discrimination against transgender persons, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities and Mainlanders. 周一嶽醫生不僅向大家闡述平機會目前面臨的三大挑戰， 亦與各年青會員討論他如何看變性人、殘疾人士、少數族 裔及內地人遭歧視的問題。

We would like to thank Dr. Chow, who we were honoured to have as our keynote speaker. We are also grateful to all of the YSG members who attended and to the Secretariat and working group for organising the talk.

Vicky Man Committee Member, Young Solicitors’ Group

年青律師組業界精英午餐講座 – 周一嶽醫生 在6月28日，年青律師組於中環一所會所 舉行本年首場業界精英午餐講座，邀得平

From left to right: Ms. Serina Chan, Vice Chairlady of YSG, Mr. Dominic Yang, Committee Member of YSG, Ms. Bonnie Chan, Chairlady of YSG, Dr. York Chow, Mr. Sebastian Ko, Ms. Vicky Man, Ms. Priscilla Wong, Committee Members of YSG. 左起：年青律師組副主席陳潔心律師、年青律師組委員會成員楊律谷實習律師、年青律師組主席陳祖楹律師、周一嶽醫生、 同為年青律師組委員會成員的高一鋒律師、文穎翹律師及黃婷婷律師。

Hong Kong Academy of Law 香港法律專業學會

The Academy and the Hong Kong Bar Association jointly organised a seminar entitled “Civil Justice Reform Training Programme General Session – CJR Update” on 5 July. Mr. Justice Bharwaney (third from right), Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court; Mr. Eugene Fung S.C.(first from left), Barrister-at-law; Mr. Mark Reeves (second from left), Partner of Munros; Mr. Denis Brock (third from left), Partner of King & Wood Mallesons and Council Member of the Law Society; Mr. Menachem Hasofer (second from right), Partner of Mayer Brown JSM; and Mr. Dmitri Hubbard (first from right), Director of Legal Technologies & Consulting in Asia-Pacific, Control Risks, were the guest speakers of the seminar. Over 350 participants attended the seminar. 香港法律專業學會及香港大律師公會於7月5日合辦題為「民事司法制度改革培訓課程﹕綜合課程 – 民事司法制度改革最新發展」的研討會。是次研討會的演講嘉賓包括：高等法院 原訟法庭法官包華禮法官（右三）、馮庭碩資深大律師（左一）、文禮律師行常務合夥人利瑪克律師（左二）、金杜律師事務所合夥人兼律師會理事白樂德律師（左三）、孖士打律師行 合夥人何銘勤律師（右二），以及Control Risks亞太地區法律科技及顧問董事幸達明先生（右一）。出席人數逾350人。

32 www.hk-lawyer.org

September 2014 •

LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律 師 會 新 聞

Mr. Jimmy Ma, Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Secretariat presented at a course entitled “Legislative Council’s Control over the Making of Subsidiary Legislation” on 19 July. Over 150 participants attended the course.

The Academy organised a Sharing Session with Law Firm Interns on 11 July. Then-President Ambrose Lam (second from right) introduced the legal profession and shared his experience as a solicitor in private practice. Other Members of the Panel include Mr. Dennis Ha Yiu Fai (first from left), Senior Vice President and Head of Legal and Compliance of Fubon Bank; Ms. Ada Chung (second from left), Registrar of Companies of the Companies Registry; and Judge Tam (first from right), Judge of the District Court. These other Panel Members shared their experiences working in a corporation, the Government and the Judiciary respectively.

立法會秘書處法律顧問馬耀添律師為7月19日舉行 的「立法會對訂立附屬法例的控制」課程擔任演講 嘉賓。吸引逾150人出席該課程。

香港法律專業學會於7月11日舉辦了一場律師行實習生分享會。時任會長林新強律師（右二）介紹法律界概況及分享了他作為私人執業 律師的經驗，其他演講嘉賓包括富邦銀行高級副總裁兼法律及合規部主管夏耀輝先生（左一）、公司註冊處處長鍾麗玲太平紳士（左 二）及區域法院法官譚思樂法官（右一），分享他們分別在商界, 政界及司法機構的工作經驗.。

Law Society’s Badminton Team Showcased in Two Matches

律師會羽毛球隊友誼賽 精彩賽事連場

The Law Society’s Badminton Team organised two matches in May and June.

5月及6月分別舉行

In the first match, we played against the Central People’s Government’s Liaison Office at the Shek Tong Tsui Sports Centre. The competition was divided into Men’s Singles, Men’s Doubles, Mixed Doubles as well as Men’s Doubles for players aged above 50. Both teams employed their physical prowess and wit at the matches, while our pep squads cheered from both sides. After nine matches, the Law Society emerged victoriously, winning the competition with a 7:2 score.

彩的友誼賽。

In June, we had a face-off with the Hong Kong Police Force’s Badminton Team.

Despite our valiant efforts, the disciplined and fit members of the force emerged as winners.

While winning is always thrilling, these matches were organised with the aim of enhancing our skills and developing closer ties with other professionals and community organisations in Hong Kong.

Ms. Vivian Yu

律師會羽毛球隊於 了兩場既刺激又精 首先，球隊於5月 份迎來中聯辦羽毛 球隊的挑戰。賽事 於石塘咀體育館舉 行，比賽項目分為 男單、男雙、混雙

The Law Society and Hong Kong Police Force’s badminton teams. 律師會羽毛球隊與香港警察羽毛球隊合影。

及50歲以上的男 雙。雙方球員在球 場上鬥智鬥力， 令比賽氣氛格外激 烈，加上熱情澎拜 的啦啦隊到場為雙 方球員打氣，每當 有精彩對壘，啦啦 隊便齊聲歡呼，令 場內場外氣氛高

The Law Society’s Badminton Team exchanged souvenirs with the Liaison Office’s Badminton Team before the game.

漲。經過九場激烈

律師會羽毛球隊與中聯辦羽毛球隊於賽前交換紀念品。

的賽事，律師會最

友誼第一、比賽第二，律師會羽毛球隊期

終以七比二勝出。

待能多參與有意義的友誼賽，與不同的隊

精彩的賽事繼續於6月上演。我們與香港

伍切磋較量，增進球技及友誼。

警察羽毛球隊進行了友誼賽。雖然在年 齡、身形及體能上紀律部隊的成員略勝一

Captain of the Law Society’s Badminton Team

籌，但律師會球員施展渾身解數，與予周

Mr. Gary Lui

旋，令比賽過程激烈，我方亦雖敗猶榮。

Convenor of the Law Society’s Badminton Team

余玉瑩律師 律師會羽毛球隊隊長

呂福榮律師 律師會羽毛球隊召集人

www.hk-lawyer.org 33

• September 2014

Inter-Organisation Bridge Championship On 29 July, the Law Society Bridge Team competed in the Inter-Organisation Bridge Championship 2014. The Championship served as a warm-up event for the Inter-City Bridge Championships, which is Hong Kong’s preeminent annual bridge tournament organied by the Hong Kong Contract Bridge Association.

The Law Society sent two teams to compete in this year’s event, proudly fielding the only all-ladies’ team out of the 18 teams participating. While our Bridge teams played well, the teams sponsored by HSBC accumulated the most Victory Points, taking home the Championship’s first and second place prizes. The Championship was conducted in a Swiss team format with six rounds of four boards each, adopting the four-board Swiss Scale for scoring.

the 2015 Championship, please sign up for the Law Society’s Recreation and Sports Programme and join our weekly practice sessions at the Law Society Clubhouse every Monday from 7:30 to 9:30 pm.

The Law Society Bridge Team

Back row (from left to right): Men’s team: Mr. Stanley Hui; Mr. W. K. Ng, Convenor, Bridge Team; Mr. Tonny Lee; Mr. Robin Li; and Mr. Arthur Cheung.

Front row (from left to right): Ladies’ team: Ms. Joanne Wong, Ms. Julia Lam, Ms. Eleanor Cheng , Ms. Yolanda Chung, and Ms. Catherine Mun.

香港跨組織橋牌錦 標賽

後排左起：男子隊：許鷹碩律師、召集人伍偉傑律師、李利東律師、李偉斌律師及張祖維律師。 前排左起：女子隊：王雅媛律師、林在愔實習律師、鄭倩宇律師、鍾宛樺律師及文理明律師。

在7月29日，律師會橋牌隊參加了2014

別奪得冠、亞軍。賽事以瑞士隊制形式進

年香港跨組織橋牌錦標賽。這項錦標賽乃

行，共六輪，每輪四副牌，計分方法採用

城市橋牌錦標賽的熱身活動，後者由香港

四副牌瑞士制。

橋牌協會舉辦，是香港橋牌界的年度大

如大家有興趣加入律師會橋牌隊，又或者

賽。

參加2015年錦標賽，請登記參與律師會

今年，律師會派出兩支隊伍參賽，其中一

康樂及體育活動，亦歡迎大家加入我們逢

支乃18支參賽隊伍中唯一的女子隊。雖

週一假律師會會所舉辦的練習，時間為晚

If you are interested in joining the Law Society’s Bridge Team or participating in

然兩隊均表現出色，但另外兩支由匯豐銀

上7時半至9時半。

行贊助的隊伍獲得的積累勝分最多，終分

律師會橋牌隊

Summer Programme for Members’ Children: Visit to Aberdeen Ambulance Depot

為會員子女而設的暑期活動 參觀香港仔救護站

On 16 August, over 35 members and their families visited the Aberdeen Ambulance Depot on Nam Fung Road. The visit was organised by the Standing Committee on Member Services. During the visit, members and their children, who all received a certificate of attendance, had the opportunity to see and learn more about the depot facilities and ambulance equipment. Two Ambulance Officers also spoke to attendees about their experience working with the Depot.

會籌辦。參觀期間，會員和他們的子女不單獲發

We would like to extend our appreciation to the Aberdeen Ambulance Depot and Officers for their assistance in arranging this visit.

Eliza Chang Lai Shan Member of the Standing Committee on Member Services

34 www.hk-lawyer.org

在8月16日，逾35名會員和家屬參觀位於南風道 的香港仔救護站。是次活動由會員服務常務委員 出席證書，更有機會認識救護站的設施和救護車 上的設備。兩名救護主任還向各參加者分享當救 護人員的經驗。 我們謹此感謝香港仔救護站及各救護人員為是次 參觀提供協助。

鄭麗珊律師 會員服務常務委員會成員 Ambulance Officer Mr. Chan Yuk Wa explaining fixation kits. 救護主任陳旭華先生講解固定帶。

Ms. Eliza Chang Lai Shan presenting the Law Society’s souvenir to the Ambulance Officers Mr. Chan Yuk Wa (left) and Mr. Lo Kwok Wai (middle). 鄭麗珊律師代表律師會向救護主任 陳旭華先生（左）和盧國偉先生 （中）致送紀念品。

• September 2014

Consumers and Unfair Contract Terms: Inadequate Legal Protection and Suggestions for Reform

By Lee Mason, Assistant Professor of Law

The University of Hong Kong

In this article, Lee Mason analyses how effective the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance (Cap. 458) is in protecting consumers against unfair terms in standard form contracts and concludes that urgent reform is needed.

36 www.hk-lawyer.org

September 2014 • CONTRACTS

T

he written terms of consumer contracts are seldom, if ever, individually negotiated between a business entity (a supplier of goods or services) and the consumer. Rather, other than those terms which relate to the price and subject matter, the contractual terms will almost always be set out in standard form on a “take it or leave it” basis. As such, the terms are often one-sided, in favour of the supplier, and often written in small print or in legal language which is difficult for consumers to understand.

Further, against this background, consumers often sign contracts “there and then” without having read or understood the terms, perhaps even feeling pressured to conclude the contract quickly without perusing or questioning its contents. Even where consumers are aware of any unfavourable terms, they may feel – perhaps justifiably so – that they have no bargaining power to negotiate the terms, especially where such terms are standard across the industry. Examples of industry standard form non-negotiable contracts with which the general public are quite familiar include those made with television service providers, telecommunications service providers, fitness clubs and beauty service providers.

Although there is sufficient statutory protection from unfair terms which seek to require a consumer to either indemnify a supplier for any losses caused to the supplier by the consumer’s negligence, or to limit or exclude a supplier’s liability to the consumer for breach of contract, negligence or misrepresentation (in the form of the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 71), the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance (Cap. 457) and the Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap. 284)), such statutory protection does not address unfair terms which seek to serve other purposes.

合 約

Statutory Recourse Against Unfair Terms in Hong Kong The only statutory recourse against such other unfair terms is the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance (Cap. 458) (“UCO”) which allows the court to rule such terms to be unenforceable. Examples of such unfair terms could include those allowing a supplier to unilaterally vary the terms of the contract without notifying the consumer, those detailing fees payable by the consumer for early cancellation of a contracted service and those permitting a supplier to automatically renew contractually expired services. The truth, however, is that the UCO is of very little utility in protecting consumers from these unfair terms.

In order for the court to rule that the term being challenged is unenforceable, s. 5(1) of the Ordinance requires that it must be found that the term is “unconscionable”. Although the Ordinance does not define exactly what constitutes an “unconscionable” term, s. 6(1) does provide a non-exhaustive list of factors which the court may have regard to when determining the existence of such unconscionability, such as the relative bargaining strengths of the parties and the possibility of the consumer having acquired the same goods or services from another party on terms different to the terms in question.

Furthermore, based on a Court of First Instance decision (Shum Kit Ching v Caesar Beauty Centre Ltd [2003] 3 HKLRD 422), it would seem that, in determining whether a contract term is “unconscionable” for the purpose of s. 5(1) of the UCO, the court must have regard to “all circumstances” relevant to that issue, as well as the factors listed in s. 6(1) as appropriate.

It is in this regard – the statutory wording (or lack thereof) and the judicial interpretation of it – that the deficiency in the UCO’s efficacy becomes clear:

www.hk-lawyer.org 37

• September 2014

as noted by the Consumer Council in a 2012 Report, “the court would tend to focus on the totality of the circumstances and conduct that give rise to unfairness in the bargaining process rather than the meaning and effect of the term alone”.

Such a “totality-approach” by the court means that a single unfair term, by itself, cannot be regarded as unconscionable and unenforceable under the UCO. Rather, it would seem that, so long as there is procedural fairness in the way the contract has been formed, any substantive unfairness from an individual term would be over-looked and incapable of being found unconscionable under the UCO. The sheer dearth of successful claims brought under the UCO since the Ordinance came into force in 1995 (that is, a mere four in total) supports the proposition that this legislative protection is seriously ineffectual. By contrast, the equivalent statutory protection in the UK (the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”)) is comparatively much more effective in protecting consumers from unfair contract terms.

Statutory Recourse Against Unfair Terms in the UK Under regulation 8(1) of the UK’s UTCCR, a contract term is unenforceable if it is found to be “unfair”. According to regulation 5(1) of the legislation, an “unfair” term is one which “causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations … to the detriment of the consumer”. As well as Schedule 2 of the Regulations setting out a non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair, a body of case law has built up around the UTCCR, providing further guidance for its application, including a UK House of Lords decision (Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc [2001] UKHL 52) 38 www.hk-lawyer.org

which provided an elaboration of the meaning of “significant imbalance”, that is “a term is so weighted in favour of the supplier as to tilt the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract significantly in his favour.” In that decision, the House of Lords also discussed the notion of “good faith” in consumer contracts, a concept described in the decision as requiring “fair and open dealing”, where terms are “expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps” and where a supplier does not take advantage of the consumer’s “necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract, [or] weak bargaining position”.

Moreover, that House of Lords decision shed further light on how the courts would determine unfairness, including: the effect of the contract with as compared to without the relevant term; the effect of the term on the substance of the transaction; whether the consumer would have likely been surprised had the term been drawn to his attention; whether the term is a standard term; and whether the consumer might reasonably be expected to object to the inclusion of the term.

Such elaboration and elucidation of the UTCCR in the UK has strengthened its efficacy, enabling it to have been, and continue to be, successfully employed on a number of occasions for the protection of UK consumers against unfair contract terms, prompting business parties to reconsider (and rewrite) many of their standard form contract terms.

This, then, raises the question as to why Hong Kong’s UCO

is so comparatively ineffectual, with an extremely little elucidative body of case law.

It might be thought that the reason for the comparative ineffectuality of the UCO is that it is substantively different to the UTCCR. However, this would not be correct. Even if the Hong Kong courts do, indeed, take a “totalityapproach” (thereby making it difficult to have a single unfair term rendered unconscionable and unenforceable), this is no different from the position under the UTCCR where regulation 6(1) requires the UK courts to assess the fairness of a contract term by reference to “all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all other terms of the contract”.

Furthermore, although the UTCCR refers to terms which are “unfair” as opposed to the UCO which refers to terms that are “unconscionable”, there is no substantive distinction between such terminology since the definitional guides for these two adjectives (set out within the two respective pieces of legislation) are substantively the same. Nevertheless, it may well be this difference in terminology which explains the sheer lack of litigation brought under the UCO and, indeed, the sheer lack of success in having the court rule unfair terms to be unenforceable.

September 2014 • CONTRACTS

Few Claims in Hong Kong It might be that the word “unconscionable” is perceived, in some way, to constitute a higher test than “unfair”: if it is, then a contract term which is simply unfair would not be enough to fall within the protection of the UCO. Rather, the term might have to be something akin to grossly unfair in order for it to be held unenforceable.

Indeed, prior to the enactment of the UCO, the Law Reform Commission, in a 1990 Report, expressed concern that “unconscionability is a very high test and a harder test than unfairness” and, as such, the Commission thought that the use of such terminology in the then

on behalf of aggrieved consumers.

Indeed, Hong Kong’s Consumer Council has made clear that it is not a law enforcement agency and, in 2008, stated that the only means of redress for aggrieved consumers would be for those consumers to take civil action on their own which, the Council acknowledged, would be a “daunting task”.

Reform Proposals Given these reasons for the sheer lack of efficacy of the UCO and, as such, the deficiency in Hong Kong’s consumer protection regime with regard to unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts, there appears to be an urgent

合 約

the UTCCR, which could be adopted or adapted, together with a ready-available body of UK case law to help guide local judges on the application of such a statute.

Another suggested reform would be for the Government to set up an enforcement body that could take representative action on behalf of aggrieved consumers, as does the CMA in the UK. Alternatively, perhaps the Consumer Council’s remit could be widened, through legislation, to give it enforcement powers to more directly realise its statutory function “to protect and promote the interests of consumers” (in accordance with s. 4(1)

The sheer dearth of successful claims brought under the UCO since the Ordinance came into force in 1995 (that is, a mere four in total) supports the proposition that this legislative protection is seriously ineffectual. proposed Ordinance would likely mean that such legislation would “apply only to extreme cases, which would be very rare”. Indeed, in light of its practical ineffectuality during the last 19 years since the UCO came into force, it seems that the Commission’s concerns were not inapposite.

need for reform. Indeed, in 2008, the Consumer Council noted the inadequacy of the consumer protection framework relative to the adoption of unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts as being “below the standards found in comparable advanced economies; and should therefore be addressed”.

Another possible reason for the sheer lack of claims brought under the UCO for unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts is the fact that there is no Hong Kong equivalent of the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”), ie, a consumer rights body that can pursue claims, bringing a representative action,

One suggestion, as recommended by the Consumer Council in 2008 (albeit without elaboration), is for the enactment of an Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Ordinance, similar to the UK’s UTCCR, to replace (or supplement) the UCO. As the name suggests, such legislation could be directed at “unfair” terms rather than “unconscionable” terms, lest the latter inadvertently implies a higher test which requires something more than mere unfairness. If such a proposal for reform was taken seriously, there exists a readymade statutory framework, in the form of

of the Consumer Council Ordinance (Cap. 216)).

Conclusion Either way, given the widespread practice of adopting unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts, it is argued that the UCO, as the only local legislation designed to catch such terms (other than exemption clauses and indemnity clauses), is woefully inadequate and ineffective.

As such, urgent reform of the current consumer protection regime against unfair terms in standard form contracts is necessary to reduce the exploitation of consumers in Hong Kong and to redress the imbalance in bargaining strengths between consumers and business entities. Indeed, it is essential that, as an advanced economy and distinguished Asian commercial centre, Hong Kong does not lag behind in any aspect of consumer protection law but, rather, stands as a leading example, at the very least, to the rest of China. n

www.hk-lawyer.org 39

• September 2014

消費者及不公平 合約條款： 法律保障不足及 相關改革建議 作者 Lee Mason 助理教授

香港大學法律系

Mason Lee在本文就《不合情理合約條例》(第458章)是否能為消費者 提供有效保障，使其免受標準格式合約的不公平條款損害進行了分析， 並得出結論稱，香港有迫切需要進行相關改革。

企

業實體(商品或服務供應商)在與

速完成合約的簽署，而不必細閱當中的

(第457章)、​​《 失實陳述條例》(第284

個別消費者進行磋商後，才來訂

內容或提出任何疑問。即使消費者發覺

章)等，針對下列不公平條款提供充分法

立消費合約中的書面條款，這做法是極

合約中存在對他們不利的條款，但他們

律保障﹕供應商要求消費者就消費者本

為罕有的(如有的話)。相反，所有消費

仍可能會感到自己並不具備就有關條款

身疏忽而導致他蒙受的損失作出彌償﹔

合約條款幾乎都是按「要麼接受，要麼

要求進行磋商的議價能力(這看法也許是

又或是局限或豁除供應商因違約、疏忽

拉倒」這一標準形式來制訂(與定價及合

合理的)，尤其當該等條款是有關行業普

或失實陳述，而須對消費者承擔的法律

約主要標的有關的條款除外)，因此它們

遍適用的標準條款時。普羅大眾所熟悉

責任。然而，該等法律保障並沒有針對

往往是片面、對供應商有利、並經常以

的「行業標準格式不容商議合約」，箇

旨在達成其他目的之不公平條款。

小字體或讓消費者難以理解的法律語言

中例子包括﹕與電視服務供應商、電訊

寫成。

服務運營商、健體中心、美容服務提供

在這情況下，消費者往往沒有仔細閱讀

者所訂立的合約。

針對該等不公平條款而提供補救的

及了解相關條款，便「即場」簽訂合約

目前通過《管制免責條款條例》(第

，甚至還會感到有一股壓力催促他們迅

71章)、《服務提供(隱含條款)條例》

40 www.hk-lawyer.org

香港在不公平條款方面的法律 濟助 唯一法規是《不合情理合約條例》 (第458章)(以下簡稱《條例》)。法庭可

September 2014 • CONTRACTS

合 約

根據《條例》裁定此等不公平條款不可

一項不公平條款，其本身並不能根據

約下的權利與義務，顯著地偏向供應商

強制執行。上述不公平條款的若干例子

《條例》來確定其為不合情理及不可強

的一方」。上議院在該項裁決中，同時

包括﹕容許供應商在沒有給予消費者事

制執行。相反，目前的情況似乎是﹕只

討論了消費合約的「誠信」概念，而該

先通知情況下，單方面更改合約條款﹔

要在合約形成的過程中存在程序公正，

項裁決形容這一概念所要求的，是進行

詳細規定消費者提前終止合約服務時的

則任何單項條款中的實質性不公平可

「公平及公開的交易」，而有關條款是

應付費用﹔以及容許供應商為根據合約

無需理會，而不能根據《條例》裁定其

「全面、清晰、明確地表達，當中不含

規定已到期的服務自動續約。但問題

為不合情理。自《條例》於1995年生

任何隱藏的陷阱或缺陷」，而在有關交

是，在保障消費者免受此等不公平條款

效後，能夠成功根據《條例》提出申索

易中，供應商並沒有趁消費者處於「不

的損害方面，《條例》所起的作用非常

的情況絕無僅有(總數只有四宗)，這再

得不簽約、貧窮、經驗不足、不熟悉合

有限。

次證明是項法例在為消費者提供保障方

約之主要標的，[或]欠缺議價能力」的

面，是嚴重力有不逮。相比之下，提供

情況下乘機圖利。

《條例》第5(1)條規定，法庭若要裁定 被質疑的條款為不可強制執行，便必 須裁定該條款是「不合情理」。雖然 《條例》並沒有明確界定甚麼構成「不 合情理」條款，但第6(1)條提供了一個 非詳盡的列表，列出了法庭於裁定是否

相同保障的英國法例《消費合約不公平 條款規例1999》(the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (以下簡稱《不公平條款規例》)，其在 保障消費者免受不公平合約條款損害方 面，成效遠勝《條例》。

存在不合情理情況時所須考慮的因素，

此外，上議院的該項裁決，有助我們進 一步了解法庭如何就不公平作出裁定， 其中包括：合約載有相關條款與並無 載有相關條款，將會產生有何不同的 影響﹔該項條款對交易實質的影響﹔該 消費者如已事先得悉該條款，他是否仍

自《條例》於1995年生效後，能夠成功根據《條例》提出申 索的情況絕無僅有(總數只有四宗)，這再次證明是項法例在為 消費者提供保障方面，是嚴重力有不逮。 例如﹕訂約方的相對議價能力﹔消費者 能否依據與原來條款有別的其他條款， 自其他方取得相同的商品或服務。此 外，根據原訟法庭在 Shum Kit Ching v

英國在不公平條款方面的法律 濟助 根據英國的《不公平條款規例》第8(1)

會對此感到詫異﹔該項條款是否標準條 款﹔以及，是否可以合理預期消費者會 反對列入該項條款。

條，任何合約條款如被裁定為「不公

英國對《不公平條款規例》所作的此等

平」，該條款便不可強制執行。根據該

闡明和解釋，使該項法例的效用得以加

規例第5(1)條，「不公平」條款是指一

強，能夠一直(並且將繼續)成功地於不同

項「導致雙方在權利及義務方面顯著失

案例中援引，保障英國消費者免受不公

衡......給消費者造成損害」的條款。除

平合約條款的損害，並促使營商者重新

了該規例《附表二》載有一個非詳盡的

考慮(及重寫)其標準格式合約中的多項條

列表，列明若干可被視為不公平的條

款。這令人關注到另一個問題，就是﹕

款外，一系列與《不公平條款規例》之

香港的《條例》與英國的相關法例比

正是基於此等情況—相關法律用語(或缺

施行有關的判例法也已被確立，從而

較，其效能為何如此不足﹖而解釋這法

乏此等用語)及其司法解釋—才明確顯示

為該規例的適用提供了進一步指引，

律範疇方面的判例，為何又如此稀缺﹖

《條例》本身力有不逮：正如消費者委

其中包括一項由英國上議院作出的裁

員會於2012年發表的一份報告書中所指

決(Director General of Fair Trading v

出的，「法庭將會著眼於雙方於交易過

First National Bank Plc [2001] UKHL

程中產生不公平的整體情況及行為，而

52)。該裁決就「顯著失衡」的含義作

不單單是條款的意思及影響」。

出進一步闡明，意謂「條款的內容側重

Caesar Beauty Centre Ltd [2003] 3 HKLRD 422一案中的判決，目前的情 況似乎是﹕法庭在裁定某項合約條款就 《條例》第5(1)條而言，是否屬於「不 合情理」時，必須考慮與爭議點相關的 「所有情況」，以及第6(1)條所列出的 各項合適因素。

法庭採取這一「整體方式」，意味著單

供應商的利益，以致訂約雙方在相關合

可能有人會說，《條例》與《不公平條 款規例》比較，二者的效能有如此大的 差距，是因為《條例》與《不公平條款 規例》之間存在實質上的差異。然而， 上述的說法並不正確。即使香港法院採 取的是「整體方式」(從而難以確認某

www.hk-lawyer.org 41

• September 2014

一項不公平條款是否不合情理及不可強

相當的機構(那是一個代表權利被侵害的

實上已有一個現成的，以《不公平條款

制執行)，但它與《不公平條款規例》實

消費者進行申索，並提起代表人訴訟的

規例》為基礎，可供我們採納或調整的

際上並無區別。《不公平條款規例》第

消費者權益機構)。事實上，香港消費者

法律框架﹔同時，它也有一套馬上可供

6(1)條要求英國法院在評估某項合約條

委員會已曾明確表示，該會並非一個執

我們援引的英國判例，讓本地法官在運

款的公平性時，須考慮「在訂約當時的

法機構﹔2008年，該會指出權利被侵害

用相關法規方面獲得適切指引。

所有相關情況，以及考慮該合約的所有

的消費者享有的唯一補救方法，是由該

其他條款」。

消費者自行提起民事訴訟。但消委會也

此外，雖然《不公平條款規例》提述的 是「不公平」條款，而並非如《條例》 般提述 「不合情理」條款，但此等用語 其實並無實質性區別，因為這兩個形容 詞的定義性導向(分別載明於該兩項法例 中)實質相同。然而，根據《條例》提出 起訴，以及在要求法庭裁定不公平條款 為不可強制執行的訴訟中取得勝訴，此 等情況皆絕無僅有，原因可能正是因為 用語上的不同。

承認，這將會是一項「艱鉅工作」。

改革建議 基於此等致使《條例》缺乏其應有效能 的原因，以及與標準格式消費合約中的 不公平條款有關的消費者保障制度無法 產生實效，香港確有進行改革的迫切需 要。事實上，消費者委員會在2008年已 關注到保障消費者的架構，於標準格式 消費合約中納入不公平條款方面，確有 需要改善的地方，因為它「低於其他相

另一項改革建議，是港府設立一個類似 英國「競爭及市場管理局」的執法機 構，代表權利被侵害的消費者提起訴 訟。又或是，我們可以考慮通過立法， 擴大消費者委員會的職權範圍，賦予其 更直接履行法定職能的執法權力，「保 障及促進……消費者權益」(《消費者委 員會條例》(第216章)第4(1)條)。

結論 不管怎樣，標準格式消費合約中存在不 公平條款的情況普遍，有意見因此認 為，作為一項專門及唯一針對不公平條

香港就不公平條款提出申索的 情況罕見

類的先進經濟體系的標準，因而必須正

「不合情理」一詞，在某種程度上可能

消費者委員會在2008年所提出的一項建

強差人意的。因此，香港必須針對標準

令人感到構成一個其標準較「不公平」

議(雖未加以闡述)，是制定「消費者合

格式合約的不公平條款，對目前的消費

為高的測試：若然如此，那麼一項合約

約不公平條款條例」(近似英國的《不公

者權益保障制度進行迫切改革，以減

條款假如純粹屬於不公平，則它將不能

平條款規例》)，用以取代(或補充)《條

少香港消費者受剝削的情況，及糾正消

享有《條例》所提供的保障。也許，只

例》。一如其名，該法例所針對的應是

費者與企業實體之間的議價力量失衡情

有當該條款是屬於嚴重不公平時，它才

「不公平」條款，而非「不合情理」條

況。香港作為一個先進經濟體及亞洲的

可以成為不可強制執行。事實上，在《

款，以免後者在無意情況下，背負了一

卓越商業中心，她在保障消費者法例的

條例》制定以前，法律改革委員會在

個較純粹「不公平」標準為高的測試。

制訂方面，不單不可落後於人，更要至

1990年發表的一份報告書中，曾表示關

這項改革建議如果得到認真考慮，它事

少成為中國神州大地的一個典範。 n

注到「測定不合情理程度的辦法非常高 深，而且，這比測定不公平程度的辦法 更困難」，亦正因如此，法律改革委員 會當時認為在建議的《條例》中使用該 用語，意味著該項法例將只「適用於非 常罕見的極端個案」。事實上，在《條 例》通過後的19個年頭裡，它幾乎沒有 產生過任何實際作用，因此法律改革委 員會所表示的關注，看來也並非於理無 據。 香港罕見有人根據《條例》提出與標準 格式消費合約的不公平條款有關的申 索，其另一原因可能是香港並無成立任 何與英國的「競爭及市場管理局」地位 42 www.hk-lawyer.org

視」。

款(免責條款及彌償條款除外)的本地法 例，《不合情理合約條例》的效能確是

• September 2014

The Growing Trend of Listed Bond Issuance in Hong Kong

By Jeffrey Mak, Partner

DLA Piper Hong Kong

In this article, Jeffrey Mak explores the recent expansion of Hong Kong’s listed bond market, identifying four factors that may be fuelling the substantial growth, as well as contributing to the City’s continuing success as a leading international financial centre.

44 www.hk-lawyer.org

September 2014 •

T

he Hong Kong listed bond market has grown substantially in the past few years, and has been providing a viable financing channel for many issuers.

According to the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (“HKEx”), the number of listed debt securities has been increasing considerably over recent years.

At the end of 2013, there were 403 debt securities listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, as compared to 269 at the end of 2012 and 192 at the end of 2011. The total bond trading amount in 2013 was HK$4.46 billion, increased by 61 percent from HK$2.77 billion in 2012.

This article will explore many of the factors that may be attributable to the growth of Hong Kong’s bond market, including the City’s streamlined regime, the issuance of renminbi bonds by Mainland financial institutions, the support of the Hong Kong Government, as well as the variety of debt securities available in the market.

(1) Streamlined Regime As compared to issuance of equity securities, the process for issuance of debt securities is more straightforward and the requirements are less stringent.

REUTERS/Bobby Yip

In 2011, HKEx amended the Listing Rules, creating a simpler listing process for debt listings to professional investors in Hong Kong and reducing the time to list debt securities. The definition of “professional investor” is aligned with the definition set forth in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (excluding those prescribed by rules made under section 397 of that Ordinance) and includes persons outside Hong Kong who are entitled to exemptions as professional investors in another jurisdiction. There is a HK$100 million minimum net assets requirement but companies listed on the Hong Kong or other stock exchange, state-owned corporations and special purpose vehicles formed for listing asset backed securities are exempt from the requirement. For routine applications,

FINANCE 金 融

HKEx targets to issue the listing eligibility letter five business days after it receives the application. Also, HKEx no longer prescribes and vets the contents of the listing particulars, and formal approval by the Listing Committee will not be required.

The streamlined listing process has made Hong Kong a more attractive venue for issuers to list debt securities.

In 2012, HKEx further amended the Listing Rules following the new statutory inside information disclosure requirement applicable to listed corporations. Under the new rules, an issuer of listed debt securities must immediately announce any information which is necessary to avoid a false market in its listed debt securities. Similarly, if the debt securities are guaranteed, the guarantor must immediately announce any information which may have a material effect on its ability to meet the obligations under the debt securities. The rules also require the issuer to make an announcement if it is subject to a disclosure obligation in respect of inside information under the statutory regime, unless a waiver is obtained from the Securities and Futures Commission.

These requirements enhance transparency and investor protection, thus increasing the demand for listed debt investments.

There are now two main types of debt securities which can be listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange: (1) debt securities which can be invested by public investors; and (2) debt securities which can be offered to professional investors only and not to public investors in Hong Kong. Issuance of the first type is governed by Chapter 22 to Chapter 36 of the Listing Rules. Issuance of the latter is governed by Chapter 37 of the Listing Rules. Chapter 22 to Chapter 37 set out a detailed regime covering methods of listing, qualifications for listing, application procedures and requirements and contents of listing documents, coupled with some specific additional requirements for particular types of securities and categories of issuer. Some listed debt securities,

www.hk-lawyer.org 45

• September 2014

especially those only available for trading by professional investors, are not publicly traded (albeit listed). Liquidity of these bonds in the secondary market may be low. Investors may find it hard to buy or sell such listed bonds and need to hold them to maturity.

In respect of listed debt securities to professional investors, there is currently no specific requirement for the disclosure of details of the use of the proceeds. To enhance investor protection during the life of a bond and to promote the sustainable development of the bond market in Hong Kong, the Listing Rules may be modified so that directors (including any independent non-executive directors, where applicable) of the issuer are required to disclose the details of the use of the proceeds (similar to the standard required of initial public offering of equity securities) and undertake to promptly inform HKEx of any deviation from the intended use of the proceeds.

Generic description such as “for use as general working capital” is not adequate. Any intended use outside the issuer’s ordinary course of business should be disclosed with specific details. In fact, similar requirements should also apply to the issue of equity securities by listed issuers. Section 384 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance may then be applicable if there is any provision of false or misleading information.

(2) Renminbi Bonds Starting from 2007, Mainland financial institutions have been issuing renminbi bonds in Hong Kong. Since then, the issuers of Reminbi bonds have diversified from central to local government entities and from financial institutions to corporations in myriad sectors. The introduction of the Pilot RMB Trade Settlement Scheme by the Central Government in July 2009 and its expansion in 2010, represent 46 www.hk-lawyer.org

a breakthrough for the development of offshore renminbi business in Hong Kong. Companies can increasingly operate renminbi transactions making use of the deep and liquid foreign exchange market in Hong Kong, with its full set of hedging and financial instruments available. Given the enabling policy framework, many issuers have issued renminbi (“dim sum”) bonds in Hong Kong. Although issuers will need to obtain necessary approval from the relevant authorities in the Mainland for remittance of renminbi funds to the Mainland, many procedural restrictions are progressively being removed or relaxed.

For instance, on 19 May 2014, China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”) released the Provisions on the Administration of Foreign Exchange for Cross-Border Security and the Administration of Foreign Exchange for Cross-Border Security Implementation Guidelines which, with effect from 1 June 2014, removed the previous requirement for prior approval from the SAFE for providing cross-border security and eased certain other control measures.

Meanwhile, the market has seen credit enhancement structures which make deals more attractive to investors.

In view of the streamlined listing regime aforesaid, Reminbi bonds are increasingly listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

The total value of renminbi bonds issued in Hong Kong in each of the years of 2011, 2012

and 2013 was over RMB100 billion, up 10 times as compared with that in 2007. In particular, in 2013, issuance of renminbi bonds in Hong Kong reached a record high of RMB117 billion. In 2013, issuances made by international financial institutions accounted for around 7 percent of the total volume, and those made by Hong Kong and overseas non-financial enterprises made up nearly a third. It is interesting to note that some of these issuers do not have the actual funding needs in renminbi; however, given the deep liquidity pool in the offshore renminbi market in Hong Kong, they took the opportunity to issue in renminbi and convert the proceeds into other currencies.

(3) Government Support The Hong Kong Government has been advocating the development of the local bond market and has promoted the development of the local bond market through establishing the Government Bond Programme (“GBP”) in 2009.

By systematic issuance of government bonds, the GBP aims to, among others, ensure a steady and consistent supply of public debt to meet both institutional and retail demand for debt investments.

As a result, the GBP consists of the institutional bond issuance programme and the retail bond issuance programme. In 2009, the target size of the GBP was HK$100 billion whereas the target size of the GBP has been expanded to HK$200 billion in 2013 in order to promote the further

September 2014 •

sustainable development of the local bond market. As at 30 June 2013, a total of HK$97.5 billion of bonds, including HK$67.5 billion of institutional bonds and HK$30 billion of retail bonds (ie, iBonds), were issued under the GBP. The bond issuances under the GBP appear to be well received by the market.

While some new non-bank institutional investors who had never participated in the HKD bond market were attracted by the issuance of institutional bonds under the GBP, iBond issuances have also enhanced the public’s awareness of and interest in bonds and thus promoted the development of the Hong Kong retail bond market. It is believed that the Government will continue to promote the development of the local bond markets, including the listed bond market, through implementing the GBP and issuing appropriate debt securities in future in accordance with the growing market needs.

In addition, the Legislative Council has enacted the Inland Revenue and Stamp Duty Legislation (Alternative Bond Schemes) (Amendment) Ordinance 2013, which establishes a taxation framework for Islamic bonds issuances and facilitates the development of Islamic bond issuances and trading in Hong Kong.

(4) Variety of Debt Securities in the Market Debt securities may have a variety of features. In terms of tenure (ie, the number of years over which the issuer has promised to meet its obligations under the bond), there are short-term bonds and long-term bonds. There are also “perpetual bonds” meaning that they do not have a fixed maturity date.

Some bonds may have extendable maturity dates.

In terms of interest rate, there are fixed rate bonds, floating rate bonds or zero coupon bonds. Floating rate bonds can be structured to serve certain purposes such as to protect against inflation.

For example, the iBonds issued by the Hong Kong Government are retail inflation-indexed bonds where the rate for each interest payment is determined by the inflation rate of Hong Kong.

According to HKEx, in 2013, iBonds were the dominant type of debt securities in terms of trading value (HK$4.42 billion, constituting 99 percent of total turnover of debt securities in the year). For fixed rate bonds, there are bonds with lower returns and bonds with higher

FINANCE 金 融

returns. Investors may want to invest in high yield bonds, which usually have a lower credit rating, in exchange for a higher risk of default.

The structure of listed debt securities can be flexible. For example, convertible bonds give the bondholders the right to convert the bonds into shares of the issuing company at the holders’ option according to stipulated terms over certain periods. The option of conversion provides the bondholders with an opportunity of possible capital appreciation. On the other hand, some bonds are callable bonds which contain an option granting the issuer the right to redeem the bond before it matures.

When the interest rate goes down, the issuer may redeem the bond before maturity. Given the option is in favour of the issuer, investors usually have the benefit of higher interest payments than they would have had with a non-callable bond. Similarly, some bonds with contingent write down or loss absorption features may be written-off fully or partially, or converted to common stock on the occurrence of a trigger event.

These bonds might provide investors with a higher yield than they would have had without such features. Different bonds can have different risk and investment features, meeting the needs of different issuers and investors.

Future Outlook The coming of age of the listed debt securities including public and corporate (both financial and non-financial) bonds in Hong Kong is part and parcel of Hong Kong’s continuing success as a leading international financial centre with well developed capital markets, robust regulatory framework and world-class market infrastructure. With the streamlined regulations, diversified renbinmi products, government support, the variety of bonds available in the market, the Hong Kong listed bond market is set to grow further in size and sophistication in future. n www.hk-lawyer.org 47

• September 2014

香港的上市債券發行增長趨勢 作者 麥振興合夥人

香港歐華律師事務所合夥人

REUTERS/Victor Fraile

麥振興律師在本文論及香港上市債券市場的近期發展，並闡述了有助促進該市場大 幅增長、並使香港繼續成為領先國際金融中心的四項因素。

香

港上市債券市場在過去數年有著大

億港元的規定，但在香港或其他證券交易

香港聯合交易所目前主要有兩類可供投資

幅增長，成為了許多發行人的有用

所上市的公司、國有企業，及為「資產擔

的上市債務證券，分別為：(1)供公眾投資

融資渠道。根據香港交易及結算所有限公

保證券」之上市而設立的「特定目的投資

者投資的債務證券﹔及(2)只供專業投資者

司(下稱「港交所」)發佈的資料，上市債

工具」，均可獲豁免遵守此等規定。倘為

投資，但不可向本地公眾投資者提供的債

務證券的數目近年大幅上升。截至2013年

一般性的申請，港交所的目標是在接獲有

務證券。第一類債務證券的發行，受《上

底為止，在香港聯合交易所上市的債務證

關申請後的五個營業日內發出上市資格函

市規則》第22至第36章所規管﹔第二類債

券共有403隻，2012年底共有269隻，而

件。此外，港交所將不再審查上市公告書

務證券的發行，則受《上市規則》第37章

2011年底則共有192隻。2013年的債券

的內容，而申請人也不再需要獲得上市委

所規管。第22至第37章詳述了一個與上市

交易總額為44.6億港元，與2012年的27.7

員會的正式批准。上市程序的簡化，使香

方式、上市資格、申請程序、上市文件的

億港元相比，增長幅度為百分之六十一。

港成為了發行人將其債務證券上市的更具

規格和內容等相關的制度，並連同一些對

吸引力地方。

特定類型證券，及特定類別發行人的具體

本文將探討多項推動香港債券市場增長的 因素，包括制度的簡化、內地金融機構的

2012年，港交所根據新制訂並適用於上市

人民幣債券發行、香港政府的支持，以及

公司的法定內幕消息披露規定，對《上市

市場上債務證券的多樣性。

規則》作出了進一步修訂。在該等新規則

(1) 制度的簡化

下，上市債務證券的發行人必須盡快發放 任何必要的消息，以避免其上市債務證券

附加要求。某些債務證券—尤其是只為專 業投資者提供的債務證券—雖然是已經上 市，但並不進行公開交易。此等債券在二 級市場的流動性較低，投資者也許不易購 買或將其出售，而必須將其持有直至到期 日。

與股本證券的發行相比，債務證券的發行

存在虛假市場。同樣地，債務證券如獲提

程序較為簡單，要求也沒那麼嚴格。

供擔保，則擔保人必須就任何對其履行該

至於專門為專業投資者提供的上市債務證

港交所於2011年修訂了《上市規則》，

等債務證券下之義務的能力，可能會產生

券，目前仍然沒有任何關於將所募資金的

就債務的上市，為香港的專業投資者制定

重大影響的消息，盡快作出公佈。此外，

運用詳情披露的具體規定。為了加強對投

了一個較為簡化的上市程序，從而縮短債

該等規則也規定，發行人在該法定制度下

資者在債券存續期間的保障，並促進香港

務證券的上市時間。「專業投資者」的定

如有責任履行披露相關內幕消息之義務，

債券市場的可持續發展，港交所可以考慮

義與《證券及期貨條例》附表一第1部所

則除非獲得證券及期貨事務監察委員會的

對《上市規則》作出修訂，規定發行人的

載的定義一致(但根據該條例第397條而制

豁免，否則發行人必須作出有關公佈。此

董事(如適用，亦包括任何獨立非執行董

訂的規則所訂明的除外)，並包括在其他司

等規定不但提高了交易的透明度，同時亦

事)必須將所募資金的運用詳情公開(與股

法管轄區獲豁免作為專業投資者的香港以

加強了對投資者的保障，從而令上市債務

本證券的首次公開發售準則類似)，並承

外人士。目前雖然作出了最低淨資產為一

投資的需求增加。

諾假如該等資金的運用，與所擬定的用途

48 www.hk-lawyer.org

September 2014 •

FINANCE 金 融

存在差異，便必須盡快給予港交所通知，

是，有些發行人事實上對人民幣資金並沒

就利率而言，市場有固定利率債券、浮動

而一般性的陳述（例如「用作一般營運資

有實際需求，但基於香港離岸人民幣市場

利率債券及零息債券。浮動利率債券可以

金」)一概不予接納，任何擬定用途倘在

所具有的深厚和廣泛的流動性，這些發行

為達致某種目的而構建，比如用以抵禦

發行人的通常業務範圍以外，便必須連同

人也趁著這一機會發行人民幣債券，並將

通脹。例如，香港政府所發行的iBonds，

具體細節一起披露。而事實上，類似規定

所募得的資金轉換為其他貨幣。

是一種通貨膨脹保值零售債券，其每次所

也應當適用於上市發行人的股本證券發行

支付的利息，利率是根據香港的通脹率來

方面。假如有任何關於提供虛假消息或誤

(3) 政府的支持

導性消息的情況，《證券及期貨條例》第

香港政府一直倡導本地債券市場的發展，

2013年按交易價值計算，是成交量最高

384條將予適用。

並在2009年制訂了「政府債券計劃」，以

的債務證券(其交易價值為44.2億港元，

促進本地債券市場的發展。「政府債券計

佔該年債務證券總成交額的百分之九十

劃」的目標，是通過有系統地發行政府債

九）。至於固定利率債券，當中有一些回

內地金融機構自2007年開始在香港發行人

券，確保市場有穩定和持續的公債供應，

報率較低，另一些則回報率較高。投資者

民幣債券。自此，人民幣債券發行人的角

從而滿足機構投資者及零售投資者對債務

也許有興趣投資於高息債券，但此等債券

色便從中央擴展至地方政府機構，也從金

投資的需求。因此，「政府債券計劃」包

融機構擴展至各個不同領域。中央政府在

含了機構債券發行計劃及零售債券發行計

2009年7月實施《人民幣貿易結算試點計

劃。2009年，「政府債券計劃」的目標

上市債務證券的結構可以具有靈活性。舉

劃》，並在2010年將規模予以擴大，意味

規模是1,000億港元﹔2013年，為了促進

例說，持有可換股債券的持有人，可以選

著香港的離岸人民幣業務發展取得了重大

本地債券市場的進一步可持續發展，「政

擇在一定期間，按照所約定的條件，將所

突破。自此，企業可以運用香港這具有深

府債券計劃」的目標規模擴大至2,000億

持有的債券轉換為發行公司的股份。這項

度和流動性的外匯市場，以及其所提供的

港元。截至2013年6月30日為止，在「政

換股的選擇權，為債券持有人提供了資本

全面性對沖與金融工具，加強其在人民幣

府債券計劃」下所發行的債券，價值共達

增值的可能。此外，有一些債券是屬於可

交易方面的操作。由於獲得提供有利的政

975億港元，當中包括機構債券675億港

贖回債券，當中授予發行人一項權利，讓

策框架，因此許多發行人都選擇在香港發

元，及零售債券300億港元(即「通脹掛鈎

發行人可於債券到期前選擇將有關債券贖

行人民幣(「點心」)債券。雖然發行人要

債券」(即“iBonds”))，其受市場歡迎的

回。倘利率向下調，發行人便可考慮於

將人民幣資金匯返內地，仍需獲得內地相

程度可見一斑。一些從來沒有涉足港幣債

到期前將其債券贖回。由於這項選擇權對

關部門的批准，但許多程序上的限制，已

券市場的新加入非銀行機構投資者，也受

發行人有利，因此與「非可贖回債券」

逐步得到取消和放寬。

「政府債券計劃」下所發行的機構債券吸

相比，可贖回債券的投資者通常可獲支付

引，而通脹掛鈎債券的發行，也加深了公

較高的利息。同樣地，一些具有「或然撇

眾對債券的認識和興趣，從而推動香港零

減」或「彌補虧損」特點的債券，在發生

售債券市場的發展。筆者相信，政府將會

觸發事件時，可予以全部或部分撇帳，或

根據不斷增長的市場需求，通過「政府債

是將債券轉換為普通股。與並不存在該等

券計劃」的實施，並在未來發行相應的債

特點之債券相比，上述債券可為投資者提

務證券，繼續推動本地債券市場(包括上市

供較高回報。不同的債券，含有不同的風

債券市場）的發展。

險和投資特點，以滿足不同發行人及投資

得交易對投資者更具吸引力的強化信貸結

另一方面，立法會已通過了《2013年稅

者的需求。

構。基於前述的簡化上市制度措施，前來

務及印花稅法例(另類債券計劃）(修訂)條

聯交所上市的人民幣債券數目不斷增加。

例》，從而建立一個供發行伊斯蘭債券的

(2) 人民幣債券

舉例說，國家外匯管理局(下稱「外管 局」)在2014年5月19日發佈了《跨境擔 保外匯管理規定》，及《跨境擔保外匯管 理操作指引》，並從2014年6月1日起取 消了先前關於提供跨境擔保，須事先獲國 家外匯管理局批准之規定，並放寬了若干 其他監控措施。同時，市場上也出現了使

香港於2011、2012、2013這各年所發行 的人民幣債券價值，合共超過1,000億元 人民幣，與2007年相比增長了10倍。香 港在2013年發行的人民幣債券價值，更 創下1,170億元人民幣的歷史新高。國際 金融機構在2013年所發行的人民幣債券 價值，約佔總發行量的百分之七，而香港 及海外非金融企業所發行的人民幣債券， 則佔總發行量幾近三分之一。較為有趣的

釐定。根據港交所公佈的資料，iBonds在

的信用評級通常較低，違約風險也較高。

展望將來

稅務架構，以促進香港在伊斯蘭債券的發

香港要繼續成為擁有發達資本市場、健全

行和交易上的發展。

監管架構、世界級市場基礎設施的領先國

(4) 市場上債務證券的多樣化

際金融中心，上市債務證券(涵蓋零售與 機構(包括金融與非金融)債券)時代的到

債務證券各具特性，就年期而言(即發行人

來將會是箇中不可或缺的部分​​。隨著監管

承諾履行在相關債券下之義務的年期)，有

的簡化、人民幣產品的多元化、政府的支

短期債券和長期債券之分。此外，有一種

持、市場所提供債券的多樣性等各項舉措

債券稱為「永續債券」，意指其並沒有明

的落實，香港的上市債券市場規模和成熟

確到期日。此外，也有一些債券的到期日

程度，在未來必將進一步提升。 n

是可以延展的。 www.hk-lawyer.org 49

• September 2014

Evolving Data Protection Regimes in the Asia-Pacific Arena and Their Impact on Litigation: Overview of International Policies Governing Cross-Border Data Transfer By

S. Richard Carden, Partner McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

In this article, S. Richard Carden explores the role that regional organisations have played in developing data privacy regimes and policies to govern cross-border data transfers in the Asia-Pacific region. In a subsequent article, Carden will discuss more significant country-specific implementations of data privacy laws and ways to ensure compliance during litigation productions.

50 www.hk-lawyer.org

September 2014 • DATA

T

he worldwide expansion of data privacy laws and regulations has impacts that are being felt with increasing regularity in the litigation arena. Whenever data collections occur within foreign corporations or foreign subsidiaries or offices of local corporations, those entities must consider whether there are laws that govern the entity’s ability to share that data. Specifically, parties that collect and produce material in litigation must determine whether they must redact private information from data prior to production or whether they must notify data subjects of potential production and allow the data subjects the opportunity to object, among other considerations.

Given that the broadest definitions of private data include anything that allows identification of a person and given the vast quantities of data involved in modern patent litigation, the potential burdens to a producing party can be significant. Considering that the penalties for improper disclosure are increasingly severe, a party involved in litigation would do well to fully understand the potential implications of production. No longer should the approach commonly taken in the past of mass collection and production be the norm when data privacy laws are in play.

Much analysis of data privacy issues in recent years has focused on the European Union. However, there have also been significant efforts regarding data protection in the Asia-Pacific region, an area of ever-increasing focus for patent practitioners. This article addresses the role of regional organisations in developing and enforcing policies, laws and regulations throughout the Asia-Pacific arena, and considers the potential impacts of ongoing national and international efforts to protect the right of privacy. A subsequent article will address specific national implementations of data privacy laws and the implications for

litigation involving Asia-Pacific entities.

The Role of Regional Organisations in Data Privacy and Protection While the idea of an individual right to privacy has distant historical origins, the codification of this right and the generation of laws and regulations to protect that right have increased significantly during the past century.

A full treatment of the evolution of the right to privacy is beyond the scope of this article; however, a brief historical background of the international law of privacy is helpful in setting the stage for a discussion of current legislation.

In 1948, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically identified individual privacy as a fundamental human right (United Nations General Assembly, 1948).

Since that time, numerous other international covenants and treaties have recognised the fundamental right to privacy, including among others the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1966), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Council of the European Union, 2007).

Regional economic organisations worldwide have also enumerated principles addressing the right to privacy, and various member nations of these organisations have adopted or are in the process of adopting domestic policies and implementing legislation providing for the protection of personal data.

(1) The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) From its origins in 1961, when it was composed of European nations, the United States and Canada, the OECD has expanded its membership to include several Asia-Pacific nations, including

PRIVACY 個人資料私隱

Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea. Although not yet members, the OECD also has active partnerships with China, India, Indonesia and Russia.

The OECD has long recognised the need for protection of private information, and in 1980 introduced guidelines that would serve as a foundation for much of the privacy law implemented in the past 30 years. (See Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, 2013). The OECD Guidelines set forth eight basic principles regarding personally identifiable information, which include the: a. Collection Limitation Principle: collection of personal data should be limited; b. Data Quality Principle: personal data should be relevant to the purpose for which it is collected, as well as accurate, complete and upto-date; c. Purpose Specification Principle: the purposes for collecting private information should be specified at the time of collection; d. Use Limitation Principle: personal information should not be used for unspecified purposes without the consent of the data subject or by authority of law; e. Security Safeguards Principle: personal data should be protected from loss and unauthorised disclosure; f. Openness Principle: policies and practices related to personal data, as well as identifying information regarding the data controller, should be readily available; g. Individual Participation Principle: individual data subjects should have the right to obtain their own personal data, challenge the retention of such data, and request erasure or correction of their personal data; and www.hk-lawyer.org 51

• September 2014

h. Accountability Principle: measures should exist to ensure data controllers comply with the other principles.

The OECD revised the privacy Guidelines in 2013; however, the guiding principles remain the same. The 2013 update focuses on the implementation of programmes for managing data privacy, including the creation of enforcement authorities and provisions for notifying data subjects of breaches of their personal data. Recognising the efforts of other organisations and countries throughout the world, the revised OECD Guidelines invite non-member countries to work with member countries on the implementation of the Guidelines. The commentary on the revised Guidelines also specifically recognises the work of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (discussed in greater detail below) in creating data privacy programmes.

Building on the work of the OECD and the European Union, APEC adopted its own set of privacy principles in 2005.

(See APEC Privacy Framework at http:// publications.apec.org/publicationdetail.php?pub_id=390). The APEC Privacy Framework recognised the general applicability of the eight core principles of the 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines, and proffered its own version that expanded upon them. While APEC’s nine privacy principles largely mirror the OECD Guidelines, they introduce two additional concepts. First and foremost among the APEC privacy principles is preventing harm to the individual data subject, a principle that is only implicit in the OECD Guidelines. The APEC Privacy Framework also introduced the principle of individual choice in the collection of personal information.

Union to assess compliance with European Data Privacy directives and regulations, and have four governing elements: a. self-assessment of privacy policies by organisations; b. compliance review by an APECrecognised Accountability Agent; c. recognition of organisations that are compliant with the privacy framework; and d. enforcement and dispute resolution mechanisms.

In 2009, APEC again echoed the work of OECD by endorsing its own crossborder privacy enforcement cooperation framework, in coordination with the Cross-Border Privacy Rules. (See APEC Cooperation Arrangement for CrossBorder Privacy Enforcement at http://aimp.apec.org/ Documents/2010/ECSG/ DPS1/10_ecsg_dps1_013. pdf). In 2011, APEC endorsed an intake questionnaire for those seeking certification, and shortly thereafter member economies began officially participating in the Cross-Border Privacy Rules system. In August 2013, IBM became the first US company certified under the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. Since that time, a number of other companies, including Merck and Yodlee, have also become APEC privacy certified.

While much of the consideration of data privacy laws and regulations remains focused on healthcare and Internet commerce, the evolution of data privacy laws potentially has far-reaching implications.

In the years between the 1980 Guidelines and the 2013 update, the OECD continued to develop its privacy practices. In 2007, the OECD adopted a recommendation regarding cross-border co-operation in the enforcement of privacy laws. In 2011, it reported that the 2007 recommendation had resulted in increased efforts among its member nations to ensure that appropriate protections were given to private data during cross-border transfers.

(2) Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) APEC is an intergovernmental organisation with 21 member economies, including the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, The Philippines, Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United States and Russia, among others.

52 www.hk-lawyer.org

APEC’s Privacy Framework set forth Guidelines for international implementation of the principles and called for voluntary implementation of rules enforcing the principles in crossborder transfers of information. Thus, in 2007 APEC began work on a set of Cross-Border Privacy Rules that would control transfer of private information in APEC member economies. (See APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules System: Policies, Rules and Guidelines at http:// www.apec.org/Groups/Committeeon-Trade-and-Investment/~/media/ Files/Groups/ECSG/CBPR/CBPRPoliciesRulesGuidelines.ashx).

The Cross-Border Privacy Rules are similar in nature to the Binding Corporate Rules used by the European

(3) The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (“ASEAN”) ASEAN is an intergovernmental organisation that was established in 1967 and is now comprised of 10 member states, including Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines.

While ASEAN currently has no specific data protection policies, the general concept is recognised in the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009–2015, and was originally slated for action in the 2010–2011 time frame. Section

September 2014 • DATA

PRIVACY 個人資料私隱

B-6 on e-commerce includes a specific strategic action directed to data privacy: Adopt the best practices and guidelines on cyber-law issues (ie, data privacy, consumer protection, intellectual property right protection, internet service provider liability, etc) to support the regional e-commerce activities.

In recent years, the ASEAN communities have actively pursued this strategic goal by implementing national privacy legislation, notwithstanding the lack of an overall set of organisational principles. Since 2010, five ASEAN members (Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam) have enacted or partially enacted privacy laws. However, as noted in a 2013 United Nations’ review of harmonisation of e-commerce laws in ASEAN, there is still much work needed to reach a comprehensive, consistent and universally applicable set of data privacy laws in the ASEAN countries.

(4) Pacific Islands Forum The Pacific Islands Forum is an association of 16 independent states in the South Pacific, including Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and numerous small island nations. In early 2002, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat participated in a forum leading to the Pacific Islands Information and Communication Technologies Policy and Strategic Plan (“PIIPP”). The PIIPP detailed a vision and strategy for implementing Information and Communication Technology (“ICT”) policies throughout the region. While the PIIPP in large measure focused on access to ICT, guiding principle 4.5 of the PIIPP explicitly recognised the need to develop laws and regulations for the protection of data privacy: “National ICT and related regulations will balance and protect community and individual interests, including privacy issues.”

Supplementing guiding principle 4.5 was Strategy 4.5.1, which detailed specific actions the Pacific Islands

Forum nations should take in assessing and implementing appropriate legislation.

In October 2005, the Pacific Islands Forum released the Pacific Regional Digital Strategy. While the primary emphasis of the Digital Strategy was again to provide better, cheaper and faster access to ICT, a stated objective of the Digital Strategy was “Ensuring the protection of privacy, data security and intellectual property rights including cultural property.” In the 2007 Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat indicated that an area for “immediate implementation” was “Intensified implementation of a regional digital strategy for improving information and communication technology.”

In 2010, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat released a review of progress on the objectives of the Digital Strategy (Network Strategies Report Number 29029), and began work on a second version of the Digital Strategy (yet to be released). Recognising the goal of ensuring data security and privacy protection, the report detailed the efforts of other regional organisations towards implementing privacy policies.

At the 2009 Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Forum leading to the 2010 report, cybersecurity was noted as an

issue of paramount importance. Work on implementation at the national level and in terms of harmonised regional policies continues in the Pacific Islands Forum, and will presumably be a significant part of Digital Strategy II.

Implications for International Litigation While much of the consideration of data privacy laws and regulations remains focused on healthcare and Internet commerce, the evolution of data privacy laws potentially has far-reaching implications with respect to litigation involving entities that are based in the Asia-Pacific region or that have subsidiaries or offices in the Asia-Pacific region from which documents must be collected.

Regional organisations continue to develop and implement privacy enforcement regimes and procedures for protection of data privacy during crossborder transfers that litigants would be well-advised to consider before collection and production of documents.

Moreover, national implementations of data privacy protections now may come with significant non-compliance penalties. A subsequent article will address some of the more significant country specific implementations of data privacy laws and will discuss ways to ensure compliance during litigation productions. n

www.hk-lawyer.org 53

• September 2014

在亞太舞臺上不斷變化的資料保護 制度及其對訴訟的影響： 關於跨境資料轉移之 國際策略概述 作者 S. Richard Carden 合夥人

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

在這篇文章，S. Richard Carden探索了區 域組織於亞太地區在發展資料的保密制度 和跨境資料轉移的規管政策方面所發揮的 作用。在隨後的文章中，Carden將討論 更重要的資料私隱法在特定國家實施及如 何確保在訴訟期間出示資料時遵守法規。

資

料私隱法規的全球性擴大，令人

對事情處理得更好。當資料私隱法例發揮

保護該權利的做法，在過去一世紀大大增

在訴訟舞臺上感受到其越來越受

作用時，就不應再採取過往的大規模收集

加。對私隱權利演變的全面討論已超出本

遵從所造成的影響。每當資料收集發生在

與出示資料的準則。

文論述範圍；然而，對有關私隱的國際法

外國公司或外國子公司或當地的公司內，

近年很多資料私隱問題的分析都是集中

有一些簡單的歷史背景認識，是有助於討

該等實體必須考慮是否有法律規管實體的

於歐盟。然而，在一個漸受專利事務律

論現時法例的。

分享資料的能力。具體而言，在訴訟中收

師關注的地區 — 亞太地區，也相當大力

集及出示資料的與訟各方必須確定其是否

1948年《世界人權宣言》第12條具體

度地保護資料。這篇文章論述區域組織

一定要在出示前刪隱個人資料，或其是否

確定個人私隱作為一項基本人類權利

在亞太舞臺上有關制訂和執行政策、法

一定要通知資料標的者有關可能的出示資

(1948年聯合國大會)。自那時開始，許

規方面所起的作用，並探討國家和國際

料，並容許資料標的者有機會作出反對或

多其他的國際公約及條約已認識到對私隱

一直的努力，對保護私隱權利所造成的

作其他考慮。

的基本權利，其中包括《公民權利和政治

潛在影響。後續的文章將論述在特定國

權利國際公約》(1966年聯合國大會)及

既然私人資料的最廣義的定義包括任何可 以識別個人的東西，及既然現代專利權訴 訟中所涉及的大量資料，出示資料方的潛 在責任是值得注意的。考慮到不正當披露 的罰則越來越嚴厲，參與訴訟的一方如能 對出示資料的潛在影響有充分瞭解，將會

54 www.hk-lawyer.org

家實施的資料私隱法例與對涉及亞太實 體的訴訟的影響。

《歐洲聯盟基本權利憲章》(2007年歐盟 理事會)。

區域組織在資料私隱及保護所起 的作用

全世界的區域經濟組織還列舉了應對私隱

雖然個人私隱權利的概念有遙遠的歷史淵

通過或正在通過國內政策和實施立法，規

源，但把這權利制成法典及產生出法規來

定對個人資料的保護。

權的原則，並且這些組織的各成員國已經

September 2014 • DATA

PRIVACY 個人資料私隱

(1) 經濟合作及發展組織 (“經合組織”)

到其他組織和世界各國的努力，經修訂的

亞太經合組織的私隱框架陳述了指引，供

自從其起源的1961年開始(其當時包括歐

經合組織指引邀請非成員國家與成員國家

國際間執行該等原則，並呼籲自願執行

洲國家，美國和加拿大)，經合組織已擴

一齊執行該指引。有關經修訂的指引的評

有關跨境轉移資訊的原則。因此，2007

大其成員組合，包括幾個亞太國家，其中

論還具體認識到亞太經濟合作組織（下文

年，亞太經合組織開始工作制訂一套《

有澳大利亞、日本和韓國。雖然還不是成

更詳細討論）為創建資料私隱計劃而作出

跨境私隱規則》，以便控制在亞太經

員，經合組織與中國、印度、印尼和俄羅

的貢獻。

合組織成員經濟體的私人資訊轉移。

斯也有積極的夥伴關係。

1980年的指引與2013年更新版本之間

（請參閱亞太經合組織跨境私隱規則系

經合組織長久已認識到有必要保護私人資

的多年中，經合組織繼續發展其私隱規

統：政策、規則及指引，載於http://

範。2007年，經合組織採納了一項關於

www.apec.org/Groups/Committee-

跨境合作執行私隱法律的建議。2011

on-Trade-and-Investment/~/media/

年，有報告指 2007年的建議已經導致其

Files/Groups/ECSG/CBPR/CBPR-

成員國之間增加努力，以確保在跨境轉移

PoliciesRulesGuidelines.ashx。）

過程中使私人資料得到適當保護。

《跨境私隱規則》是與歐洲聯盟用於評

料，並且在1980年引進了準則，作為大 部分在過去30年中實施的私隱法律的基 礎。(見2013年理事會建議關於規管個人 資料保護及跨境流動的指引。) 經合組織 的指引規定有關可識別個人資訊的八項基 本原則，其中包括： a. 收集限制原則：收集的個人 資料應該是有限制的； b. 資料品質原則：個人資料應 該是關乎它被收集之目的， 以及是準確、完整與最新

雖然還有很多資料私隱法規的考 慮重點放在醫療服務和互聯網商 貿上，但資料私隱法的演變實體 帶來深遠影響。

的； c. 指明目的原則：應在收集私人資訊時 指明其收集的用途；

(2) 亞太經濟合作組織 (“亞太經合組織”)

估遵守歐洲資料私隱指令和規例 的《具約束力公司規則》之性質類 似，並有四個規管的元素： a. 組織自我評估私隱政策； b. 由獲得亞太經合組織認可的問 責代理人進行合規審查； c. 承認符合私隱框架的組織；及

亞太經合組織為一個政府間組織，有

d. 執行和解決爭端的機制。

21個成員的經濟體，其中包括中華人

2009年，亞太經合組織再次響應經合組

d. 限制使用原則：未經資料標的者同意

民共和國、香港、新加坡、馬來西亞、

織的工作，在與《跨境私隱規則》相協

或由法律授權，個人資訊不應該用於

印尼、泰國、越南、菲律賓、澳洲、日

調之際，認可了自己的跨境私隱執法合

未指定的用途 ；

本、韓國、美國及俄羅斯等。

作框架。（請參閱以下網址所載亞太經合

e. 安全保障原則：應保護個人資料，使

建基於經合組織和歐洲聯盟的工作成

組織跨境私隱執法的合作安排：Http://

其避免遺失及未經授權而被披露；

就，亞太經合組織在 2005 年採納了一

aimp.apec.org/Documents/2010/ECSG/

f. 開放性原則：應隨時可以獲得有關個

套自己的私隱原則。(請於以下網址參

DPS1/10_ecsg_dps1_013.pdf。）2011

人資料的政策和做法，以及有關資料

閱亞太經合組織的私隱框架：http://

年，亞太經合組織認許了為那些尋求認證

控制者的識別資訊；

publications.apec.org/publication-

而設的新加入者調查問卷，並於此後成員

detail.php?pub_id=390。)亞太經合組織

經濟體開始正式參加《跨境私隱規則》系

的私隱框架認可了1980年經合組織的私

統。2013 年 8 月，IBM 成為了第一間根

隱指引中八個核心原則的普遍適用性，

據亞太經合組織的《跨境私隱規則》而獲

並提出自己的版本及將其擴展。雖然亞

認證的美國公司。從此，其他一些公司，

太經合組織的九項私隱原則很大程度上

包括Merck及Yodlee，也獲亞太經合組織

反映了經合組織的指引，但他們也介紹

私隱認證。

g. 個人參與原則：個人資料標的者應當 有權獲得他們自己的個人資料、質疑 保存該等資料及請求刪除或改正其個 人資料；及 h. 問責原則：應該設有措施，以確保資 料控制者符合其他的原則。

了其他兩個概念。其中最重要的是亞太

經合組織在2013年修訂私隱指引；然

經合組織私隱原則是防止傷害個人資料

而，指導原則保持不變。2013年更新的

之標的者。而這一原則只有隱含在經合

版本把重點放在實施管理資料私隱的計

組織的指引中。亞太經合組織的私隱框

劃，包括創立執法當局及規定把有關違反

架還引進了在個人資訊收集時的個人選

其個人資料的情況通知資料標的者。認識

擇原則。

(3) 東南亞國家聯盟 (“東盟”) 東盟是一個政府間組織，成立於1967 年，而現在由10個成員國組成，包括新 加坡、泰國、越南和菲律賓。雖然東盟 目前沒有具體的資料保護政策，但其總

www.hk-lawyer.org 55

• September 2014

概念已在2009年-2015年東盟共同體路

與通信技術政策及戰略計劃(“PIIPP”)

號)有關目標進展的檢討文件，並開始了

線圖獲得承認，並原本計劃在 2010年 –

。PIIPP展示了在整個區域有關執行資訊

第二版的《數碼策略》編寫工作(尚未發

2011年期間實行。第B-6節有關電子商

及通訊技術(通訊技術)政策的詳細願景與

表)。認識到確保資料安全及私隱保護的目

貿的，包括了針對資料私隱的具體戰略行

戰略。雖然在很大程度上 PIIPP 專注於通

標，報告詳細說明其他區域組織對執行私

動：關於網絡法律問題（即資料私隱、消

訊技術，但PIIPP的指導原則4.5還是明確

隱政策作出的努力。在2009年的太平洋島

費者保護、知識產權保護、互聯網服務提

地確認需要制定法規來保護資料私隱：”

嶼論壇的秘書處論壇之後撰寫了2010年的

供者責任等），應採取最佳的做法及指引

國家通訊技術及相關的規例會平衡和保護

報告，指出網絡安全為最重要的問題。關

來支援區域電子商貿活動。

社會與個人的利益，包括私隱問題。”

於在國家層面執行及在協調區域政策方面

近年來，儘管缺乏一套全面的組織原則，

補充指導原則4.5為戰略4.5.1，詳細列出

的工作在太平洋島嶼論壇繼續，並且大概

東盟共同體已經積極進行這一戰略目標，

太平洋島嶼論壇各國應採取的具體行動，

是數碼策略II的重要組成部分。

實行國家私隱立法。自2010年以來，五

以評估並實行適當的立法。

個東盟成員國(馬來西亞、菲律賓、新加

2005年10月，太平洋島嶼論壇發表了

坡、印尼和越南)已經制訂或部分制訂私

雖然還有很多資料私隱法規的考慮重點放

《太平洋區域數碼策略》。雖然數碼策

隱法律。然而，如2013年聯合國的評論

在醫療服務和互聯網商貿上，但資料私隱

略的首要重點是再次提供更優質、更便

所述，關於東盟電子商貿法律的協調問

法的演變可能對涉及依據在亞太區域的訴

宜和更快捷的存取通訊技術，但數碼策

題，還有很多工作要做，以達成一個全

訟或在亞太區域設有子公司或辦事處而必

略規定的目標是「確定保護私隱、資料

面、一致和普遍適用於東盟國家的資料私

須從中收取文件的實體帶來深遠影響。

安全及知識產權的權利，包括文化產

隱法律。

權」。在2007年的「太平洋加強區域合

(4) 太平洋島嶼論壇 太平洋島嶼論壇是在太平洋南部，由16 個獨立國家形成的組織；包括澳洲、新 西蘭、新畿內亞和許多小島嶼國家。在

作和一體化計劃」，太平洋島嶼論壇秘 書處表示，需要「立即執行」的一個領 域是「加強執行改善資訊及通訊技術的 區域數碼策略」。

對於國際訴訟的含意

區域組織繼續制定和實施私隱強制執行制 度及程序，以便訴訟人在收集及出示文件 前明智地考慮跨境轉移期間的資料私隱問 題。此外，國家在實施資料私隱保護時， 也可能帶來嚴厲的違規處罰。在隨後的文 章中，筆者將討論更重要的、在特定國家

2002年初，太平洋島嶼論壇秘書處參加

2010 年，太平洋島嶼論壇秘書處發表了

實施的資料私隱法及討論如何確保在訴訟

了一個論壇，導致促成太平洋島嶼資訊

一份《數碼策略》(網絡策略報告29029

期間出示資料時遵守法規。 n

56 www.hk-lawyer.org

• September 2014

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視 ARBITRATION

Onshore Arbitration by Offshore Institutions Recognised by China’s Highest Court In the case of Anhui Longlide Packing and Printing Co., Ltd v BP Agnati S.R.L. ([2013] Min Si Ta Zi No.13) (the “Decision”), which concerned a dispute over the validity of an arbitration agreement, the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) confirmed that the selection of the ICC International Court of Arbitration (“ICCICA”) with the “place of jurisdiction” at Shanghai is valid. This is a significant step for Mainland China to open its arbitration market to offshore arbitration institutions.

The Decision The arbitration clause in the case provides: “Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to ICCICA, with one or several arbitrators appointed according to the ICC Arbitration Rules, for arbitration pursuant to the ICC Arbitration Rules. The place of jurisdiction shall be Shanghai and the language shall be English.” The Intermediate People’s Court of Hefei and the High People’s Court of Anhui reported the case to the SPC according to the “reporting system”.

The SPC held that, pursuant to Article 16 of The Interpretation Concerning Some Issues on the Application of the Arbitration Law of the PRC, since the parties did not prescribe 58 www.hk-lawyer.org

the laws applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement, the laws at the place of arbitration, namely Chinese law, should apply. The SPC also held that the arbitration clause had an unambiguous intention to resolve the parties’ dispute via arbitration, provided the matter is subject to arbitration and designated an arbitration institution.

As a result, the SPC held that the arbitration clause conformed with Article 16 of the Arbitration Law and therefore was valid.

By declaring this arbitration clause valid, the SPC opened the door for offshore arbitration institutions to conduct arbitration in Mainland China.

Background The Arbitration Law does not clearly stipulate whether offshore arbitration institutions can conduct arbitrations in Mainland China.

Before Longlide, it has been fiercely disputed whether offshore arbitration institutions were permitted to conduct arbitration in Mainland China due to different understandings on the Arbitration Law and related judicial policies in China. Some experts, invoking Article 10 of the Arbitration Law, held the view that “arbitration commissions” under the Arbitration Law do not include foreign institutions.

Rather, those conducting arbitrations must be granted a license by administrative authorities, as these institutions render professional services.

Thus, these experts contended that offshore arbitration institutions could

not arbitrate in Mainland China until the Chinese government opened the arbitration service market. However, other experts, who interpret the “arbitration commissions” more liberally, contended that there was no legal obstacle to foreign institutions conducting arbitration in Mainland China.

In April 2009, in Duferco v Ningbo Arts and Craft Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., a case involving the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, the Intermediate People’s Court of Ningbo characterised the arbitral award rendered by ICC in Mainland China as a “non-domestic award”. The Court recognised and enforced the award pursuant to Article I(1) of the New York Convention, without taking into account China’s declaration under Article I(3).

The Duferco ruling, though hotly contested in the arbitration community, was final and thus did not go to higher courts for appellate review.

The Court’s decision in Longlide makes it clear that arbitration agreements choosing offshore arbitration institutions to arbitrate in Mainland China are valid. The decision also marks the opening of the Chinese arbitration market, removing a major legal obstacle to offshore arbitration institutions, such as ICC, to arbitrate in Mainland China.

Remaining Issues While the Decision allows offshore arbitration institutions to conduct arbitration in Mainland China, there are still numerous issues to be resolved.

September 2014 •

First, how will awards rendered in Mainland China by offshore arbitration institutions be characterised? Should they be regarded as “domestic awards” or “non-domestic awards”? If they are regarded as “non-domestic awards”, whether and how will they be enforced in Mainland China?

院為仲裁機構，並以上海為「仲裁地」的

Second, if an offshore arbitration institution arbitrates in Mainland China, how should parties ensure compliance with Chinese laws? Can the Chinese judicial system exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration and, if so, how would it do so?

商會仲裁院，並根據國際商會仲裁院規則

仲裁協議是有效的。最高院的這一決定是 中國內地向海外仲裁機構開放其仲裁市場 的重要一步。 決定 該案件中的仲裁條款規定：「任何因本合 同引起的或與其有關的爭議應被提交國際 由按照該等規則所指定的一位或多位仲裁 員予以最終仲裁。管轄地應為中國上海， 仲裁應以英語進行。」合肥市中級人民法 院和安徽省高級人民法院根據「報告制 度」，向最高人民法院匯報此案。

These and many more issues concerning Chinese arbitral and judicial practices still need to be clarified. It appears that amending the Arbitration Law and keeping it in line with international mainstream practices is probably the most effective way to answer these questions and address the concerns of arbitration practitioners and the business community regarding arbitration in Mainland China.

最高人民法院認為，按照「關於中華人民

- Zhang Shouzhi, Hu Ke, Tian Jing, King & Wood Mallesons

通過宣告該仲裁條款有效，最高人民法院

仲裁

中國最高法院認可由海外仲 裁機構在中國內地進行仲裁

共和國仲裁法的應用的若干問題」第16 條，因締約方沒有規定適用於仲裁協議的 法律，所以應按照仲裁地的法律，即中國 的法律應當適用。最高人民法院亦認為， 仲裁條款有明確意圖通過仲裁來解決雙方 的糾紛，約定了受仲裁管轄的事項，並已 指定仲裁機構。因此，最高人民法院裁 定仲裁條款符合《仲裁法》第16條的規 定，是有效的仲裁條款。 為海外仲裁機構在中國內地進行仲裁打開 了大門。 背景 《仲裁法》並沒有明確規定海外的仲裁機 構是否可以在中國內地進行仲裁。

在申請人安徽省龍利得包裝印刷有限公司

在龍利得一案之前，由於對中國的《仲裁

與被申請人BP Agnati S.R.L.申請確認仲裁 協議效力案([2013]民四他字第13號)中， 最高人民法院確認選擇國際商會國際仲裁

法》和有關的中國司法政策有不同理解， 因此對於是否准許海外仲裁機構在中國內 地進行仲裁，已存在長久的激烈爭議。一

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業 界 透 視

些專家援引《仲裁法》第10條，認為根 據《仲裁法》，「仲裁委員會」並不包括 外國機構，而仲裁是必須由行政當局授予 許可證才能從事的專業服務。因此，這些 專家爭辯說，在中國政府仍未開放仲裁 服務市場情況下，海外仲裁機構不得在華 進行仲裁。但也有一些專家以較寬鬆方式 解釋「仲裁委員會」一詞，認為外國仲裁 機構在中國內地進行仲裁並不存在法律障 礙。 2009年4月, 在德高鋼鐵公司與寧波市工 藝品進出口有限公司之間的承認和執行仲 裁裁決一案中，寧波市中級人民法院把國 際商會在中國內地作出的仲裁裁決定性為 「非內國裁決」。該法院根據《紐約公 約》第I(1)條承認和執行該裁決，但是沒 有考慮中國根據第I(3)條所作的聲明。德 高鋼鐵一案的裁定雖然在仲裁界引起激烈 的爭論，但由於該裁定是最終的，因此並 沒有提交上級法院進行上訴覆核。 法院在龍利得一案的決定明確指出，仲裁 協定選擇海外仲裁機構在中國內地進行仲 裁是有效的。這一決定也標誌著中國進 一步開放仲裁市場，消除了海外仲裁機構 (如國際商會仲裁院)在中國內地進行仲裁 的一大法律障礙。 餘下問題 雖然該裁決允許海外仲裁機構在中國內地 進行仲裁，但仍有許多問題有待解決。 首先，海外仲裁機構在中國內地作出的 裁決如何被定性？它們應被視作「內國裁 決」還是「非內國裁決」？如果它們被視 為「非內國裁決」，它們是否及將如何在 中國內地執行？ 其次，海外仲裁機構如在中國內地進行仲 裁，仲裁雙方應如何確保遵守中國法律？ 中國的司法制度可以對仲裁進行司法監督 嗎？若然，將如何進行？ 這些和更多關於中國仲裁與司法實務的問 題仍有待澄清。看來，修改《仲裁法》， 並使其與國際主流做法接軌，也許是回答 這些問題，及解決仲裁從業人員與商界對 中國內地仲裁表示關注的最有效方法。

- 張守志，胡科，田靜， 金杜律師事務所

www.hk-lawyer.org 59

• September 2014

ARBITRATION

Arbitrability of Shareholder Disputes “Arbitrability” refers to the notion of whether a dispute is capable of being arbitrated. Certain disputes are not capable of arbitration; such as matters that are the exclusive preserve of the courts. An example in Hong Kong is employees’ statutory compensation proceedings (re Paquito Lima Buton [2008] 4 HKC 14).

However, what is or is not arbitrable is not always clear. For example, difficult issues sometimes arise in the context of the arbitrability of shareholders’ claims arising out of the statutory regime for unfair prejudice petitions (see “Industry Insights”, January 2014).

A recent case on point is Quiksilver Greater China Ltd [2014] HKEC 1241. In the context of a dispute between two shareholders and arising out of a joint venture agreement, one party sought (among other things) to stay a petition to wind-up the joint venture company in favour of a prior notice to arbitrate.

Importantly, the petition was presented on “just and equitable” grounds and not on the basis of insolvency.

The court held that the correct approach in deciding whether a dispute is arbitrable is to identify the substance of the dispute between the parties and decide whether it is covered by the arbitration agreement. A dispute arising out of a just and equitable windingup petition is (according to the court) capable of being arbitrated; applying, re Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2012] Ch 333.

to a debt. For example, a petition to wind-up a company on the basis of insolvency will not be stayed in favour of arbitration, even if the debt is stated to arise in connection with an agreement that contains an arbitration clause (Sky Datamann (Hong Kong) Ltd, HCCW No. 487 of 2001, 29 January 2002); and

[2014] HKEC 1241一案就是好例子。案

• an arbitrator’s power to determine issues arising out of a shareholders agreement and related facts and matters that might support a windingup petition.

裁解決，正確的方法是先辨別出雙方

In this case, the agreement provided that “any controversy arising under or relating to this Agreement” shall be determined and settled by arbitration. The court considered this sufficiently wide to justify a stay, so that an arbitrator could decide the basis on which the joint venture was to end and whether this gave rise to matters that justified a winding-up through a court process.

正公平為由提出的清盤呈請所產生的爭

Once again, the outcome demonstrates the pro-arbitration stance of the local courts and their working in tandem with arbitration. If the petitioner is successful in the arbitration, the stay can be lifted and a winding-up order sought.

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

中兩名股東因合資企業協議產生糾紛， 其中一方入稟申請將合資公司的清盤呈 請擱置，並要求根據早前發出的仲裁通 知將糾紛提交仲裁。更重要的是，呈請 乃以「公正公平」而非無力償債為理由 提出。 法院裁定，要判斷一宗爭議是否可以仲 爭議的實質內容，再決定該等內容是否 受仲裁協議涵蓋。審理此案的法院引用

re Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2012] Ch 333一案，裁定以公 議，可以透過仲裁解決。 這個爭論點大有機會於其他股東爭議出 現，以下兩者之間的分別必須釐清：

• 法院擁有專有司法管轄權，對公司作 出清盤令，並裁定公司能否對呈請人 的債項申索提出真正的抗辯理由。譬 如，呈請人以某公司無力償債為理由 提出清盤呈請，即使該筆債項乃因一 份含有仲裁條款的協議而產生的，法 院也不會擱置該呈請並把案件轉交仲 裁(Sky Datamann (Hong Kong) Ltd， 高院公司清盤案件2001年第487 號，2002年1月29日)；及 • 仲裁員有權就股東協議引起的問題， 以及本可支持清盤呈請的相關事實及 事宜作出裁決。

仲裁

由於此案中的協議列明，「任何根據本

股東爭議的可仲裁性

協議而產生或與本協議有關的爭議」必

「可仲裁性」指一宗爭議是否可透過仲

字眼的涵蓋範圍廣泛，因此有充分理由

裁解決。某些爭議不可透過仲裁解決，

擱置清盤呈請，並可由仲裁員就結束合

屬法院專責範疇的爭議即屬此類，法定

資企業的依據作出裁決，及決定這有否

僱員補償訴訟(re Paquito Lima Buton

產生應透過法庭程序清盤的理由。

[2008] 4 HKC 14)就是本港一個例子。

須由仲裁裁定及解決，法院認為，此等

結果再一次顯示，本港法庭支持仲裁的

This issue is likely to arise in other shareholder disputes and a crucial distinction is to be made between:

然而，甚麼可仲裁、甚麼不可以並非總

立場及對仲裁的配合。如呈請人在仲裁

是如斯清晰。譬如，涉及股東按法定

中勝訴，法院可取消清盤呈請的擱置及

機制提出的不公平損害呈請，有時會因

作出清盤令。

• the court’s exclusive jurisdiction to make winding-up orders against companies and to determine whether a company can demonstrate a bona fide defence to a petitioner’s claim

問題複雜以致難以判斷爭議是否可循仲

60 www.hk-lawyer.org

裁解決(請參閱2014年1月的「業界透 視」)。 最近的Quiksilver Greater China Ltd

- Warren Ganesh 高級律師， Smyth & Co與RPC聯營

September 2014 •

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業 界 透 視

REGULATORY

Anti-Money Laundering The fourth round of the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) anti-money laundering mutual evaluations recently commenced and Hong Kong’s is due in the first half of next year. The mutual evaluations are a chance for member states to evaluate their ongoing compliance with the FATF (AML) Recommendations.

Hong Kong will be hoping to improve on (among other things) those areas designated partially compliant in follow-up reports to the third round of FATF mutual evaluations; for example, the customer due diligence and recordkeeping requirements of designated non-financial businesses and professions (“DNFBPs”).

DNFBPs include: lawyers, estate agents, accountants and trust and company service providers and precious metal and stone dealers. Each profession or trade has its own AML practice direction, guideline or code (or equivalent), but is not subject to the same customer due diligence and record-keeping provisions that apply to financial institutions (such as the banks and entities licensed by the SFC).

The Anti-Money Laundering and CounterTerrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance 2012 (Cap. 615) provides for stringent customer due diligence and record-keeping requirements for banks and SFC licensed entities, breach of which can result in criminal prosecution.

Financial institutions also run the risk of regulatory action, pursuant to section 21 of the Ordinance (“Relevant authorities may take disciplinary actions”).

The SFC has also recently been active in exercising similar regulatory powers pursuant to section 194 (and 196) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571). For example, see the SFC’s press release dated 9 July 2014 confirming disciplinary action against a licensed entity for past failings to establish AML internal control procedures.

In the run-up to the FATF evaluation of Hong Kong next year, one should not be surprised to see further regulatory action.

Also watch out for renewed FATF focus on a number of issues in Hong Kong, including: • the level of suspicious transaction reports made by DNFBPs (compared to financial institutions); • the need for businesses to have internal AML policies; • the appointment of compulsory AML compliance officers for the likes of law firms; and • the activities of cross-border cash couriers.

In light of the CPD and RME year end, it may be an opportune time to attend the LSHK’s (Academy of Law) RME AML elective, asap. Such courses (and acronyms) tend to go down well in FATF speak.

- Jonathan Cary, Partner, Smyth & Co in association with RPC

監管

打擊洗錢 打擊洗錢財務特別行動組織(下稱「組 織」)近日展開了第四輪相互評核，香港 部分將於明年上半年完成。相互評核促使 成員評核它們有否持續符合組織就打擊洗 錢所訂立的建議。 香港有意採取改善措施，特別是組織第三 輪相互評核跟進報告中的部分合規範圍， 例子之一是為指定非金融企業及專業制訂 客戶盡職審查及備存紀錄的規定。 指定非金融企業及專業包括：律師、地產 代理、會計師、信託及公司服務供應商、

貴重金屬及寶石交易商。每個專業或行業 都有自己一套打擊洗錢實務指示、指引或 守則(或等同文件)，但不受制於適用於金 融機構(如獲證監會發牌的銀行及機構)的 客戶盡職審查及備存紀錄規定。 2012年生效的《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資 金籌集(金融機構)條例》(第615章)對銀 行及證監會持牌機構就客戶盡職審查及備 存紀錄設有嚴格規定，違反該條例可遭刑 事檢控。依據該條例第21條(「有關當局 可採取紀律行動」)，金融機構亦可能面 臨監管行動。 證監會最近亦積極行使《證券及期貨條 例》(第571章)第194(及196)條賦予的類 似監管權力。例如在2014年7月9日發出 的新聞稿中，證監會證實對一家過去沒有 制訂內部打擊洗錢監控程序的持牌機構採 取了紀律行動。 在組織明年對香港進行評核之前，監管機 構採取進一步行動是意料中事。 大家亦可預期組織將於下一輪評核中再次 指出香港的一些不足之處，包括：

• 與金融機構比較下，指定非金融企業 及專業就可疑交易舉報的數量； • 企業制訂內部打擊洗錢政策的需要； • 強制律師行等機構委任打擊洗錢合規 主任；及 • 跨境現款送遞活動。 持續專業進修計劃及風險管理教育計劃的 年度已接近尾聲，大家可考慮儘快選修香 港律師會轄下香港法律專業學會提供的風 險管理課程、打擊洗錢課程。此類有關財 務特別行動組織的課程非常受歡迎，欲報 從速，以免向隅。

- Jonathan Cary合夥人， Smyth & Co與 RPC聯營

www.hk-lawyer.org 61

• September 2014

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Pros and Cons of Multi-Class Trademark Application in the PRC As expected for years by brand owners, the Chinese Trademark Office has announced new practice regulations and has started to receive multi-class trademark applications since China’s recently revised Trademark Law became effective on 1 May 2014. But will this practice meet the expectations of the trademark applicants?

As a common practice in many countries, multi-class trademark applications streamline the registration process in a costeffective manner. Not only is the cost for filing reduced for extra class(es) with one application, but that for future renewal, assignment, and recordation of name/address change, etc. can also be significantly reduced. Multi-class registration also brings high efficiency to the administration of trademark portfolios for brand owners.

There is no doubt that trademark applicants who have a large trademark portfolio in China have expected to benefit from China’s new multi-class trademark application practice, as China has been ranked number one for more than ten years in terms of the number of trademark applications filed within its borders.

But the assorted regulations from the Chinese Trademark Office are far from satisfactory. As the new multi-class application brings efficiency in portfolio management, it also comes with imperfections, and at least for now, one

62 www.hk-lawyer.org

of the most practical benefits, costsaving, seems much less promising.

According to the regulations for multiclass applications, the official fee is calculated per class and there is no discount for any extra class(es) in one application. After registration, the official fee for future recordation of name/address change, assignment, license and renewal is also calculated by current standards (ie, based on the number of classes).

In other words, there is no difference for official fees between a singleclass application and a multi-class application.

Even so, multi-class applications do bring efficiency to a brand owner’s trademark portfolio administration work. For instance, to better facilitate administration work, a multi-class registration only has one registration number and one filing/registration date. However, this convenience is based on the condition that there will be no division of the registration in the future. The new law and regulations only allow an application to be split in the event of a partial refusal. That is to say, the applicant cannot split a multiclass application if someone files an opposition against or the applicant/ registrant tries to assign only a portion of the protected goods/services. The window for a division only opens when the Trademark Office issues a partial rejection to some of the designated goods/services. When this occurs, the applicant can choose to divide the multiclass application into one application covering the approved goods/services (so as to get registration first) and one application covering the rejected goods/ services (for the purpose of filing a request for review).

Another drawback of the multi-class application is that if the description of goods in one class is deemed as not acceptable by the examiner during the examination, the process of the entire application will be delayed for further examination. It is of course the same situation in other countries, but it seems more risky in China as the Chinese Trademark Office may be inclined to only give one opportunity to each applicant to amend its goods/services description during the prosecution, and may refuse the application if the applicant fails to properly make amendments within this limited window of time. Thus, filing multi-class trademark applications in China may be riskier, as applications with partially defective goods/services descriptions may be rejected in their entirety despite containing partially acceptable descriptions for other classes of goods/services.

Therefore, it seems the advantages of the new practice of multi-class applications in China are limited.

The possibility of the reduction of attorney fees may have been one of the expectations, but balancing the pros and cons in the post-registration period, the brand owners may be caught in a dilemma. Thus, the new practice regulations still need fine-tuning to meet the expectations of applicants, especially in regards to the fee policy and the practice of application divisions.

- King & Wood Mallesons’ Trademark Group

知識產權

中國一標多類商標申請的 利弊 經過品牌擁有者的多年翹首以盼，隨著 2014年5月1日中國新商標法修正案的實 施，中國商標局已經發佈新的操作規則 並開始接受一標多類商標註冊申請。不 過，該新制是否與商標申請人的期盼相 契合呢？

September 2014 •

作為在許多國家通行的一標多類商標註

另一個缺點是當一個一標多類的申請在一

冊申請制度，其能接給商標申請帶來費

個類別上的商品描述在審查中不被審查員

用上的節省。這不僅是在一件申請中的

接受時，整個商標申請的進展就會被拖延

額外類別上有費用上的節省，而且在後

下來以進行後續審查。當然，這種情況在

續的續展、轉讓、名址變更登記等程式

其它國家也是一樣的，但是在中國風險更

中都可以極大地降低註冊人的費用。一

大，因為中國商標局可能傾向於在審理過

標多類註冊也給品牌擁有者在商標檔案

程中只給申請人一次修改商品/服務描述

管理方面帶來效率的提升。

的機會，一旦申請人未能在有限的時間內

對於在中國擁有大量商標申請的商標申 請人來說，一標多類申請的上述優點無 疑也是眾所期盼的，特別是在中國在國 內商標申請量方面已經連續十多年位於 全球首位的背景下。 但是，中國商標局出臺的配套規定還遠 不能令人滿意。目前的一標多類申請新 規在帶來管理便利的同時，還附帶有諸 多不便之處，至少大家對費用節省這一 最切實際好處的期望在目前看來幾乎是 落空的。

作出合適的修改，整個申請可能就會不被 受理。這樣，在中國提交一標多類商標註 冊申請的風險更大，因為包含部分有缺陷 的商品/服務描述的一件申請可能會整個 地被拒絕，即便它還包含部分可接受的其 它類別的商品/服務。 因此，在中國，一標多類商標註冊申請的 優點似乎十分有限。可能大家會期望律師 費會因此降低一些，但對註冊之後的優缺 點的衡量使得品牌擁有者處於一個兩難境 地。因此，新規仍需加以調整以符合申請 人的期望，特別在費用和分割申請方面。

根據一標多類申請的相關規定，商標局 的申請費仍按類別的數量進行收取，對

- 金杜律師事務所商標部

於一件申請中指定的額外類別並沒有任 何折扣。註冊後，對於後續的名址變更 登記、轉讓申請、許可備案、續展等， 商標局的費用也仍以現行標準根據類別 的數量進行收取。一言以蔽之，對於一 標一類申請和一標多類申請，相對應的 商標局的費用完全沒有區別。 儘管如此，一標多類申請仍給品牌擁有 者的商標檔案管理工作帶來一定的效率 提升。例如，一標多類註冊只有一個註 冊號和一個申請/註冊日期，這給管理工 作帶來便利。然而，該種便利是基於將 來商標註冊不會有任何分割的情況的。 根據新的法規，一件申請僅在被部分駁 回時方可進行分割。也就是說，如果將 來有人對該一標多類申請提出異議、或 者將來想該受保護的一部分商品/服務轉 讓給他人時，商標申請人/註冊人將該申 請或註冊予以分割是不可行的。只有當 商標局就部分商品或服務發出部分駁回 通知時，分割申請才可進行。此時，申 請人方可選擇將一標多類的申請分割成 包括通過審查的商品/服務的一件申請(以 先獲註冊)和包括被駁回商品/服務的另一 件申請(以申請複審)。

LEGISLATION

Hong Kong’s Public Consultation on Standard Working Hours Ends Amid Conflicting Views and Emotional Disputes Hong Kong’s Public Consultation on Standard Working Hours ended on 31 July, following emotional disputes between employers, employees and labour organisations over the proposal to regulate standard working hours.

Workers in Hong Kong endure some of the longest working hours, in one of the world’s most expensive cities to transact business, with soaring commercial/retail real estate costs and ever-increasing labour costs. Economically, Hong Kong is fighting to maintain its competitive advantage against its neighbours, such as Singapore, who is hot on its heels, and the soon-to-be ASEAN Economic Community, who has proposed to allow

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業 界 透 視

workers to move freely across several countries.

Hong Kong workers, in many sectors and industries, legitimately require protection from excessive working practices and low pay (something the Minimum Wage regime sought to address). Yet, in addition to the practical issues associated with setting standard hours across various sectors and jobs, the reality is that for many employers, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, a law mandating standard working hours would potentially drive them out of business. This could result in higher rates of unemployment among the workers the Government is trying to protect. For those businesses that could survive the introduction of such a regime, the proposals may lead some employers to implement alternative employment structures, such as fragmented or part-time working arrangements to evade the effect of such provisions. This could potentially impact workers’ employment stability and earning potential as a consequence.

From the progress of the consultation, it seems that Hong Kong is unlikely to adopt the current standard working hours proposal in its current form, as it would likely hurt its economic competitive position in the region.

Instead, we expect the Government to look again at the potential for an alternative, for example adopting a maximum working hours formulation or proposing industry standards/guidelines for working hours that could be adopted as a Code of Practice rather than with legislative effect. Another means the Government may pursue is identifying the root cause and impact of the long hours culture, such as health and safety and impact on family life, and seek to enhance workers’ rights to flexible working and family friendly entitlements.

The results are expected later this year.

- Julia Gorham, Head of Employment, Asia, at DLA Piper www.hk-lawyer.org 63

• September 2014

ESL produces and supplies innovative fuel products – the most successful of which being Ultra 35, a heating fuel, which utilises a special component from an ESL chemical specification. ESL was contracted to supply a large amount of Ultra 35 each year to a distributor under an exclusive distribution agreement.

立法

香港關於標準工時的諮詢在 意見分歧和情緒化爭拗下結 束 本港勞資雙方連同工會就如何規管標準工 時各持己見，經過一輪情緒化爭拗後，標 準工時公眾諮詢終於在7月31日結束。香 港是全球營商成本最高昂的城市之一，商 用/零售物業的價格和租金不斷飊升，勞 動成本又持續向上，僱員工時之長更是數 一數二。經濟上，香港正奮力保持競爭優 勢，跟鄰國對手匹敵，例子有正迎頭趕上 的新加坡，以及快將成立的東盟經濟共同 體，後者建議讓工人在若干國家之間自由 流動。 本港各界別和行業的僱員理應得到保障， 免受工作過度及工資過低之苦（最低工資 制度正是旨在解決後者）。然而，為不同 界別及工種設定標準工時除了牽涉實際問 題外，事實上對許多僱主特別是中小企而 言，立法強制實行標準工時有可能令其生 意難以經營下去。政府致力保護的工人， 反而有機會因而失業。對於在制度落實後 仍能生存的企業，有關建議或會令某些僱 主實行另類的僱用架構，例如分散或兼職 形式的工作安排，從而避免有關規定所帶 來的衝擊。工人的工作穩定性和收入有可 能因此而受到影響。

64 www.hk-lawyer.org

從諮詢的進度來看，本港似乎不太可能按 現行的標準工時模式採納相關建議，因此 舉有可能損害香港在區內的經濟競爭能 力。反之，我們希望政府重新探討其他替 代方案的可能性，例如制訂最高工時，又 或者就工時提出行業標準/指引，並把標 準/指引以「實務守則」形式，而非透過 立法施行。政府可採用的另一種方法，是 找出長工時文化的根源及所造成的影響， 例如對健康、安全和家庭生活的影響，並 設法讓工人享有彈性工作安排以及和家人 相聚的權利。結果預計將在今年稍後時間 公布。

- 歐華律師事務所， 亞洲僱傭部主管Julia Gorham

EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Importance of Contractual Protections In ESL Fuels Ltd v Fletcher & Anor, the English High Court refused to grant an interim injunction to prevent the sale by a former employee of a competing product, the make-up of which was alleged to be a trade secret. Crucially, there was no express contractual protection for confidential information or post termination restraints in the employee’s contract.

Fletcher worked for ESL as its General Manager from 2009 until 20 September 2013. In August 2013, Fletcher registered the domain name premaenergy.com and in September 2013, he incorporated Prema Energy Limited. In mid-October 2013, ESL discovered that Fletcher was trying to source the Ultra 35 special component from ESL’s supplier and was seeking to supply its exclusive distributor with an Ultra 35 equivalent, Prema 35, on a pricing structure virtually identical to that offered by ESL. ESL claimed that the process for manufacturing Ultra 35 was a highly confidential trade secret and sought an interim injunction to prevent Fletcher and Prema from using its confidential information and selling Prema 35.

The defendants’ position was that the manufacturing process for Ultra 35 was well known, the components widely available and that ESL was simply seeking to stifle legitimate competition.

Before deciding not to grant the injunction, the Court considered the guidelines set out in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicom Ltd: • Was there a serious issue to be tried?

In the absence of contractual posttermination restraints, ESL had to show that it had a real prospect of establishing at trial that the confidential information in question amounted to a trade secret. This limb of the test was satisfied as there were triable issues of fact requiring determination after oral evidence at a full trial.

• Would damages be an adequate remedy? An injunction was not required in this case as damages awarded at a full trial could adequately compensate ESL for

September 2014 •

any financial loss. ESL could readily quantify any drop in income from sales of Ultra 35 as a result of the exclusive distribution agreement.

• Should the status quo be maintained?

The defendants argued that the relevant status quo was the situation as at service of the Court proceedings (ie, after Fletcher’s company had started selling the competing product).

The Court disagreed and held that the relevant status quo was the situation immediately before the most recent significant change, namely the position before the defendants set up in business competing with ESL. • Where did the balance of convenience lie? Although the Court acknowledged that the desirability of maintaining the status quo favoured ESL, it decided that the balance of convenience fell in favour of allowing the defendants to be able to continue selling the competing product. This was, however, subject to a requirement that they maintain the confidentiality of the alleged trade secret and preserve any profits made from their business. The Court gave significant weight to the fact that granting an injunction was likely to prevent the defendants from developing their new business and from meeting their start-up costs.

Practitioners should advise their clients of the risks that they are exposed to where a comprehensive employment contract is not in place. There was no written contract between ESL and Fletcher and, as such, no post-termination restraints or express protection for confidential information. Therefore, the only means by which ESL could seek to protect its business against damage by its former employee was by alleging the misuse of trade secrets, which was a difficult task. The injunction would have had a better prospect of success had ESL been seeking to enforce an express contractual protection.

business interests. Express confidentiality provisions should be used to identify the information which the employer considers to be trade secrets and should ensure that protection of confidential information extends after the end of employment.

To be enforceable, post-termination restrictions should be carefully tailored to the individual circumstances and must be reasonable in scope and duration (although note that in some jurisdictions non-compete clauses are unenforceable in their entirety).

- Pattie Walsh and Julia Gorham, DLA Piper

勞動法

合約保障的重要性 在ESL Fuels Ltd v Fletcher & Anor 一案， 英國高等法院拒絕頒發臨時禁制令，阻止 一名前僱員出售具有競爭性的產品，而該 產品的成分被指涉及商業秘密。主要原 因，是該僱員的合約中並沒有訂立任何關 於機密資料或離職後限制等方面的保障條 款。 ESL生產和供應創新的燃料產品，當中最 成功的是一種名為Ultra 35的加熱燃料， 其所採用的一種特殊成分源自ESL的某化 學性規格。根據一份獨家分銷協議，ESL 須每年向經銷商提供大量Ultra 35。 Fletcher自2009年起受僱於ESL，任職 總經理，直至2013年9月20日。2013 年8月，Fletcher註冊了互聯網域名

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業 界 透 視

的公司。2013年10月中旬，ESL發現 Fletcher試圖向ESL的供應商採購Ultra 35 的特殊成分，並設法向其獨家經銷商提供 等同於Ultra 35的Prema 35，而且價格結 構與ESL的幾乎完全相同。 ESL指，Ultra 35的製造過程屬高度機密 的商業秘密，並申請臨時強制令，以阻 止Fletcher及Prema使用其機密資料和出 售Prema 35。各被告人的立場是，Ultra 35的製造過程眾所周知，成分又不乏供 應，ESL無非是企圖扼殺合法競爭。 法院在決定不授予禁制令前，曾考慮

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicom Ltd 一 案的指引：

• 是 否 有 任 何 有 待 審 理 的 嚴 肅 爭 議 點？由於合約上沒有設有離職後限 制，ESL必須證明其有真正的希望能 夠在審訊時證明所涉的機密資料構 成商業秘密。這部分的測試可獲得符 合，因為此案具有可審理的事實爭議 點，須在全面審訊過程中完成了口頭 作供後作出裁決。 • 以 損 害 賠 償 作 補 救 是 否 足 夠 ？ 此 案 中，禁制令是不必要的，因為在全面 審訊中判給的損害賠償足以補償ESL 蒙受的任何經濟損失。由於獨家分銷 協議的關係，ESL很容易便可以得知 銷售Ultra 35所得的收入下跌了多少。 • 應否維持現狀？ 各被告人辯稱，相關 現狀是指送達法院程序文件時的情況 (即Fletcher的公司開始出售該具競爭 性的產品之後)。法院不同意，認為相

「premaenergy.com」，並在2013年9月

關現狀是緊接最近的顯著改變發生之 前的情況，亦即是各被告人開設公司

成立了一間名為「Prema Energy Limited」

跟ESL競爭之前的狀況。

Clients will need to ensure that employment contracts are drafted in such a way that they properly protect their

www.hk-lawyer.org 65

• September 2014

• 如何權衡利弊？ 法院雖然認為維持現 狀是對ESL有利，但在「權衡利弊」 後，認為應允許被告人繼續出售該具 競爭性的產品。惟條件是，他們須對 指稱的商業秘密保密，及保留任何經 營業務所得的利潤。法院對以下一點 非常重視：頒發禁制令很可能會阻礙 被告人發展其新業務和取回所投放的 開業成本。 律師應告知其客戶，在沒有訂立全面性 的僱傭合約下所可能面對的風險。ESL與 Fletcher沒有簽訂任何書面合約，故此亦 不設有任何離職後限制，或者機密資料的 明確保障。因此，ESL要保護業務免受前 僱員損害的唯一方法，是指商業秘密被不 當使用，但此任務絕非易事。倘ESL所要 求的是強制執行一項明文合約保障，則它 取得禁制令的成功機會較大。 客戶需要確保僱傭合約的措詞，能夠妥為 保護其商業利益。合約應使用明示的保密 條款，以指出僱主認為哪些資料屬商業秘 密，並應確保機密資料的保障延伸至僱傭 關係結束後。為使離職後限制能強制執 行，這些限制應因應個別情況小心地制 訂，而且涵蓋的範圍和時間必須合理(但 應注意，某些司法管轄區完全不許執行競 業禁止條款)。

- Pattie Walsh及Julia Gorham 歐華律師事務所

LEGISLATION

Revised Amendment to the PRC Food Safety Law The “People’s Republic of China Food Safety Law (Revised Amendment)” (“Revised Amendment”) was submitted for public comment via National People’s Congress’ official website in June 2014.

The first Amendment is the “People’s Republic of China Food Safety Law (“Amendment”), which was submitted to the State Council for comments in late 2013. The State Council received numerous comments and proposals and thus made further modifications to the Amendment. Compared with

66 www.hk-lawyer.org

the Amendment, the content of the Revised Amendment is much more comprehensive. For example, it further increases fines for food safety violations, regulates health food advertising and record management, clarifies food safety training requirements, and specifically addresses infant formula production safety, all of which reflect the growing attention paid by the State to food safety issues. This update will discuss the differences between the Amendment and the Revised Amendment and the underlying rationale behind the differences: State Becomes the Main Body to Establish the Food Tracking System The Amendment merely provides that food production enterprises should establish a food tracking management system. In addition to the food production enterprises, the Revised Amendment also establishes the State as the responsible body for developing the tracking system.

The intervention of public power once more reflects the State’s deep concern for food safety.

Cancelled Incentives for Small Food Vendors The Revised Amendment does not provide any detailed provisions for small food vendors and it cancels policies for encouraging food vendors to move to markets. However, the law authorises the Standing Committee of the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities to develop specific regulations. The underlying reason for this, is that it is difficult to develop uniform requirements for small vendors at a national level.

Clarify Training Content for Food Safety Management Personnel and Strengthening the Training Regulatory Regime The Revised Amendment requires that food safety management personnel understand essential food safety laws and regulations. Moreover, the Food and Drug Administrative Department is authorised to use specific supervisory mechanisms, including random inspections, publishing inspection results, and developing and

publishing a food safety management personnel training guide and examination method. The detailed provisions developed at the national level highlight the importance of regulating food safety.

Regulate the Health Food Industry The Amendment states that health food should not cause any harm to health or life. The Revised Amendment proposes detailed registration and record management procedures for health food.

For example, health food advertisements can only be published or broadcasted after approval documents are obtained.

The great emphasis on health food reflects the problems China faces in this area.

Increased Oversight of Infant Milk In addition to the Amendment’s provisions that ban the infant formula production outsourcing to other factories and OEM’s (Original Equipment Manufacturers), the Revised Amendment also demands a quality management system, requiring for example, that infant formula and raw materials are recorded, as to further ensure the quality of infant formula products.

Resignation and Responsibility Interview Systems A resignation system is established which concerns officials directly responsible for food safety. Serious and continuous occurrence of food safety incidents and of accidents that do not receive proper treatment or prompt reaction are likely to lead to the resignation of officials that are directly involved. In addition, responsibility interviews with officials and food producers and operators are conducted where threats to food safety are discovered.

Increased Fines The Revised Amendment further increases the penalties for food production operators. For example, the penalty for illegal production and management of food and food additives worth 10,000 yuan, has increased from two to five times the total ill-gotten gains, to five to ten times the ill-gotten gains.

Further, market operators and trade-fair

September 2014 •

organisers who allow food operators to enter the food market without obtaining permission, as well as third party online trading platforms for network operators who fail to fulfill their obligation to report, will face a potential fine by the Food and Drug Administrative Department of between 50,000 to 200,000 yuan.

Under the Amendment, the fine was only between 2,000 to 20,000 yuan.

In summary, the Revised Amendment increases the accountability of governmental officials and business operators for food safety. Food producers and operators should examine the revised provisions to better understand the scope of their reach. At the time of publication, the relevant committee is also soliciting comments on the revised draft.

- David Tiang, Zhao Jiuzhou, King & Wood Mallesons

食品安全培訓要求，並特別加強嬰幼兒 配方奶粉的生產安全，所有這一切都反 映了國家對食品安全問題日益重視。本 文將討論《送審稿》與《修訂草案》兩 者的分別以及該等差異背後的相關理 由：

咎辭職制度。嚴重和連續發生的食品安 全事件，以及並無獲得適當處理或及時 反應的事件，均有可能導致直接涉事的 官員引咎辭職。此外，當發現食品安全 威脅時，對官員和食品生產商和經營者 進行責任審查。

國家成為建立食品追踪系統的主要機關

提高罰款

《修訂草案》只規定，食品生產企業須建 立食品追踪管理系統。而在經修訂的修正 案中，除此之外，還規定國家為制訂追踪 系統的負責機關。公權力的介入再次體現 了國家對食品安全的深切關注。

《修訂草案》進一步提高了對食品生產經 營者的處罰。例如，對違法生產及管理價 值人民幣10,000元的食品及食品添加劑， 罰款由非法收入的二至五倍增加到五至十 倍。此外，市場運營商及交易會籌辦者若 允許食品經營者在未經批准情況下進入市 場，以及網絡經營商的第三方網上交易平 台若不履行其責任作出舉報，將可能面臨 食品藥品監督管理局處以人民幣 50,000 至200,000元罰款。而在《送審稿》中， 罰款僅為人民幣2,000至20,000元。

取消對食品攤販的獎勵政策 《送審稿》並沒有任何針對食品攤販的明 確規定，而且取消了鼓勵食品攤販遷進集 中交易市場的獎勵政策。然而，該法律授 權各省、自治區、直轄市常委會制訂具體 規定，原因是難以制訂對小攤販的全國性 統一要求。 釐清食品安全管理人員的培訓內容，並加 強培訓規管機制 《修訂草案》要求食品安全管理人員了解 重要的食品安全法規。此外，國家食品藥 品監督管理局有權使用特定的監管機制， 包括抽查、發佈檢查結果和制訂及發佈食 品安全管理人員的培訓指南與考核方法。 在國家層面制訂了明確規定，突出監管食 品安全的重要性。

REUTERS/Nicky Loh

立法

《中華人民共和國食品安全 法(修訂草案)》 《中華人民共和國食品安全法(修訂草案) 》(下稱《修訂草案》)於2014年6月在中 國人大網公佈，向社會公開徵集意見。 該法的首次修正是於2013年底提交國務 院公開徵求意見的《中華人民共和國食 品安全法（修訂草案送審稿)》(下稱《 送審稿》)。國務院收到了大量意見和提 案，因此在《送審稿》基礎上作進一步 修改。與《送審稿》相比，《修訂草案》 的內容更加全面。例如，它進一步提高 了針對食品安全違法行為的罰款，規範 了保健食品的宣傳和備案管理，釐清了

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業 界 透 視

規範保健食品行業 《送審稿》列明，保健食品不得對健康或 生命造成任何傷害。《修訂草案》提出了 針對保健食品的詳細登記與備案管理程 序。例如，保健食品廣告在未獲得批文時 不得發佈或宣傳。大幅強調健康食品安 全，反映出中國在這方面所面對的問題。 加強對嬰幼兒奶粉的監管 《送審稿》禁止將嬰幼兒配方奶粉的生 產外判給其他工廠和OEM(原始設備製造 商），而經修訂的修正案除此規定之外， 還要求建立質量管理體系，例如要求記錄 嬰幼兒配方奶粉和原料，以進一步確保嬰 幼兒配方奶粉產品的質量。 引咎辭職與責任審查制度 建立涉及直接負責食品安全的官員的引

綜上所述，《修訂草案》加重了政府官 員和企業經營者對食品安全的責任。食 品生產及經營者應當細閱經修訂條款， 以更好地了解他們的責任範圍。在本文 發佈之時，有關委員會仍在徵求對修訂 草案的意見。

- 程偉賓，趙九州， 金杜律師事務所

LIFE SCIENCES

China Unveils Detailed Rules to Implement the Core Device Regulation The amended Regulation for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices (the “Regulation,” also known as the State Council Order No. 650), which came into force on 1 June 2014, set the new framework for China’s device regulatory regime.

On 1 August 2014, the China Food and Drug Administration (the “CFDA”) unveiled five rules to implement this core Regulation (the “Implementing Rules”). The Implementing Rules cover several key aspects of regulating medical devices, including marketing authorisation, package inserts and www.hk-lawyer.org 67

• September 2014

The Implementing Rules clarify that during the technical review of a domestic product, the relevant provincial FDA is responsible for organising a QMS/ GMP inspection of the applicant, to be completed within 30 working days.

This additional step could potentially prolong the device registration process.

It is speculated that a later QMS/GMP inspection prior to the grant of the manufacturing permit may take less time.

REUTERS/Chaiwat Subprasom

labelling requirements, manufacturing, distribution, and separate rules for IVD products. The most noteworthy updates include the following: Contract manufacturing of prototypes and commercial supplies is only available for innovative devices.

According to the Regulation, companies may apply for marketing authorisations (or product registrations) without first obtaining device manufacturing permits.

The Implementing Rules clarify that a company will still need a manufacturing permit to commercialise the product licence if its product is not an innovative device designated for fast track approval by the CFDA. Only licence owners of CFDA-designated innovative devices can completely outsource manufacturing of both the initial prototype and the final commercial supplies, with the exception of certain high-risk implantable devices. In the event where the product in question is a non-innovative device, the licence owner must manufacture a prototype in its own capacity, build its own manufacturing facilities and obtain a device manufacturing permit before it can use a contract manufacturer for the unmet manufacturing demands.

Clinical trial waiver is possible if safety and efficacy can be demonstrated through analysis of clinical data of the same type of products.

The Regulation generally requires companies to conduct clinical trials for the registration of Class II and III devices 68 www.hk-lawyer.org

unless certain prerequisites are met. It also provides that a “waiver catalogue” will be issued by the CFDA to list all the exempted devices. It left open whether a product not on the “waiver catalogue” can be waived from clinical trials.

Now the Implementing Rules clarify that for products not on the “waiver catalogue,” an applicant can still apply for trial waiver on a case-by-case basis.

To obtain a waiver, an applicant must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a device through data derived from clinical trials or clinical uses of the same type of product.

For certain high-risk Class III devices, the Regulation also requires clinical trial authorisations (“CTA”) before conducting clinical trials. The Implementing Rules further specify that the technical review of a CTA should be completed within 40 working days of submission, and the trials should be initiated within three years of the issuance of a CTA. Mandatory QMS/GMP on-site inspections will be arranged before product registration and manufacturing authorisation.

The Regulation generally requires that companies comply with the relevant quality management requirements during product design and development. It is not clear whether an actual inspection over the applicant’s quality management system (QMS/ GMP) would be conducted by the provincial FDAs during the product registration stage.

As for import products, overseas QMS/ GMP inspections can also be carried out by the CFDA over foreign applicants when deemed necessary during the technical review.

Licence amendment for nonsubstantive changes and licence renewal are simplified.

The Implementing Rules divide a product licence amendment into an amendment of either “approved items” or “registered items.” Changes to “approved items” — such as product name, model, specifications, structure and composition, scope of use, and product technical standards — will require technical reviews and longer lead time. Changes to “registered items,” on the other hand, such as the name and address of the applicant, can be granted within 10 working days of submission.

In any case, a product licence is now valid for five years and renewal cannot be rejected except on explicit statutory grounds. If a renewal application is neither approved nor rejected on the date of licence expiry, renewal is deemed automatic.

Device companies are encouraged to carefully review the Implementing Rules in conjunction with the Regulation and assess the potential impact on their market access and regulatory compliance in China. Meanwhile, the CFDA is contemplating more ancillary device rules, including a new version of device classification, a new GSP and an updated GMP in the coming months and stakeholders should continue to monitor the progress.

- Katherine Wang, Ropes & Gray

September 2014 •

生命科學

中國落實核心器械規管條例 的實施細則 規管條例 新修訂《醫療器械監督管理條例》（以下 簡稱《條例》，又稱國務院令第650號） 為中國的器械規管制度設立新框架，於 2014年6月1日生效。2014年8月1日， 國家食品藥品監督管理總局(以下簡稱

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業 界 透 視

之列的產品，申請者仍然可以按具體情況

會被視為自動續期。

申請豁免進行測試。為了獲得豁免，申請

從事醫療器械的企業應一併細閱實施細則

者必須通過對同品種產品臨床試驗或臨床

與《條例》，評估兩者對他們進軍中國市

使用獲得的數據，來證明器械安全有效。

場及在中國合規情況的潛在影響。與此

對於某些高風險的第三類器械，《條例》

同時，總局正考慮更多有關器械的附加規

也要求在進行臨床試驗前，先取得臨床試

則，包括將在未來幾個月內推出新版器械

驗批准。實施細則進一步訂明，審批臨

分類、新的經營質量管理規範，以及經更

床試驗而進行的技術評審須在提交申請後

新的生產質量管理規範；利益相關者應繼

40個工作天內完成，而臨床試驗須在臨

續監察發展進度。

床試驗批文簽發後三年內開展。

- 王凱玲，瑞格律師事務所

「總局」)公佈五項規則，以落實是項核

強制性的質量管理系統／生產質量管理規

心《條例》(「實施細則」)。實施細則涵

範現場核查，安排在產品註冊及獲批生產

蓋規管醫療器械的多個主要方面，包括

許可前進行。

CIVIL PROCEDURE

有關銷售許可、醫療器械說明書和標籤要

《條例》一 般 要 求 企 業 在 產 品 設 計 和 開

求、生產、分銷的細則，以及有關體外診

發期間，遵守有關的品質管理要求。至

斷產品的各別細則。最值得注意的新訂細

於是否會由省級食品藥品監督管理局在

則包括以下各項：

產品註冊階段實際核查申請者的品質管

Striking out an Action as Abusing the Court’s Process

有關締約製造樣品及商業用品的條例只適 用於創新器械。

理系統(質量管理系統／生產質量管理規 範)，現時未有清楚規定。

根據《條例》，企業可毋須事先取得器

實施細則闡明，為國內產品進行技術評審

械生產許可證便申請銷售許可（或產品註

期間，有關的省級食品藥品監督管理局負

冊）。

責安排核查申請者的質量管理系統／生產

實施細則闡明，倘若企業的產品不屬於總 局指定為按照特別審批程序審批的創新器 械，該企業仍需取得生產許可證使產品許 可實現商業化模式。只有總局指定屬創新 器械的許可證持有人，才可以把初期樣品

質量管理規範，於30個工作天內完成。 此附加步驟可能延長器械的註冊過程。據 估計，在授予生產許可證之前的較後時間 核查質量管理系統／生產質量管理規範， 需要的時間可能較短。

及最終商業用品完全外包生產，但某些高

至於進口產品，在技術審查期間若視為必

風險的可移植器械不在此列。倘有關產品

要，也可由總局核查外國申請者的海外質

不屬於創新器械，許可證持有人須先以其

量管理系統／生產質量管理規範。

自身產能生產樣品，建立自己的生產設施 及取得器械生產許可證，方能使用合約製 造商來滿足生產需求。

簡化許可證修訂非實質性變化的程序及續 新程序。 實施細則把產品許可證的修訂劃分為「批

假若通過對同品種產品的臨床試驗獲得數

准項目」及「註冊項目」的修訂。變更

據進行分析，能夠證明安全有效的，便可

「批准項目」 – 例如產品名稱、型號、

免於進行臨床試驗。

規格、結構和組成、應用範圍、以及產品

除非符合某些先決條件，《條例》一般要

技術標準 – 將須進行技術評審及較長時

求企業為第二和第三類器械的註冊進行臨

間完成整個程序；另一方面，變更「註冊

床試驗。《條例》也規定，將由總局公布

項目」，例如申請者的姓名和地址，可於

「豁免目錄」，列明所有免於進行臨床試

提交申請後10個工作天內獲批。

驗的器械。至於沒有載於「豁免目錄」的

無論如何，目前產品許可證的有效期為五

器械，是否能獲免進行臨床試驗則沒有明

年，除非基於明確的法律理據，否則續期

示。

不能被拒。倘若在許可證到期當天，續期

實施細則現闡明，對於不在「豁免目錄」

申請既沒有獲批，又沒有被拒，許可證便

O. 18 r. 19(1)(d) of the Rules of the High Court provides for striking out a party’s action as abusing the Court’s process.

Lai Ying On v The Commissioner of Police CACV 200/2012 (26 May 2014) demonstrates how the rule operates within the context of successive actions – first public and then private – over the same matter.

In Lai, the Commissioner dismissed four officers after disciplinary hearings. The then governing regulation prohibited legal representation during the hearings.

In their subsequent judicial review proceedings seeking reinstatement, the four officers did not challenge, either at all or to the Court of Final Appeal, the regulation’s constitutionality.

Following the officers’ failed judicial review proceedings, the Court of Final Appeal in Lam v The Commission of Police (2009) declared such regulation to be unconstitutional. The officers then launched civil actions claiming damages against the Commissioner, almost seven years after the judicial review proceedings in relation to one of the officers, alleging wrongful repudiation of their employment contracts arising from the unconstitutional regulation. The Court of Appeal struck out the civil actions as abusing the Court’s process, having considered, among others, Hunter v West Midlands Police (1982), Johnson v Gore www.hk-lawyer.org 69

• September 2014

Wood (2000), and Ko v Chiu (2012).

of Police 一案(CACV 200/2012 (2014年

的法院推翻早前案例典據後決定採取另一

The Court of Appeal recognised that abusing the Court’s process is a different concept from issue estoppel and causeof-action estoppel. In short, the Court is more likely to strike out a second action as abusive if:

5月26日))述明，在連續訴訟(先為公法，

立場，都不足以說服法院允許進行第二次

後為私法)的情況下，如何應用該規則於

訴訟。最後，尋求剔除第二次訴訟的一方

相同的案件上。

負有舉證責任證明其所指稱的濫用法庭程

(1) striking out the second action does not violate one’s right of access to the Court, in light of the first action before the Court;

律師出席聆訊。在後來尋求復職的司法覆

(2) pursuing the second action, although seeking a different remedy, amounts to a collateral attack on the first action;

院在Lam v The Commission of Police 一案 (2009年)中宣佈該規例違憲。於是，在

INSOLVENCY

就其中一名警員的司法覆核程序過去幾

(3) allowing the second action frustrates the principles of:

Across Borders

起了民事訴訟及索償，聲稱由於該違憲

在 Lai 案中，警務處處長在紀律聆訊後解 僱了四名警員。當時的規管規例禁止辯護

終審法院質疑上述規例是否符合憲法。在

乎7年之後，這些警員向警務處處長提

b. avoiding double vexation of the same party over the same matter;

上訴法院在考慮 Hunter v West Midlands

c. settling public authorities’ decisions on matters involving public interests within reasonable time;

(2000年)，和Ko v Chiu(2012年)等案(及

- Man Wai Cheung, JD/PCLL Graduate, The Chinese University of Hong Kong - Peter Chang, Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

民事訴訟程序

以濫用法院程序為由剔除訴訟 《高等法院規則》第18號命令第19(1)(d)

Police (1982年)、Johnson v Gore Wood 其他案例)後，以濫用法院程序為由剔除 了該民事訴訟。 上訴法院承認，“濫用法院程序”概念有 別於“爭論點不容反悔”和“訴訟理由不 容反悔”概念。簡而言之，在下述情況 下，法院比較可能會以濫用法院程序為由 剔除第二次訴訟：

(1) 鑒於在法院進行了的首次訴訟，剔除 第二次訴訟不會妨礙相關人士訴諸法 院的權利； (2) 進行第二次訴訟(儘管尋求不同的補 償) 構成對首次訴訟的間接抨擊； (3) 允許進行第二次訴訟會損害下述原 則： a. 在訴訟中獲得定論； b. 避免同一當事方就同一事宜再遭 纏訟； c. 在合理時間內令公眾機構就涉及 公眾利益的事宜作出的決定成為 定案； d. 根據 《 高等法院規則 》 第1A號命 令第1(f)條在所有訴訟當事人之間 公平分配法院的有限資源。

條規定可以以濫用法院程序為由剔除一方 的訴訟。Lai Ying On v The Commissioner

訴訟當事人亦必須緊記，(i)有見及當時的 法律情況而決定放棄爭論或(ii)在受理上訴

70 www.hk-lawyer.org

- 張孝本律師，富而德律師事務所

這些警員的司法覆核程序失敗後，終審法

規例致使其僱傭合同被不公正地廢除。

Litigants must also bear in mind that a decision to (i) abandon an argument in light of the then state of the law or (ii) adopt a different position following an appellate court’s reversal of previous authorities is not sufficient in persuading the Court to allow the second action.

Finally, the party seeking to strike out the second action bears the burden of establishing the alleged abuse.

- 張文偉，JD/PCLL 畢業生, 香港中文大學

核程序中，這四名警員根本沒有或者未向

a. obtaining finality in litigation;

d. distributing the Court’s limited resources fairly among all litigants pursuant to O. 1A r. 1(f) of the Rules of the High Court.

序確實存在。

The absence of legislation in Hong Kong providing for cross-border insolvency (such as that found in the UK) is illustrated in the Government’s consultation and conclusions on “Corporate Insolvency Law Legislative Proposals” (April 2013 – May 2014) and in the recent case of Joint Official Liquidators of A Co. v B [2014] HKEC 1244 (HCMP No. 902 of 2014).

Following the introduction of the new Companies Ordinance in Hong Kong earlier this year, the regime for corporate insolvency and winding-up essentially remains the same but has been retitled as the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance.

These insolvency provisions are broadly based on old companies legislation in the UK, since replaced there by the Insolvency Act 1986.

The absence of legislation providing for cross-border insolvency can also be contrasted with the relative array of EU and legislative options available to the English courts to recognise and give assistance to foreign insolvency proceedings; section 426 of the UK Insolvency Act being a case in point: “The courts having jurisdiction in relation to insolvency law in any part of the United Kingdom shall assist the courts having the corresponding jurisdiction in any other part of the United Kingdom or any other relevant country or territory”.

September 2014 •

With reference to the current Government consultation and proposals for corporate insolvency reform in Hong Kong, the judge concludes as follows:

The courts in Hong Kong have been left to develop the common law in order to recognise and assist foreign liquidators.

While they have coped commendably, the absence of legislation means matters are far from straight forward.

It is not uncommon in Hong Kong for parties to refuse to cooperate with a foreign liquidator of (for example) a BVI or Cayman company, without the foreign liquidator first seeking to wind-up the company in Hong Kong and obtaining orders from the court to compel such cooperation.

Against that background, the judgment in Joint Official Liquidators of A Co. is significant. It confirms that, as a matter of common law, there is a mechanism available to a foreign liquidator to obtain information and documents without having to commence ancillary windingup proceedings in Hong Kong, provided the foreign liquidator is appointed in a jurisdiction with similar substantive insolvency laws.

The judgment is important given the restricted circumstances in which the Hong Kong courts will wind-up a foreign company; for example, see the same judge’s judgment in re China Medical Technologies Inc. [2014] 2 HKLRD 997, where a winding-up petition was dismissed and the appointment of provisional liquidators set aside, on the basis that the company did not have a sufficient connection with Hong Kong.

The judgment in re Joint Official Liquidators of A Co. is also required reading for insolvency practitioners in Hong Kong and those who are on the receiving end of requests for cooperation from a foreign liquidator of an overseas company carrying on business in Hong Kong.

“In my view it is highly desirable that the new legislation includes provisions dealing expressly with cross-border insolvency of the type to be found in section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

A failure to do so would in my view be a regrettable missed opportunity…”.

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

破產

跨境破產清盤法 港府發表的《優化公司破產法例立法建 議》諮詢總結(2013年4月至2014年5月) 及近日的Joint Official Liquidators of A Co. v B [2014] HKEC 1244(高等法院雜 項案件2014年第 902號)案，均證明了香 港缺乏類似英國跨境破產清盤規管法例的 情況。 隨着年初推出的新《公司條例》，本港 的公司破產及清盤制度雖然基本上不變， 但標題則改為《公司(清盤及雜項條文)條 例》，當中有關破產的條文仍大致根隨英 國舊有公司條例。不過，英國有關條例早 已被《1986年破產法》取代。 香港除缺乏規管跨境破產清盤的法例外， 也不如英國擁有可供其法院承認和使用以 處理國外破產程序的連串相關歐盟法例 和立法方式。英國《1986年破產法》第 426條在在就是一例：

「擁有破產法司法管轄權的法院不論位 於英國任何地方，都應協助位於英國任 何其他地方或任何其他相關國家或地區

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業 界 透 視

內而擁有相應司法管轄權的法院」。 香港的法院須自行發展普通法以承認和協 助外地清盤人。雖然本港法院的處理方法 已很不錯，但缺乏法例規管意味事情殊不 容易。 比方某公司於英屬維爾京群島或開曼群島 成立，若其外地清盤人沒先行入稟將香港 公司清盤及獲得法院命令強制香港有關公 司合作，香港一方拒絕與其合作並非不尋 常的事。

Re Joint Official Liquidators of A Co.一 案的判決在此背景下顯示出其重要性。法 院確認，根據普通法，只要外地清盤人乃 在具有與本港類近的實體破產法的司法管 轄區內受到委任，香港就有機制讓外地清 盤人獲取資料及文件而毋須啟動附帶清盤 法律程序。 判決之所以重要，是由於香港法院只有 在限定情況下，才會將一家在外地成立 的公司強制清盤。由同一法官就另一案 re China Medical Technologies Inc [2014] 2 HKLRD 997撰寫的判決就是一例。由於 此案中的公司跟香港沒有足夠關連，清盤 呈請遭駁回，臨時清盤人的委任亦作廢。 此外，Re Joint Official Liquidators of A Co. 一案亦是本港清盤執業者和在港經營 業務的海外公司的外地清盤人要求合作的 對象公司的必讀判詞。 對於現時政府對本港公司破產法例改革的 諮詢和建議，該案法官有以下結論： 「我認為新法例應引入條文，使香港能 明文處理類似英國《1986年破產法》第 426條涵蓋的跨境破產清盤。若錯失良 機，我認為將會是個遺憾……」。

- David Smyth 資深合夥人， Smyth & Co與 RPC聯

Feel free to write in to us with more short contributions on latest industry developments and trends. Simply contact the editor at: cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com 本刊歡迎各位提交短篇文章，廣大讀者分享業界的最新發展和動態。 請與本刊編輯聯絡。電郵：cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com

The information provided here is intended to give general information only. It is not a complete statement of the law. It is not intended to be relied upon or to be a substitute for legal advice in relation to particular circumstances. 本欄所提供的資訊僅屬一般資訊，並不構成相關法律的完整陳述，亦不應被依賴為任何個 案中的法律意見或被視作取代法律意見。

www.hk-lawyer.org 71

• September 2014

CASES IN BRIEF 案 例 撮 要 CIVIL EVIDENCE Chinachem Financial Services Ltd v Century Venture Holdings Ltd [2014] 2 HKLRD 557 Court of First Instance High Court Action No. 410 of 2013 and Misc. Proceedings No. 2299 of 2013 Deputy Judge Ramanathan SC in Court 25 March 2014

Civil evidence — legal professional privilege — waiver — injunction to restrain defendant from using plaintiff’s privileged documents — no actual or apparent authority by person imparting those documents to waive privilege — no implied waiver of privileged material merely because such material was relevant to issue in case In 2009, P and D entered into a claims recovery service agreement (the “Agreement”) whereby D undertook to procure a favourable outcome for P in a legal action in mainland China. At a meeting between P and D in November 2011, an issue arose as to the legality of the Agreement. P then engaged its solicitors who prepared a draft Memorandum of Advice (the “Advice”) on a number of matters, including the legality of the Agreement and whether P should retain D’s services. Although

72 www.hk-lawyer.org

there was negotiations to extend the Agreement, no supplemental agreement was signed. In early 2013, D commenced proceedings against P in the Mainland for payment under the Agreement. In March 2013, P commenced the present proceedings in Hong Kong, claiming against D declarations that the Agreement had come to an end and that D was not entitled to any remuneration. D applied to stay the present proceedings. The application was supported by an affirmation given by a director of D, stating that in April 2012, P’s then Chief Executive Officer, H, gave D a copy of the Advice. The Advice was also exhibited in the affirmation. P applied to strike out those parts of the affirmation on the ground that they disclosed information and material which attracted legal professional privilege and for an injunction restraining D from using or relying on the Advice.

D contended that P had waived confidentiality and privilege over the Advice.

Held, allowing the application, that: • There was no understanding that P would provide D with a copy of any advice P would receive from P’s solicitor. It defied commercial logic and common sense that P would have so intended from the outset when P was uncertain as to what advice would be given and when that Advice was intended to cover tactical positions which might be adopted by P in its future dealings

with D. D’s concern, according to its evidence, was whether P would sign a supplemental agreement so that D could continue their work. Having possession of the Advice would provide little assurance that P would sign the same.

• H did not have any actual authority to waive legal professional privilege in respect of the Advice. There was also no basis to argue that D relied on H’s apparent authority. Even if there was such reliance, it would be unjustified and irrational. No reasonable person apprised of all the relevant facts would have reasonably or rationally thought that P would have authorised H to impart a copy of the Advice which would disclose the tactics that P was being advised to adopt in its dealings with D. • Finally, there was no implied waiver of legal professional privilege in relation to the Advice by P. Save as between a client and the solicitor he was suing, fairness was not the touchstone by which it was determined whether a client had impliedly waived his privilege. In the absence of disclosure of privileged legal advice, the other party to a legal action was precluded from putting that legal advice to a person to show that the advice influenced the state of mind or actions of that person. There was no implied waiver of privileged material merely because a state of mind or certain actions were in issue. This avoided

September 2014 •

any inroad into the right of legal professional privilege which was a fundamental human right and given paramount importance under art. 35 of the Basic Law. The Advice could not direct the decision of the Court to resolve the issues in the present case which would be dependent on construing the terms of the Agreement as to its subsistence.

民事證據 原訟法庭

CASES IN BRIEF 案 例 撮 要

(下稱「該意見書」)，包括該協議的合

見書的法律專業保密權。除了在

法性，以及原告人是否應該繼續使用被

當事人與他正在起訴的律師之間之

告人的服務。雙方雖曾就延長該協議一

外，公平性並非用以裁斷當事人曾

事進行磋商，但最終並無簽訂任何補充

否隱含地放棄其保密權的驗證標

協議。2013年初，被告人在內地提起法

準。在受到保密權保護的法律意見

律程序，尋求原告人根據該協議付款。

並未被披露下，法律行動的另一方

同年3月，原告人在香港展開現時的訴

不得向某人指出該些法律意見曾影

訟程序，要求法庭宣告該協議已告終以

響該人的想法或行為。某種想法或

及被告人無權獲支付任何報酬。被告人

某些行為備受爭議一事，本身並不

申請擱置該訴訟程序，並提交一份由被

構成隱含地放棄保密權。這是為了

告人的一名董事所作的誓章以支持該申

防止侵犯法律專業保密權，這是基

請。該誓章述明原告人的行政總裁(下稱

本人權，其重要性亦獲《基本法》

H)曾於2012年4月將該意見書的副本交

第35條確認。該意見書不足以指引

予被告人，而該意見書亦附於該誓章為

法庭作出裁決以解決本案所涉的爭

證物。原告人申請將上述部份從該誓章

議點，該爭議點的解決方式須取決

中刪去，因為它們披露了某些受法律專

於如何詮釋該協議內關乎該協議的

業保密權保護的資料和材料。原告人同

持續存在的條款。

時申請強制令，以禁止被告人採用或依 賴該意見書。被告人則聲稱原告人已放 棄該意見書的機密性及保密權。

CIVIL PROCEDURE

裁決 - 批准申請︰

CDGH v DGH Jr [2014] 2 HKLRD 551

• 雙方並無共識指原告人將會向被告

Court of Appeal

高院民事訴訟2013年第410號及雜 項案件2013年第2299號

人提供原告人從其代表律師收到的

Misc. Proceedings No. 2809 of 2013

任何意見。原告人當時未能確定其

Kwan and Macrae JJA

暫委法官林孟達資深大律師

代表律師將提供何等意見，而該等

18 March 2014

暫委法官林孟達資深大律師 2014年3月25日

意見可能被原告人採納作為日後應 付被告人的策略。既然如此，指原 告人從一開始已有意向被告人提供 該等意見的副本的說法，是違反商

民事證據 - 法律專業保密權 - 放 棄 - 禁制被告人使用原告人享有 保密權的文件之強制令 - 透露該 等文件的人沒有實際或表面權限 放棄保密權 - 沒有原則指單單因 為享有保密權的資料對案件具關 鍵性而產生隱含放棄該等資料的 保密權

業邏輯及常理的。被告人提供的證 據顯示，被告人關注的是原告人會 否簽訂補充協議，讓被告人可繼續 其工作。擁有該意見書難以確保原 告人將簽訂補充協議。 • H並無任何實際權限放棄該意見書的 保密權。案中亦無基礎以爭辯被告 人曾依賴H的表面權限。即使被告人 確曾如此依賴，這也是無理可據和

2009年，原告人與被告人簽訂賠償追討

不合情理的。任何明理且獲告知所

服務協議(下稱「該協議」)，當中被告

有相關事實的人，都不會合理地認

人承諾在一宗在中國大陸進行的法律行

為原告人會授權H披露該意見書，因

動中取得對原告人有利的結果。原告人

為該意見書將披露原告人將以何種

與被告人於2011年11月會面時，提出

策略應付被告人。

該協議是否合法的問題。原告人隨後委 託律師就一系列事宜擬備一份意見備忘

• 最後，原告人並無隱含地放棄該意

Civil procedure — appeal — leave to appeal to Court of Appeal — court had unfettered discretion under O. 59 r. 2A(5) whether to determine leave application on written submissions only or direct oral hearing — likelihood of application being refused not, in itself, reason to direct oral hearing — Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub. Leg.) O. 59 r. 2A(5) W sought leave to appeal against a judgment and ruling on costs in her application for ancillary relief on the grounds under s. 63A of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) that her appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, or there was some other reason in the interests of justice why her www.hk-lawyer.org 73

• September 2014

appeal should be heard. W submitted that “should the Court not be minded to grant leave to appeal on the papers, [she] would request an oral hearing.”

Held, dismissing the application, that: The Court had an unfettered discretion under O. 59 r. 2A(5) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub. Leg.) (the “RHC”) whether to determine the leave application on written submissions only or direct an oral hearing. The fact that an application was likely to be refused was not, in itself, a reason to direct an oral hearing.

This discretion was to be exercised with regard to the underlying objectives in O. 1A r. 1 of the RHC. As such here, it was entirely appropriate to determine W’s application on the basis of written submissions only. There was no basis to interfere with the Judge’s findings of fact or exercise of discretion. The threshold requirements in s. 63A of the Ordinance were not met. The leave application was entirely without merit and an order was made under O. 59 r. 2A(8) that no party could under r. 2A(7) request the determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing.

(Obiter) In future, if solicitors and counsel should lodge excessive bundles and lengthy submissions for leave applications without regard to Practice Direction 4.1 Part B para. 15, they would be returned unread and the court might

consider making a wasted costs order on its own motion pursuant to O. 62 r. 8A.

法庭具有不受約束的酌情權，可決定不

民事訴訟程序

請，或可指示就該申請進行口頭聆訊。

上訴法庭

示進行口頭聆訊的理由。

雜項2013年第2809號

此酌情權應根據《高等法院規則》第1A

上訴法庭法官關淑馨及麥機智

號命令第1條規則中所列的基本目標而行

經聆訊而純粹根據書面陳述裁定有關申 申請可能被拒納一事，本身並非支持指

使。在本案中，法官單單根據W的書面

2014年3月18日

陳述而判斷是否接納其申請，是絕對恰

民事訴訟程序 - 上訴 - 上訴至上 訴法庭的許可 - 根據第59號命令 第2A(5)條規則，法院有不受約 束的酌情權決定是否單單根據書 面陳詞裁定許可申請抑或指示進 行口頭聆訊 - 申請被拒的可能性 本身並非支持指示進行口頭聆訊 的理由 - 《高等法院規則》(第4 章，附屬法例A)第59號命令第 2A(5)條規則

當的。案中無任何基礎干預法官的事實

W根據《區域法院條例》(第336章)第

的陳詞，而忽略了實務指示4.1第B部分

63A條申請許可就法院在W的附屬濟助

第15段，則法庭將不會閱讀該等文件和

申請中所作的裁決和訟費令提出上訴，

陳詞，並會將之退回，更可能考慮自行

上訴理由為第63A條所列者，即W的上

根據《高等法院規則》第62號命令第8A

訴有合理的成功機會，或有其他關乎

條規則作出虛耗訟費令。

裁斷或法官行使酌情權的方式。W的申 請未能達到《區域法院條例》第63A條 的門檻要求。該申請全無成功機會。本 庭根據《高等法院規則》第59號命令第 2A(8)條規則，下令與訟各方均不得根據 第(7)款要求法庭在各方之間的口頭聆訊 中重新考慮該裁決。 (附帶意見)自此以後，凡事務律師或大律 師就上訴許可申請提交過多文件及冗長

司法公正的理由支持審理該上訴。W提 出，「若然法庭不傾向接納其書面上訴 申請，[她]將要求法庭進行口頭聆訊。 裁決 - 駁回申請︰ 根據《高等法院規則》(第4章，附屬法 例A)第59號命令第2A(5)條規則，上訴

CIVIL PROCEDURE Singh Arjun v Secretary for Justice [2014] 2 HKLRD 678 Court of Appeal Misc. Proceedings No. 590 of 2014 Lam V-P and Barma JA 21 March 2014

Civil procedure — Court of Appeal — interlocutory appeal — application should be made to lower court save in very exceptional cases and extreme urgency — Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H, Sub. Leg.) O. 58 r. 2(6)

REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis

74 www.hk-lawyer.org

P, an Indian minor, brought an equal opportunities claim against the police alleging racial discrimination and

September 2014 •

sought leave to adduce expert evidence at trial. P’s expert, a professor from England, had not personally conducted any studies on racial profiling in Hong Kong. His reports were based on articles and studies published by other academics (the “Materials”). On 5 March 2014, the Judge dismissed P’s leave application, holding that the expert evidence could not assist him in resolving the disputed issues. As the trial was scheduled to begin on 7 April 2014, P applied directly to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.

Under s. 73E(5) of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336.) (the “DCO”), the court in exercising “its jurisdiction under the Race Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 602) – (a) shall not be bound by the rules of evidence; and (b) may inform itself of any matter in such manner as it sees fit ...”

Held, dismissing the application, that: • In general, a party intending to appeal against an interlocutory judgment or decision should apply to the lower court for leave to appeal before the Court of Appeal. Only very exceptional circumstances and extreme urgency would call for the exercise by the Court of Appeal of the power under O. 58 r. 2(6) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H, Sub. Leg.) (the “RDC”) (the equivalent of O. 59 r. 2B(4) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A, Sub. Leg.)) to permit an application to be made directly to it.

• A first-tier application in the lower court served important functions of weeding out unarguable grounds and focusing the parties’ attention on the relevant issues and merits of their claims and assisting them in formulating more concise and focused submissions on any secondtier stage application for leave to the Court of Appeal. In future, the Court would not entertain unjustified attempts to sidestep the first-tier

stage, but dismiss an application which should be brought in the first instance court. The unsuccessful applicant would have to bear the consequences of delay, including prejudice, and costs of such attempts.

• Here, P’s application was not so exceptional as to warrant an exemption from a first-tier application before the Judge. Nor was it of such extreme urgency that in practical terms there was insufficient time to make such an application.

• Moreover, the application was wholly without merit. The crucial question was whether the opinion evidence in the reports was relevant and admissible in that it related to a matter on which the court required expert assistance. This fundamental rule was not relaxed by s. 73E(5) of the DCO. Here, the Court did not need expert evidence in assessing the factual evidence in dispute or the legal arguments consequent on the relevant findings. Insofar as P intended to establish a prevalent phenomenon of racial profiling of South Asians in Hong Kong from which to infer that the acts of the police officer involved were “contaminated by racist stereotyping and prejudice”, subject to expert directions being given and complied with, P could invite the Court to read the Materials. The evidence of P’s expert did not add much to the Materials and the Court did not need his assistance to understand them.

• There was no question of the trial being unfair to P if he were not allowed to adduce his expert’s evidence. On the question of racial profiling, subject to expert directions and Ds having a fair opportunity to respond to the same, there was no reason why P could not adduce articles or studies on the relevant position in Hong Kong as evidence.

CASES IN BRIEF 案 例 撮 要

民事訴訟程序 上訴法庭 雜項案件2014年第590號 上訴法庭副庭長林文瀚，上訴法庭 法官鮑晏明 2014年3月21日

民事訴訟程序 - 上訴法庭 - 非正 審上訴 – 除非案件非常特殊及情 況極為緊急，否則應向下級法庭 提出申請 - 《區域法院規則》(第 336章，附屬法例H)第58號命令 第2(6)條規則 原告人是一名未成年的印度人，他指稱 警方作出種族歧視，故向警方提出平 等機會申索，並要求獲許可於審訊中提 出專家證據。代表原告人的專家來自英 國，未曾親身對香港的歧視性種族評判 現象進行任何研究，他的報告是建基於 其他學者所發表的文章及研究(下稱「該 等資料」)。2014年3月5日，法官駁回 原告人的許可申請，理由是上述專家證 供無助法官解決受爭議的事項。由於案 件已定於2014年4月7日開審，因此原 告人直接向上訴法庭申請上訴許可。根 據《區域法院條例》(第336章)第73E(5) 條，「區域法院根據《種族歧視條例》 (第602章)行使其司法管轄權時 — (a)不 受證據規則約束；並(b)可……以它認為 合適的方式獲悉任何事宜」。 裁決 - 駁回申請︰ • 一 般 來 說 ， 與 訟 方 如 欲 就 一 項 非 正審裁決或決定提出上訴，應先向 較上訴法庭低級的法庭申請上訴許 可。只有在非常特殊的案件中和在 極為緊急的情況下，上訴法庭才會 根據《區域法院規則》(第336章， 附屬法例H)第58號命令第2(6)條規 則(等同於《高等法院規則》(第4 章，附屬法例A)第59號命令第2B(4) 條規則)行使權力准許直接向它提出 申請。

www.hk-lawyer.org 75

• September 2014

• 向 較 低 級 法 庭 提 出 首 次 申 請 的 重 要性，在於篩走毫無爭辯基礎的申 請，以及令各方集中考慮相關爭 議點及其申索的是非曲直，從而協

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HKSAR v Hon Ming Kong [2014] 2 HKLRD 710

助他們重整出更精簡、更集中的陳

Court of Appeal

詞，以供在上訴法庭進行第二次許

Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2011

可申請(如有者)之時使用。本庭日後

Stock and Yeung V-PP and Line J

不會再受理任何無理地試圖繞過首

28 March 2014

個階段的申請，並會駁回本應向原 訟法庭提出的申請。敗訴的申請人 將要承擔延誤的後果(包括其所造成 的損害)以及支付因其申請而產生的 訟費。 • 本案原告人的申請並非特殊至足以 支持法官豁免他先向下級法庭提出 申請。他的申請亦非極為緊急，即 實際上沒有足夠時間進行申請。 • 再 者 ， 該 申 請 完 全 無 法 成 立 。 關 鍵問題是相關報告所載的意見證據 是否與法庭尋求專家協助的事宜相 關，以致可獲接納為證據。這項基 本規則並無因《區域法院條例》第 73E(5)條而獲放寬。在本案中，法 庭毋須尋求專家證據以協助評估受 爭議的事實證據或處理由相關裁斷 產生的法律辯據。若然原告人有意 證明南亞裔人士在香港受到歧視性 種族評判的情況普遍，從而推斷涉 案警員的行為「受種族主義標籤及 偏見所影響」，則在法庭發出專家 指示及該等指示獲得遵守下，原告 人可邀請法庭閱讀該等資料。原告 人的專家證據並無在該等資料外提 供實際的額外資料，法庭亦毋須尋 求原告人一方的專家協助理解該等 資料。 • 即 使 原 告 人 不 獲 准 提 出 其 專 家 證 據，審訊亦不會對原告人不公。關 於歧視性種族評判的問題，在受制 於專家指示及被告人亦有公平機會 對相同問題作出回應的情況下，原 告人大可提出關於香港的相關情況 的文章或研究作為證據。

76 www.hk-lawyer.org

Criminal procedure — trial — case management— while defendant’s right to fair trial of paramount importance, justice must be administered without unnecessary delay — duty of practitioners to assist court in dealing with cases more efficiently and expeditiously D1–3 were convicted of 14 charges of conspiracy to steal and conspiracy to defraud. Ds were arrested in 2005 and charged in February 2006. The case was first transferred to the District Court in July 2006. The case was originally set down for 50 days, but the Court sat for 128 days which, due to frequent and prolonged adjournments, stretched out over an available 752 sitting days.

D1 instructed eight different leading counsel. Cross-examination by one counsel of one witness lasted about 33 days. Counsel asserted the right of Ds to a fair trial as justification for inter alia constant procedural distractions, satellite litigation, adjournments, protracted cross-examination and unmeritorious recusal applications.

The verdict was delivered in June 2011.

Ds appealed against conviction and sentence.

Held, granting the applications, treating the hearing as the appeals and allowing the appeals in part, that: • This case illustrated the urgent need for criminal justice procedural reform in Hong Kong. The waste of public funds was extraordinary and particularly typical of the waste occasioned in commercial crime

and corruption trials in the District Court. While the entitlement to a fair trial was and must always be the paramount consideration, the public, and importantly, accused persons awaiting trial were entitled to expect justice to be administered without unnecessary delay. It was time to encourage judges to follow the principles encapsulated by overseas authorities and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013 (England and Wales), to insist counsel and solicitors assist the court in dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously and to accord serious consideration to the introduction of like rules here.

• When large sums of public money were wasted, the Court abnegated a positive and overarching duty to the public interest in the proper administration of justice, if it did not speak out where the process had been pushed out of hand by the conduct of advocates or by the lack of firm case management.

• Counsel could and should exercise in the interests of justice as a whole a proper discretion so as not to prolong cases unnecessarily, whether by prolix cross-examination or, as here, adjournments for the mere convenience of counsels’ diaries. A trial court, which had an inherent jurisdiction to control its process, should, where warranted, impose reasonable time limits, having due

September 2014 •

regard to the interests and rights of every affected party including the right of the defendant to a fair trial.

The cardinal point was that there was no tension whatsoever between counsels’ duty, concomitant with that of the judge, to enable the wheels of justice to move smoothly and their duty to their clients.

• A change in criminal procedure culture in Hong Kong was long overdue. Judges must manage, and must be assisted, to manage cases more strictly and advocates must help in that task. This required a framework of clear and enforceable rules, appropriate case management training, and a realisation by practitioners that they bore a professional duty to assist in the efficiency of the process, and that this was not at odds with their duty fearlessly to represent the interest of their clients. A continuing failure to embrace the principles involved would remain a source of injustice to those awaiting trial and was a recipe for extremely expensive procedural chaos.

• Further, no application was made on Ds’ convictions for the costs of the prosecution, which must have been enormous. The lack of action apparently accorded with standard policy and if so, it was one about which taxpayers should be concerned.

刑事訴訟程序

CASES IN BRIEF 案 例 撮 要

據及《2013年刑事訴訟程序規則》 (英格蘭及威爾斯)所訂立的原則，以

高等法院上訴法庭

堅持大律師及律師協助法庭以高效

上訴法庭刑事上訴案2011年 第272號

及迅速的方式處理案件，並認真考

上訴法庭副庭長司徒敬及楊振權， 原訟法庭法官賴磐德 2014年3月28日

慮在香港引入此類規則。 • 當 案 件 因 為 代 訟 人 的 行 為 或 缺 乏 穩妥的案件管理而變得無法控制且 導致大量公帑被浪費時，法庭如不 公開指責，便是背棄在執行司法中

刑法與刑事訴訟程序 - 審訊 - 案 件管理 – 雖然被告人接受公平 審訊的權利乃至關重要，但必須 秉行司法公正，以避免不必要的 延誤 - 法律執業者有責任協助 法院以更有效和迅速的方式處理 案件

對公眾利益所負有的正面及首要責 任。 • 為符合整體公眾利益，大律師既可 以也應當恰當地行使酌情權，避免 透過進行冗長的盤問或(如本案般)純 為遷就大律師的日程而申請押後審 訊，從而不必要地令案件拖延。法 庭具有固有司法管轄權控制審訊的

第一至三被告人被裁定串謀盜竊及串謀

過程，以及在適當情況下並在平衡

欺詐共14項罪名成立。他們於2005年被

各方利益與權利(包括被告人接受公

拘捕，並於2006年2月被起訴。案件首

平審訊的權利)之下，施加合理的時

先於2006年7月轉介至區域法院，本來

限。重點是，大律師協助法官使司

預計審訊50天，但審訊期隨後變為128

法程序順暢地進行的責任與及大律

天，最終更因為頻繁不絕的押後而延長

師向當事人所負有的責任絕對沒有

至752天。第一被告人先後延聘了八名

矛盾。

首席大律師，每名大律師盤問一名證人 需時約33天。大律師聲稱各名被告人有 權利接受公平審訊，並以此有理由而尋 求支持經常干擾訴訟程序、進行從屬訴 訟、押後審訊、長時間盤問證人及無理 地提出申請要求主審法官避席。案件的 裁決於2011年6月作出。各名被告人不 服定罪及判刑，申請許可提出上訴。

• 香 港 的 刑 事 訴 訟 程 序 文 化 早 該 改 變。法官必須在獲得協助下嚴謹地 管理案件，代訟人亦必須對此提供 協助。此舉需要一套清晰且可予執 行的規則、合適的案件管理訓練， 以及法律執業者認識到他們負有專 業責任協助高效地進行法庭程序， 而這責任並非與他們無畏地維護當

裁決 - 批准申請，把聆訊視為正式上

事人利益的職責背道而弛。持續拒

訴，並裁定部份上訴得直︰

絕體現上述準則，將對候審人士造

• 本案反映了香港有逼切需要進行刑

成不公，亦將產生極之昂貴的程序

事司法程序改革。浪費公帑的情況

混亂。

令人咋舌，尤以區域法院席前的商

• 再者，本案控方並無就各名被告人

業罪案及貪污審訊所造成的浪費為

的定罪申請訟費，而該筆費用必然

然。縱使公平審訊必定是最重要的

相當龐大。這種欠缺行動的情況看

考慮，但公眾以及(更重要者)候審

來依從標準政策，而若然此屬實，

的被告人都有權期望法庭在沒有不

納稅人便應關注這問題。

必要的延誤下執行司法公義。現在 是時候鼓勵法官依循由海外案例典 www.hk-lawyer.org 77

• September 2014

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HKSAR v Li Jialin [2014] 2 HKLRD 538 Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2012 Lunn, Macrae JJA and Line J 14 March 2014

Criminal procedure — securities and futures offences — price rigging, contrary to s. 296(1) — elements of offence — “price” meant “nominal” price, ie, notional price adopted and displayed by Hong Kong Stock Exchange — Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) s. 296(1) D was convicted of 10 charges of price rigging. D, the chairman and controlling shareholder of a listed company, C, effected purchases and sales of shares in C with his own funds using three trading accounts which involved no change in the beneficial ownership of the shares. The Judge found that D’s conduct increased the “nominal” price of C’s shares. At issue on D’s application for leave to appeal against conviction was: (a) what constituted the “price” for the purposes of an offence contrary to s. 269(1)(a) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (the “SFO”); and (b) did D’s actions have the effect of increasing the “price” of C’s shares?

Held, dismissing the application, that: • As for (a), the “nominal” price of a stock, ie, the notional price adopted and displayed by the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, conformed best to the meaning of “price” in s. 296(1) of the SFO. It was precise, readily calculable and easily understood. It took into account actual transactions (ie, the last traded price) as well as the most likely transaction price indicated by the highest bid and lowest ask queues, and it also reflected general or specific market 78 www.hk-lawyer.org

REUTERS/Aly Song

sentiment which might govern those transactions. Thus, the Judge was right to accept that the “nominal” price of a share was the appropriate measure of “price” for the purposes of s. 296 of the SFO. • As for (b), the Judge was right to accept the prosecution methodology which showed that in each charge, D’s transaction was found to have increased the “nominal” price of C’s shares. Thus, properly construed, the “price” of C’s shares was increased by D’s transactions involving no change in beneficial ownership.

刑事訴訟程序 上訴法庭 上訴法庭刑事上訴案2012年 第457號

股股東，利用其個人資金及透過三個交 易戶口進行該公司股票買賣，但有關股 票的實益擁有權並無改變。原審法官裁 定被告人的行為使涉案公司股票的「表 面」價格上升。被告人不服定罪，申請 許可提出上訴，所涉爭議點包括:(a)《證 券及期貨條例》(第571章)第296(1)(a) 條所指的「價格」由什麼組成；及(b) 被 告人的行為有否使涉案公司的「價格」 提升？ 裁決 - 駁回申請︰ • 就(a)而言，股票的「表面」價格， 即香港交易所採納和顯示的假定價 格，最能符合《證券及期貨條例》 第296(1)條所指的「價格」的意 思。該價格精確、可隨時計算及易 於理解。它已考慮到實際交易(即最 新交易價格)，以及由最高出價與最 低沽出隊列所反映的最可能交易價

上訴法庭法官倫明高及麥機智， 原訟法庭法官賴磐德

格，同時也反映了可能支配該等交

2014年3月14日

法官正確地接納「表面」價格就是

易的一般或特定市場情緒。因此， 對《證券及期貨條例》第296條下

刑法與刑事訴訟程序 - 證券及 期貨罪行 - 操控價格，觸犯第 296(1)條 - 罪行元素 -「價格」 是指「表面」價格，即香港聯合 交易所採用和顯示的假定價格 《證券及期貨條例》(第571章) 第296(1)條 被告人被裁定10項操控價格罪成立。案 情指，被告人作為涉案公司的主席及控

的「價格」的最恰當描述。 • 就(b)而言，法官有權接納控方就每 一項控罪而採用的原則，其顯示被 告人所進行的交易確曾提升涉案公 司股票的「表面」價格。因此，按 正確理解，該公司的股份「價格」 曾經因被告人進行該等並無改變股 票實益擁有權的交易而提升。

September 2014 •

CRIMINAL SENTENCING HKSAR v Chow Yau Ching [2014] 2 HKLRD 639 Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 2012 Yeung V-P and Judianna Barnes J 4 November 2013

Criminal sentencing — dangerous drugs — trafficking — appropriate starting points following enhancement in guidelines for trafficking in other drugs — whether wholly concurrent sentences for possession and trafficking warranted D pleaded guilty to possession of a dangerous drug, namely 1.49 g of ketamine (Charge 1) and trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 2,890 g of ketamine (Charge 2). The Judge adopted starting points of 9 months on Charge 1 and, relying on HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 622, 19 years and 9 months on Charge 2; reduced them for plea to 6 months’ imprisonment and 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment respectively; and ordered 2 months of the sentence for Charge 1 to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 2, making a total of 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. D applied for leave to appeal against sentence, arguing the starting point on Charge 2 was manifestly excessive.

Held, granting the application, treating the hearing as the appeal and allowing the appeal to the extent of substituting a sentence of 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment, that: • The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin did not revise any sentencing guidelines. It was only because Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng did not elaborate on

the appropriate starting points for trafficking in over 1,000 g of ketamine and having considered the rates of enhancement of starting points for trafficking in large quantities of other dangerous drugs (such as heroin and “ice”), that the Court observed the appropriate starting points for trafficking in 2,000 g and 3,000 g of ketamine should, respectively, be no less than 18 years and 20 years’ imprisonment. Thus, the Judge was entitled to consider the reasoning in HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin, even though D’s case arose before the reasons for judgment in that case were handed down. Even if the Court of Appeal had laid down sentencing guidelines with no retrospective effect, they could still be referred to for comparison purposes.

• There should be a meaningful distinction between the sentence for trafficking in a specified quantity of a dangerous drug and trafficking in twice that quantity. Further, a distinction should be drawn between the sentence where there were other aggravating factors and the sentence where no aggravating factors were present. These principles applied to large quantities of any dangerous drugs, including ketamine.

• Here, given the circumstances and D’s background, the starting point of 19 years and 9 months adopted by the Judge on Charge 2 was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. However, had Charge 1 also been for trafficking in a dangerous drug, the drugs in Charges 1–2 would, on the facts, have been considered together, and the appropriate starting point for trafficking in 2,891.49 g of ketamine would still have been 19 years and 9 months. Accordingly, although trafficking in a dangerous drug

CASES IN BRIEF 案 例 撮 要

and possession of a dangerous drug were different in nature and generally their sentences should not be made entirely concurrent, on the facts, the whole 6-month term on Charge 1 should run concurrently with the sentence on Charge 2, making a total of 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

刑事判決 高等法院上訴法庭 上訴法庭刑事上訴案2012年 第517號 上訴法庭副庭長楊振權，原訟法庭 法官張慧玲 2013年11月4日

判刑 - 危險藥物 - 販運罪 - 跟隨 販運其他危險藥物罪的判刑指引 的刑期增幅後的恰當量刑基準 管有罪和販運罪的刑期在涉案情 況下應否全部同期執行 被告人承認兩項控罪分別為管有危險藥 物，即1.49克氯胺酮(控罪一)，以及販 運危險藥物，即2,890克氯胺酮(控罪二) 。原審法官就控罪一採納監禁9個月為 量刑基準，就控罪二則依據香港特別行 政區訴單松健 [2013] 1 HKLRD 622 一案，採納監禁19年9個月為量刑基準; 然後因應被告人認罪而把上述兩個刑期 分別扣減至6個月及13年2個月; 最後下 令控罪一的其中兩個月刑期與控罪二的 刑期分期執行，總刑期為13年4個月。 被告人針對判刑申請許可提出上訴，理 由為控罪二的量刑基準明顯過高。 裁決 - 批准申請，視聆訊為正式上訴， 並裁定上訴得直，範圍限於改判被告人 監禁13 年2 個月: • 在 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 單 松 健 一 案 中，上訴法庭並無修訂判刑指引。 上訴法庭只是考慮到Secretary

for

Justice v Hii Siew Cheng 一案並無

www.hk-lawyer.org 79

• September 2014

闡明販運超過1,000克氯胺酮罪的恰 當量刑基準，加上販運大量其他危 險藥物 (例如海洛英及「冰」毒) 罪 行的量刑基準增幅，因而認為販運

LAND LAW Hui Kin Sang v Ko Lui Ltd [2014] 2 HKLRD 491

2,000克及3,000克氯胺酮罪的恰

Court of First Instance

當量刑基準應分別不低於18年及

High Court Action No. 1608 of 2011

20年。因此，儘管本案發生於香港

Deputy Judge Le Pichon in Chambers

特別行政區訴單松健一案的判案理

26 February 2014

由書頒發之前，但本案原審法官仍 可考慮該案判決背後的理據。上訴 法庭訂立的判刑指引即使不具追溯 力，仍可作比較之用。

• 販運特定份量的危險藥物罪的判刑 與販運雙倍該份量的危險藥物罪的 判刑之間，應該有顯著的分別。此 外，當有其他加刑因素時的判刑， 應有別於沒有加刑因素時的判刑。 這些原則適用於販運任何大量危險 藥物罪，包括氯胺酮。 • 在本案中，考慮到案情及被告人的 背景，原審法官就控罪二採納的監 禁19年9個月量刑基準既無原則性 錯誤，亦非明顯過高。然而，假如 控罪一亦涉及販運危險藥物，則基 於本案案情，控罪一及二所涉的危 險藥物將一併予以考慮，而販運共 2,891.49克氯胺酮罪的恰當量刑 基準將仍是19年9個月。因此，雖 然販運危險藥物罪與管有危險藥物 罪的性質有別，而通常兩者的刑期 不應全部同期執行，但以本案的案 情，控罪一的整段6個月刑期應與控 罪二的13年2個月刑期同期執行， 總刑期為13年2個月。

80 www.hk-lawyer.org

Land law — title/sale of land — duty to show and give good title — whether real risk of claim against vendor’s title by residuary beneficiaries In May 2011, P agreed to purchase from V the ground floor and cockloft of a building (the “Premises”) (the “ASP”).

V, represented by S, a solicitors’ firm, had acquired the Premises in 2007.

The Premises and the ground floors and cocklofts of two other properties (the “Other Properties”) had formed part of the estate of X, who died in 1989, leaving a wife, a concubine and six sons, including LYK (the “Family”).

By his will, X made specific bequests to all the members of the Family of only the ground floors of the Premises and the Other Properties. The cocklofts fell into X’s residuary estate and were bequeathed to the Family in equal shares. However, in November 1991, the executors, including LYK, executed assents of both the ground floors and all three cocklofts to the legatees under the will. The sale of the Premises did not proceed and P brought proceedings against V seeking recovery of deposits paid. V joined S as a third party. At issue, among other things, was whether V had shown or given good title under the ASP and specifically whether there was a risk of challenge by the residuary beneficiaries (other than those who took under the assent of the Premises).

Section 20(1) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347) provides “No period of limitation prescribed by this Ordinance shall apply to an action by

a beneficiary under a trust, being an action: (a) in respect of any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or a privy …”

Held, dismissing P’s claim and D’s claim against S, that: V had shown and given good title under the ASP. The answer to the issue in dispute was “no”. On the peculiar facts, the risk of challenge to V’s title was fanciful. LYK, as one of the executors executing the assents, was not in a position to complain; and the remaining residuary legatees in question had had the benefit of a share of the two cocklofts of the Other Properties which should have formed part of the residuary estate.

In addition, the three cocklofts would have constituted an insignificant part of the overall residuary estate. Further, since the assents, there had been a number of transactions involving the Premises and the Other Properties and as their respective titles devolved from a common source each shared the same “risk”. Yet, no previous purchaser had ever considered there was any real risk. Finally, there was no evidence that the cockloft of the Premises was worth more than the other cocklofts so that a future claim was more likely.

土地法 原訟法庭 高院民事訴訟2011年第1608號 暫委法官郭美超內庭聆訊 2014年2月26日

土地法 - 業權/土地售賣 - 顯示並 給予妥善業權的責任 - 是否有由 剩餘遺產受益人針對賣方業權之 申索的實際風險 2011年5月，原告人同意向事主購入一 幢大廈(該處所)(ASP)的地下及閣樓。 事主於2007年經由律師行(S)代表，購

September 2014 •

入該處所，而該處所與另外兩幢物業 的地下與閣樓組成了X的剩餘遺產的其

LEGAL PROFESSION

妾及六名兒子，包括LYK(該家庭)。根

Lau Yu Shing v Chan Wing Hung Philip [2014] 2 HKLRD 688

據X的遺囑，他只把該處所及其他物業

Court of Appeal

的地下分給各家庭成員，而閣樓就屬

Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011

於X的剩餘遺產並且平均分予各家庭成

Yuen, Kwan and Chu JJA

員。但於1991年11月，包括LYK在內

24 March 2014

中一部份。X於1989年去世，留下妻

的遺囑執行者一致同意，地下及三個 閣樓均屬遺產承繼人所有，於是該處 所的買賣無法進行。原告人遂向事主 提出訴訟，要求退還已繳付的按金。 事主與S作為第三方，事件中的爭議點 在於，事主是否曾經顯示自己對該ASP 的擁有權，及是否曾表示交易可能受 剩餘受益人反對的風險(除了負責監護 該處所的同意者)。根據《時效條例》 (第347章)20(1)條，「本條例所訂明 的時效期，不適用於受益人根據信託 而提出的訴訟，如該訴訟為─關乎任 何欺詐或欺詐性違反信託，而受託人 乃其中一方或參與者……」。 裁決-駁回原告人及被告人對S的申 索︰ 事主已顯示自己對ASP擁有妥善業權並 給予妥善業權。涉案爭議的答案是否定 的。基於案件的獨特事實，事主的擁有 權遭受質疑的風險只是微乎其微。LYK 身為其中一名執行同意的遺囑執行人， 沒有資格作出投訴，而其他遺產承繼人 亦已從其餘兩幢物業的閣樓中獲得好 處。該三個閣樓只佔整筆遺產中微不足 道的一部份。此外，基於一眾執行者 的同意，曾進行一些涉及該住宅及其餘 物業的交易，而由於各人的業權來源相 同，因此他們應共同承擔相同「風險」 。然而，早前的各名買家無一考慮是否 存在真正風險。最後，沒有證據顯示該 處所的閣樓價值較其他閣樓為高，以致 日後可能出現更多申索。

Legal profession —bill of costs — whether, under ss.65 to 68, third parties could only apply for taxation of bill of costs that solicitor had already delivered to party chargeable — Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) ss. 65–68 F died in 1933 leaving eight sons. As a result of a deed of family arrangement, each of the sons became the beneficial owner of agricultural lands in the New Territories owned by F’s estate.

After their deaths, the Government resumed part of the lands which were allocated to the third and seventh sons.

Through D, a solicitor representing the administrator of F’s estate, the compensation for the resumption (the “Compensation”) was agreed. D received and held the Compensation for the administrator. D demanded from the estates of the third and seventh sons represented by Ps, payment of $300,000 as costs for non-contentious work for the resumption. Ps responded that D’s costs were excessive and repeatedly asked D to render a bill of costs and have it taxed. Eventually, D sent to Ps’ solicitors a bill of costs entitled “Fifth Draft” in the amount of $492,630 and indicated that there were further items of work and time spent, which would not be pursued if Ps were to agree to pay $300,000.

Ps subsequently issued an originating summons seeking an order that D deliver a bills of costs for work done in obtaining the Compensation so they could tax it. The Judge held that Ps were

REUTERS/Stringer

CASES IN BRIEF 案 例 撮 要

persons liable to pay D and entitled under s. 68(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) (the “LPO”) to apply for taxation of the bill, even though the letters of administration granted to Ps were limited to immovable property. Section 68(4)(b) of the LPO provides that “the Court may, if it orders taxation of the bill, order the solicitor ... to deliver to the applicant a copy of the bill ...” D appealed, arguing that on a proper construction of ss. 65–68 of the LPO, as third parties, Ps could apply for taxation only of a pre-existing bill of costs which D had “delivered” to the party chargeable and not a bill which he had yet to render to his client.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that: • There was no merit in the construction point. First, there was nothing in either s. 68(1) or (2) of the LPO to limit the right of third parties to apply for taxation to cases where the solicitor had already delivered a bill to the party chargeable with the bill.

• Second, as for the reference in s. 68(4) to the delivery of “a copy of the bill”, the third party taxation under s. 68 was a taxation, not of the solicitors’ bill between the third party and the solicitor, but as between the solicitor and his client (ie, the party chargeable with the bill). Thus normally, a bill would be rendered to the solicitor’s client first. There was no warrant for construing s. 68(4) as limiting the scope of s. 68(1) and (2) to cases where the solicitor had already rendered a bill of costs to his client.

• Third and importantly, the purpose of s. 68(1) and (2) was to give to a third party a right to tax the solicitor’s bill for which he was liable to pay. The two provisions were important safeguards for the third party’s liability to the solicitor for his costs, which might be less

www.hk-lawyer.org 81

• September 2014

than that for which the client was liable. D’s construction would defeat completely the purpose of s. 68(1) and (2) and was not justified, as the third party would not be able to challenge the solicitor’s bill if the solicitor and his client were to reach an agreement on the amount of costs and/or to agree to dispense with the rendering of the bill.

為遺產管理人而持有該筆賠償。被告人

• 第三，重要的是，第68(1)及(2)

其後要求原告人(即第三及第七名兒子的

條的目的是賦權第三方評定他

遺產的代表人)付款30萬元，作為被告人

應按之繳付律師費的律師費單。

在收地方面進行不具爭訟性的工作的律

該兩項條文是對於第三方須支付

師費。原告人回應指被告人收費過高，

的律師費額的重要保障，而該付

並多次要求被告人提交律師費單以作

款責任可能低於當事人的付款責

評定。被告人最終向原告人的代表律師

任。被告人所提出的詮釋將令第

提交一份題為「第五份擬本」的律師費

68(1)及(2)條的意義盡失，且無

單，金額為492,630元。被告人又表示，

理可據，因為若然律師與其當事

假如原告人同意支付30萬元的費用，則

人就律師費額及/或免卻送交律師

被告人將不會就他所指的其他相關工作

費單而達成協議，第三方便將無

及所花的額外時間而追討律師費。原告

法質疑律師費單。

人其後發出原訴傳票，要求法庭命令被 告人提交有關協助獲得收地賠償的工作 的律師費單，讓原告人能要求法庭評定 該律師費單。法官認為，即使原告人獲 授予的遺產管理證明書只限於不動產， 原告人仍有責任向被告人付費，亦有權 根據《法律執業者條例》(第159章)第 68(1)條申請評定該律師費單。《法律執

上訴法庭 上訴法庭民事上訴案2011年 第35號 上訴法庭法官袁家寧、關淑馨及 朱芬齡 2014年3月24日

Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 246 of 2012

命令評定帳單，可命令律師……將該份

Cheung CJHC, Barma JA and Jeremy Poon J

出上訴，辯稱根據《法律執業者條例》 第65至68條的正確詮釋，身為第三方的 原告人只可申請評定被告人已「交付」 須付款方的現存律師費單，而非被告人 尚未向當事人送交的律師費單。 裁決 - 駁回上訴︰ • 關於釋義的論點無法成立。首先， 《法律執業者條例》第68(1)或(2)條 均沒有限制第三方只可在律師已把律 師費單交付須付款方的情況下申請進

法律專業 - 律師費單 - 根據第65 至68條，第三方是否只能申請評 定已由律師交付給須支付帳單一 方的律師費單 - 《法律執業者條 例》(第159章)第65至68條

• 第二，至於第68(4)條中對「該

F於1933年離世，留下八名兒子。根據

定律師與其當事人(即須付款方)

一份家庭安排契約，每名兒子將成為F

之間的律師費。因此，在正常情

遺產中位於新界的農地的實益擁有人。

況下，律師的當事人會先收到律

當第三及第七名兒子去世後，政府收回

師費單。指第68(4)條須詮釋為把

被分配予他們的土地。透過被告人(即F

68(1)及(2)條的範圍限制在律師

的遺產管理人的代表律師)，各方達成收

早已向其當事人送交律師費單的

地賠償協議。被告人接收該筆賠償，並

情況的說法並無根據。

82 www.hk-lawyer.org

Registrar of Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants v Chan Kin Hang Danvil [2014] 2 HKLRD 723

業者條例》第68(4)(b)條規定︰「如法院 帳單的副本交付予申請人。」被告人提

法律專業

PROFESSIONS

行評定。

份帳單的副本」的提述，第68條 下的第三方評定並非指評定第三 方與律師之間的律師費，而是評

4 April 2014

Professions — accountants — disciplinary proceedings — accountant admitted to complaint of professional misconduct in respect of tender declaration — whether finding of intentional dishonesty erroneous — standard of proof was civil standard of preponderance of probability under Re H — whether sanction of removal from register for three-year period manifestly excessive X was the sole proprietor of a firm of certified public accountants (“X’s Firm”) and the sole owner and managing director of an accounting services company (the “C”). C submitted a tender to the Official Receiver (the “OR”) for appointment as a provisional liquidator. C was required to have at least two “recognised professionals”, one of whom had to be its director,

September 2014 •

and so falsely declared that T was a recognised professional and had been a director of C for one year. X subsequently admitted to inter alia a complaint of professional misconduct on the admitted facts. The disciplinary committee (the “Committee”) found proved “at a standard of proof commensurate with the allegation charged” that X had intentionally and dishonestly misled the OR into believing that T was a recognised professional and director of C in order to qualify as a tenderer. Further, after successfully obtaining the tender, X had not rectified C’s misrepresentation. Although the Committee accepted that X and T had agreed that T would join C as a director if the tender was successful (the “Oral Agreement”), it rejected X’s explanation that he had not intended or needed to deceive the OR as Y, a parttime employee of X’s Firm, could have satisfied the tender requirement as a “qualified professional”. The Committee removed X’s name from the register of certified public accountants for three years (the “Sanction”). X appealed against the Sanction on the grounds inter alia that the Committee erred in its finding of intentional dishonesty by X, arguing that there existed a heightened civil standard of proof which varied with the gravity of misconduct alleged or the seriousness of the consequences for the person complained of such that the standard in this case must necessarily equate to the criminal standard, relying on Dr Wu Hin Ting v Medical Council of Hong Kong [2004] 2 HKC 367 which was adopted in the Guidelines for the Chairman and the Committee on Administering the Disciplinary Committee Proceedings Rules (the “Guidelines”).

Held, dismissing the appeal, that: • The notion of a “heightened civil standard” must be firmly rejected.

The standard of proof for disciplinary proceedings in Hong Kong was the civil standard of a preponderance of probability under the Re H & Others

(Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) approach. The more serious the act or omission alleged, the more inherently improbable it was and the more compelling would be the evidence needed to prove it on a preponderance of probability.

• Here, X’s argument that the Committee had failed to apply the appropriate standard of proof commensurate with the circumstances of this case must fail.

The Committee had applied the Guidelines, which replicated Dr Wu Hin Ting v Medical Council of Hong Kong, to the evidence before it.

• (Obiter) Consideration should be given to revising the Guidelines to reflect the current legal position on the standard of proof.

• The evidence in support of the Committee’s finding on intentional dishonesty was overwhelming. C needed two recognised professionals to qualify for the tender and X could not use Y as she was employed part-time by X’s Firm and not C. X therefore lied to enable C to obtain the OR’s appointment. Further, the Oral Agreement was premised on the tender being successful, but this required X to deliberately misrepresent to the OR that T had been a director of C for one year.

It lay ill in X’s mouth to say that because of the Oral Agreement, he was merely negligent or reckless in so conducting himself.

• Finally, there was no basis to interfere with the Sanction. The complaint involved very serious misconduct sufficient to warrant the Sanction. The OR was in law responsible for the integrity of the liquidation process. To facilitate the OR’s assessment in the tender exercise, an applicant was under a duty to provide all necessary information and declare and confirm that it was true and correct.

By the deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation concerning T,

CASES IN BRIEF 案 例 撮 要

X had circumvented the tender requirement and misled the OR into appointing C, an otherwise unqualified accounting firm, as liquidator.

專業導論 高等法院上訴法庭 上訴法庭民事上訴案2012年 第246號 高等法院首席法官張舉能，上訴 法庭法官鮑晏明，原訟法庭法官 潘兆初 2014年4月4日

專業與專業人士 - 會計師 ​​ - 紀律 程序 - 會計師對有關投標聲明的 專業失當行為投訴作出承認 - 裁 定會計師故意不誠實的裁斷是否 錯誤 – 舉證標準是 Re H一案所 訂立的「較大可能性」民事標準 從會計師名冊中除名三年的處分 是否明顯過重 X是一間執業會計師事務所的獨資經營 者及一間會計服務公司(下稱C)的獨資擁 有人兼董事總經理。C向破產管理署署 長提交一份申請獲委任為臨時清盤人的 投標書。C需要擁有至少兩名「認可專業 人士」，其中一人須為其董事。X訛稱 T是一名認可專業人士，且已擔任C的董 事滿一年。X後來承認一項關於專業失 當行為的投訴以及相關事實。紀律委員 會裁定，按照「與涉案指控相稱的舉證 標準」，X已證實曾有意圖地及不誠實 地誤導破產管理署署長，使其相信T是一 名認可專業人士及C的董事，以期取得投 標者的資格。此外，X在中標後並無糾 正C的失實陳述。紀律委員會接納X與T 曾協定若然投標成功，T將加入C為董事 (下稱「該口頭協議」)，但不接納X指自 己沒有意圖或需要欺騙破產管理署署長 的說法，因為X的會計師事務所旗下一名 兼職員工(下稱Y)能夠符合「認可專業人 士」的要求。紀律委員會決定將X從註冊

www.hk-lawyer.org 83

• September 2014

DISPUTE RESOLUTION Alibaba Group Holding Ltd v (1) Domains By Proxy, LLC; and (2) Jinbo Liu HK-1400627 <tmall.company> Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) Hong Kong Office Raymond C. K. Ho (Panelist) 4 August 2014

執業會計師名單上除名三年(下稱「該制

兩名「認可專業人士」以取得投

裁」)。X不服該制裁，提出上訴，理由

標資格，而X不能把Y列為獲認可

之一是紀律委員會錯誤地裁定X故意不

專業人士，因為Y是受僱於X的會

誠實。X依賴獲 「施行紀律委員會程序

計師事務所的兼職員工，而非受

規則︰主席及委員會指引」(下稱「該指

僱於C。X因此說謊，使C能獲得

引」)採納的案例 Dr Wu Hin Ting 訴 香

破產管理署署長委任。此外，該

港醫務委員會 [2004] 2 HKC 367，辯稱

口頭協議的前提是成功投標，但

存在著一項較高的民事訴訟舉證標準，

它要求X故意向破產管理署署長

該標準隨著被指行為失當的嚴重程度及

訛稱T擔任C的董事已達一年。考

對於被投訴者所帶來的後果的嚴重性而

慮到該口頭協議，X指自己只是

改變，因此本案中所採用的標準必須等

出於疏忽和魯莽而作出失當行為

同於刑事罪行舉證標準。

的說法不能成立。

裁決 - 駁回上訴︰

• 最後，本庭無理由干預該制裁。

• 本庭須嚴正地拒納「較高的民事

涉案投訴涉及非常嚴重的行為失

訴訟舉證標準」的概念。根據

當，其程度足以支持施加該制

Re H & Others (Minors)(Sexual

裁。破產管理署署長有法定責任

Abuse: Standard of Proof)所採

維持清盤過程的誠信。為協助破

取的做法， 香港的紀律程序中的

產管理署署長審核各份標書，申

舉證標準是「較大可能性」民事

請人有責任提供一切所需資料，

標準。

並聲明及確認該等資料屬實及準

• 在本案中，X指「紀律委員會未 有運用與本案情況相稱的合適舉 證標準」的辯據無法成立。紀律 委員會已就案中證據運用該指 引，而該指引重述了Dr Wu Hin

確。X透過故意及不誠實地就T作 出失實陳述，繞過投標的要求， 並誤導破產管理署署長委任C這 間本來不合資格的會計師事務所 為清盤人。

Ting 訴香港醫務委員會一案的原 則。 • (附帶意見)有關方面應考慮修改 該指引，使之反映舉證標準方面 的法律現況。 • 案中有極有力的證據支持紀律委 員會裁定X故意不誠實。C需要

84 www.hk-lawyer.org

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

就完整的摘要和判決書，請到 www.westlaw.com.hk 參閱 Westlaw及《香港法律彙報與摘錄》。

Intellectual Property – ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) – New gTLD – Domain name registrant’s intention to trade off trademark rights owner’s good name and mislead the Internet community would amount to a finding that the dispute domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith Complainant (hereinafter “C”) is the purported owner of several trademarks incorporating the mark of “TMALL”, whilst the 2nd Respondent (hereinafter “R”) was the registrant of <tmall. company> (the “Disputed Domain Name”).

On 26 June 2014, C filed a complaint against R concerning the Disputed Domain Name under ICANN UDRP, asserting that: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to C’s registered trademarks; (ii) R had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, as its mark is a coined term and C had not licensed, consented to or otherwise authorised R to use its trademarks; and (iii) R’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name involved mala fides and bad faith, having the intention to ride on the reputation of C with the prior knowledge of C’s trademarks. R denied the complaint and rebutted that the registration of

September 2014 •

CASES IN BRIEF 案 例 撮 要

the Disputed Domain Name conformed the acronym of its company, and there was no evidence that R had offered the domain name for sale.

totality of the evidence presented, the registration and the use of the disputed domain name by R were in bad faith.

而投訴人亦沒有特許、同意或以其他方

Held, granting the remedy sought, that:

In accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the UDRP, the Panel ordered that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

的商標情況下，意圖利用投訴人的聲譽

For the full decision, please refer to the ADNDRC Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Decisions at http://www.adndrc.org/ diymodule/docUDRP/HK-1400627_ Decision.pdf.

答辯人曾表示出售該域名。

• The disputed domain name is identical/confusingly similar to C’s trademarks, disregarding the domain extension.

• R neither demonstrated that the disputed domain name was used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor showed that it was making non commercial or fair use of it. In addition, the business registration of R’s company was registered after the registration of the disputed domain name and the commencement of the present proceedings. Therefore, it was unnecessary to examine whether the acronym of R’s company conformed C’s trademarks, as R had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

• R registered the Disputed Domain Name after C’s trademark was registered and validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse. Thus, it was irresistible to infer that by registering the disputed domain name, R had intentionally attempted to trade off C’s good name to attract the Internet community to R’s website for commercial gain. On the

式授權第二答辯人使用其商標；以及(iii) 第二答辯人登記及使用該受爭議域名涉 及惡意和不真誠，在已事先知悉投訴人 而得益。第二答辯人對該項投訴作出否 認，並稱該受爭議域名與其公司的首字 母縮略名稱相同，且亦無證據顯示第二

裁定-投訴人可獲得所尋求的補救： • 儘管該受爭議域名包含伸延部分， 但其與投訴人的註冊商標是相同或 易引起混淆地近似。 • 沒有任何證據顯示，第二答辯人曾

糾紛調解

使用該受爭議域名，並涉及實際的

亞洲域名爭議調解中心 – 香港辦事處 Raymond C. K. HO (專家組成員) 2014年8月4 日

知識產權 - 賦值名稱及數字互聯 網公司的統一域名爭議解決政策 - 新通用頂級域 (gTLD) - 域名登 記人意圖利用商標權利擁有者之 良好聲譽而得益並誤導互聯網使 用者，即構成該受爭議的域名在 不真誠情況下被登記或使用

貨品或服務銷售，或是作為非商業 或合理用途。此外，第二答辯人公 司的商業登記是在該受爭議域名登 記和本案展開後才辦理的。因此， 專家組認為無需檢視第二答辯人公 司的首字母縮略名稱是否與投訴人 的商標相同，並裁定第二答辯人對 該受爭議域名並不享有任何權利或 合法權益。 • 第二答辯人是在投訴人的商標註冊 並獲Trademark

Clearinghouse認可

後才登記該受爭議域名。因此，無 可爭議的推斷是，第二答辯人意圖

投訴人聲稱是若干包含"TMALL"字樣

藉著登記該受爭議域名，利用投訴

的商標擁有人，第二答辯人是<tmall.

人享有的聲譽來吸引互聯網使用者

company>域名(下稱「該受爭議域名」)

瀏覽其網站，從而獲得商業利益。

的登記人。 2014年6月26日，投訴 人就該受爭議域名，根據

專家組裁定從整體證據來看，第二 答辯人登記和使用該受爭議域名涉 及不真誠。

ICANN統一域名爭議解決

專家組根據統一域名爭議解決政策第

政策，提出針對第二答辯

4(i)段的規定，下令將該受爭議域名移

人的投訴，指稱(i)該受爭

交投訴人。

議域名與投訴人的註冊商 標相同或易引起混淆地近 似；(ii)由於投訴人的商標 是自行創造的，因此第二 答辯人對該受爭議域名沒 有任何權利或合法權益，

裁決全文，請參閱亞洲域名爭議調解中心 的統一域名爭議解決政策，網址： http://www.adndrc.org/diymodule/ docUDRP/HK-1400627_Decision.pdf)。

www.hk-lawyer.org 85

• September 2014

PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向 Newly-Admitted Members 新 會 員 ANTICA CRYSTAL SARAH

GLASGOW THOMAS SIMON

MCCRACKEN KIRSTIN

ALLEN & OVERY

EVERSHEDS 安睿國際律師事務所

安理國際律師事務所

BASSILI SALAM CHRISTINE

HAH YAN SHAN 夏燕姍 CHANEL LIMITED

MO KOON-KIU KENNETH 毛冠喬

CHAN WING HEI KEVIN 陳穎曦

KINUKAWA YASUHISA 絹川恭久

EVRARD SEBASTIEN JEAN NICOLAS JONES DAY

眾達國際法律事務所

86 www.hk-lawyer.org

LIM HENG WEE MARCUS 林亨緯 FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER 富而德律師事務所

OEY PUI FAT 黃佩發 CHEONG ELLA LAW OFFICE 張淑姬律師行

OUYANG DAN 歐陽丹 PAUL HASTINGS 普衡律師事務所

September 2014 •

SHEN JIAN SONG KENNEDYS

肯尼狄律師行

CHIEN YENG YENG 錢恩恩 SUN LAWYERS 司徒維新律師行

PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會 員 動 向

Partnerships and Firms 合夥人及律師行變動

COFFEY LOUISE ANNE HARRISON JAMIE EDWARD

changes received as from 1 July 2014 取自2014年7月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

ADDLESHAW GODDARD LLP

HO CHING MAN 何靜雯

SHEN YITING 沈怡亭

WOO, KWAN, LEE & LO 胡關李羅律師行

HORNSHAW RICHARD ALAN ROOME PUHAR 羅沛律師事務所

HUI YEUK WING 許若穎 CLIFFORD CHANCE 高偉紳律師行

SKUDDER ANDREW MARK

IU OI LIN IRENE 姚愛蓮

YUEN PETER & ASSOCIATES

KASSAM ALY BASHIR AHMED KIRKLAND & ELLIS 凱易律師事務所

阮葆光律師事務所

KNAPTON SARAH LAU CHUN MUI 劉春梅

TSAI CHUNGYANG DAVID

LOVE MATTHEW GRANT ANDERSON WHITE & CASE 偉凱律師事務所

MCNALLY CAROLINE JANE GALL 高嘉力律師行

SIU WING CHIN VINCY 蕭穎前 SO HO YAN JOANNA 蘇可殷 NU SKIN ENTERPRISES HONG KONG, LLC.

SUN LIEFANG 孫列芳

THOMAS SARAH JANETTE TIN CHI HO HAROLD 田志豪 WANG YAT MING 王逸明 LOONG & YEUNG 龍炳坤、楊永安律 師行

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HONG KONG 諾頓羅氏富布萊特香港

TSAI CHIA LING 蔡佳玲 CTBC BANK CO., LTD.

陳永良 自2014年7月21日加入陳永超律師樓為 合夥人。

• CHAU YIU SUM ceased to be a partner of Loong & Yeung as from 30/07/2014 and joined Eversheds as a partner on the same day. 周耀深 自2014年7月30日辭去龍炳坤、楊永安律 師行合夥人一職，並於同日加入安睿國際 律師事務所為合夥人。

• CHEN JEFFREY HUI joined Brandt Chan & Partners as a partner as from 21/07/2014. 自2014年7月21日加入布英達陳永元律師 行為合夥人。

• CHENG SIN YU ELEANOR joined M.C.A. Lai & Co. as a partner as from 15/07/2014. 鄭倩宇

SIU & COMPANY, ROBERT 蕭兆齡律師事務所

VARTY ROWAN 華路雲

• CHAN WING LEUNG joined Patrick Chan & Co. as a partner as from 21/07/2014.

自2014年7月15日加入賴文俊律師行為合 夥人。

• CHEUNG CHIU NAM CERMAIN commenced practice as a partner of Choy, Cheung & Co as from 01/08/2014 蔣昭嵐 自2014年8月1日成為新開業蔡蔣律師行合 夥人。

• CHOI SIU FUNG BENJAMIN ceased to be a partner of Ford, Kwan & Company as from 10/08/2014. 蔡少峰 自2014年8月10日辭去梁錦濤, 關學林律 師行合夥人一職。

WANG YAWEI 王亞蔚 DEACONS 的近律師行 www.hk-lawyer.org 87

• September 2014

• CHOW CHEUK YING ANITA ceased to be a partner of Haldanes as from 01/08/2014 and commenced practice as a partner of Morley Chow Seto on the same day. 周綽瑩 自2014年8月1日辭去何敦, 麥至理, 鮑富 律師行合夥人一職，並於同日成為新開業 麥樂賢周綽瑩司徒悅律師行合夥人。

• CHOY KA LING PRISCILLA ceased to be a partner of F. Zimmern & Co. and remains as a consultant of the firm as from 01/08/2014. 蔡家玲 自2014年8月1日辭去施文律師行合夥人 一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• CHOY KENNETH Y commenced practice as a partner of Choy, Cheung & Co as from 01/08/2014. 蔡仰德 自2014年8月1日成為新開業蔡蔣律師行 合夥人。

• CHOY SE HON commenced practice as a partner of Choy Yung & Co., Solicitors as from 14/08/2014 and remains as a consultant of Brian Chan & Associates as from 01/08/2014. 蔡思漢 自2014年8月14日成為新開業蔡翁律師 事務所合夥人，但仍繼續擔任陳旭輝律師 行顧問。

• EVRARD SEBASTIEN JEAN NICOLAS joined Jones Day as a partner as from 31/07/2014. 自2014年7月31日加入眾達國際法律事 務所為合夥人。

• EWINS ALAN JOHN ceased to be a partner of Allen & Overy as from 01/08/2014. 余英仕 自2014年8月1日辭去安理國際律師事 務所合夥人一職。

• HAN SANG JIN ceased to be a partner of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (Hong Kong) as from 01/08/2014. 自2014年8月1日辭去佳利(香港)律師事 務所合夥人一職。

88 www.hk-lawyer.org

• HO WING HANG HOWARD became a partner of Ellen Au & Co. as from 01/08/2014.

• MCNALLY CAROLINE JANE joined Gall as a partner as from 05/08/2014.

何頴恒

自2014年8月5日加入高嘉力律師行為合 夥人。

自2014年8月1日成為區殿霞律師行合夥 人。

• HORNSHAW RICHARD ALAN joined Roome Puhar as a partner as from 25/07/2014.

• MITCHARD GERALD STEVEN PAUL ceased to be a partner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom as from 31/07/2014.

2014年7月25日加入羅沛律師事務所為合 夥人。

自2014年7月31日辭去世達國際律師事 務所合夥人一職。

• KOH EE WOON JOHN ceased to be a partner of Bird & Bird as from 09/08/2014.

• MORLEY CHRISTOPHER NEIL ceased to be a partner of Haldanes as from 01/08/2014 and commenced practice as a partner of Morley Chow Seto on the same day.

高一文 自2014年8月9日辭去鴻鵠律師事務所合 夥人一職。

• LAM KWOK MING ceased to be a partner of P.C. Woo & Co. as from 01/08/2014 and joined Keith Lam Lau & Chan as a partner on the same day. 林國明 自2014年8月1日辭去胡百全律師事務所 合夥人一職，並於同日加入劉林陳律師行 為合夥人。

• LEUNG HO YIN ALEXANDER ceased to be a consultant of Katherine Y.W. Or & Co. as from 04/08/2014 and commenced practice as the sole practitioner of H.Y. Leung & Co. on the same day. 梁浩然 自2014年8月4日辭去柯玉華律師事務所 顧問一職，並於同日獨資經營梁浩然律師 事務所。

麥樂賢 自2014年8月1日辭去何敦, 麥至理, 鮑富 律師行合夥人一職，並於同日成為新開 業麥樂賢周綽瑩司徒悅律師行合夥人。

• NEWICK MATTHEW FORSTER joined Clifford Chance as a partner as from 18/07/2014. 自2014年7月18日加入高偉紳律師行為 合夥人。

• NG YU HUNG CHRISTOPHER ceased to be a partner of Ford, Kwan & Company and remains as a consultant of the firm as from 01/08/2014. 吳裕雄 自2014年8月1日辭去梁錦濤, 關學林律 師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

September 2014 •

• SKUDDER ANDREW MARK joined Peter Yuen & Associates as a partner as from 25/07/2014. 自2014年7月25日加入阮葆光律師事務 所為合夥人。

• SLOT ANNA-MARIE COONEY ceased to be a partner of White & Case as from 01/08/2014. 史樂賢 自2014年8月1日辭去偉凱律師事務所 合夥人一職。

• SO YEE CHING ceased to be a partner of Wong & Fok as from 31/07/2014 and the firm closed on the same day.

• RIGDEN GREEN ANDREW became a partner of Stephenson Harwood as from 29/07/2014. 自2014年7月29日成為羅夏信律師事務 所合夥人。

• SCHEMUTH MATTHIAS BERND OLIVER joined Ashurst Hong Kong as a partner as from 25/07/2014. 自2014年7 月25日加入亞司特律師事務 所為合夥人。

• SETO YUEH ERIC ceased to be a partner of Haldanes as from 01/08/2014 and commenced practice as a partner of Morley Chow Seto on the same day.

蘇綺青 自2014年7 月31日辭去黃霍律師行合 夥人一職，而該行於同日結業。

• SUM WAI CHI ceased to be a partner of Poon, Sum & Cheng and remains as a consultant of the firm as from 01/08/2014. 岑偉志 自2014年8 月1日辭去潘煥球、岑偉 志、鄭棟根律師事務所合夥人一職，而 轉任為該行顧問。

• SZETO WAI SUN joined Patrick Chan & Co. as a partner as from 21/07/2014.

司徒悅

司徒維新

自2014年8月1日辭去何敦, 麥至理, 鮑富 律師行合夥人一職，並於同日成為新開業 麥樂賢周綽瑩司徒悅律師行合夥人。

自2014年7月21日加入陳永超律師樓為 合夥人。

• SINGH AMIT became a partner of Allen & Overy as from 15/07/2014

• TANG HELEN ceased to be a partner of Wilkinson & Grist as from 26/07/2014. 唐新熹

自2014年7月15日成為安理國際律師事 務所合夥人。

自2014年7月26日辭去高露雲律師行合 夥人一職。

• SKRBIC MICHAEL joined Kennedys as a partner as from 01/08/2014.

• TSE CHARLTON became a partner of Slaughter and May as from 01/08/2014.

施敬廉

謝志聰

自2014年8月1日加入肯尼狄律師行為合 夥人。

自2014年8 月1日成為司力達律師樓合 夥人。

• VASS MARCUS HENRY ceased to be a partner of Bird & Bird as from 09/08/2014. 自2014年8 月9日辭去鴻鵠律師事務 所合夥人一職。

PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會 員 動 向

• WAI PUI SHUEN ceased to be a consultant of C.O. Chan & Co. as from 21/07/2014 and commenced practice as the sole practitioner of Wai & Co., Solicitors on the same day. 衛珮璇 自2014年7月21日辭去陳進安鍾海英律 師行顧問一職，並於同日獨資經營衛氏律 師行。

• WONG KWOK HAY SAMUEL ceased to be a partner of Wong & Fok as from 31/07/2014 and the firm closed on the same day. 黃國熹 自2014年7 月31日辭去黃霍律師行 合夥人一職，而該行於同日結業。 • WORTH HELEN MARGARET ceased to be a partner of Cordells as from 15/07/2014. 自2014年7月15日辭去CORDELLS合夥人 一職。

• YIH LAI TAK DIETER commenced practice as the sole practitioner of Yih & Co. as from 24/07/2014. 葉禮德 自2014年7月24日獨資經營YIH & CO.。

• YOUNG ASHLEY DAVID ceased to be a partner of Kirkland & Ellis as from 28/07/2014. 自2014年7月28日辭去凱易律師事務所 合夥人一職。

• YUNG YAN KEUNG ceased to be a partner of M.C.A. Lai & Co. and remains as a consultant of the firm as from 01/08/2014. He commenced practice as a partner of Choy Yung & Co., Solicitors. as from 14/08/2014. 翁恩強 自2014年8月1日辭去賴文俊律師行合 夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。翁律師 自2014年8月14日成為新開業蔡翁律師 事務所合夥人。

• ZHOU HAO became a partner of King & Wood Mallesons as from 16/07/2014. 周浩 自2014年7 月16日成為金杜律師事務所 合夥人。

www.hk-lawyer.org 89

• September 2014

Regional Guidance on Difficult Employment Issues in China

By Karen Ip, Partner

Jasmine Chen, Associate

90 www.hk-lawyer.org

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

September 2014 •

R

egional courts and employment arbitration institutions in major cities of China have recently issued guidance notes on various employment law issues, many of which are problematic issues under Chinese labour law. The guidance has been issued in the form of meeting minutes or answers to common issues involved in labour disputes.

Although the recent guidance notes are not binding on future court or arbitration cases, the guidance does reflect positions likely to be taken by relevant regional judicial and arbitral bodies. It is also possible that courts and arbitral bodies outside the particular regions will find the guidance to be persuasive.

Accordingly, understanding the guidance is important for employers looking to reduce the possibility of future labour disputes.

We set out below some of the more interesting guidance that has been issued in Beijing Municipality, Zhejiang Province and Shenzhen Municipality.

The overall trend shows courts and arbitral institutions taking careful stock of problematic national rules and seeking to develop a uniform approach within their jurisdictions. Some of the guidance seeks to protect employers against unscrupulous managers, while others take a balanced approach to supporting the reasonable claims of employees.

Additional national rules will likely be needed before all of China adopts a uniform approach on the issues below.

In the meantime, employers should be aware of how courts and arbitral institutions will approach the particular matters in their area. Employers in other areas may also wish to take note.

Beijing Municipality Managers Unable to Claim Against Employer for Failure to Enter into a Written Labour Contract The Beijing High People’s Court and the Beijing Labour Arbitration Commission issued meeting minutes regarding

certain employment-related disputes in May 2014 (“Beijing Meeting Minutes”).

The Beijing Meeting Minutes clarify that an employee cannot claim additional compensation from his/her employer on the basis of the employer’s failure to enter into a written contract if the employee: • is the legal representative of the employer; or • is a senior management officer, a person-in-charge, or an executive of the employer’s human resource department whose scope of authority includes management of the execution of labour contracts between the employer and the employees; however, the employee may still be able to claim if he/she can prove that he/she has asked the employer to enter into a written labour contract and the employer rejected the request.

The Beijing Meeting Minutes reflect increased judicial scrutiny against the possible abuse of managerial powers to claim against an employer in circumstances where the individuals themselves share responsibility for the acts of the employer.

Employers are advised to rigorously maintain written employment contracts with every employee, including managers, so as to avoid unwanted claims.

Open-Term Employment Contract Required upon the Expiry of the Second Fixed-Term Employment Contract The Beijing Meeting Minutes also clarify that, upon the expiry of the second consecutive fixed-term employment contract, the employer does not have the right to terminate the employment contract or require the employee to enter into a third fixed-term employment contract. Under such circumstances, the employer must enter into an open-term

ASIDE 隨 筆

employment contract with the employee upon the employee’s request.

Regional practices regarding whether an employer has the right to terminate the employee upon the expiry of the second consecutive fixed-term employment contract varies. The practice reflected in the Beijing Meeting Minutes is an approach which is in favour of employees. For the employer, it means that the decision to grant an employee an open-term contract (which is harder to terminate) is effectively made at the expiration of the first fixed-term contract.

On the other hand, regions like Shanghai and Guangzhou have to date taken a more liberal approach which is in favour of the employers. That is, in Shanghai and Guangzhou, employers may terminate an employee upon the expiry of the consecutive second fixed-term employment contract. If an employer does not want to terminate an employee, and if the employee wants to continue the employment relationship, then the employer must offer an open-term contract. (Chinese regulations provide that failure to agree on the terms of an open-term contract is not grounds for failure to enter an open-term contract.)

Employers should pay attention to the specific approach adopted by the local authorities as to whether they can terminate an employee upon expiry of the employee’s second consecutive fixedterm employment contract.

Zhejiang Province Termination for Breach of Employer’s Rules and Regulations Should Be within Five Months In April 2014, the Zhejiang High Court and the Zhejiang Labour Arbitration Tribunal jointly issued answers to various www.hk-lawyer.org 91

• September 2014

fact that an employee comes last in a performance review does not mean that the employee is incompetent for his/her work, which is a valid statutory ground for unilateral termination by the employer. Therefore an employer is not permitted to terminate the employment of the “worst performer” merely because they received the lowest performance rating. employment disputes issues (“Zhejiang Answers”).

Among other things, the Zhejiang Answers state that an employer can only terminate an employee on the grounds of breach of the employer’s internal rules and regulations within five months of the breach. The five-month period starts from the date the employer becomes or ought to have become aware of the breach of its internal rules and regulations entitling the employer to terminate the relevant employee.

PRC law does not provide any clear-cut time period for an employer to exercise its right to termination on the basis of a breach of the employer’s internal rules and regulations. Nevertheless, in practice, courts and arbitral tribunals generally tend to consider that the termination should be within a reasonable time frame.

The Zhejiang Answers set out a clear time within which employers in the region may terminate an employee for breach of the employer’s rules and regulations.

Termination of Worst Performer May be Challenged The Zhejiang Answers provide that an employer may not terminate an employee on the ground that the employee’s ranking is the lowest in a round of performance reviews. Such termination may not be justified even if coming last in a performance review is clearly stated in the employer’s rules and regulations as a ground for termination.

The Zhejiang Answers clarify that the

92 www.hk-lawyer.org

Although the Zhejiang Answers are only persuasive in Zhejiang Province, it would be prudent for employers throughout China to avoid terminating an employee solely on the ground that he/she has the lowest performance ranking. Instead, the employers should collect other objective evidence to support its claim that the employee is not competent.

Written warnings and opportunities for improvement within a reasonable timeframe should also be given.

Shenzhen Municipality Change of Foreign Employee’s Employment Relationship May Not be Recognised If Not Properly Reflected in the Employee’s Work Permit The Shenzhen Labour Arbitral Commission, in March 2014, issued meeting minutes regarding certain complex employment issues (“Shenzhen Meeting Minutes”).

The Shenzhen Meeting Minutes provide that if a foreign employee changes employers, then the employer information in the employee’s work permit must also be changed. Failure to update the employee’s work permit will mean that the employment relationship between the foreign employee and the new employer will not be recognised.

Employers should assist newly-recruited foreign employees to promptly update their work permits to reflect the change of employment to the current employer. Failure to do so will mean

that the employer is illegally employing foreign nationals, which can result in significant fines and business disruption if the foreign employee is deported.

Specific Rules on Compensation for Unused Additional Annual Leave National labour regulations provide that an employer must compensate an employee if the employee is unable to take their full annual leave due to work-related reasons. Penalty rates of 300 percent are provided in the national regulations.

The Shenzhen Meeting Minutes provide that, for any unused annual leave that is in addition to the statutory annual leave, the compensation to the employees must follow the below rules: • if the compensation standards have been agreed in the employment contract, collective contract or the employer’s internal rules and regulations, then regardless of whether such standards are lower than the compensation standards for statutory annual leave, such standards should be recognised as valid; or • if no compensation standards have been agreed between the employer and the employee, the competent court or arbitral body may award compensation to the relevant employee following the compensation standards for statutory annual leave.

Employers may wish to set out specific compensation standards for unused additional annual leave in the employment contract, collective contract or its rules and regulations, especially if the employer wishes to compensate with penalty rates of less than 300 percent. n

September 2014 •

ASIDE 隨 筆

有關中國僱傭 難題的地區指引 作者 葉倩嫻合夥人

陳雲曉律師

中

史密夫斐爾律師事務所 史密夫斐爾律師事務所

國大城市的地區法院及僱傭

仲裁機構現正仔細找出有問題的全國性

員在2014年5月發布會議紀要，會議紀

仲裁機構最近發布了有關

規則，並尋求在其管轄範圍內訂立劃一

要內容關乎某些與僱傭有關的糾紛（「

僱傭法各種糾紛的指引，其

的方法。一些指引旨在保護僱主免受管

北京會議紀要」）。

中很多在中國勞動法都是難於解決的問

理人員肆意干擾，另一些則以持平的方

題。指引是以會議紀要或是勞資糾紛的

法來支持員工提出合理索求。

常見問題回答書的形式發布。

「北京會議紀要」闡明，凡基於僱主沒 有訂立書面合同而向其要求額外補償的

全中國就以下問題採取劃一方法之前，

僱員，不能具有以下任何一種身份：

雖然最近的指引對未來的法院或仲裁案

相當需要先行訂立更多全國性規則。與

• 僱主的法定代表；或

件沒有約束力，但指引正正反映相關地

此同時，僱主應知道法院和仲裁機構將

區的司法和仲裁機構相當可能採取的立

如何處理在其地區中的具體事項。其他

場，而在該等地區以外的法院和仲裁機

地區的僱主也可能希望對以下問題有所

構，也可能會認同指引具有說服力。因

認識。

此，對於盼望在未來日子減少勞資糾紛

•僱主的人力資源部門的高級管理人 員、負責人或行政人員（其職權範圍 包括管理執行僱主與僱員之間的勞 動合同）；然而，如果僱員能夠證明 他／她曾要求僱主訂立書面勞動合同

的僱主來說，了解指引相當重要。

北京市

下文列出由北京市、浙江省和深圳市各

管理人員不能因僱主沒有訂立書面勞動

市政當局發出的指引，這些指引都較為

合同而向其提出申索

「北京會議紀要」顯示在個人需要就其

值得我們關注。整體趨勢表明，法院和

北京市高級人民法院和北京勞動仲裁委

僱主的作為分擔責任的情況下，越來越

但遭僱主拒絕，則僱員仍然能夠提出 申索。

www.hk-lawyer.org 93

• September 2014

深圳市

多針對僱主而提出有關濫用管理權力的

動仲裁庭聯合發出各種僱傭糾紛問題的

司法審查。

回答書(「浙江回答書」)。

僱主應謹慎保管與每一名員工(包括管理

其中，「浙江回答書」述明，僱主只能

證，有關與外國僱員僱傭關係的變更

人員)簽訂的書面僱傭合同，以避免不必

在僱員違反其內部規章後五個月內解

可能不獲承認

要的申索。

僱該名僱員。該五個月期限是由僱主

2014年3月，深圳市勞動爭議仲裁委員

知悉或理應知悉該僱員違反了其內部

會發布會議紀要(「深圳會議紀要」)，會

規章 — 僱主因此有權解僱該名僱員— 那

議紀要內容有關某些複雜的僱傭問題。

第二份固定期限僱傭合同期滿時所需 的無固定期限僱傭合同

一天起計。

「北京會議紀要」也闡明，在第二份連

如果不適當地反映在僱員的工作許可

「深圳會議紀要」規定，如果一名外國

續的固定期限僱傭合同期滿時，僱主無

有關僱主基於僱員違反其內部規章制度

僱員更改僱主，僱員工作許可證上有關

權終止僱傭合同或要求僱員訂立第三份

而行使其終止僱傭合同的權利方面，中

僱主的資料也必須更改。未能更新該僱

固定期限僱傭合同。在此情況下，倘僱

華人民共和國法律並沒有規定任何明確

員的工作許可證，將意味該名外國僱員

員要求訂立一份不設固定期限的僱傭合

時限。但在實際上，法院和仲裁庭一般

與新僱主之間的僱傭關係不獲承認。

同，僱主必須應要求如此訂立僱傭合

傾向認為應在合理的時限內終止僱傭合

僱主應協助新招募的外國僱員迅速更新

同。

同。

工作許可證，以反映其現時出現的僱傭

至於第二份連續的固定期限僱傭合同期

「浙江回答書」列出了當地僱主因僱員

滿時，僱主有沒有權解僱僱員，各地的

違反其規章而可以解僱該名僱員的明確

做法有所不同。「北京會議紀要」顯示

時間。

的做法對僱員有利。對於僱主來說，這 意味著僱主授予僱員一份無固定期限的 合同（其較難被終止）的決定，實際上 是在第一份固定期限合同期滿時作出 的。

解僱工作表現最差的僱員可能受到 反對 「浙江回答書」規定，僱主不可因僱員 在某一輪工作表現評核中排名最後而解 僱他。即使僱主的規章中清楚載明在工

另一方面，上海、廣州等地區到目前為

作表現評核中排名最後者將被解僱，如

止所採取的是一種更自由，也更有利於

此解僱也不可視之為具有充份理由。

僱主的做法。即是說，在上海和廣州， 僱主可於連續第二份固定期限僱傭合同 期滿時解僱僱員。假如僱主不想解僱一 名僱員，而有關僱員亦想繼續兩者的僱 傭關係，則僱主必須提供一份無固定期 限的合同。（中國法例規定，未能就無 固定期限合同的條款達成協議，並不構 成未能訂立無固定期限合同的理由。） 至於僱主能否在一名僱員的第二份連續 固定期限僱傭合同期滿時解僱該僱員， 僱主應當留意地方當局的具體做法。

浙江省 因違反僱主的規章制度而終止僱傭合 同，應在五個月內執行 2014年4月，浙江省高等法院和浙江勞

94 www.hk-lawyer.org

變動情況。若未能這樣做，僱主便是非 法僱用該明外國國民，如果該名外國僱 員被驅逐出境，該僱主可能被處以高額 罰款，並可能導致其業務中斷。

有關對未使用的額外年假作出補償的 具體規則 國家勞動法規定，僱員如因工作相關原 因而不能放足全數年假，僱主必須給予 該名僱員補償。全國性條例規定對違規 者處以三倍罰款。 「深圳會議紀要」規定，對於法定年假

「浙江回答書」闡明，僱員在工作表現

之外的任何未使用年假，僱主必須遵循

評核中即使排名最後，也不等於他不能

以下規則對僱員作出補償：

勝任自己的工作（這是僱主單方面終止 僱傭關係的有效法定理由）。因此，不 准僱主單單因為僱員得到最差工作表現 評級，而將該名「工作表現最差者」解 僱。

• 如果在僱傭合同、集體合同或僱主的 內部規章已協定賠償標準，則無論這 種標準是否低於法定的對年假的補償 標準，這種標準應當獲確認為有效 ； 或

雖然「浙江回答書」只是在浙江省具有

• 如果僱主與僱員之間，沒有已獲同意

說服力，但謹慎的做法是，中國其他地

的補償標準，則主管法院或仲裁機構

方的僱主也應避免單單因為僱員的工作

可以依據法定年假的補償標準賠償給

表現評核排名最低而解僱他們。相反，

有關僱員。

僱主應收集其他客觀證據，證明其所指 稱有關僱員並不勝任。此外，僱主亦應 給予該僱員書面警告函，並給予其在合 理時間內作出改進的機會。

僱主不妨在勞動合同、集體合同或其規 章中，為未使用的額外年假訂出具體的 補償標準(尤其是假如他們希望用低於三 倍罰金的金額來作出補償的話)。 n

REUTERS/CHRISTIAN CHARISIUS REUTERS/CHRISTIAN CHARISIUS REUTERS/CHRISTIAN CHARISIUS

A WILLS AND PROBATE A GUIDE GUIDE TO TO WILLS WILLS AND AND PROBATE PROBATE IN KONG IN HONG HONG KONG KONG The first text on the substantive law on wills, will The The first firsttext texton onthe thesubstantive substantivelaw lawon onwills, wills,will will drafting and probate practice under one cover drafting draftingand andprobate probatepractice practiceunder underone onecover cover

PubDate: Date:August August2014 2014 Pub Pub Date: August 2014 ISBN: 9789626615881 ISBN: 9789626615881 ISBN: 9789626615881 ListPrice: Price: HK$955 List HK$955 List Price:Softback HK$955 Format: Format: Softback Format: Rebecca SoftbackOng Author: Author: Rebecca Ong Author: Rebecca Ong

www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk

+852 +8522847 28472000 2000 +852 2847 2000

smhk.salesenquiries@thomsonreuters.com smhk.salesenquiries@thomsonreuters.com smhk.salesenquiries@thomsonreuters.com

• September 2014

CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞 45th Anniversary of HKU Faculty of Law: Law Alumni Reunion Dinner In celebration of the 45th anniversary of the founding of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, the Law Alumni Association is organising a dinner to mark this memorable occasion. The details of the Law Alumni Reunion Dinner are as follows: Date: 29th November 2014 (Saturday) Time: From 6:30 pm

(cocktail & dinner) Venue: Chancellor Room, Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, 1 Expo Drive,

Wan Chai, Hong Kong Some of the Faculty’s founding as well as former teachers, along with many old friends of the Faculty, and a number of distinguished guests will be joining us for this special occasion. We hope that you will also join us on this memorable evening.

Currently, 36 tables (12 persons each) are available for booking. The tables will be booked on a class basis but alumni are of course welcome to buy the tickets on an individual basis. To make a reservation or obtain more information, please contact your class representative, Ms. Rachel Li (lirachel@hku.hk, tel: 3917 2919) or Ms. Rita Wai (rwmwai@hku.hk, tel: 3917 2952).

96 www.hk-lawyer.org

香港大學法律學院四十五週年 晚宴 香港大學法律學院成立至今已有四十五載， 香港大學法律畢業生會特此舉辦週年晚宴， 慶祝這值得紀念的里程碑。晚宴詳情如下： 日期： 2014年11月29日 (星期六) 時間： 下午6：30 開始 (酒會及晚宴) 地點： 香港灣仔博覽道1號香港會議展覽

中心四樓君爵廳

曾於法學院任教的老師、法學院的老朋友

Logo designed by Cheung Po Yiu (LLB2), Champion of the Logo Design Competition. 標誌由院慶標誌設計比賽冠軍Cheung Po Yiu (LLB2)設計。

以及嘉賓將蒞臨出席。我們希望你與我們 一起共渡這難忘的晚上。 晚宴現設36席(每席12人)預訂席，歡迎相

Li (lirachel@hku.hk，電話：3917 2919) 或

Mark your diaries and form your table now to celebrate this special occasion!

Rita Wai (rwmwai@hku.hk，電話：3917

快記下日期及預訂留位吧！

約同屆同學共訂一桌，又或選擇個人買票 入席。預訂或查詢，請聯絡班代表或Rachel

2952)。

September 2014 •

UPDATED SCHEDULE: Seminar Series on Chinese Customary Law at CUHK Time:

Venue:

monthly October 2014 to May 2015 (below-designated Fridays 12:30 to 2 pm) CUHK Graduate Law Center, 2/F Bank of America Tower, Central Format: one key-note speaker (up to 40 minutes), one or more providers of “perspectives” (up to 15 minutes), discussion

(15 to 30 minutes) Registration: each seminar is open free of charge to anyone that is interested. Those wishing to join should register with the Centre for Rights and Justice online at: http://www.law. cuhk.edu.hk/research/crj/.

Questions: Please contact Steve Gallagher at stevegallagher@cuhk. edu.hk or visit CRJ’s website to obtain more information.

Topics of monthly sessions: 17 October 2014

Chinese Customary Law – Origins and Constitutional Framework • Introduction to the Topic Speaker: Justice Kemal Bokhary • The History of Chinese Customary Law Speaker: David Faure, CUHK Dept. of History • The Constitutional Perspective Speaker: Eric Ip, CUHK Faculty of Law

21 November 2014

Chinese Customary Land Law • Origins and Current Status Speaker: Dr. Patrick H. Hase • The Trust Law Perspective Speaker: Steve Gallagher, CUHK Faculty of Law • Land Titles Speaker: Judith Sihombing, CUHK Faculty of Law

16 January 2015

Chinese Customary Law in Mainland China • The Role of Customs and Customary Law in International Commercial Disputes During Republican China Speaker: Billy So, HKUST • The Company Law Perspective (The Legacy of Business Organisations in Traditional China and Modern Times) Speaker: Xi Chao, CUHK Faculty of Law

6 February 2015

Chinese Customary Family Law • Origins and Current Status Speaker: Anne Scully, CUHK Faculty of Law • Succession Speaker: Judith Sihombing, CUHK Faculty of Law • Wills Speaker: David Wong, Partner Wong, Hui & Co.

Topics of remaining monthly sessions will be published as confirmed.

CAMPUS VOICES 法 學 院 新 聞

更新時間表： 「中國習慣法在香港的情況」講座系列 時間： 2 014年10月至2015年5月每月舉行

(逢星期五，下午12:30至2:00) 地點：香港中環美國銀行中心二層香港中文大學法律學 院研究生部 形式：一位講者發表主題演講(長達40分鐘)、一位或多位 參與者提供「觀點」意見(長達15分鐘)以及討論 時間(15至30分鐘) 登記：有興趣人士均可免費登記出席所有講座。請於網 上向人權與公義研究中心登記：

http://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/research/crj/。 問題：請電郵stevegallagher@cuhk.edu.hk與Steve Gallagher聯絡，或瀏覽人權與公義研究中心的網 站，以得悉進一步的資料。 每月講座的主題： 2014年10月17日 中國習慣法 – 來源及憲法框架 • 主題簡介 講者：包致金法官 • 中國習慣法的歷史 講者：香港中文大學歷史系科大衛教授 • 憲法觀點 講者：香港中文大學法律學院葉子暘 2014年11月21日 中國習慣法(土地法) • 來源及現時情況 講者：夏思義博士 • 信託法律的觀點 講者：香港中文大學法律學院Steve Gallagher • 土地業權 講者：香港中文大學法律學院Judith Sihombing 2015年1月16日 中國習慣法：中國內地的情況 • 中國民國時期國際商業糾紛中習俗及習慣法的角色 講者：香港科技大學蘇基朗 • 公司法的觀點(中國過往及現代商業機構的傳統) 講者：香港中文大學法律學院習超

2015年2月6日 中國習慣法(家庭法) • 來源及現時情況 講者：香港中文大學法律學院Anne Scully • 繼承 講者：香港中文大學法律學院Judith Sihombing • 遺囑 講者：黃許律師行合夥人黃佩翰 其餘的月會主題將會在確定後公佈。 www.hk-lawyer.org 97

• September 2014

Fifth International ADR Mooting Competition and Awards Twenty-four teams participated in the 5th International ADR Mooting Competition held from 27 July to 2 August. Final results were announced at the Awards Presentation Gala Dinner in the Renaissance Harbour View Hotel on the evening of 2 August.

To kick off the Gala, Professor Geraint Howells welcomed all participants, while noting that it was only his fourth day in the office as Dean of CityU’s School of Law and his first public appearance. He urged students “to take mooting as a tool for learning the law and the skills associated with it such as research, writing and presentation.” He also explained that preparing for the moot would help participants learn how to work in a teams, as well as develop patience tolerance and confidence in their drafting and oral advocacy skills.

A number of VIPs attended the dinner, including Professor Tang Houzhi, Senior Adviser of the CCPIT Mediation Centre and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”), Mr. João Ribeiro, Head of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific (“UNCITRAL-RCAP”), Mr. Gary Chen, Executive Director and Joint General Manager of New World Development Company Limited together with his company’s representatives, and Professor Howells, Dean of CityU’s School of Law. In his concluding remarks, Professor Howells thanked all co-organisers (CIETAC, Columbia Law School and UNCITRAL-RCAP) for their collaborative efforts, the judges for volunteering their valuable time, and New World Development Company Limited for

98 www.hk-lawyer.org

sponsoring the Awards Dinner and for providing the venue and the delicious food for all participants.

This is the fifth year that CityU has organised the International ADR Mooting Competition, and the second year it has benefited from having CIETAC, Columbia Law School and UNCITRAL-RCAP as co-organisers.

For more information about the ADR Moot, please browse: http://www. cityu.edu.hk/slw/ADR_Moot/.

精神，鍛練他們的毅力和忍耐力，也能 提升他們在草擬文件和訟辯技巧上的信 心。 是次晚宴名人智士雲集，出席嘉賓包 括中國國際貿易促進委員會調解中心 及中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會(「貿 仲委」)資深顧問唐厚志教授、聯合國 國際貿易法委員會亞洲及太平洋區域 中心(「UNCITRAL-RCAP」)主管Joao Ribeiro先生、新世界發展有限公司執行 董事兼聯席總經理陳觀展先生及其公司 代表，以及香港城市大學法律學院院長

第五屆國際替代性爭議解決機 制模擬法庭比賽和頒獎晚宴 今年有二十四支隊伍參加在7月27日至 8月2日舉行的第五屆國際替代性爭議解 決機制模擬法庭比賽。比賽結果於8月2 日傍晚在香港萬麗海景酒店舉行的頒獎 典禮暨晚宴中公布。

Howells教授。 Howells教授最後感謝所有合作舉辦這次 比賽的機構(貿仲委、美國哥倫比亞大學 法律學院和UNCITRAL-RCAP)共同付出 努力，也感謝評判員貢獻他們寶貴的時 間，以及新世界發展有限公司贊助頒獎 典禮及晚宴，為晚宴提供場地，也為所 有來賓預備豐富佳餚。

Geraint Howells教授為典禮揭開序幕， 致辭歡迎所有出席來賓。Howells教授表 示，這是他履新出任香港城市大學法律 學院院長的第四天，也是他第一次以院 長身分出席公開場合。他鼓勵同學「參 與模擬法庭，藉此作為學習法律及磨練

今年是香港城市大學第五年舉辦國際替 代性爭議解決機制模擬法庭比賽，並且 是第二年與貿仲委、美國哥倫比亞大學 法律學院和UNCITRAL-RCAP合作舉辦 是項比賽。

研究、寫作和表達等相關技巧的工具」

有關國際替代性爭議解決機制模擬法

。Howells教授又表示，參加模擬法庭

庭比賽的資訊，請瀏覧：http://www.

比賽的準備工夫有助參賽者學習團隊

cityu.edu.hk/slw/ADR_Moot/。

• September 2014

LEGAL MARKET 職場資訊

Law Firm Associate Hiring in 2014

By Mike Wright, Associate Director, Private Practice

Pure Search

Corporate The legal recruitment market began in 2014 with a number of hires in corporate finance at the associate level. The activity was not confined to any type of law firm – both UK and US firms hired due to an upturn in corporate finance instructions after a strong end to a more testing year in 2013. However, with the recent slowdown of capital markets work and a resurgence in Mergers & Acquisitions (“M&A”) instructions, the market focus has shifted and the outlook for the rest of the year while positive is much more balanced across corporate work and other practice areas, such as litigation and finance.

Capital Markets and Corporate Finance Hiring Trends In anticipation of capital markets work greatly increasing across the region, many Wall Street firms stacked their rosters with partners from magic and silver circle firms to advise clients on Hong Kong corporate work. While market activity was stable, picking up towards the end of 2013 and remaining strong in the first half of 2014, it did not increase at the rate expected. The muted growth and recent dip in deal flows have both cooled the current demand for corporate finance associates.

2014年律師事務所律師招 聘情況 作者 Mike Wright 聯席董事 ﹣ 私人執業 Pure Search

公司法 2014年的法律招聘市場是以企業融資助理律師的招聘作 為起步。它並不局限於任何類型的律師事務所 – 英美律 師事務所均進行了招聘，原因是面對較多考驗的2013年 底出現反彈，企業融資業務增加。然而，由於近期的資本 市場業務放緩，以及企業併購業務復甦，市場焦點因而轉 移。展望今年餘下時間，前景雖然仍是正面，但在公司法 與其他範疇(例如訴訟和融資)之間，會出現一個較為均衡 的局面。

資本市場和企業融資的招聘趨勢 預期區內資本市場業務大幅上升，許多華爾街律師事務所 已經從英國的大型律師事務所招攬合夥人加入，為客户提 供香港公司法的法律意見。雖然市場活動在2013年底開 始有起色，並在2014年上半年保持强勢，發展穩定，但 未能按預期的速度增長。基於增長的放緩與近期的交易量

Increased work flow generated from several large listings created demand for corporate finance lawyers during the first half of 2014, but the corporate finance hiring trend was a bit deceptive. A number of firms with established corporate finance practices hired multiple mid-level lawyers to help with the work generated by the initial public offerings, but many were replacement hires (ie, not hired as a result of an upturn in work). As these deals are slowing, demand is also tapering off.

下跌，因而冷却了對企業融資律師的現行需求。

Where we are seeing a growth in demand is at firms with new corporate finance practices, like Davis Polk, that is growing at a strong rate and taking market share from more established firms. This new market activity is creating some movement among Hong Kong-qualified associates. However, success has not been widespread across all Wall Street firms even though the number of firms competing in the capital markets area has greatly increased.

緩，需求同時亦逐漸降低。

There are still some IPOs in the pipeline, which will lead to further

的競爭，但並非所有華爾街律師事務所都取得成功。市場

100 www.hk-lawyer.org

在2014年的上半年，由於幾項大型上市活動，引致工作 量上升，從而增加對企業融資律師的需求；可是這一企業 融資招聘趨勢有點兒是假象。雖然若干有相當企業融資業 務規模的律師事務所招聘了多倍中層律師，協助處理與 多項首次公開發售有關的工作，但當中許多只是替換離職 的律師(而不是由於工作量上升)。基於市場交易量開始放

我們可以發現，增加招聘員工的律師事務所，是該些擁 有新企業融資業務的律師事務所 (例如 Davis Polk，它正 以強勁速度增長，並爭佔較具規模律師事務所的市場佔有 率)。這導致香港從事這一業務範疇的助理律師流動性增 加。可是，即使有越來越多律師事務所加入資本市場業務

September 2014 •

LEGAL MARKET 職 場 資 訊

hiring after the summer break, but the real push for law firms will be associate-level M&A recruitment.

目前仍有一些首次公開發售在進行，這會促使暑假過後續

Mergers and Acquisitions

併購工作的助理律師方面。

The M&A activity has increased in Hong Kong and across the region due to an upturn in China outbound investment, an increase in midmarket deals and other Asian economies investing across the region.

As a result, we expect to see associate-level hiring increase in this practice area.

企業併購

In conjunction with increased M&A work flow, some firms in Hong Kong have relaxed many of their hiring requirements and are vetting a wider array of candidates. For example, some firms are relaxing their Mandarin language skills requirement, which provides more opportunities to registered foreign lawyers that are Hong Kongqualified but lack Mandarin language skills. Some firms have also hired from overseas jurisdictions such as Singapore where M&A expertise is more prevalent and Mandarin is widely spoken. This has all resulted in a larger number of candidates being considered as eligible for M&A openings. But even with the relaxed requirements, the Hong Kong market still lacks candidates with pure M&A experience, as the market has been historically more capital markets focused. As a result, some firms are also considering those with mixed corporate experience who want to specialise in M&A work. Candidates that will continue to benefit from this upturn in work (and are currently highly sought after) will be those with pure M&A experience and Mandarin language skills.

隨着併購工作量上升，香港有些律師事務所放寬了它們的

US Corporate

範疇的律師。由於今年有中國企業在紐約證券交易所上

The US corporate market is bouncing back with associate hiring in the main practices across the region. Some of the established US practices have hired mid-level associates in response to the growing confidence in the US market among Chinese companies listing on the New York stock exchange this year. However, most firms are still adopting a cautious approach, causing local hiring in this area to remain low. Rather than seeking new hires, many firms in Hong Kong have transferred associates from their US offices.

Nonetheless, there have been some notable moves. For instance, Slaughter and May’s lateral hire of John Moore equipped their Hong Kong office with both Hong Kong and US corporate law capabilities.

Following Moore’s hire, the firm has heavily recruited corporate associates to support the firm’s corporate practice. As a result, some firms are currently seeking associates to replace the ones that moved.

The US firms are still dominant in this area and while the hiring does not match the activity on the Hong Kong side, it is a notable improvement.

Litigation Firms are diversifying their practice in Hong Kong by ensuring they can advise on litigation and financial institutions regulatory matters or by bolstering their practices with associates so they have critical mass.

This is due to Hong Kong becoming a much more regulated market and Hong Kong regulators filing more enforcement actions against investment banks and financial institutions. This is in line with the

有進一步招聘，但律師事務所的真正招聘動力，是在處理

基於中國境外投資上升，中間市場交易以及其他亞洲經濟 體的區內投資增加，所以香港和區內的併購活動非常蓬 勃。因此，我們預期這業務範圍的律師招聘也會上升。

招聘要求，考慮更多的人選。例如，有些律師事務所放寬 它們的普通話要求，從而為不諳普通話的香港註冊外地律 師提供更多機會。而一些律師事務所也從海外司法管轄區 (例如新加坡，其併購專才更多，而且普通話更普遍使用) 招聘律師。這種種原因令律師事務所可以為其併購空缺考 慮更多人選。可是，雖然放寬了招聘要求，但是由於香港 向來比較着重資本市場，所以香港市場仍然缺乏擁有純粹 併購經驗的律師。因此，有些律師事務所也會考慮擁有多 門公司法業務經驗，但希望專門從事併購工作的律師。將 會繼續受惠於併購業務上升(且現時被爭相競聘)的，將會 是擁有純粹併購經驗和熟諳普通話的律師 。

美國公司法 美國的公司法市場正在復甦，全國都在招聘處理主要業務 市，人們對美國市場的信心增強，一些有相當規模的美國 律師行於是招聘中層律師。然而，大多數律師事務所依然 取態審慎，以致這一範疇的本地招聘仍處於低水平。不少 在香港的律師事務所從其美國辦事處調派律師來港，而沒 有進行新的招聘。 然而，市場上仍然有一些值得留意的動向。例如，司力達 律師樓對外招聘莫德華律師，令它們的香港辦事處具備處 理香港和美國企業法律業務的能力。而在招聘了莫德華律 師之後，司力達律師樓大量招聘企業律師來支持其企業法 律業務。因此，一些律師事務所正在物色律師來取替已經 轉職的律師。美國律師事務所仍然在這範疇具主導地位。 雖然這招聘行動並不配合它們在香港的活動，但是這依然 是一個顯著的進步。

訴訟 香港的律師行業務正日趨多元化，確保其能就訴訟及金融 機構監管事宜向提供法律意見，或是加強其律師執業能力 以產生群聚效應。原因在於香港金融市場的監管程度已大 為提高，而香港的監管機構對投資銀行和金融機構採取越 來越多執法行動。事實上，這也符合目前的全球趨勢，確 保投資銀行須對其違規與違法行為負責。 鑑於監管活動上升，招聘市場亦脫離律師事務所的傳統業 務而逐漸趨向多元化。舉例說，近年的主要合夥人招聘， www.hk-lawyer.org 101

• September 2014

global trend of ensuring that the investment banks are held to account for their regulatory breaches and transgressions.

例如Martin Rogers加入Davis Polk，盧宏智律師加入年

Due to the upturn in regulatory activity, the recruitment market has diversified from the traditional concentration of firms. For instance, key partners hires in recent years such as Martin Rogers to Davis Polk, Gavin Lewis to Linklaters and Tim Mak to Freshfields have resulted in more associate hiring at these firms.

務所。導致這些律師事務所增加招聘律師。

However, the rise in work flow in this area has not only increased the number of associate-level roles available at larger firms, it has also diversified the types of firms seeking to fill these roles. For instance, we have also seen some smaller firms that specialise in contentious work relocate their London-based partners who specialise in financial regulatory work in order to set up teams in Hong Kong. This has resulted in associate hiring at smaller firms as well to consolidate these practices.

Finance

利達律師事務所，以及麥景添律師加入富爾德律師事

然而，這方面的工作量上升，不但增加了較大型律師 事務所的律師空缺數目，也令其他類型的律師事務所 尋求填補這些空缺。舉例說，我們發現一些專門處理 爭訟事務的較小型律師事務所，調派它們在倫敦專門 處理金融監管業務的合夥人來香港建立團隊。這導致 較小型律師事務所藉招聘律師來鞏固其業務。

金融 今年的金融市場市況理想，而英國律師事務所在招聘 律師方面一馬當先。雖然這範疇的律師流動性通常較 低，但對律師而言他們的選擇較之前幾年為多。雖然 也有一些顯著的合夥人變動，但通常以處理金融業務

The finance market has been in good health this year, with the UK firms leading the charge on associate hiring. While the candidate flow in this area is usually less fluid, there have been many more options at associate level than in previous years. While there has been some notable partner moves, the usual firms known for strength in the finance area have continued to dominate this area and hire at associate level.

為強項的律師事務所，依然繼續主導這個範疇和進行

Offshore

一些律師事務所現在正放寬它們有關英聯邦國家律師

Offshore firms have all increased their presence in Hong Kong, growing across all practice areas to a degree. As a result, some firms are now more flexible about the need for commonwealth qualification for new associates when this previously was not the case. Commonwealth qualification is required to be able to register as a foreign lawyer and advise on offshore law. The flexibility for this requirement has expanded the candidate pool for offshore law firms, enabling Hong Kong-qualified lawyers already in the market with Mandarin language skills to be considered.

資歷的要求。擁有英聯邦國家律師資歷，可以註冊成

Offshore firms are also growing steadily across the region. Appleby became the first offshore law firm to receive a licence to practice law in China this year. Beforehand, the firm was only able to offer fiduciary services, but can now advise on offshore matters for its PRC-based clients. This is due to an increase in the use of offshore structures in cross border M&A deals throughout the PRC. Harneys also opened an office in Singapore this year in response to growing demand in the region.

The firm will advise on finance, funds and will also establish a private wealth practice. The outlook for offshore firms looks positive. Established offshore law firms continue to grow in Hong Kong (both with international relocations and with local associate hiring) as well as expand into other locations throughout the region.

岸律師事務所。之前，該所只可以提供受信人服務，

It is evident that Hong Kong’s legal recruitment market has improved at a steadier rate than the boom and bust cycle of previous years. The market is maturing, creating steady hiring across all practice areas. The number of law firms diversifying and consolidating their practices has also sparked demand. With the market continuing to improve at this pace, the outlook is positive for the remaining months of the year. n

循環陰霾，並正穩步改善。香港市場正逐步成熟，

102 www.hk-lawyer.org

助理律師的招聘。

離岸業務 離岸律師事務所全都在加強其在香港的業務，並在一 定程度上擴大其業務範疇。因此，與往昔不同的是，

為外地律師，並就離岸法律提供意見。在放寬了這方 面的要求後，離岸律師事務所可以物色的律師人選便 有所增加，可以考慮市場上擁有香港資歷和通諳普通 話的律師。 離岸律師事務所在區內同時也穩步發展。今年，毅柏 律師事務所成為第一家在中國取得法律執業牌照的離 而現在則可以為駐內地的客戶就離岸事務提供法律意 見。這是由於內地許多跨境併購交易中，採用離岸結 構越來越普遍。衡力斯律師事務所今年也在新加坡開 設辦事處，回應區內的上升服務需求。衡力斯律師事 務所提供金融和基金方面的法律服務，並會開展私人 財富法律業務。離岸律師事務所的前景看來是樂觀 的。具有規模的離岸律師事務所繼續在香港發展 (它們 既在全球調配人手，也在本地招聘律師)，並將業務擴 展至區內其他地方。 明顯地，香港的法律招聘市場已經步出前幾年的盛衰 並在所有業務範疇產生穩定的招聘需求。此外，由於 越來越多的律師事務所正在多元發展並同時鞏固其業 務，這也刺激了需求。隨着市場正以這步伐繼續改 善，今年餘下月份的前景是正面的。n

The Business Enablers

You’re known by the company you keep.

And by the company that keeps you.

We enable you to focus on growing your business You’re in good hands with Tricor looking after your non-core business support functions.

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

Our Services Include: • Business Advisory • Company Formation, Corporate Governance & Company Secretarial • Accounting & Financial Reporting • Cash, Payroll, Treasury & Trust Administration • Initial Public Offerings & Share Registration • China Entry & Consulting • Executive Search & Human Resources Consulting • Management Consulting • Fund Administration Services

www.tricorglobal.com Member of BEA Group

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

• September 2014

HONG KONG LEGAL HISTORY The questions for our quiz question series were prepared by Barrister Douglas Clark, who will this year be publishing a history of the British Supreme Court for China and Japan and the United States Court for China titled Gunboat Justice. Suggestions for additional quiz questions are most welcome.

1. Which Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal began his judicial career as a judge of the District Court?

A. Robert Tang B. Kemal Bohkary C. Joseph Fok D. Patrick Chan

2. Who was the only judge to be appointed directly to the Court of Final Appeal without having served as a full-time judge before?

A. Andrew Li B. Henry Litton C. Charles Ching

3. True or False: The Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction over part of the Mainland of China.

A. True B. False

4. In the 20th Century, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong exercised appellate jurisdiction over which British Court in China?

A. The British Supreme Court for China B. The British Provincial Court in Canton C. The High Court of Weihaiwei D. None of the above

5. Which Attorney-General was appointed as Chief Justice of another British colony before returning to Hong Kong as Chief Justice?

A. Fielding Clarke B. W. Meigh Goodman C. George Phillippo D. William Rees-Davies

#5

6. What was the name of the American ship which was the subject of a prize case in the Hong Kong Supreme Court after it was seized during World War I by the British navy for allegedly being involved in espionage?

A. President Jefferson B. Berlin C. President Roosevelt D. Hanametal

7. Which Chief Justice of Hong Kong was taken into custody while in office?

A. John Hulme B. Atholl MacGregor C. Francis Piggott D. Geoffrey Briggs

8. Which Attorney General of Hong Kong did not ever formally take up the position?

A. George Phillippo B. John Smale C. John Bramston D. William Adams

9. Which Hong Kong Attorney-General joined the United Nations as a senior legal officer after serving as Attorney-General?

A. B. C. D.

Jeremy Mathews John Hobley John Griffiths Maurice Heenan

10. Which Chief Justice gave his name to two sets of Law Reports in England?

A. Gerard Howe B. John Smale C. Henry Blackall D. Denys Roberts

Answers to Hong Kong Legal History Quiz # 4

Contest: The first reader who sends in all ten correct answers to cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com will receive a bottle of Ch. La Croizille 2005 (as per the attached photo) from Global Vintage Wines Centre. The decision of Thomson Reuters is final and conclusive.

104 www.hk-lawyer.org

1. C. The first sitting of the Supreme Court was on 1 October 1844.

2. B. The Supreme Court of Hong Kong became the High Court of Hong Kong from 1 July 1997.

3. B. Michael Thomas is married to Baroness Lydia Dunn.

4. B. Le Pichon was appointed in 1995.

5. D. No woman has been appointed to the Court of Final Appeal as a NonPermanent Judge.

6. A. Brian Keith (now Sir Brian) resigned to take up an appointment as a judge of the High Court in England.

7. C. Anthony Rogers was the only judge appointed to the High Court Bench to have specialised in intellectual property before his appointment.

8. D. No Australian was ever appointed Chief Justice. Noel Power, who was Acting Chief Justice from 1996 to 1997, was Australian.

9. D. John Hulme was suspended by the Governor for drunkenness, but was cleared by the Colonial Secretary.

10. B. Ho Chi Minh was imprisoned for 18 months in Victoria Prison in the 1930s.

September 2014 •

香港法律史測驗 #5 1. 終審法院哪位常任法官，以作為一名地方法院的法官 開始司法生涯？ A. Robert Tang B. Kemal Bohkary C. Joseph Fok D. Patrick Chan

2. 誰是唯一的法官未曾作為一名全職的法官而直接獲委 任至終審法院?

A. Andrew Li B. Henry Litton C. Charles Ching

3 是或非：香港法院擁有中國內地某一部分的司法管轄 權。 A. 是 B. 非

4. 在二十世紀，香港最高法院對在中國的哪個英國法院 行使上訴管轄權？ A. 英國在華最高法院 B. 英國在廣州省級法院 C. 威海衛高等法院 D. 以上都不是

5. 哪位律政司在回香港當首席法官前，被任命為另一個 英國殖民地的首席法官？ A. Fielding Clarke B. W. Meigh Goodman C. George Phillippo D. William Rees-Davies

LEGAL HISTORY QUIZ 法 律 史 測 驗

本測驗中的系列問題由大律師馬錦德（Douglas Clark） 編製，馬錦德將於今年出版有關英國在華及在日最高 法院及美國在華法院歷史的專著，書名為 Gunboat Justice。我們歡迎閣下提交額外測驗問題的建議。

6. 在第一次世界大戰期間， 英國海軍逮捕了據稱參與間諜活 動、成為香港最高法院一個「捕獲案件」標的之美國船的名 字是什麼？ A. President Jefferson B. Berlin C. President Jefferson D. Hanametal

7. 香港的哪位首席法官於在任期間被羈押？ A. John Hulme B. Atholl MaGregor C. Francis Piggott D. Geoffrey Briggs

8. 香港哪位律政司未曾有正式接任職位？ A. George Phillippo B. John Smale C. John Bramston D. William Adams

9. 哪位香港律政司在離職後加入聯合國擔任高級法律人員？ A. Jeremy Matthews B. John Hobley C. John Griffiths D. Maurice Heenan

10. 哪位首席法官以他的名字給兩套英國的法律彙報命名？ A. Gerard Howe B. John Smale C. Henry Blackall D. Denys Roberts

香港法律史測驗#4的答案 1. C. 最高法院在1844年10月1日第一次開庭。 2. B. 香港最高法院從1997年7月1日成為了香港高等法院。 3. B. Michael Thomas與女男爵Lydia Dunn結婚。 4. B. 在1995年Le Pichon獲任命。 5. D. 終審法院未有任命任何一位女性為非常任法官。 6. A. Brian Keith(現時為Brian爵士)辭職，以在英國高等法院出任法官。 7. C. Anthony Rogers 是唯一的一位法官在獲委任為高等法院法官前，專門 從事知識產權工作。

競賽： 首名把全部十條問題的正確答案以電郵發送至cynthia.claytor@ thomsonreuters.com的讀者，可獲贈由名酒坊送出的2005年Ch.La Croizille 美酒乙支（見圖）。湯森路透擁有最終決定權。

8. D. 沒有澳大利亞人曾經被任命為首席法官。Noel Power，是澳大利亞 人，曾在1996年至1997年任署理首席法官。 9. D. John Hulme因為醉酒而被港督停職，但為輔政司宣佈無罪。 10. B. 在1930年代胡志明被判在域多利監獄入獄18個月。

www.hk-lawyer.org 105

For more than half a century, Gammon has played a significant role in the transformation of the great capital cities of Asia. It is our vision not only to continue this role, but as a successful business to take it beyond the shores of Hong Kong and Singapore. The skills and the values we have developed more than 50 years continue to contribute to the growth of Asia, our greater home.

Legal Advisor (Working Location: Hong Kong) (Ref: HK/LEG/616/14/rl) We are looking for a Legal Advisor to join our Legal & Secretarial Services Department reporting to the Group Solicitor and Company Secretary.

You will provide legal advice and assistance to all aspects of the Group’s business and be involved in managing all associated legal and other risks.

In addition to review, negotiation and drafting of legal documentation, you will also be required to assist in managing dispute resolution and legal proceedings, handling corporate and commercial matters, including compliance with corporate governance and other regulatory guidelines, providing general legal support in relation to Gammon’s business, implementation of ethics and code of conduct programmes and training and placement and management of insurance programmes.

Applications are invited from candidates who are ideally qualified solicitors or barristers in Hong Kong, Singapore, UK or other common law jurisdictions (with 6 to 10 years post qualification experience gained in the legal profession in private practice or in-house) but candidates with legal qualifications, training or experience from other jurisdictions will also be considered. You should ideally have the following:• General commercial law and practice experience (contentious and non-contentious); experience in construction law and practice would be an advantage and preferred; • Fluency in both spoken and written English and Chinese are a must (the ability to speak Putonghua as well as Cantonese would certainly be an advantage); and • Strong leadership capability, excellent communication and interpersonal skills, integrity, motivation and ability to work independently.

Interested parties please email your full resume, current and expected salary and contact details to hrdept@gammonconstruction.com or by post to: Ms Rachel Lee Head of Human Resources Services, Hong Kong Gammon Construction Limited 28/F, Devon House, TaiKoo Place, 979 King’s Road, Hong Kong

For more information about Gammon Construction Limited, please visit our website www.gammonconstruction.com

We are an equal opportunity employer and welcome applications from all qualified candidates. Information provided will be treated in strict confidence and only be used for consideration of your application for the relevant post within the Company. Applicants who are not invited for an interview within 6 weeks may consider their application unsuccessful.

REUTERS/YURIKO NAKAO

CIVIL PROCEDURE IN HONG KONG: A GUIDE TO THE MAIN PRINCIPLES, 3RD EDITION A Simply Written Guide to the Main Principle of Civil Procedure

REUTERS/YURIKO NAKAO REUTERS/YURIKO NAKAO Pub Date: August 2014 ISBN: 9789626616185 CIVIL PROCEDUREIN INHONG HONGKONG KONG: : CIVIL PROCEDURE HK$1,100 TO APrice: GUIDE TOTHE THEMAIN MAINPRINCIPLES, PRINCIPLES,3RD 3RDEDITION EDITION AList GUIDE Format: Softback ASimply Simply WrittenGuide Guidetotothe theMain MainPrinciple PrincipleofofCivil CivilProcedure Procedure AAuthor: Dave Lau Written

PubDate: Date:August August2014 2014 Pub ISBN:9789626616185 9789626616185 ISBN: ListPrice: Price:HK$1,100 HK$1,100 List Format:Softback Softback Format: Author:Dave DaveLau Lau Author:

+8522847 28472000 2000 smhk.salesenquiries@thomsonreuters.com smhk.salesenquiries@thomsonreuters.com www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk +852 +852 2847 2000 smhk.salesenquiries@thomsonreuters.com

www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk

your profession our passion Law firm

Commerce & industry

financial services

Corporate associate Hong Kong. 3-4 pQe.

Legal Manager Hong Kong. 3+ pQe

regional Legal Counsel (insurance) Hong Kong. 3-6 pQe.

US law firm seeks a Hong Kong qualified solicitor for its corporate practice. You will be working for a well recognised corporate partner and should have solid Hong Kong M&A experience. Some corporate finance experience and fluency in Cantonese/ Mandarin is preferred. ref: DL 1055497

This rapidly growing Hong Kong based organisation develops and distributes health, skincare, household, and personal care products.

It is currently looking for a Legal Manager with strong commercial experience to join its legal team. This is a newly created role. English and Cantonese language skills are required, Mandarin will be an advantage. ref: JL 1057355

A fast growing European insurer has created an additional head count. You will focus on risk, corporate governance and regulatory matters within a small Asia Pacific regional team based in Hong Kong. A common law qualified lawyer with a minimum of three years post qualification experience is needed. Qualifications and/or experience in company secretarial work are advantageous. ref: DH 1057079

Litigation/arbitration associate Hong Kong. 5+ pQe. US firm seeks an experienced mid – senior associate for general commercial litigation.

The firm’s practice handles litigation in Hong Kong on behalf of a wide range of clients.

You should be a Hong Kong qualified solicitor with a minimum of five years experience in a top tier litigation practice. Chinese speakers preferred. ref: DL 1054564 Banking/finance associate Hong Kong. 3-4 pQe. International law firm seeks a mid level associate to join its HK finance practice. The team services clients all over the region.

You will deal with large, multi-jurisdictional projects. You will have a minimum of three years PQE in banking and finance work.

Chinese language skills would be helpful. You should be passionate about building your career. ref: DL 1056079

Legal Counsel Hong Kong. 4+ pQe. This Hong Kong listed company has a strong focus on gaming. It is currently looking for a lawyer with private practice or listed company experience to join its team. This sole legal counsel will provide legal advice and support on all legal, regulatory and compliance issues.

English and Cantonese language skills are required. ref: JL 1056593 Director (Compliance & regulatory) Hong Kong. 10+ years experience.

This pharmaceuticals enterprise with exciting expansion plans has an opportunity for a senior level individual with strong knowledge of healthcare regulatory matters. Having a legal background will be ideal but the emphasis will be on relevant experience.. Relocation will be considered. Fluency in written and spoken Mandarin is essential. ref: HH 1057182

Corporate Lawyer Hong Kong. 4+ pQe.

senior Legal Counsel Hong Kong. 8-12 years pQe.

UK law firm with strong APAC presence seeks a HK/UK qualified solicitor to join its corporate practice. You will be joining a team with a broad client base including HK, Chinese and foreign companies and FIs. The practice focuses on capital markets and HK IPO/compliance. Chinese language skills are advantageous. ref: DL 1051582

This IT services provider seeks a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with solid experience in commercial agreements. Your ability to work independently and your knowledge of products and services agreements, particularly IT/Telco related, will be highly regarded.

Proficiency in spoken and written English and Chinese is essential. ref: HH 1056778

for more information about these opportunities, contact a Hays Legal expert: Daryl Hodes - in-house (financial services) opportunities e: daryl.hodes@hays.com.hk Daryl Lee - law firm opportunities e: daryl.lee@hays.com.hk Heidi Hui – in-house (commerce & industry) opportunities e: heidi.hui@hays.com.hk Jen Lee – in-house (commerce & industry) opportunities e: jen.lee@hays.com.hk or +852 2521 1460. unit 5803-07, 58/f, The Center, 99 Queen’s road Central, Hong Kong.

hays.com.hk

regulatory Counsel (financial products) Hong Kong. 8+ pQe. A large corporate organiser seeks an investment products focused regulatory lawyer. You will work in financial services policy formulation, as well as new product authorization. You will be a common law qualified lawyer with a minimum of eight years experience in financial services-related legal work. ref: DH 1057466 Legal Counsel (Banking) Hong Kong. 3-8 pQe. A leading banking enterprise seeks a mid-level associate. You will assist in respect of a broad range of issues covering ISDA, corporate and commercial loans, and consumer banking matters including product issuance. You will be a HK qualified lawyer with a minimum of three years PQE. ref: DH 1056855

Department of Justice

Civil Service Vacancies for Government Counsel A career as Government Counsel in the Department of Justice offers a unique opportunity to apply and develop your professional ability in a diverse and challenging job, which would not be available in the private sector, including working with various bureaux, departments as well as law enforcement agencies and participating in legal decisions and processes concerning matters of public importance. We invite applications from both newly qualified lawyers (including those who expect to finish their training in summer 2015) and those with experience. We offer considerable job satisfaction, competitive salaries and fringe benefits, with prospects for promotion to higher positions.

Entry Requirements : Candidates – (a) must be (i) solicitors admitted in a recognised jurisdiction as stipulated under Section 2A and Schedule 2 of the Legal Officers Ordinance (Note : Candidates who will complete their training as a trainee solicitor on or before 30 September 2015 may also apply. Their appointment, however, will be subject to their admission as solicitors); or (ii) barristers with one year’s professional experience since attaining the right to full practice in a recognised jurisdiction as stipulated under Section 2A and Schedule 2 of the Legal Officers Ordinance (Note : Barristers with right to full practice but who do not possess one year’s professional experience since attaining the right to full practice may also apply. If selected, they will enter at an appropriate point below the minimum of the Government Counsel pay scale.

Candidates who will complete their pupillage on or before 30 September 2015 may also apply. Their appointment, however, will be subject to their admission as a barrister with satisfactory completion of pupillage); and (b) must have ‘Level 2’ result Note (1) in the Use of English Notes (2) and (3) paper and ‘Level 1’ result in the Use of Chinese Note (2) paper in the Common Recruitment Examination (CRE). Candidates without the requisite CRE results but who have met the other entry requirements may also apply. Appointment will be subject to their obtaining ‘Level 2’ in the Use of English paper and ‘Level 1’ in the Use of Chinese paper of the CRE on or before 31 August 2015. Candidates who do not have ‘Level 1’ in the Use of Chinese paper of the CRE by the time of appointment may also be appointed. However, only a limited number of applicants who do not possess the requisite Chinese language proficiency may be appointed subject to the operational needs of the Department. Please visit Civil Service Bureau’s homepage at http://www.csb.gov.hk for details of the CRE. Duties : To be deployed in the Department of Justice undertaking criminal advocacy, civil litigation, legal advisory work (criminal, civil and public international law), bilingual legislative drafting, commercial law, mutual legal assistance and legal policy work. A career as a Government Counsel may include at different times postings in any of the several divisions of the Department – the Civil Division, the International Law Division, the Law Drafting Division, the Legal Policy Division and the Prosecutions Division - for operational or career development purposes. More information about the Department’s work can be seen at the website (http://www.doj.gov.hk).

Salary : Master Pay Scale Point 32 to 44 (currently $54,265 to $86,440) per month. Candidates with additional experience are also invited to apply and may be granted increments for previous relevant experience in excess of the stipulated minimum.

Terms of Appointment : A new appointee will be appointed on civil service probationary terms for three years. Upon passage of probation bar, the officer may be considered for appointment on the prevailing permanent terms.

Promotion Prospects : Promotion opportunities to the rank of Senior Government Counsel may arise. The current starting salary of Senior Government Counsel is $89,565 per month.

Notes: (1) The results of the Use of Chinese (UC) and Use of English (UE) papers are classified as ‘Level 2’, ‘Level 1’ or ‘Fail’, with ‘Level 2’ being the highest.

(2) Grade ‘C’ or above and Grade ‘D’ in Use of English of the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE), or equivalent, are accepted as equivalent to ‘Level 2’ and ‘Level 1’ results respectively in the UE paper of the CRE. Grade ‘C’ or above and Grade ‘D’ in Chinese Language and Culture or Chinese Language and Literature of the HKALE are accepted as equivalent to ‘Level 2’ and ‘Level 1’ results respectively in the UC paper of the CRE. (3) Candidates with an overall band of 6.5 or above with no subtest score below band 6 obtained in the same sitting in the Academic Module of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) within the two-year validity period of the test is considered as having met the English language proficiency requirement of the Government Counsel post. The IELTS test must be valid on any date during the period from 5 September 2014 (i.e. the starting day of the application period) to 31 August 2015.

(4) For the purpose of heightening public awareness of the Basic Law (BL) and promoting a culture of learning of BL in the community, assessment of BL knowledge will be included in the recruitment for all civil service jobs. Results of the BL test for degree/professional grades will be one of the considerations to assess the suitability of a candidate but will not affect his/her eligibility for applying for civil service jobs.

As a general principle, the main consideration for suitability for appointment remains a candidate’s qualification, experience and calibre.

How to Apply : 1. Candidates should apply in writing with a completed application form [G.F. 340 (Rev. 3/2013)] and a full C.V. to the Appointments Unit, Department of Justice, Room 3131, 31st floor, United Centre, 95 Queensway, Hong Kong by 26 September 2014 at 6:00 p.m. Hong Kong Time (Enquiries 2529 9420 / 2529 9433). Please ensure that sufficient postage is paid if the application is sent by post. The C.V. should at least include the following information (a) gradings of the subjects taken in public examinations from secondary education onwards (with exact dates of scoring the results); (b) results in LLB, CPE, PCLL, Law Society Final and Bar Final examinations and corresponding examinations in another recognised jurisdiction listing the gradings of the subjects taken (with copies of transcripts and certificates); (c) exact date and place of admission/call (for trainee solicitors and pupils, please give the date of completion of training or pupillage); (d) employment records with detailed description of duties; and (e) work preferences, in order of priority.

The application form [G.F. 340 (Rev. 3/2013)] is obtainable from any Public Enquiry Service Centre of the District Office, Home Affairs Department or any Job Centre of the Employment Services Division, Labour Department. The form can also be downloaded from the Civil Service Bureau’s website (http://www.csb.gov.hk).

2. On-line application can also be made through the Civil Service Bureau’s website (http://www.csb.gov.hk). Candidates who apply online should submit their C.V. by post with sufficient postage to the Appointments Unit, Department of Justice, Room 3131, 31st floor, United Centre, 95 Queensway, Hong Kong or by fax (fax no. 2520 2601) within one week after close of application period.

3. If candidates fail to provide the C.V. and/or submit the completed application form [G.F. 340 (Rev. 3/2013)] as requested, their applications will not be considered.

4. A recruitment seminar will be organised for members of the Law Society of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Bar Association on 17 September 2014. Please pay attention to their circulars. Information folders with application forms will be distributed at the seminar.

5. If no acknowledgement / confirmation e-mail is received after five working days from the closing date for application, please immediate contact this Department by phone at 2529 9420 / 2529 9433.

6. Candidates who are selected for interview will normally receive an invitation in about six to eight weeks after the closing date for application. Those who are not invited for interview may assume that their applications are unsuccessful.

General Notes: (1) Candidates must be permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region at the time of appointment.

(2) As an Equal Opportunities Employer, the Government is committed to eliminating discrimination in employment. The vacancy advertised is open to all applicants meeting the basic entry requirement irrespective of their disability, sex, marital status, pregnancy, age, family status, sexual orientation and race.

(3) Civil service vacancies are posts on the civil service establishment. Candidates selected for these vacancies will be appointed on civil service terms of appointment and conditions of service and will become civil servants on appointment.

(4) The entry pay, terms of appointment and conditions of service to be offered are subject to the provisions prevailing at the time the offer of appointment is made.

(5) The information on the maximum pay point is for reference only and may be subject to changes.

(6) Fringe benefits include paid leave, medical and dental benefits, and where appropriate, assistance in housing.

(7) Where a large number of candidates meet the specified entry requirements, the recruiting department may devise shortlisting criteria to select the better qualified candidates for further processing. In these circumstances, only shortlisted candidates will be invited to attend recruitment examination and/or interview.

(8) It is Government policy to place people with a disability in appropriate jobs wherever possible. If a disabled candidate meets the entry requirements, he/she will be invited to attend the selection interview/written examination without being subject to further shortlisting.

(9) Applications from serving civil servants at Government Counsel rank would not normally be considered.

(10) Civil service vacancies information contained in this column is also available on the GovHK on the Internet at http://www.gov.hk.

(11) Towards the application deadline, our on-line system would likely be overloaded due to large volume of applications. To ensure timely completion of your on-line application, it is advisable to submit the application as early as possible.

* ALL APPLICATIONS WILL BE HANDLED IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.

MICHAEL MICHAELPAGE PAGELEGAL LEGAL

SPECIALISTS SPECIALISTSIN IN LEGAL LEGAL RECRUITMENT RECRUITMENT We are a specialist legal team within the leading recruitment brand of PageGroup. Our strong client network sees us working We are a international specialist legal the leading recruitment brand PageGroup.

Our strong client network sees us as working closely with andteam localwithin law firms, global and local listed and of private corporations, financial institutions, as well Hong closely with international and local law firms, global and local listed and private corporations, financial institutions, as well as Hong Kong regulatory bodies.

Kong regulatory bodies.

PRIVATE PRACTICE PRIVATE PRACTICE

Corporate Lawyer Corporate Lawyer

IN-HOUSE CORPORATE IN-HOUSE CORPORATE

Regulatory Lawyer Regulatory Lawyer

Head of Legal / Deputy Head of Legal Legal Manager

› 4 – 6 Years PQE › 4 – 6 Years PQE › Leading Global Law Firm › Leading Global Law Firm

› 5 – 7 Years PQE › 5 – 7 Years PQE › Leading International Law Firm › Leading International Law Firm

› 12+ Years PQE › 4 – 6 Years PQE › Sizable Multinational Conglomerate › Established Property Developer

M&A Lawyer M&A Lawyer

Banking Banking&&Finance FinanceLawyer Lawyer

Transaction Counsel Legal Counsel

› 3 ›– 37 –Years PQEPQE 7 Years › Global LawLaw Firm › Global Firm

› 2› –2 5– Years PQE 5 Years PQE › Leading International › Leading InternationalLaw LawFirm Firm

› ›4+ PQEPQE 5 –Years 8 Years › ›Leading E-Commerce Business Private Investment Holding Company

OurOur client is isseeking and competent highly competent client seekingan an energetic energetic and candidate candidate to join theircorporate growing practice. corporate The to join their growing Thepractice. ideal candidate ideal candidate haveacademic strong academic background, should have should first class qualifications, be Hong be Hong Kong qualified common have Kong or common lawor qualified, aslaw wellqualified as have and strong M&A M&A or any experience from a top tier law firm.

Youtier experience with somegained PE experience gained from a top will law be firm. familiar drafting and negotiating of Youwith must be familiar with draftingagreements and negotiating joint-ventures andand M&A transactions.

Exposure in handling joint-ventures M&A transactions.

Exposure in handling China acquisitions andand commercial agreements willwill bebe anan China acquisitions commercial agreements advantage.

TheThe successful candidate must have at at least 3 3 advantage. successful candidate must have least years of PQE gained in corporate transactions or or related years of PQE gained in corporate transactions related matters.

Excellent skills in communication andand presentation matters.

Excellent skills in communication presentation are preferred. preferred.You Youmust must proficient in English.

Chinese bebe proficient in English and Chinese. language skills would be advantageous but not mandatory.

Ref: H2308420 Ref: H2308420

A leading international A leading internationallaw lawfirm firmisislooking lookingfor fora aHong HongKong Kong qualified 5 years of PQE join their qualifiedlawyer lawyer with with 22toto 5 years of PQE to jointo their Banking banking & finance ideal candidate must & Finance practice.practice.

The idealThe candidate must be familiar bewith familiar with syndicated and bilateral bank lending syndicated and bilateral bank lending transactions. transactions. structuring, negotiating, Experience inExperience structuring, in negotiating, documenting and documenting and closing complex cross-border finance closing complex cross-border finance transactions would transactions would The alsoideal be candidate preferable.

You be also be preferable. must be must organised, organised and an ability excellent attention to manage detail, meticulous andhave have the to lead a team and asa well as aofdemonstrated ability to leadCantonese a team and portfolio clients. Proficiency in English, and manage a portfolio of The clients. must bewill proficient in Chinese十is required. idealYou candidate be a Hong English, Cantonese andalthough Chinese.registered Althoughforeign Hong lawyers Kong Kong qualified lawyer, qualified lawyerslaw are qualifications preferred, registered lawyers with common will alsoforeign be considered.

Ref: H2133960 with common law qualifications will also be considered.

Ref: H2133960

You will beinvestment joining a leading focusing A private holdinge-commerce company, withplatform, assets exceeding on international and M&A projects.

Serving as RMB160 billion,investment is seeking an independent in-house lawyer the primary legal counsel execution, monitoring and to join their group.

This is afor new opportunity for a capable integration of investment and M&A you willfor draft, lawyer to oversee compliance, legal projects, and risk matters the negotiate investment documents.

You will group andand its review listed subsidiaries.

On a global scale, youwork will with investment teams ensure transactions, compliance with policies contribute to a range of to corporate provide legal and procedures, on company top of providing post-transaction advice and handle secretarial matters. The legal ideal support, andwill be responsible for8identifying legal and regulatory candidate possess 5 to years of PQE, ideally gained matters. ideal candidate will be qualified in Hong Kong, from an The in-house role, although those coming from private US or UKmay andalso possess at least 4You years of PQE in private practice be considered. should be familiar with equity / venture capital investmentscapital and M&A projects. corporate finance, restructurings, markets andThose M&A. with morelanguage experience will considered forfora this more senior Chinese skills willbenot be required position.

Ref: H2333840. position.

You must be proficient in English and Chinese.

Ref: H2273720

Our client is a leading global law firm who is looking to Our client is a leading global law firm and they are looking hire a hardworking, ambitious Corporate Lawyer. The for a hardworking and ambitious Corporate Lawyer successful candidate will possess at least 4 to 6 years of with 4 to 6 years of PQE. As the Corporate Lawyer, you relevant working experience and will be expected to work will be expected to work independently and oversee very independently. You will oversee transactions across transactions in Hong Kong, China and the US. You will Hong Kong, China and the US. You will work alongside work alongside the hiring partner focusing mainly on the hiring partner, focusing mainly on IPOs, private equity IPOs, private equity as well as M&A deals. This is an and M&A deals. This is an excellent opportunity with highly excellent opportunity with promising career prospects. promising career prospects. The ideal candidate would The ideal candidate will be qualified in Hong Kong, a be qualified in Hong Kong as well as in another common common law jurisdiction, or the US. You should possess law jurisdiction, or the US, and possess substantial substantial relevant experience from leading international relevant experience from leading international law firms. law firms. You must be proficient in English and Chinese.

You must also be proficient in English and Chinese.

Ref: H2354520 Ref: H2354520

Our client is a top-tier regulatory practice within the Our client is a top tier regulatory practice within the region. region. They are currently seeking a well qualified They are currently seeking a well qualified litigator who litigator who possesses broad financial litigation and/ possesses broad financial litigation and/or contentious or contentious regulatory experience to join their growing regulatory experience to join their growing practice. The practice. The successful candidate will be joining their successful candidate will join their leading team and leading team and have the opportunity to work alongside gain the opportunity to work alongside major partners major partners in the field. You must 案also be a Hong in the field. You must be a Hong Kong or common law Kong qualified lawyer or common law qualified lawyer qualified lawyer who possesses 5 to 7 years of PQE who possesses 5 to 7 years of PQE in this practice area. in this practice. Prior training and work experience Prior training and work experience gained from leading gained from leading international law firms would be international law firms would be essential. You must be essential. You must be proficient in English. Proficiency proficient in English. Candidates with Chinese language in Chinese would be advantageous but not mandatory. skills would be advantageous although not mandatory.

Ref: H2307930 Ref: H2307930

Taking on a leadership role and working at Group corporate An established and leading property developer is currently level, you will advise on all legal matters within the company seeking a Legal Manager to join their team. You will and work with subsidiary legal teams to oversee those oversee a range of legal matters for the group on a global within the subsidiary companies. You will advise on ongoing scale, including the drafting and reviewing of a variety transactions for the Group including M&A deals and corporate of agreements, as well as advising on potential legal compliance and listing rules related matters. You will oversee issues and risks of on-going commercial and litigation company secretarial matters with the assistance of a senior matters. They are keen to take on lawyers with strong company secretary. You will be a mature lawyer with at least commercial litigation and general commercial legal 12 years of PQE and possess experience from a Hong Kong skills. You will be Hong Kong qualified with 4 to 6 years listed company. You will be familiar with M&A transactions of PQE. In-house experience will be highly regarded, and Hong Kong listing rules. Supervisory experience in although candidates from reputable law firms will also be overseeing company secretarial functions is preferred. considered. You must be proficient in English and Chinese.

You must be proficient in English, Cantonese and Chinese.

Ref: H2338890 Ref: H2389950

apply, visit www.michaelpage.com.hk/applyquoting quotingthe thereference referencenumber numberor orcontact contactthe thefollowing following consultants: consultants: ToTo apply, visit www.michaelpage.com.hk/apply

Legal Legal

EXCLUSIVE JOB EXCLUSIVE JOB OF MONTH THE OF THE MONTH

Legal Counsel Derivatives › 6+ Years PQELawyer

› 6+ Years PQE US Fashion House › Prominent › Top Investment Bank seeking a Legal Counsel to support the OurTier client is currently Group regionally.

Youis will manage daily operational tasks A leading equities team seeking for a lawyer to join at the including and implementing department policies for senior end ofdesigning VP level, with a view to be promoted to Director. of store lease covering and licenses, compliance Youthe willmanagement oversee the notes business retail platform andand regulatory matters, as well IP issues.

You gain will work with all private placements across theas region.

You will excellent business assisting them on contracts for awarrants, full range of exposure tofunctions, bespoke products covering Hong Kong legallinked services.

You maystructured also participate in M&A, equity instruments, notes and workhandle closelybusiness with company restructuring and more. candidate theintegration, business on proprietary strategies.

You will The be aideal structured will possess leastaround 6 years5oftoPQE corporate products lawyeratwith 10 within years in-house of PQE ideally obtained within the space of notes. experience roles on a regional scale.

Those Any with distribution strong leasing experience across structured notes andof debt instruments will be highly and QDII, knowledge in the area general corporate commercial regarded. ofregarded. junior to You mid must level be seniority would be mattersCandidates will be highly proficient in English considered for anRef: AVPH2367800 or VP role instead. You must be proficient and Chinese. in Chinese. Ref: H2355830

FINANCIAL SERVICES FINANCIAL SERVICES

DCM & ECM Lawyer In-House Legal Counsel

Corporate Banking / Funds Lawyer Prime Services Lawyer

Joining a prominent and sizable media company as a A leading Hong Kong listed television broadcaster is Senior Legal Counsel, you will support the Group and its currently seeking a Legal Counsel to join their team. subsidiaries on a variety of legal matters across Greater Reporting directly to the Head of Legal, you will support China. You will be responsible for advising on legal legal matters with a regional coverage and global business opinions and structured solutions for M&A projects, as involvement. You will handle a wide range of advisory work well as review and negotiate related documentations. focusing on general in house commercial work for the listed You will be aware of the latest development in rules company, and handling corporate activities such as Hong and regulations affecting the business and make Kong listing rules, regulatory compliance and joint ventures, recommendations on Group policies and guidelines. The on top of general commercial activities. The ideal candidate ideal candidate will be based in Hong Kong, with at least 8 will have 4 to 6 years of PQE. Candidates with experience years of PQE gained within a Hong Kong listed company. gained within Hong Kong listed companies will be highly You must be familiar with the Hong Kong listing rules and regarded. You must be proficient in English and Chinese.

M&A transactions. You must also be proficient in English Ref: H2293460. and Chinese. Ref: H2318950

Reporting to the Head of Legal & Compliance, you will Working closely with the Senior Legal Counsel, you will oversee ECM and DCM transactions across the region be responsible for the structuring and documentation of including bonds, liability management exercises, floating securities and structured transactions. You will assist to rate notes, MTN establishment and private placements. provide legal advice directly to the relevant business units, You will support the ECM and DCM businesses, advise as well as review and negotiate contracts in both English on developmental strategies and identify opportunities. and Chinese. You must have exposure to the brokerage You will provide support to ECM and M&A departments business and be familiar with SFO, Companies’ Ordinance, on agreements. You will possess at least 4 years of PQE, SFC’s licensing regime, ISDA documents, HKEX rules. The obtained in DCM and/or ECM, plus transactional experience ideal candidate will be a Hong Kong qualified lawyer with and willingness to handle a range of work, particularly in 3 to 5 years of PQE gained from leading law firms or in regulatory, sales and trading. You must be proficient in an in-house environment, with expertise in securities and English and Chinese. Whilst in-house experience is valued, structured transactions. You must be proficient in English lawyers from private practice will also be considered. Those and Chinese. Ref: H2311660 with secondment exposure are preferred. Ref: H2390930

Reporting to the Senior Counsel, you will support the Our client is a leading investment bank who is seeking corporate and private banking businesses in the region. You a junior to mid level lawyer, ideally trained with leading will handle a variety asset management and funds matters, international law firms, to join the team focusing on including offshore and mutual funds, ETFs and related prime services matters. You will be looking at a regional marketing materials. You will draft and review documents coverage including areas of clearings, listed and non-listed such as distribution and investment agreements, oversee derivatives, ISDA negotiation, onboard documentation, and corporate banking matters with focus towards institutional be relied on to provide legal advice. The ideal candidate will clients and manage corporate secretarial matters. You will be a qualified lawyer with at least 2 years of PQE obtained have at least 6 years of PQE with in-house financial institution from a top tier law firm, with eagerness to move in-house, experience including funds and banking experience, ideally as well as to work closely with the business. You must in private banking and/or corporate banking businesses. have strong regulatory exposure particularly with the HKEC You will be willing to take on a variety of matters and enjoy guidelines as well as other relevant rules. This is an AVP to working in a dynamic environment. You must be proficient VP level position. Ref: H2337950 in English and Chinese. Ref: H2398260

Legal Counsel Counsel Legal

Juniorand Derivatives Lawyer Equity Fixed Income Lawyer

Banking Lawyer OTC Derivatives & Cash Equities Lawyer

5+Years YearsPQE PQE ›› 8+ Global Commercial VehiclesConglomerate Company ›› Established and Prominent

› ›2 1+ – 7Years Years PQE PQE Top TierInvestment InvestmentBank Bank › ›Leading

› 3Years – 8 Years › 5+ PQE PQE › Leading Commercial › Leading Global FinancialBank Institution

Our client is an established global vehicles Joining a well established team of 8commercial lawyers, you will manufacturer.

Reporting directlyscale. to the Head of Legal, you support the Group on a regional You will work closely will manage all legal documents the company and with various businesses includingbetween motor trading, property, its manufacturers andservices tradingand partners primarily in Hong retail, hotels, financial more. You will handle a Kong of and China.

Youincluding will provide legal support to various range legal matters investment, M&A, regulatory departments incompliance, Hong Kong, as well as liaiseand withgeneral offices investigations, dispute resolution, worldwide.commercial You will manage all commercial matters corporate matters.

You will liaise with including varying the handling of lease agreements and company levels of seniority, and have the opportunity to worksecretarial directly matters for the group. The ideal will possess at least with senior management.

The candidate ideal candidate will possess 5 years PQE, with experience gained from anHong international at least of 8 years of PQE with strong China and Kong in-house corporate.

Those with manufacturing experience, experience in the area of general corporate commercial especiallyYou in the mechanical engineering field willChinese. be highly matters. must be proficient in English and Ref: H2321220 regarded.

You must be proficient in English and Chinese.

Ref: H2190530

to Head of Department, you work with Senior A Reporting global bank is seeking a common lawwillqualified lawyer to support global markets region) toCounsels join the team, with the a regional focus on(Asia equity and covering fixed fixed income, equity and prime brokerage.

You income will oversee legal income.

You will oversee a variety of fixed trade matters and related to derivatives, ISDA, masters, documentation products equity linked products, as well as negotiate andoversee confirmations, asof well as work closely with theand business and a range distribution agreements term to provideYou relevant legal analysis, legal2advice negotiations. sheets. will possess at least years and of PQE obtainedThe successful candidate will have gained at least 1 yearderivatives of experience from a leading international law firm, with derivatives and structured products including exposure to orin capital markets background.

Exposure in structured ISDA, ideally with strong knowledge in drafting note platforms, distribution agreements wouldand benegotiating useful, master agreements. experience gained asrelated is experience in advisingCandidates on SFO orwith other regulations. from law firms withproducts, a keen interest an in-house will be Knowledge of OTC ULI orinwarrants willcareer be a plus considered.

Those whoThis haveis trained sizable firms are though not mandatory. an AVPwith to VP levellaw position.

Ref: H2349890. preferred.

Proficiency in Chinese is useful but not mandatory.

Ref: H2380280

Reporting to the Head of Legal a team of 5 Joining a well established team and with working over 20in lawyers, youon willa draft reviewlevel legal position documents related to youlawyers, will take mid and to senior focusing and products.

Youmaster will provide legal advice on banking a rangeservices of OTC, cash equities, agreements/ on as complaints and potential You opportunity will work with ISDA well as brokerage.

You disputes. will have the departments of the and bankthe in advising ad-hoc projects to various work closely with traders brokerage business or support regulatory compliance related Keeping abreast with from your team.

Thematters. ideal candidate will on all 4regulatory you will/ensure possess to 6 yearsupdates of PQEand withchanges, OTC derivatives equity the bank is inexperience. compliance with all guidelines andconfirmations regulations. The derivatives Knowledge around successful candidate will be a Hong lawyer is key and exposure in cash equities willKong be a qualified plus though at least The 3 years of PQE, gained in general banking, loans notwith required. successful candidate will be able to andinfinancing.

You will be well versed with Banking Ordinance work a busy environment within a demanding business be familiar with banking set out

by HKMA andand meet tight deadlines.

This guidelines is a VP level position.

Ref: H1494850 and SFC. You must be proficient in English and Chinese.

Ref: H2305150

› 8+ Years PQE › 4 – 6 Years PQE › Sizable Media Company (Hong Kong Listed) › Prominent Television Broadcaster

› 4+ Years PQE › 3+ Years PQE › Reputable Investment Bank › China-Based International Investment Bank

› 6 – 12 Years PQE › 2 – 7 Years PQE › Global Bank › Top Tier Investment Bank

Olga Olga Yung, Yung,

Carolyn CarolynWoo, Woo,

Samantha Fong, Samantha Fong,

Director, Director,Michael MichaelPage PageLegal Legal (+852) (+852)2848 28484791 4791 olgayung@michaelpage.com.hk olgayung@michaelpage.com.hk

Manager, Manager,Michael MichaelPage PageLegal Legal (+852) (+852)2848 28484793 4793 carolynwoo@michaelpage.com.hk carolynwoo@michaelpage.com.hk

Consultant, Michael Page Legal Consultant, Michael Page Legal (+852) 2848 4792 (+852) 2848 4792 samanthafong@michaelpage.com.hk samanthafong@michaelpage.com.hk

GetGet Connected.

StayStay Ahead.

Connected.

Ahead.

Specialists in in legal recruitment Specialists legal recruitment www.michaelpage.com.hk www.michaelpage.com.hk

#15065 #15117

Senior Legal Counsel Legal Counsel

SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENT LEGAL PROFESSIONALS FINANCIAL SERVICES LEGAL COUNSEL LEADING INVESTMENT FUND

LITIGATOR GLOBAL INVESTMENT BANK

OAA/541290

OAA/560020

An award-winning PRC investment fund is seeking a talented Legal Counsel to join the expanding business. Reporting to the Head of Legal and Compliance, you will be responsible for a wide variety of corporate commercial and contentious matters in addition to fund specific product matters.

A market leading investment bank offers a rare opportunity for a junior Litigator to join the team. Reporting directly to the Head of Litigation, you will be responsible for a variety of matters across the APAC region including litigation and disputes, internal/external investigations, and gathering evidence.

Key Requirements:

Key Requirements:

■ a minimum of three years’ PQE; Hong Kong or Commonwealth qualified ■ background in funds law; corporate, commercial and contentious will also be considered ■ fluency in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese is essential

■ a minimum of two years’ PQE; Hong Kong or Commonwealth qualified ■ good knowledge of banking/regulatory rules and regulations, and current issues ■ strong commercial awareness and analytical skills ■ Chinese languages are beneficial but not essential

FINANCIAL SERVICES

PRIVATE PRACTICE

SENIOR COMPLIANCE MANAGER LEADING GLOBAL INVESTMENT BANK

LITIGATION ASSOCIATE LEADING GLOBAL LAW FIRM

LQL/554780

TXS/557590

A highly reputable US investment banking group is seeking an experienced compliance professional to join their team. Reporting to the regional head, you will be responsible for all related conflict checks, trade pre-clearance request, and User Acceptance Testing.

An elite law firm is looking for an energetic associate to join its top ranked litigation team. In this position, you will gain exposure to some of the most challenging and engaging work, and represent global clients including large banks and financial institutions alike. You will act for clients in general litigation and contentious regulatory disputes and investigations.

Key Requirements: ■ a minimum of eight years’ experience in compliance within the financial services industry, or with a securities exchange or securities regulator ■ relevant experience in disclosure of interests and surveillance for institutional equities and fixed income businesses will be an advantage ■ Chinese languages are beneficial but not essential

Key Requirements: ■ a minimum of three to five years’ PQE; Hong Kong or Commonwealth qualified ■ strong academic background with exposure to top tier law firms; candidate from the SFC will also be considered ■ experience in banking and financial litigation and regulatory matters ■ fluency in English is required; Cantonese and Mandarin is advantageous

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL GLOBAL LUXURY GROUP

LEGAL COUNSEL LEADING IT MULTINATIONAL

EQA/554450

EQA/554020

This leading luxury group with a wide portfolio of worldwide renowned brands is seeking an experienced Senior Legal Counsel to join the team in Hong Kong.

Reporting to the Legal Director, you will be responsible for a variety of legal matters in the Asia region with a focus on lease and tenancy work.

This leading IT multinational providing hardware and software technology worldwide is seeking a seasoned Legal Counsel to join the business based in Hong Kong. Reporting to the Head of Legal, you will be responsible for a wide variety of corporate commercial work for the Hong Kong market.

Key Requirements:

Key Requirements:

■ a minimum of seven years’ PQE; Commonwealth qualified, ideally coming from an international law firm or multinational corporation ■ Commercial leasing/tenancy agreements experience ■ experience in Southeast Asia region especially the Singaporean market will be highly advantageous ■ fluency in English and Mandarin is essential

■ a minimum of five years’ PQE; Hong Kong or Commonwealth qualified ■ extensive corporate commercial experience with good exposure to M&A transactions ■ fluency in English and Cantonese is essential

TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THESE EXCITING LEGAL CAREER OPPORTUNITIES, PLEASE CONTACT: Oliver Allcock Estefania Altuve Tara Shah

+852 2103 5317 +852 2103 5328 +852 2013 5360

www.robertwalters.com.hk

oliver.allcock@robertwalters.com.hk estefania.altuve@robertwalters.com.hk tara.shah@robertwalters.com.hk

Ricky Mui Lulu Liu

+852 2103 5370 +852 2161 9413

ricky.mui@robertwalters.com.hk lulu.liu@robertwalters.com.hk

ROBERT WALTERS HONG KONG • 20/F NEXXUS BUILDING • 41 CONNAUGHT ROAD CENTRAL • CENTRAL • HONG KONG

Hong Kong • Singapore • Beijing • Shanghai

Private Practice M&A PARTNER

In-House SHANGHAI

8+ PQE

Top tier US law firm is seeking to expand its China business with a senior lawyer with strong leadership qualities and a solid network of contacts. Up and coming senior associates/counsel will also be considered. Mandarin required. (HKL 11149)

REAL ESTATE

SHANGHAI

6+ PQE

A leading international law firm is looking for a senior real estate lawyer for its Shanghai office. You should have gained your commercial property experience with an international law firm. Fluent Mandarin and English is required for this position. (HKL 10926)

LITIGATION

SEOUL/HONG KONG 4 – 8 PQE

Leading international law firm is looking for a mid-to-senior-level litigation associate. Excellent opportunity to engage on high-profile litigation cases. Solid practice experience gained from international law firms is required. Fluent Korean (written & spoken) is desirable. Open to consider more senior candidates for Counsel level role. (HKL 11116)

CONVEYANCING

HONG KONG

4 – 8 PQE

Well-established international law firm is seeking a conveyancing lawyer. This position is an excellent opportunity to work with a well-regarded partner and engage in high-end property transactions. Open to lawyers from well-established local firms and Cantonese is required. (HKL 11139)

LITIGATION

HONG KONG

2 – 5 PQE

Leading litigation practice has headcount to hire an Associate with solid experience in contentious regulatory/litigation, especially in finance and banking litigation. Strong academics, excellent interpersonal and communication skills and legal experience gained at a top tier international or reputable local law firm.

Mandarin preferred but not essential. (HKL 11072)

PROJECT FINANCE

SINGAPORE

2 – 5 PQE

SENIOR COUNSEL

CHINA

8+ PQE

A Fortune 500 Pharma company is looking for a senior legal counsel to join their R&D department to be based in Shanghai. Eight years of legal experience including two or three years from a leading law firm is required.

Overseas qualifications will be a plus. Strong communication skills in both English and Mandarin are essential. (HKL 11112)

CORPORATE IT COUNSEL

SINGAPORE

4 – 8 PQE

Our client, a large US software company is seeking a corporate counsel to join its regional team in Singapore. Strong international experience is critical and the ideal candidate will have a corporate/M&A background along with good IT sector related knowledge. (HKL 10868)

LITIGATION

HONG KONG

BANKING LAWYER

HONG KONG

COMMERCIAL/ LITIGATION HONG KONG

3 – 6 PQE

A privately-owned corporation has headcount to hire a commercial and litigation lawyer to handle a mix of both general commercial and commercial litigation work. Good command of both spoken and written English and Chinese language skills is required. (HKL 11053)

LEGAL PRODUCT SPECIALIST HONG KONG

PARALEGAL

IN-HOUSE PARALEGAL

HONG KONG

3 – 6 PQE

Top-tier PRC bank is seeking a banking lawyer to join a high-caliber legal team. The role is designed to provide a first step legal advice to the retail banking business. The ideal candidate possesses 3-6 PQE gained from a leading financial institution and they provide a competitive remuneration package. (HKL 11114)

This leading international law firm is looking for a mid-level project finance associate who will focus on PPP work. This is a fantastic opportunity for those who are interested in getting top quality work in a premier practice. Prior experience in energy, power or construction projects will be a major advantage.

(HKL 10940)

A leading prestigious international law firm seeks a paralegal to support their banking team in Hong Kong. Candidates must have experience in handling lengthy contracts or agreements. Excellent English and Chinese language skill, including Mandarin is essential. (HKL 11126)

3 – 6PQE

A high profile conglomerate seeks a commercially astute lawyer to assist on matters across both employment and commercial litigation. The employment advice will span both contentious and non-contentious matters, while the disputes issues will include contractual, suppliers, personal injuries, IP and discrimination claims. (HKL 10862

NQ – 5 PQE

A leading Information Service provider is seeking a Product Specialist to join their Legal product division. The successful candidate is expected to oversee its strategic accounts across the region by providing training and product demos. Must be qualified lawyers with solid business acumen. (HKL 11140)

HONG KONG

A well-known financial institution seeks a paralegal to support their legal team in the Hong Kong office. At least 2-3 years of commercial and banking experience gained in financial institutions/ reputable or international law firms. Fluent English and Cantonese is required. (HKL 11094)

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

Hong Kong

Singapore

Beijing

Shanghai

(852) 2920 9100 als@alsrecruit.com

(65) 6557 4163 singapore@alsrecruit.com

(86) 10 6567 8728 beijing@alsrecruit.com

(86) 21 6372 1058 shanghai@alsrecruit.com

Private Practice Legal Roles Our recruitment consultants are highly experienced professionals (with native Cantonese and Mandarin language skills) and are experts in legal and compliance recruitment.

Having operated in Asia for over 15 years, we have built an outstanding reputation among the legal network, working with the world’s leading law firms, and the in-house legal teams of multinational corporations, global & local banks, financial services institutions and household names. For the very best job opportunities in Hong Kong, across Asia and the world, contact us today.

Disputes . NQ+

Junior commercial litigation role with a leading international law firm. Work will include disputes relating to complex financial transactions and investigations. Candidates need to be HK-qualified and have fluent Mandarin language skills.

Ref: 195440 Hong Kong

Banking . 4-10+ years’ PQE

Magic Circle firm seeks a banking lawyer with 2-4 years’ experience with general Banking experience including structured/leveraged financings, project finance and real estate finance. Preference for candidates based in Hong Kong.

Ref: 194870 Hong Kong

Employment . 5-7+ years’ PQE

International firm is currently seeking a junior employment lawyer. Work will include a broad mix of employment mandates across Asia, including transactional, nontransactional and advisory employment work. Preference for candidates with APAC experience. Ref: 195490 Hong Kong

US Capital Markets . 2-5+ years’ PQE

Highly regarded US capital markets practice is hiring an Associate in Hong Kong to further strengthen the team. Ideal candidate will hold a JD from a leading law school and US admission. Fluent spoken Mandarin and proficient written Chinese required.

Ref: 197350 Hong Kong

Corporate Services . 5+ years’ PQE

A new position - corporate services lawyer for a well-established practice. M&A experience and strong working knowledge of the HK Companies Ordinance required.

Great opportunity for a transactional lawyer looking for a good work/life balance.

Ref: 197230 Hong Kong

M&A Associate . 2-6+ years’ PQE Jennifer Donnelly

This top-tier UK firm is looking to hire experienced corporate lawyers with solid M&A experience in Hong Kong. Private equity experience an advantage. Hong Kong or equivalent qualifications and fluent Mandarin skills are required for consideration.

Ref: 193020 Hong Kong

Head of Taylor Root Private Practice

Taylor Root is pleased to welcome Jennifer Donnelly to Taylor Root. Jennifer has joined to manage the private practice team in Hong Kong and to concentrate on legal recruitment at the Partner and senior level in Hong Kong and the Asia region.

For legal roles in Private Practice, please call Jennifer Donnelly or Hamish Richmond at Taylor Root on +852 2973 6333 or email jenniferdonnelly@taylorroot.com / hamishrichmond@taylorroot.com

taylorroot.com @TaylorRootLegal taylor-root

PART OF THE SR GROUP Brewer Morris | Carter Murray | Frazer Jones | SR Search | Taylor Root UK | EUROPE | MIDDLE EAST | Asia | AUSTRALIA | OFFSHORE EA Licence Number: 12C6222

In-House DEPUTY GROUP LEGAL COUNSEL

HONG KONG

Private Practice 10+ years

US SECURITIES PARTNER

HONG KONG

12+ years

Well-known listed conglomerate seeks a senior lawyer with strong listing rules, compliance & general commercial experience. The role reports to the GC & senior management. You must have solid managerial & leadership experience. Business level Chinese skills are essential. HKL4817

Leading US firm with a strong platform in Asia seeks to add a US Securities Partner to the team. You will have varied capital markets experience, including high yield debt plus a strong network of contacts. This firm offers a top tier global US capital markets practice. HKL4882

LEGAL COUNSEL CO/CO

EMPLOYMENT

HONG KONG

9-13 years

HONG KONG

7-10 years

Major player in the jewelry industry seeks a senior lawyer to join its legal team in HK. The role will involve broad corporate & commercial work & will work closely with the GC, as well as the business. Attractive remuneration & good work life balance on offer. Chinese is essential. HKL4902

Premier UK firm seeks a senior employment lawyer to run its employment practice in HK. You will have the opportunity to work with blue chip clients.

The ideal candidate will have strong experience in advising non-contentious employment & incentives matters. HK qualification is essential. HKL4850

BANKING

FUNDS ASSOCIATE/COUNSEL

HONG KONG

7-10 years

HONG KONG

4-8 years

Global bank with an expanding legal team seeks an additional senior lawyer to support its corporate banking & trade finance business. You will have at least seven yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience at a law firm or bank & ideally some trade finance experience. Chinese language skills not essential. HKL4919

Top tier international firm seeks a senior associate or counsel for its wellregarded funds team. You should have PE funds formation experience & downstream PE experience is a plus. Overseas candidates will be considered. Real partnership prospects for the right candidate. HKL4870

LEGAL DOCUMENTATION

US ECM/DCM

HONG KONG

3+ years

SINGAPORE/HONG KONG

2-4 years

Global i-bank seeks a senior ISDA documentation specialist to join its team.

You must have experience in drafting ISDA confirmations, experience with ISDA 2002 Equity Definitions & roll out of CFTC & EMIR confirmation rules.

Native English language skills a must. HKL4930

US law firm seeks an associate to handle a mixture of IPO & debt finance work for its Singapore & HK offices. You must be a US JD candidate with two to four yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; PQE. Chinese language skills are not essential.

Relocation package & US rates on offer for the right candidate. HKL4907

FINANCIAL SERVICES

LITIGATION

HONG KONG

3-5 years

HONG KONG

3-5 years

Boutique i-bank seeks a legal counsel with experience in financial services, financial products or regulatory matters to join its team. This role will also cover compliance work including SFC matters, fixed income & brokerdealer work as well as capital adequacy issues. HKL4858

Magic Circle firm seeks a mid-level litigator to join its team in HK. The role will cover a broad range of work including banking & finance litigation with a particular focus on regulatory disputes & internal investigations. Ideally, you will be HK qualified with strong technical skills. HKL4916

REGIONAL LEGAL COUNSEL

REGULATORY

HONG KONG

2-4 years

HONG KONG

1-8 years

MNC seeks a mid-level corporate/commercial lawyer to support its business regionally in an autonomous role. You will advise on a range of issues including M&A, JVs, financial services, regulatory & general commercial matters. Commonwealth qualification a must. HKL3671

Top tier US firm seeks junior to senior level associates to join its renowned regulatory team. Candidates should ideally have at least a year of relevant experience in financial services &/or regulatory investigations work from an international firm. Fluency in Cantonese &/or Mandarin is essential. HKL4923

LITIGATION/REGULATORY

CORPORATE - US RATES

HONG KONG

2-4 years

HONG KONG

1-5 years

European bank seeks to add a junior to mid-level litigator from a top tier law firm or peer bank to expand its regional litigation team. Broad commercial litigation experience required & contentious regulatory experience would be a distinct advantage. Chinese language skills preferred. HKL4931

US firm seeks HK qualified corporate finance lawyers at the junior & midlevel to join its HK office. You must have solid IPO/M&A experience gained from other international firms & knowledge of the Listing Rules & Takeover Code. Fluent English & Mandarin are required. HKL4787

FAMILY TRUSTS

BANKING

HONG KONG

1-3 years

Private wealth arm of a global bank seeks a junior lawyer to join its family trusts team. You will have a strong legal background in any discipline although experience of working with high-net worth families & a knowledge of trusts are highly desirable. Fluent Mandarin essential. HKL4934

HONG KONG

1-4 years

Strong international firm seeks a junior lawyer to join its banking team.

The role will cover a general scope of banking work including project finance, restructurings, acquisition finance, capital markets transactions & syndicated loans. Mandarin is essential for this role. HKL4909

This is a small selection of our current vacancies. Please refer to our website for a more comprehensive list of openings.

Please contact Lindsey Sanders, lsanders@lewissanders.com + 852 2537 7409 or Andrea Richey, arichey@lewissanders.com + 852 2537 7413 Chris Chu, cchu@lewissanders.com + 852 2537 7415 or email recruit@lewissanders.com

Please visit our new look website - www.lewissanders.com

trust | honesty | integrity | partnership

Employment

1 – 4 PQE

Hong Kong

A fantastic opportunity for a lawyer to join a highly reputable firm to work alongside a dynamic team of individuals. You will be reviewing global contracts and other employment matters. Common law qualification with Chinese language skills. HKL1568

Funds

3 – 6 PQE

Hong Kong

An excellent opportunity for a lawyer with solid experience in a variety of funds work including hedge funds, PE funds and more to work alongside a notable individual and a strong team. The ideal candidate will be common law qualified with Chinese language skills. HKL1600

Shipping Litigation

3 – 7 PQE

Hong Kong

This renowned shipping practice is seeking an experienced lawyer from a Hong Kong firm to join its expanding team. You will work on a broad range of matters including charterparty disputes, ship casualties and more. Common law qualified, Chinese preferred. HKL1543

Aviation

4 – 7 PQE

Hong Kong

An excellent opportunity for an aviation specialist with exposure to finance, commercial or corporate transactions to take their career to the next level. Candidates with main stream experience and a genuine interest in aviation may be considered. HKL1483

Corporate M&A/PE

4 – 6 PQE

Hong Kong

A stellar opportunity for a lawyer with solid corporate experience to join this world renowned and innovative practice to work on global crossborder M&A and PE transactions across a range of industries. You will be Hong Kong qualified with Chinese language fluency. HKL1578

Capital Markets

5 + PQE

Hong Kong

An experienced associate is sought to join a leading firm with highly regarded partners at the helm. You will work on significant transactions on multiple exchanges and worldwide offerings assisting a lucrative client base. Hong Kong qualification with Mandarin. HKL1595

Litigation/Arbitration

6 + PQE

Shanghai

A senior lawyer is required with solid prior exposure to FCPA and bribery matters to join this leading firm and play a major part in spearheading and developing the practice assisting high-end clients on a global level.

Mandarin fluency essential. HKL1596

Project Finance

3 + PQE

Singapore

A very exciting opportunity for a lawyer with solid project development and finance experience to work on a variety of global, innovative and complex project financing at a market-leading firm with highly respected individuals as partners. Common law qualification needed. HKL1597

Funds

2 – 5 PQE

Singapore

Premier global firm seeks a lawyer to join their highly regarded practice to work for a leading light on a wide variety of private investment funds, including private equity, real estate, hedge funds, venture capital and mezzanine funds, distressed asset funds as well as funds-of-funds and secondaries. HKL1601

Corporate IPO/M&A

NQ – 4 PQE

Hong Kong

Excellent opportunity for a lawyer with solid experience gained at a leading HK or international firm to work with highly reputable individuals in the field on cross-border M&A’s, equity offerings and global IPO transactions. Will look at local firm experience. Hong Kong qualified with Mandarin. HKL1569

Commercial Litigation

2 – 5 PQE

Hong Kong

A truly fantastic opportunity for an experienced lawyer to work on a range of complex and often high profile disputes across a range of sectors with a leading team in the field assisting financial institutions, multi-nationals and more. Common law qualified and Mandarin language needed. HKL1566

Banking & Finance

2 – 5 PQE

Hong Kong

A top tier firm is looking for an experienced lawyer to join its industryleading practice to work on the full range of global finance transactions with a truly world-wide base of high profile clients. Hong Kong qualification and Mandarin fluency essential. HKL1567

Capital Markets

1 – 3 PQE

Hong Kong

This world renowned practice seeks a lawyer to assist notable partners and individuals in advising issuers and underwriters on a variety of IPO offerings for blue-chip clients. The ideal candidate will be Hong Kong qualified with excellent Chinese language skills. HKL1579

Insurance Litigation

3 – 4 PQE

Hong Kong

An associate is sought to work alongside an eminent partner in the field.

Work will include focusing on the advising of international and local insurers and P&I clubs on a variety of insurance and professional indemnity issues. Common law qualification and Chinese essential. HKL1591

Debt Capital Markets

1 – 4 PQE

Hong Kong

This notable international practice seeks an associate with solid DCM experience to work alongside leading partners and assist global banks and corporations on a wide range of global securities transactions, bond issues and more. You will be common law qualified. HKL1560

Capital Markets

1 – 3 PQE

Beijing

A brilliant opportunity for a lawyer to focus on HK listings work and debt markets in this highly esteemed practice. Prior exposure to general corporate and M&A work a valuable addition for this role. US qualification required with native Mandarin ability. HKL1718

Banking & Finance

3 – 6 PQE

Singapore

This top tier US firm has a very exciting opportunity for a lawyer with strong finance exposure to join this unrivalled team and work on truly international and industry-leading banking/finance transactions across a variety of sectors assisting high profile and prominent partners. HKL1398

US Corporate & Securities

2 – 4 PQE

Singapore

This notable practice is seeking a US qualified lawyer to join its elite group. You will join a dynamic and collegiate team working on cuttingedge corporate transactions advising some of the world’s top investment banks and more. US JD qualification needed. HKL1598

This is a selection of our current vacancies; please visit our website for more opportunities, or for more information in complete confidence, please call the Hong Kong office on +852 2503 2500 or contact our Singapore office on +65 6100 1900 or email us at sandra.godbold@atticuslegal.com.hk, georgeanna.mok@atticuslegal.com.hk or amith@atticuslegal.com.hk

www.atticuslegal.com.hk

We appreciate the importance that lawyers attach to selecting the best recruiter.

Our track record includes completing a range of retained and exclusive searches.

A small selection of our partner moves in Hong Kong include: Placed corporate partner into PRC firm Placed ECM partner with US firm Placed HK IPO partner into UK firm Placed M&A partner into UK firm Placed insurance partner into UK firm Placed TMT partner into top tier practice Set up office for UK law firm in HK Completed disputes partner retained search for international law firm We have also assisted a significant number of associates/counsels with moves into leading practices including but not limited to corporate, capital markets, banking, disputes and projects.

If you are interested in gaining an insight of the market, please get in touch.

Get better connected

For more information or for a confidential discussion please contact: Roz Livingstone Legal PP Partner Hires +852 3469 5214 | rozlivingstone@puresearch.com

Michelle Ho In-House FS Hires +852 3469 5223 | michelleho@puresearch.com

Michael Wright Legal PP Associate Hires +852 3469 5210 | michaelwright@puresearch.com

Bridget Hougham In-House C&I Hires +852 3469 5220 | bridgethougham@puresearch.com

Pure Search - leaders in global search & selection | Singapore | Hong Kong | London | New York

puresearch.com