lester huangjp - hong kong lawyer

h k

- l a

w y

e r

. org

April 2017 二零一七年四月

HK$280

香港

律師

HO

NG

KON

G LAW

YERA

pr

il 2017

Cover Story

封面專題

Lester Huang JP

黃嘉純 JP

Face to Face with

專訪

INSOLVENCY 破產

Hong Kong’s Amended Winding-Up Legislation Enhances Protection for Creditors香港的清盤法例修訂加強對債權人的保障

Memorandum of a Transaction Foretold 意向書：被忽略的預言

CORPORATE 企業

The Environmental Impact Assessment Process and Hong Kong’s Third Runway環境影響評估程序及香港的第三條跑道

JUDICIAL REVIEW 司法覆核

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

HONG KONG LAWYERwww.hk-lawyer.org

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

www.hk-lawyer.org

Editorial Board 編輯委員會

Chairman 主席

Huen Wong 王桂壎

Jenkin SF Chan 陳少勳

Peter CH Chan 陳志軒

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

Elliot Fung 馮以德

Steven B Gallagher Warren P Ganesh 莊偉倫

Minkang Gu 顧敏康

Julienne Jen 任文慧

Dave Lau 劉子勁

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

Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟

Tony Yen 嚴元浩

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

President 會長

Thomas ST So 蘇紹聰

Vice Presidents 副會長 Melissa K Pang 彭韻僖

Amirali B Nasir 黎雅明

Council Members 理事會成員

Stephen WS Hung 熊運信

Junius KY Ho 何君堯

Huen Wong 王桂壎

Peter CL Lo 羅志力

Michael J Lintern-Smith 史密夫

Billy WY Ma 馬華潤

Cecilia KW Wong 黃吳潔華

Brian W Gilchrist 喬柏仁

Denis G Brock 白樂德

Nick Chan 陳曉峰

Bonita BY Chan 陳寶儀

Mark Daly 帝理邁

CM Chan 陳澤銘

Serina KS Chan 陳潔心

Warren P Ganesh 莊偉倫 Simon SC Lai 黎壽昌

Roden ML Tong 湯文龍

Secretary General 秘書長

Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰

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

Annual Subscription 全年訂閱: HK$3,360

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

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

ISSN 1025-9554

4 EDITOR’S NOTE

6 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

9 CONTRIBUTORS

11 LETTER TO HONG KONG LAWYER

12 FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE

14 FROM THE SECRETARIAT

16 COVER STORY Face to Face with

Lester Huang JP

26 LAW SOCIETY NEWS

28 JUDICIAL REVIEW The Environmental Impact Assessment Process and Hong Kong’s Third Runway

33 CORPORATE Memorandum of a Transaction Foretold

編者的話

會長的話

投稿者

給《香港律師》的信

理事會議題

律師會秘書處資訊

封面專題專訪

黃嘉純 JP

律師會新聞

司法覆核環境影響評估程序及香港的第三條跑道

企業意向書：被忽略的預言

16 COVER STORY

28 JUDICIAL REVIEW

33 CORPORATE

Inside your April issue 四月期刊內容

April2017二零一七年四月

HK$280

Editor 編輯 Cynthia G Claytor

[email protected]

Tel: +852 2841 5775

Managing Editor 執行主編 Ranajit Dam 鄧文杰

[email protected]

Tel: +65 6870 3393

Design and Production 設計及制作 Samson Pang 彭振生

[email protected]

Translation team 翻譯組

InfoPower

Tang Mei Kwan

Special thanks to Hong Kong Law Reports &

Digest and Reuters News

特別感謝香港法律彙報與摘錄及

路透社新聞

For marketing/promotion opportunities please contact:

Account Manager 客戶經理

Henry Cheng 鄭裕康

[email protected]

Tel: +852 2847 2016

For subscriptions contact:

Traffic Administrator 統籌

Gloria Ng 吳傲宜

[email protected]

Tel: +852 2843 6415

Head of Legal Media business, ANA

Amantha Chia 謝京庭

[email protected]

Tel: +65 6870 3917

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

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

破產香港的清盤法例修訂加強對債權人的保

障

業界透視

案例撮要

事業發展女性期望如何：在法律界工作的女性須有

的事業管理概念

會員動向

法學院新聞

律師閒情做豆，不做豆，問題在於做些甚麼豆

法律知識測驗

38 INSOLVENCY Hong Kong’s Amended Winding-Up Legislation Enhances Protection for Creditors

44 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS

57 CASES IN BRIEF

66 CAREER DEVELOPMENT What Women Want: Career Management Ideas for Women in Law

70 PROFESSIONAL MOVES

73 CAMPUS VOICES

80 LAWYERS AT LEISURE To Bean, or Not to Bean, That is the Question

84 LEGAL TRIVIA QUIZ

80 LAWYERS AT LEISURE

38 INSOLVENCY

66 CAREER DEVELOPMENT

SAVE THE DATES

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

SE ASIA LAW AWARDS - 18 MayJAPAN LAW AWARDS - 7 June

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

INDONESIA LAW AWARDS - 26 OctoberKOREA LAW AWARDS - 16 November

Nomination and event details:[email protected]

Sponsorship Opportunities:[email protected]

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

CONTACT US TODAY!

EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

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

When negotiating a complex commercial transaction or relationship, it is common for parties to enter into an agreement in stages (eg, due to the deal being too complex or time-consuming to complete in a single stage or there being uncertainties surrounding the transaction that take time to resolve). For such deals, parties often first enter into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) (also referred to as heads of agreement, letter of intent or term sheet). The MOU is a document that outlines the key terms and details of a transaction, generally through both binding and non-binding provisions. The binding provisions govern the process that leads to the execution of a more formal or definitive agreement, while the non-binding provisions lay out the substance of the deal, or the key commercial terms.

As the author of the Corporate law feature (p. 33) explains, there are a fairly standard set of binding procedural provisions that are included in MOUs; however, no such standard set exists for non-binding commercial provisions. As the non-binding provisions generally determine the fate of a transaction, the author sets out a systematic approach that can be adopted to determine the minimal commercial terms that an MOU should contain to ensure that there is a transaction in reach.

Elsewhere in the April issue, the Judicial Review piece (p. 28) examines the recent judicial review proceedings against the approval of the Airport Authority Hong Kong’s Environmental Impact Assessment Report and the grant of an environmental permit for the proposed third-runway system at the Hong Kong International Airport. After analysing the court’s holdings on the four key issues considered during the proceedings, the author highlights a number of points that practitioners should keep in mind when drafting the Form 86. The Insolvency law article (p. 38) discusses the recently enacted Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance (Cap. 32) and its new and improved provisions, concluding with some practical tips for companies and creditors under this new legal regime.

Also included is a Career Development feature (p. 66) that outlines a variety of career management ideas for women in law. Here, the author concludes that while it is important for women to work industriously and conscientiously throughout their careers, neither is sufficient to secure long-term success and security. That can only be achieved by putting thought into what you want your career path to be and making a plan to achieve it.

4 www.hk-lawyer.org

• April 2017

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

當談判複雜的商業交易或關係時，各方通常會分階段達

成協議(例如，由於在單一階段完成交易會過於復雜或

費時，或交易中存在不確定性而需要時間解決)。對於

這種交易，各方通常首先簽署諒解備忘錄(「諒解備忘

錄」)(也稱為協議主題，意向書或條款表)。諒解備忘錄

是一份文件，一般通過具有約束力和不具約束力的規定

來概述交易的關鍵條款和細節。該等有約束力的規定規

管了導致執行更正式或最終協議的過程，而不具約束力

的條款則規定了交易的實質或重要的商業條款。

正如我們的企業法專欄(第36頁)的作者所解釋的那樣，

通常有一套相當標準的約束性程序規定被包含在諒解備

忘錄中;然而，對於不具約束力的商業條款則沒有這樣的

標準。由於非約束性規定通常決定交易的命運，本文列

出了一種系統性的方法，可用於確定諒解備忘錄應包含

的最低商業條款，以確保可達成交易。

在四月號的其他地方，「司法覆核」(第31頁)審視了最

近針對機場管理局香港環境影響評估報告的批准，及

擬議的香港國際機場第三跑道系統的環境許可證的批准

的司法覆核程序。在分析了法庭對訴訟程序中考慮的四

個關鍵問題的分析之後，作者強調了起草人員在草擬第

86號表格以開始司法覆核程序時應牢記的若干要點。

「破產法」(第41頁)討論了最近頒布的《公司(清盤及

雜項條文)(修訂)條例》(第32章)及其新的及改進的條

文，並根據這項新法律制度，為公司和債權人提供了一

些實用提示。

本期還包括「事業發展」專欄(第68頁)，概述了婦女在

法律方面的各種職業管理理念。作為律師，儘管在整個

職業生涯中勤奮盡責地工作很重要，但筆者也指出，這

既不足以確保長期的成功與保證。這只能通過多加思考

你想要的事業發展途徑，並製定計劃來實現。

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

2017 marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong

Special Administrative Region (“Hong Kong”) and the implementation of One Country, Two Systems. The principles of this unique system are enshrined in our Basic Law. Coincidentally, the promulgation of the Basic Law was adopted in the month of April, at the 7th National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on 4 April 1990. All of these anniversaries make it an opportune time to reflect on the implementation of our mini constitution.

Unlike constitutional documents in some jurisdictions, this mini constitution is not a thick volume. It consists of only 160 articles. Yet, this document defines the relationship between Hong Kong and the Central People’s Government, the political structure, the economy, the external affairs, education, science, culture, sports, religion, labour and social services of Hong Kong as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents.

As a member of the legal profession, I will focus my reflection on the areas concerning the maintenance of the common law system, the independence of the Judiciary and the Rule of Law.

Common LawArticle 8 of the Basic Law provides that the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained. Article 84 further provides

that the courts may refer to precedents of other common law jurisdictions.

In addition, Art. 82 of the Basic Law provides that the Court of Final Appeal may as required invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit on the Court of Final Appeal. We are privileged to have leading judges from well established common law jurisdictions serving as non-permanent judges in the Court of Final Appeal including, for instance, Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

There has been recent media coverage on a suggestion that the Basic Law be reviewed in order to prohibit foreign judges from hearing constitutionally related cases and to cease recruiting any more foreign judges. Hong Kong prides itself as an international city. For the legal profession, we are proud to have registered foreign lawyers from 32 different overseas jurisdictions practising in Hong Kong offering diversified legal services to our international community. Our pool of legal talent is enriched by the presence of these skilled and competent foreign lawyers bringing in specialised knowledge peculiar to their own jurisdictions of admission, thereby enhancing Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a legal service hub in Asia. Similarly, the selection of judges which is conducted by the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, an independent commission, is based on

individual merits, not on nationality. The wealth of experience in common law brought in by these eminent overseas judges is invaluable. The preservation of our common law system is largely attributable to the contributions made by these highly respected judges who sit on the Court of Final Appeal.

Independence of the JudiciaryThe Basic Law contains very clear provisions for an independent Judiciary in Hong Kong. For example, Art. 2 guarantees Hong Kong’s right to enjoy independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law; Art. 19 provides that Hong Kong shall be vested with independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication; Art. 85 provides that the courts shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference; and Art. 88 provides for the appointment of judges by the Chief Executive on the recommendation of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, which is an independent statutory body composed of local judges, persons from the legal profession and eminent persons from other sectors.

Since the implementation of the Basic Law, the issue that has presented the biggest challenge to the perception of judicial independence is perhaps the various debates over the interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) under the power

6 www.hk-lawyer.org

• April 2017

April 2017 • PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話

Thomas so, PresidenT

given in Art. 158.

There have been five instances where NPCSC has interpreted the Basic Law, two were requested by the then Chief Executive and the then Acting Chief Executive, one by the Court of Final Appeal and two on the own initiative of NPCSC:

1) Interpretation on the right of abode issue in 1999 (Art. 22(4) and 24(2)(3) initiated by the then Chief Executive);

2) Interpretation on the method for selecting the Chief Executive and the method for forming the LegCo in 2004 (Art. 7 of Annex I and Art. III of Annex II initiated by NPCSC);

3) Interpretation on the term of office of the new Chief Executive in 2006 (Art. 53(2) initiated by the then Acting Chief Executive);

4) Interpretation on state immunity in the case of FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v Democratic republic of Congo & Others [2011]HKCU 1049 (Art. 158(3) referred by the Court of Final Appeal); and

5) Interpretation on the oath of allegiance by Legislative Councillors when they assumed office in 2016 (Art. 104 initiated by NPCSC).

The Law Society’s position has always been that the Basic Law is clear, but in case of doubt, the matter should preferably be resolved through the Hong Kong courts. We acknowledge that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law is vested in the NPCSC under Art. 158(1) of the Basic Law. Interpretation, if used at all, must be used with caution and restraint, since fundamental principles of the Rule of Law as due process, transparency and reasoned judgments from an independent Judiciary are essential elements in maintaining the Rule of Law. Reflecting on the experience we gained in the previous interpretations of the Basic Law, the

process leading to an interpretation by the NPCSC can perhaps be improved by instilling more transparency in the process and by allowing stakeholders in Hong Kong to submit their views on the subject matter in advance for consideration by the NPCSC.

In recent years, there have been disturbing instances of open defiance of court orders and publication of abusive comments and threats at judges because of their judgments in certain court cases. Although these actions were undertaken by a small minority of the community, they could be damaging to the respect that the public has for a court’s decision made through the due process of law. Further, it is an affront to the Rule of Law to attempt to bring public pressure on a judge to decide or

review a case in any particular way. The Law Society has publicly condemned these deplorable acts whenever the situation called for our voice.

Overall, the 20 years of the implementation of the Basic Law has been smooth and we have full confidence in the continual proper functioning of the legal and judicial systems under our unique One Country, Two Systems in accordance with the Basic Law.

www.hk-lawyer.org 7

2017年標誌香港特別行政區成立、

一國兩制實施20週年。這個獨一

無二制度的原則載於《基本法》。湊巧

地，《基本法》正是於4月份頒佈，時為

1990年4月4日，《基本法》在中華人

民共和國第七屆全國人民代表大會上通

過。現在正是我們對這小憲法作出反思

的好時機。

有別於某些司法管轄區的憲法文件，這

小憲法篇幅不長，僅包含160條。然而，

這份文件為香港與中央人民政府之間的

關係、香港的政治體制、經濟、對外事

務、教育、科學、文化、體育、宗教、

勞工和社會服務，以至香港市民的基本

權利和自由，作出界定。

作為法律界一員，我會重點在維護普通

法制度、司法獨立和法治等方面作出反

思。

普通法

《基本法》第八條規定，香港原有法

律，即普通法、衡平法、條例、附屬立

法和習慣法，予以保留。第八十四條進

一步規定，法院可參考其他普通法適用

地區的司法判例。

此外，《基本法》第八十二條規定，終

審法院可根據需要邀請其他普通法適用

地區的法官參加審判。我們有幸邀得成

熟的普通法司法管轄區的傑出法官擔任

終審法院非常任法官，包括澳洲高等法

院前首席法官梅師賢爵士及英國最高法

院院長廖柏嘉勳爵。

最近傳媒報導，有建議檢討《基本法》

，以禁止外籍法官聆訊憲法相關案件，

並停止聘任更多外籍法官。香港以身為

國際城市為榮。在法律界，我們的註冊

外地律師來自32個司法管轄區，為國

際化社會提供多元化的法律服務，對此

我們引以自豪。這些經驗豐富的外地律

師，將本身司法管轄區特有的專門知識

帶來香港，豐富了香港法律界的人才資

源，從而提高香港作為亞洲法律服務中

心的競爭力。同樣，獨立的司法人員推

薦委員會挑選法官時，考慮個人的優點

長處，而非其國籍。這些傑出的外藉法

官在普通法方面的豐富經驗是無價的。

這些備受尊重的終審法院法官，對維護

我們的普通法制度貢獻良多。

司法獨立

《基本法》明確規定香港享有司法獨

立。例如，第二條保證香港享有獨立的

司法權，包括依照本法的規定享有終審

權；第十九條規定，香港享有獨立的司

法權和終審權；第八十五條規定，香港

法院獨立進行審判，不受任何干涉；及

第八十八條規定，香港法院的法官，根

據當地法官和法律界及其他方面知名人

士組成的獨立委員會推薦，由行政長官

任命。

自《基本法》實施以來，對司法獨立的

最大挑戰，或許是由全國人民代表大會

常務委員會(人大常委會)根據第一百五十

八條賦予的權力就《基本法》進行解釋

引發的各種辯論。

人大常委會五度對《基本法》作出解

釋，當中兩次由時任行政長官和署理行

政長官提請，一次由終審法院提請，另

外兩次由人大常委會提出：

1) 1999年對居留權問題的解釋(第二十

二條第四款及第二十四條第二款第(

三)項，由時任行政長官提請)

2) 2004年對行政長官選舉辦法及立法

會產生辦法的解釋(附件一第七條及

附件二第三條，由人大常委會提出)

3) 2006年對新任行政長官任期的解釋

（第五十三條第二款，由署理行政長

官提請 )

4) 就FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v

剛果民主共和國和其他[2011] HKCU

1049對國家豁免權的解釋(第一百五

十八條第三款，由終審法院提請 )

5) 對立法會議員在2016年就任時宣誓

的解釋(第一百零四條，由人大常委

會提出)

律師會的一貫立場是，《基本法》已有

清晰規定，如有疑問，最好由香港法院

解決。我們承認，根據第一百五十八條

第一款，《基本法》的解釋權屬於人

大常委會。解釋權的使用必須保持謹慎

克制，因為獨立司法機構的正當程序、

透明度和合理判決等法治的基本原則，

是維護法治的基本要素。過往對《基

本法》作出解釋的經驗反映，人大常委

會釋法前的過程如能增加透明度，並允

許香港的持份者就議題事先提出意見以

供人大常委會考慮，或可改善釋法的過

程。

近年，社會出現公然藐視法庭命令的事

例，有人對法官在某些案件中作出的判

決發表侮辱性的評論和威脅，情況令人

不安。儘管這些行為屬社會少數，但它

們可能會損害公眾對法庭通過正當法律

程序作出的判決的尊重。此外，試圖以

群眾壓力令法官以特定方式判決或審理

案件，均有違法治。在有需要時，律師

會公然譴責這些令人遺憾的行為。

總的來說，《基本法》實施20年以來一

切順利，我們對一國兩制下法律制度和

司法制度根據《基本法》繼續運作充滿

信心。

蘇紹聰會長

8 www.hk-lawyer.org

• April 2017

April 2017 • CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

梁鎮宇

霍金路偉律師行合夥人

梁先生作為霍金路偉在香港的訴訟業務

主管，在處理廣泛的糾紛工作方面有超

過25年的經驗，包括企業、商業、金融

服務和監管、司法覆核、環境、產品責

任、跨境爭訟性破產、欺詐和資產追回

以及僱傭事務。他獲廣泛認許，並在多

個法律指南中獲選為傑出訴訟律師。

黃偉傑

霍金路偉律師行高級律師

有深度及多才多藝總結了黃先生在霍金路偉

訴訟事務組作為高級律師的特點。違反受信

和董事職責、審計疏忽、商業和基礎設施司

法覆核申請、誹謗及公司訴訟只是他所處理

過的其中一些商業訴訟工作領域。黃先生除

了商業訴訟外，在國際法律事務和辯訟方面

也有特殊的興趣和經驗。他曾在香港大學法

律學院任兼職講師(非臨時)工作，曾在「世

界貿易組織」法律國際模擬競賽中擔任訓練

頂尖大學生。

Thomas Wong Hogan Lovells, Senior Associate Depth and versatility summarise Mr. Wong’s experience as a senior associate in Hogan Lovells’ litigation team. Breach of fiduciary and director’s duties, audit negligence, commercial and infrastructure judicial review applications, defamation, and company litigation are just some of the areas of commercial litigation work he handles. In addition to his commercial litigation work, Mr. Wong also has particular interests and experience in international legal affairs and advocacy. He has worked as a part-time lecturer (non-clinical) at the University of Hong Kong Law Faculty, where he coached top students for an international mooting competition on the law of the World Trade Organization.

Allan LeungHogan Lovells, Partner As head of the litigation practice of Hogan Lovells in Hong Kong, Mr. Leung has over 25 years of experience dealing in a broad range of dispute work, including corporate commercial, financial services and regulatory, judicial review, environmental, product liability, cross-border contentious insolvency, fraud and asset recovery, and employment. He is widely recognised and named in a number of legal directories as an outstanding litigator.

方心孖士打律師行律師

方心持有英國劍橋大學商業法一級榮譽碩士

學位,她自2010年加入孖士打律師行以來，

一直從事國際併購、企業合資、私募股權投

資等商業法律服務。

Xin FangMayer Brown JSM, Associate Xin Fang holds a First-Class Honours Master’s Degree in Corporate Law from the University of Cambridge. She has worked at Mayer Brown JSM since 2010, focusing on international mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and private equity transactions.

CONTRIBUTORS投稿者

www.hk-lawyer.org 9

張珺儀

貝克‧麥堅時律師事務所合夥人

張小姐是貝克‧麥堅時的爭議解決業務的

合夥人，專注於公司破產和商業訴訟。張

小姐從事的業務包括代表破產事務從業人

員、公司客戶和銀行的訴訟和諮詢工作，

涉及廣泛而複雜的糾紛及破產與重組事

宜，包括強制性和自願性清盤、接管、企

業重組和安排方案。她還專注於公司法和

商業糾紛，定期向公司客戶、股東和董事

提供諮詢意見，其中包括股東權益和補救

辦法、董事職責、合資糾紛和就不公平的

偏見提出呈請。

貝克‧麥堅時律師事務所律師

孔小姐是香港貝克‧麥堅時的爭議解決

業務的律師。孔小姐就一系列商業糾紛及

諮詢事宜向客戶提供意見，特別關注企業

破產，債務追回/強制執行擔保及股東糾

紛。

Cheung Kwun YeeBaker McKenzie, PartnerKwun Yee Cheung is a partner in the dispute resolution practice at Baker McKenzie in Hong Kong, focusing on company insolvency and commercial litigation. Ms. Cheung’s practice includes litigation and advisory work representing insolvency practitioners, corporate clients and banks on a wide range of complex disputes and insolvency and restructuring matters, including compulsory and voluntary liquidations, receiverships, corporate restructuring and schemes of arrangement. She also focuses on company law and commercial disputes, regularly advising corporate clients, shareholders and directors in relation to matters including shareholders’ rights and remedies, directors’ duties, joint venture disputes and unfair prejudice petitions.

Jenny Kung Baker McKenzie, AssociateJenny Kung is an associate in the dispute resolution practice at Baker McKenzie in Hong Kong. Ms. Kung advises clients on a range of commercial disputes and advisory matters, with a particular focus on corporate insolvency, debt recovery/enforcement of security and shareholders’ disputes.

Karishma Khemaney

Lewis Sanders Ltd. 高級顧問

Ms. Khemaney於2007年開始從事法律招聘工

作，服務於一家大型國際招聘公司，為亞太地

區的企業與律師事務所客戶，提供法律顧問及

律師的招聘服務。Ms. Khemaney在法律行業中

建立了強大的聯繫網絡。她透過該網絡，為

AmLaw 100、Magic Circle、國際律師事務所、

跨國企業及金融服務客戶，進行在亞洲區的律

師招聘工作。此外，她亦透過其網絡，協助有意

在亞洲開展事業的美國律師前來亞洲服務。Ms.

Khemaney在Lewis Sanders主要負責企業法律顧

問與私人執業律師的招聘工作。

Karishma Khemaney Lewis Sanders Ltd, Senior Consultant Ms. Khemaney started her legal recruiting career in 2007 with a leading international recruitment firm placing lawyers with both in-house and private practice clients across the APAC region. She has built up a strong network of contacts within the legal industry and has extensive experience in serving AmLaw 100, Magic Circle, international law firms, multi-national companies and financial services clients through the placement of lawyers across Asia. Through her network, Ms. Khemaney has also assisted lawyers in the US who are looking to return to Asia. At Lewis Sanders, she focuses on both in-house and private practice placements.

10 www.hk-lawyer.org

• April 2017

April 2017 • LETTER TO HONG KONG LAWYER 給《香港律師》的信

給《香港律師》的信

Letter to Hong Kong Lawyer

www.hk-lawyer.org 11

By David A. Southern, Barrister-at-Law Justice Chambers

I recently read Michael Jackson’s article “HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing: CFA Finds ‘No Wrong Turning’” in the March edition of Hong Kong Lawyer. While the feature provides a good summary of HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing FACC 5/2016 and the adverse political environment in which the doctrine was operating in the UK, it failed to touch on instances in which the doctrine is susceptible to abuse in Hong Kong.

In “Is Abolishing Joint Enterprise Beneficial for Hong Kong?” (Hong Kong Lawyer, May 2016), Franklin Koo convincingly set forth a number of public policy considerations that weigh against the extended version of doctrine, or as Jackson termed “the wide principle”, being maintained in Hong Kong. Namely, he highlighted the possibility of the doctrine being used to oppress particular groups – such as those in politically sensitive groups or those involved in local social movements. While the doctrine has not been used in this way in Hong Kong to date, this is a worrisome possibility, as joint enterprise liability is applicable to a wide variety of offences, not just gruesome, gang-related murders.

Even after looking at the public policy considerations used to justify the creation and maintenance of the doctrine in the wider context, these concerns are not assuaged. As noted by Koo and Jackson, the Chan Wing Siu principle does have certain merit, in that it was designed to deter people from participating in gang-related criminal activities by holding all participating members of a gang responsible for each other’s criminal actions. As Koo noted, studies have shown that “gang members commit over five times as many offences as non-gang members”. He also pointed out that “social science research literature strongly suggested that individuals in groups behave very differently than they do when alone. They take more risks, are pressured to conform with the majority, and feel less personal responsibility, thus raising the possibility that group crimes lead to escalated and unplanned violence.” Even with this being the case, it still seems anomalous that a secondary defendant can be convicted of a crime on proving mere foresight, when the prosecution must prove the “intent” of the primary defendant to secure a conviction. Put another way, this seems grossly unfair because foresight is a lower mental requirement than intention, which is the mens rea that must be established by the prosecution to meet its burden of proof to establish its case against the primary defendant.

Also troubling is the possibility of an individual being convicted of a crime based on their involvement in a joint criminal enterprise, when he or she did not physically perpetrate the crime, had no intention to do so and was never at the crime scene. For all of these reasons, it is regrettable that the UK’s approach in Jogee was not followed in Hong Kong.

我最近看了莊邁豪在3月份《香港律師》的一篇撰文：香港

特別行政區訴陳錦成：終審法院裁定「沒有行了錯誤的一

着」。莊邁豪雖然有在文中概述香港特別行政區訴陳錦成

案(FACC 5/2016)，也有提到法則運作所在地英國的政治

環境惡劣，言簡意賅，但卻沒有寫到法則在香港容易被濫

用。

在「廢除『共同犯罪』對香港有好處嗎？」(2016年5月

《香港律師》)一文，顧偉傑就擴大版法則，莊邁豪稱之

為「廣泛的原則」(香港維持原則不變)，提出多項反對法

則的公共政策考慮因素，言之成理，令人信服。基於公共

政策所考慮的，就是文中突顯的法則有被人用來壓迫某些

群體的可能性，例如壓迫政治敏感群體，或者本土社運人

士。時至今日，法則在香港一直沒有被這樣利用過，雖然

如此，這始終是個令人擔憂的可能情況，因為共同犯罪計

劃的法律責任，適用於很多罪行種類，不只是可怕的幫派

謀殺。

即使在更廣泛的背景下，想及用來支持法則的誕生和主張

的公共政策考慮因素，也消除不了這方面的憂慮。正如顧

偉傑和莊邁豪所指出，Chan Wing Siu案的原則確有一定

的好處，那就是，按照Chan Wing Siu案的原則，所有參

與犯罪的同黨都要為每名同黨的刑事行為負責，因而阻嚇

人糾黨參與刑事活動。顧偉傑提到，有研究顯示「同黨干

犯的罪比非同黨干犯的罪多出五倍以上」。他亦指出「社

會學研究文獻清楚顯示，群體中的個體的行為與他們獨處

時的行為大不相同。群體中的個體承受更大風險，因為要

保持與大多數人的行動一致，壓力更大，但感覺背負的個

人責任較輕，因此，聯群結黨所干犯的罪行，更有可能牽

涉沒有計劃但更嚴重的暴力。」即便研究屬實，但是要

確保主要被告人被定罪，控方必須證明他或她的「意圖」

，而要次位被告人被定罪，卻只證明他或她有「預見」就

可以了；這樣的舉證要求似乎有悖常理。換個說法，似乎

是極不公平，因為「預見」的心態要求較意圖的低。意圖

是被告人的「犯罪意圖」，控方要履行舉證責任，證明控

方不利主要被告人的案情，就必須證明被告人有「犯罪意

圖」。

還有另一種令人擔憂的可能情況，就是有人沒有親身犯

罪，沒有意圖犯罪，也從來沒有到過犯罪現場，卻由於參

與共同犯罪計劃而被定罪。由於上述種種原因，香港不跟

隨英國Jogee案的方法，做法令人遺憾。

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE理事會議題

加強資產管理業規管及銷售時的透明度的建議

證券及期貨事務監察委員會(「證監會」)於2016年

11月就「加強資產管理業規管及銷售時的透明度的建

議」發表諮詢文件。證監會在諮詢文件內建議改動證

監會的《基金經理操守準則》及《證券及期貨事務監

察委員會持牌人或註冊人操守準則》(《操守準則》)。

證監會考慮的主要改動包括：

‧ 《基金經理操守準則》的改動所涉及的主要範疇

包括證券借貸和回購協議、基金資產的託管、流

動性風險管理及基金經理就槓桿借貸比率的披

露；

‧ 《操守準則》的改動建議旨在透過以下措施處理

中介人在銷售投資產品時的潛在利益衝突，以及

加強銷售時的披露：

° 當中介人表明自己為「獨立」或使用任何有類

似意思的用語時，限制該中介人收取佣金或其

他金錢或非金錢收益，或與產品發行人有任何

聯繫或其他法律或經濟關係，而這些聯繫或關

係可能損害其獨立性；及

° 當所取得或可取得的任何金錢收益無法在訂立

交易前或在訂立交易時量化計算的時候，要求

中介人披露有關金錢收益的幅度及最高金額。

律師會在投資產品及金融服務委員會協助下檢視了該

諮詢文件，認同建議背後的政策目標(即加強香港作為

主要國際資產管理中心的地位，因此必須確保相關條

例遵循不斷演變的國際標準)，並進一步提供了意見。

律師會就諮詢提交的意見書可瀏覽：

ht tp : / /www .h k l awsoc . o r g . h k /pub_e /news/

submissions/20170224.pdf。

Proposals to Enhance Asset Management Regulation and Point-of-Sale TransparencyThe Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”) in late November 2016 issued a consultation paper on its Proposals to Enhance Asset Management Regulation and Point-of-Sale Transparency. Under the consultation, the SFC proposed changes to the SFC’s Fund Manager Code of Conduct (“FMCC”) and the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the SFC (the “Code of Conduct”).

The main changes the SFC has considered included the following:

• under the FMCC, the proposed amendments were mainly for securities lending and repurchase agreements, custody of fund assets, liquidity risk management, and disclosure of leverage by fund managers;

• as for the Code of Conduct, the proposed amendments were to address the potential conflicts of interest in the sale of investment products and to enhance disclosure at the point-of-sale by:

° restricting an intermediary from representing itself as “independent” or using any term(s) with a similar inference if the intermediary received commission or other monetary or non-monetary benefits or it had links or other legal or economic relationships with product issuers which were likely to impair its independence; and

° requiring an intermediary to disclose the range and maximum dollar amount of any monetary benefits received or receivable that were not quantifiable prior to or at the point of sale.

With the assistance of its Investment Products and Financial Services Committee, the Law Society has reviewed the consultation paper. It acknowledged the policy objectives underlining the proposal (ie, to enhance Hong Kong’s position as a major international asset management centre, and thus it was important to ensure that the related regulations were properly benchmarked to evolving international standards). Further comments were provided.

The detailed submission of the Law Society on this consultation can be found at: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20170224.pdf.


• April 2017

April 2017 • FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

提升香港公司實益擁有權的透明度

律師會於1月接獲從財經事務及庫務局有關「提升香

港公司實益擁有權的透明度」的諮詢文件(「諮詢文

件」)。政府在諮詢文件中就修訂《公司條例》(第

622章)的建議徵詢公眾意見，該建議修訂旨在收集

和備存公司的實益擁有權資料，讓執法機構有需要時

能夠及時取覽。

律師會知悉政府的政策目標，是使香港的規管制度符

合反洗黑錢及資助恐怖分子的國際義務。上述建議反

映了這些政策目標。

公司法委員會研究了該諮詢文件，同意上述目標值得

讚揚，原則上支持。然而，委員會不認為香港應該用

法定制度來規管公司實益擁有權的披露；委員會對政

府建議的概念框架有很大保留，認為以法定披露制度

指令香港公司提升透明度，對從事商業交易者建立信

任和信心並無幫助，相反會趕走投資者，增加合規

成本，並構成安全風險。若執法機構的調查權力不

足，則應該加強它們的權力，而不是對守法的投資者

或公司進一步施加負擔。

律師會理事會支持上述意見。對有關諮詢文件的意見

書全文可瀏覽：

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

submissions/20170307.pdf。

Enhancing Transparency of Beneficial Ownership of Hong Kong CompaniesThe Law Society in January received from the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (“FSTB”) a consultation paper on Enhancing Transparency of Beneficial Ownership of Hong Kong Companies (“Consultation Paper”). By the Consultation Paper, the Government sought views from the public on its proposal to amend the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) in order to enable beneficial ownership information of companies to be captured and maintained. That served the purpose of allowing law enforcement agencies access to such information when necessary.

The Law Society noted the Government’s policy objectives to bring the regulatory regime of Hong Kong to be in line with international obligations on anti-money laundering and terrorist finance. These policy objectives underscored the above proposal.

The Company Law Committee has studied the Consultation Paper. They agreed that the above objectives were laudable and were in principle in support. However, the Committee was not convinced that Hong Kong should adopt a statutory regime for disclosure of corporate beneficial ownership; they had much reservation on the conceptual framework which underlined the Government’s proposals. They considered that enhancing the transparency of a Hong Kong company mandated by a statutory disclosure regime did not add much to the trust and confidence building process for persons engaged in business dealings. To the contrary, it would drive away investors, increase compliance costs and also create security risks. If the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies were inadequate, that can and should be addressed by enhancement of those powers, rather than imposing further burdens on law abiding investors or companies.

The above views were endorsed by the Law Society’s Council. The detailed submission on the Consultation Paper can be found at: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/20170307.pdf.


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

Let Us Showcase Our Strengths to the WorldHong Kong is well known as a highly competitive global city and a leading international financial centre. We achieved flying colours in a number of international rankings. Just to name a few, Hong Kong ranked:

• First in the 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation;

• Fourth in the 2016 Global Financial Centres Index published by Z/Yen Group, which measured the competitiveness of the world

financial centres;

• Second in the 2015 Global Opportunity Index published by Milken Institute;

• Fifth easiest place in the world to do business according to the Doing Business Report 2016 published by the World Bank; and

• Ninth in overall competitiveness in the Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017 published by World Economic Forum.

In these rankings, Hong Kong has consistently demonstrated distinctive strengths in category indexes like the Rule of Law, infrastructure development, business environment and financial market access.

Without the pool of talent available in Hong Kong, these outstanding achievements would not have been possible. We are proud to have a legal profession that fearlessly safeguards the Rule of Law by ensuring the fair, just and transparent administration of the legal and judicial systems in Hong Kong. In addition, our lawyers are well experienced and skilled in a diverse range of legal services that meet the needs of domestic and international clients.

Hong Kong’s outstanding capabilities are well known but not as widely as we would like, in particular to the jurisdictions along the Belt and Road.

Incidentally, we no longer refer to the Initiative as “One Belt, One Road” because it does not involve only one route. Broadly, “Belt” (ie, the Silk Road Economic Belt) aims to bring together China, Central Asia, Russia and Europe (the Baltic); link China with the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea through Central Asia and West Asia; and connect China with Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Indian Ocean. “Road” (ie, the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road) will stretch on one hand from China’s coast to Europe through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean and on the other, from China’s coast through the South China Sea to the South Pacific. These routes cover some 65 countries, all of which are keen to boost trade and infrastructural connectivity.

This economic vision opens up opportunities for our legal profession for generations to come. While polishing our own skills to meet the future demands, we must also promote our strengths so that clients and legal

向世界盡展優勢

作為競爭激烈的城市、國際領先的金融中心，香港以

此聞名遐爾。我們在多項國際排名中取得優異成績。

例如，香港在：

‧ 美國傳統基金會發佈的年度指南《經濟自由度指

數》2017年排名第一；

‧ Z/Yen顧問公司發佈量度世界金融中心競爭力的

《全球金融中心指數》2016年排名第四；

‧ 密爾肯研究院發佈的《全球機會指數》2015年排

名第二；

‧ 世界銀行發佈的《2016年營商環境報告》，全球

營商最便捷的地方排名第五；及

‧ 世界經濟論壇發佈的《2016-2017年全球競爭力報

告》總體競爭力排名第九。

在這些排名中，香港在法治、基礎建設發展、營商環

境和金融市場准入等類別指標，一直表現出非凡的優

勢。

這些傑出的成就，有賴香港的人才庫。香港的法律界

無畏無懼地維護法治，確保香港的法律和司法制度公

正、公平、透明，我們對此引以為傲。此外，我們的

律師擁有豐富經驗，熟悉各種法律服務，能滿足國內

外客戶的需求。

香港出眾的能力眾所周知，但接觸面尚未如我們期望

般廣泛，尤其是對「一帶一路」（Belt and Road）沿

線的司法管轄區。

順帶一提，我們不再把這個倡議稱為One Belt, One

Road，因為它不只涉及一條路線。概括而言，「帶」

（即絲綢之路經濟帶）旨在匯集中國、中亞、俄羅斯

和歐洲（波羅的海）; 通過西亞與中亞，連接中國與

波斯灣和地中海；並將中國與東南亞、南亞和印度洋

連接起來。「路」（即21世紀海上絲綢之路）一方面

通過南中國海和印度洋，從中國海岸延伸到歐洲，另

一方面從中國海岸通過南中國海到南太平洋。這些路

線覆蓋約65個國家，它們均熱衷於促進貿易和基礎設

施的連繫。

FROM THE SECRETARIAT律師會秘書處資訊


• April 2017

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

Monthly Statistics on the Profession (updated as of 28 February 2017):

業界每月統計資料(截至2017年2月28日)：

Members (with or without practising certificate) 10,415

Members with practising certificate 9,016 (out of whom, 6,860 (76%) are in private practice)

Trainee Solicitors 1,049

Registered foreign lawyers 1,350 (from 32 jurisdictions)

Hong Kong law firms 874 (48% are sole proprietorships and 41% are firms with 2 to 5 partners, 11 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Registered foreign law firms 82 (11 are limited liability partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance)

Civil Celebrants 2,075

Reverse Mortgage Counsellors 445

Solicitor Advocates 49 (44 in civil proceedings, 5 in criminal proceedings)

Student Members 345

Registered Associations between Hong Kong law firms and 37 registered foreign law firms (including Mainland law firms)

會員(持有或不持有執業證書) 10,415

持有執業證書的會員 9,016 (當中有6,860位 (76%) 是私人執業)

實習律師 1,049

註冊外地律師 1,350 (來自32個司法管轄區)

香港律師行 874 (獨資經營佔48%，2至5名合夥人的律師行佔41%，11間為按照《法律執業者條例》組成的有限法律責任合夥律師行)

註冊外地律師行 82 (11間為按照《法律執業者條例》組成的有限法律責任合夥律師行)

婚姻監禮人 2,075

安老按揭輔導法律顧問 445

訟辯律師 49 (民事程序：44位，刑事程序：5位)

學生會員 345

香港律師行與外地律師行 37(包括內地律師行)在香港聯營

professionals in jurisdictions that have relatively fewer dealings with Hong Kong lawyers in the past will get to know our expertise and competitive edge.

The Law Society’s Belt and Road Conference on 12 May 2017 is organised to accomplish both ends. Not only do we have a diversified programme covering a wide range of legal issues that are relevant to cross border transactions and dispute resolution, we have invited speakers and participants from different parts of the world, mostly from the countries along the Belt and Road to join us. Participants can have the opportunity to enhance and update their legal knowledge and skills as well as connect and make themselves known to their counterparts in the Belt and Road jurisdictions.

Some may view their active participation in the Belt and Road Initiative as remote at present. Nevertheless, going forward, the vast scale of this significant national Initiative is going to dictate a large portion of the legal service demands in the region for decades.

As a member of the Hong Kong legal profession, we owe it to our successors to do our best to lay a solid foundation for them to take advantage of the Initiative when the time comes. We need to mobilise everyone to encourage each other to take an active interest in the demands of legal services that will be generated by the Initiative, to take concrete steps to enhance the needed skills and to act as ambassadors of the Hong Kong legal profession to promote and showcase our strengths whenever an opportunity arises.

The Belt and Road Conference on 12 May presents such an opportunity to fulfil these goals. It is an occasion where the Law Society, acting as “Convenor” of legal professionals in the Belt and Road jurisdictions, brings the relevant stakeholders together, encourages exchanges of ideas and knowledge and creates a platform for our profession to showcase our strengths and to impress the world with our best practices at top international standards.

This cannot be achieved without the support of our members. Please join us at the Conference on 12 May. The programme which is accredited with 5 CPD points, sponsorship opportunities and registration details are available at the Conference’s official website at hklawsoc-beltandroad.com.

這個經濟視野為法律界往後幾代開啟機遇。我們提升

技能以滿足未來需求，同時也必須提升自身的實力，

從而令過去較少與香港律師合作的司法管轄區的客戶

和法律專業人士，能了解我們的專業知識和競爭優

勢。

律師會將於2017年5月12日舉辦一帶一路會議，滿足

雙方所需。會議涵蓋跨境交易和爭議解決相關的廣泛

法律議題，並邀請了來自世界各地（主要來自一帶一

路沿線國家）的講者和與會者參加。與會者將有機會

提升和更新他們的法律知識和技能，同時與一帶一路

沿線國家的同業接觸。

有些人或許認為現在積極參與一帶一路言之尚早。然

而，展望未來，這項規模龐大的重要國家倡議，將決

定地區內未來幾十年的大部份法律服務需求。

作為香港法律界的一員，我們應盡力為後人奠定鞏固

基礎，令他們在適當時機受惠於這項倡議。我們需要

動員大家，互相鼓勵，積極留意一帶一路產生的法律

服務需求，採取實際行動以提高必要的技能，擔任香

港法律專業的大使，只要一有機會，即促進並展示我

們的優勢。

5月12日的一帶一路會議正好是實現這些目標的良

機。律師會作為一帶一路沿線司法管轄區的法律專業

人士「召集人」，藉此機會讓相關持份者聚首一堂，

鼓勵思想和知識交流，創造平台讓香港法律界展示其

優勢，以國際最高標準的執業讓世界留下深刻印象。

實現這些目標有賴會員的支持。誠邀會員於5月12

日參加一帶一路會議。參加會員可獲5個CPD分，贊

助機會及登記詳情，請瀏覽會議官方網站hklawsoc-

beltandroad.com。



• April 2017

Managing Partner and Co-Chairman of P.C. Woo & Co. and Former President of the Law Society of Hong Kong

By Cynthia G. Claytor

Lester Huang JP

Face to Face with

Mr. Lester Huang, Managing Partner and Co-Chairman of P.C. Woo & Co. and former President of the Law Society of Hong Kong, reflects on the current practice environment for solicitors in Hong Kong and how it might be further improved.

While lawyers may rely on precedent banks, it is no longer safe to bank on

precedent in this time of unparalleled change. The transformation of the legal industry is being fuelled by competitive pressures, economic uncertainties and disruptive technology. The legal market continues to grow, but buyers’ changing purchasing patterns and their evolving expectations of legal service providers is putting significant pressure on firms and their business models, with small to medium-sized law firms being particularly affected.

Mr. Lester Huang believes SME law firms have an important role to play in the coming years, but explained that their leaders will need to understand their business and their place in the market and then determine how to continue to attract the types of clients that they want. Just as in the past, challenges and opportunities will continue to arise in tandem. However, to remain relevant, Hong Kong law firms must continue to diversify their service offerings and seek new business opportunities in places outside of Hong Kong.

A Steady Hand at the TillerSince 1985, Mr. Huang has built his private practice at P.C. Woo & Co., where he started as an articled clerk and worked his way up to become the firm’s co-Chairman. Throughout his 32-year tenure, he has spent 26 as a managing partner, not only assisting the firm transform from a property-based practice to a diversified commercial legal service provider, but also helping it open offices in New Territories, Chengdu and Nanjing. The official opening of the Chengdu Representative Office in 2002 distinguished P.C. Woo & Co. as the first Hong Kong law firm to establish a vital link between Southwestern China and Hong Kong.

In addition to his work in the private sector, Mr. Huang has dedicated substantial time and energy to public service initiatives. He has been particularly instrumental in his work with the Law Society as a former President and Council Member and with government bodies and NGOs in principal positions. Through these roles, he has vigorously

April 2017 • COVER STORY 封面專題

www.hk-lawyer.org 17www.hk-lawyer.org 17


• April 2017

pushed for changes that would improve the practice environment for solicitors in Hong Kong, among other things.

Challenges AheadReflecting on the challenges that may lay ahead for SME law firms in Hong Kong, Mr. Huang highlighted a number of issues P.C. Woo & Co. has encountered, indicating that they were not unique to his particular firm.

Competing for Local Talent

One of the first issues Mr. Huang addressed was the fierce competition for local talent, which he has found “to be one of the most interesting exercises” in running the firm. There is always talent present in the market, but being able to capture it is a different story, he explained. “In vying for good trainees, we find ourselves having to start earlier and earlier in our recruitment exercises. Of course, after having brought them in and trained them up, it is also a challenge to hold on to them. Over 60 of the world’s top 100 firms are represented in Hong Kong. So, they, like us, are trying to attract young local talent. This is a challenge for us because our larger international counterparts can offer more attractive packages than we can – and not just in terms of pecuniary remuneration, but also in arranging international secondments and a variety of other opportunities that provide young lawyers with sterling CVs at the end of their training contacts. The growing appeal of working for an international firm upon graduation has meant one thing for local firms – we are losing our youngsters,” Mr. Huang said.

“Fortunately, P.C. Woo & Co. has been able to bring some of them within its fold. I would like to think that the kind of work the firm can offer juniors adds to our attractiveness as an employer, as does the firm’s culture of valuing work-life balance. We also have a strong record of rewarding loyal staff. We have inculcated the notion that everyone is

entitled to make their way up to the top, which is something you may not find at other firms. Just as many of my partners and I have done, many staff have worked their way up the ranks at the firm. The way staff are trained, nurtured and advanced has created a family spirit, which is very difficult to replicate and also hopefully adds to the firm’s appeal.”

To remain competitive and relevant, smaller firms will have to find ways to distinguish themselves to attract local talent.

Market Trends

Another key issue SME law firms face is finding ways to sustain formerly lucrative practice areas or those that primarily focus on providing services to individual clients, such as conveyancing, family law and succession. In recent years, these practice areas have failed to generate sufficient income, forcing Hong Kong firms to expand their offerings and diversify their client base to remain afloat.

When speaking on the difficulty of maintaining a property practice, Mr. Huang first noted that P.C. Woo & Co. started off as a conveyancing firm. He explained that the founding partner, Dr. Pak Chuen Woo, opened the firm’s first office just six weeks after the close of World War II to help clients with property that had been requisitioned by the British and Japanese armies. Until a certain point before 1997, Hong Kong property market was thriving and conveyancing work generated enough income to enable firms to survive and develop. However, if you look at the legal market for property work today, property transactions are no longer lucrative legal work.

“While we have not had to decrease the size of our property department, it is no longer a prominent fee-earning practice. Some months, the department barely breaks even because the fees we can charge clients are so low. All of this has

made it increasingly difficult to persuade young lawyers to specialise in this area. If we cast our minds forward five to 10 years, it is difficult to say where our property practice will be or who will be doing this work. This issue is not unique to P.C. Woo & Co., but as property has always been a mainstay of the Hong Kong economy, it is worrisome. We need brilliant lawyers in the property sector just as much as in the commercial or financial sector.”

As President of the Law Society, Mr. Huang expressed his concern with the severe competition and pressure on legal fees for conveyancing work and proposed various measures to resolve the unhealthy situation. However, the situation has persisted.

Impact of ADR

Another interesting development, which Mr. Huang noted was exemplified in personal injury cases, is the increased reliance of parties on alternative dispute resolution techniques to resolve disputes. ADR tools enable parties to confidentially settle cases outside of the court system and thereby avoid public scrutiny.



While ADR has many benefits, Mr. Huang explained that it also poses a number of unique challenges for common law-based societies, like Hong Kong, whose lawyers base their advice on precedent. With decisions being rendered confidentially, current trends or thinking on certain legal issues may be unascertainable. For instance, instead of looking at a precedent for an award of damages in a personal injuries case, lawyers will now have to go by their feel for the rates based on personal experience in other cases or anecdotal information.

Capturing OpportunitiesWith China moving forward with its Belt and Road initiative and predictions that ASEAN will continue to expand in 2017, there are many potential economic opportunities on the horizon. In noting the significant role lawyers play in guiding and advising business, promoting legitimate interests and fostering trust, Mr. Huang hopes the Law Society will continue to work closely with Hong Kong law firms to ensure they are well positioned to capture new business as it is generated.

Law Society’s Role

During his time as President of the Law Society, Mr. Huang observed that the globalisation of legal services brings benefits and challenges. “For law societies and regulators there are always concerns of practice rights eroding local interests. Hong Kong exercises a very liberal policy for foreign lawyers, in the belief that foreign lawyers with particular expertise bring benefits to Hong Kong with increased investment. In turn, the local profession stands to benefit through developing new skill sets. Furthermore, the Hong Kong legal profession also gains by being able to develop access to work outside of Hong Kong,” he wrote in his January 2009 President’s Message.

In terms of the Belt and Road initiative, Mr. Huang believes it will generate huge opportunities, but explained that the challenge for Hong Kong will be in language and the profession’s readiness to work in less familiar territories. “It’s a mentality that we have to develop and cultivate among the younger generation – to be ready to encounter this adventure and build and seize upon opportunities as they come our way. The

Law Society is well positioned to lead this initiative,” he said.

To develop access to work outside of Hong Kong, Mr. Huang believes it is vital for members of the profession to forge relationships with those overseas. “During my time as President, one initiative I spearheaded was inviting different Bar Associations from around the world to attend our Opening of the Legal Year ceremonies. The rationale was to use this event to promote Hong Kong and support efforts to take Hong Kong international through cultivating relationships with our overseas counterparts. With our global aspirations, it is important to consolidate friendships through activities, such as the Opening of the Legal Year; we will need friends to achieve our goals over the long-term. I am glad to see that the Law Society has made extending invitations to Bar Associations and overseas dignitaries to attend the Opening of the Legal Year ceremonies a permanent fixture.”

Mr. Huang indicated that it has also been encouraging to see the Law Society continue to build and develop relationships through signing Memoranda of Understanding with different jurisdictions. One additional development he hopes to see in the future is the involvement of more junior lawyers in these relationship-building initiatives. “If they can develop their network in different jurisdictions and promote Hong Kong Law, it would only be for Hong Kong’s betterment.”

Size Matters

Over the long-term, Mr. Huang hopes the Hong Kong legal community will put more emphasis on extending its markets by establishing a presence in major centres of economic activity around the world.

“We have skills and experience that compare with some of the best in the world and these should be used to


• April 2017

good effect. To be able to branch out, however, local firms must have not only skills, but also manpower. To be able to send skilled personnel abroad, the firm must have capacity to spare and this is where size maters. The fact that the vast majority of Hong Kong firms are relatively small explains the absence of Hong Kong firms abroad.”

“If there was a consolidation of smaller practices into larger ones, I think it would be for Hong Kong’s better good. This was something, even as a President of the Law Society, I had hoped to see, but it is not easy. In a way, I feel that this holds back Hong Kong practitioners from going into more challenging regions to make a living. Whereas so many lawyers from overseas are able to set up foreign practices in Hong Kong, we should see if Hong Kong law firms can and are doing the same,” he said.

For this reason, he believes laws such as the ones to enable limited liability partnerships and solicitor corporations are important. He hopes to continue to see the Law Society do what it can to further encourage firms to amalgamate and grow. “Regulation must not stand in the way of good progress. If there is the possibility of Hong Kong firms growing, I think the Law Society should

support that.”

Net Legal Service Exporter

Mr. Huang also hopes to see Hong Kong become a net exporter of legal services. “With our open market environment, we have the necessary basis to export our expertise. In any event, international clients are not restricted on who they must use, and will go to the best even if it means shifting the work offshore to Hong Kong. Hong Kong attracts much foreign investment for itself and for onward investment into China. We also serve as a trading hub between China and the rest of the world. Local lawyers must aim to export their services to the investors and overseas traders to reap the benefits. The Law Society [has] complemented these by continuing to promote Hong Kong’s strengths, including our capacity as an international dispute resolution centre,” he has previously written.

He also noted that lawyers in other jurisdictions, such as the US and UK, have developed a wide network of overseas offices, which can lead to a number of benefits (eg, the use of cross-selling, increased productivity, client expansion, work referrals from other offices and ability to leverage global resources). Mr. Huang believes Hong Kong solicitors can further develop by expanding internationally.

“Hong Kong solicitors are properly positioned to serve both local and international interests. A bolder mindset and a readiness to commit to longer term returns will strengthen the profession in all ways.”

Pro Bono Culture“When you think of pro bono, often times you associate the term with helping clients who are facing a court action and need representation to get through their case on a low bono or pro bono basis. As such, the term pro bono is often associated with the issue of access to justice. P.C. Woo & Co.

does some pro bono work like that, but that is not the only type of pro bono or low bono work we do. We also serve on boards of different NGOs and advise a variety of bodies and non-commercial entities on their work. Our involvement can range from setting up charities to advising clients on governance issues,” Mr. Huang explained.

“Many solicitors in Hong Kong contribute their time in this way. I think that is a huge strength of the legal profession in Hong Kong. The Law Society recognises solicitors’ efforts on this front every year through its pro bono awards.” Mr. Huang thinks this is an important feature of Hong Kong’s legal culture that the community should continue to promote.

For Mr. Huang personally, he said that this kind of work is “the spice” of his legal practice. “If I was confined to my desk job, doing the same things and dealing with the same kinds of issues and clients day in and day out, my last 30 odd years would likely have been quite mundane. Going out and meeting different people who are doing totally different things and learning about these different sectors gives me a richness in life that I might not otherwise enjoy. In that sense, I not only hope to continue to have the opportunity to serve, but also to learn. That has been the kind of spirit that I’ve always adopted.”

One aspect that he hopes will evolve on the pro bono front is in the appointment of people to government committees. “Junior lawyers are not often appointed to contribute on these committees. I hope this will change in the future, as their increased involvement will only be good for Hong Kong. The voices of the younger members of our community are very important and I feel that through the consultative set up that the government has, it is a very useful channel for their voices to be heard.” n


這個年代所經歷的改變是空前的，

律師置身其中雖然有先例可循，

但依循先例不再是萬全之策。現在，同業

競爭構成壓力，經濟環境陰晴不定，技術

應用添繁增亂，俱驅動法律行業改革求

變。法律市場持續增長，不過，消費者不

斷改變的購買模式，他們對法律服務提供

者逐步形成的期望，給律師行及律師行的

業務模式帶來了沉重壓力，中小型律師行

更是首當其衝，壓力尤重。

胡百全律師事務所合夥人兼聯席主席黃

嘉純認為，中小型律師行在未來幾年佔

有舉足輕重的地位，不過律師行負責人

需要了解律師行的業務、所處的市場位

置，然後決定吸引目標客戶群的方法。

一如既往，挑戰和機遇會繼續接踵而

至。然而，要保持自身的相關性，香港

律師行必須繼續實現服務種類多元化，

並在香港以外地區尋找新商機。

處事沉穩的掌舵人

黃律師自1985年開始已經在胡百全律師

事務所工作，在那裏建立自己的事業；

他由見習律師做起，拾級而上，現在已

成為該律師行的聯席主席。黃律師在32

年的事業生涯裏，有26年是擔任合夥人

職務，不僅要協助律師行由一間主力房

地產業務的律師行，漸漸轉變為多元化

的商業法律服務提供者，而且要幫助律

師行在新界和中國成都、南京開設辦事

處。隨著成都代表辦事處在2002年正式

啓用，胡百全律師事務所成為第一間在

中國西部地區與香港之間建立重要連結

的香港律師行。

除了處理私人執業的工作之外，黃律師

亦投入大量時間和精力參與公共服務。

他擔任過律師會會長及理事會成員，以

及政府機構和非政府機構的主要職位，

任期內在律師會和各機構的工作上起了

明顯的推動作用。他透過工作積極推新

求變，果實纍纍，當中包括改善了香港

律師的執業環境。


胡百全律師事務所合夥人兼聯席主席、香港律師會前任會長黃嘉純深思香港律師當

前的執業環境，細想如何可以進一步開創佳境。

專訪

黃嘉純 JP

作者 Cynthia G. Claytor

胡百全律師事務所合夥人兼聯席主席、香港律師會前任會長

未來的挑戰

黃律師細數香港中小型律師行未來可能

面臨的挑戰時，特別提到胡百全律師事

務所經歷過的一些問題，他指出，這些

問題都不是他的律師行所獨有。

爭相招攬本地人才

搶聘本地人才是黃律師處理過的最重要

問題之一，他覺得這是營運律師行「其

中一項最有趣的工作」。市場總有可造

之才，但是我們能否將他們羅致旗下卻

是另一回事。黃律師說：「我們爭相招

聘出色的實習律師時發現，我們必須提

早展開招聘工作，並且一次比一次早。

當然，吸納人才並培訓了他們之後，如

何留住他們同樣是個難題。全球100大

律師行之中，有超過60間在香港設有代

表辦事處。那麼，這些大律師也像我們

一樣，正在努力吸納本地年輕人才。對

我們來說，這是一項挑戰，因為大型國

際律師行能夠提供比我們的更優厚的員

工福利――不單薪酬較高，而且能夠安

排員工調職海外及提供多種多樣的工作

機會，讓年輕律師在實習合約完結後，

可以得到一張亮麗的履歷表。國際律師

行對剛畢業學生的吸引力越來越大，這

個情況給本地律師行說明了一件事――

香港年輕人捨我們而去了。」

「慶幸的是，胡百全律師事務所向來能

夠吸納一部分年輕人才。我會覺得，

律師行能夠提供給年輕人嘗試的工作種

類，可以增加我們作為僱主的吸引力，

而律師行注重公私生活平衡的文化也

有同樣效果。我們亦經常獎勵忠心的員

工。我們向員工灌輸一套觀念，就是人

人都有擢升高位的機會；你未必可以在

其他律師行得到這樣的機會。正如我和

胡百全律師事務所很多合夥人一樣，我

們有很多員工都是憑努力升上高位的。

訓練、培育和提升員工的方法營造員工

同屬一家的精神，這種精神極難複製，

但卻有望增添律師行的吸引力。」

要保持競爭力及相關性，小型律師行就

得想方設法突圍而出，吸引本地人才。

市場趨勢

中小型律師行還得面對另一個重大問

題，就是要設法守住過往利潤豐厚的業

務，或者以個人客戶為主要服務對象的

業務，例如物業轉易、家事法事宜、繼

承事宜。近年來，這些業務已經入不敷

支，致使香港律師行不得不擴大服務範

圍，多元化客戶群，以求繼續經營下

去。

當說到維持房地產業務所遇到的難處

時，黃律師第一件事告訴筆者的，是胡

百全律師事務所最初是一間處理房地產

轉易的律師行。他解釋說，創辦人胡百

全博士在第二次世界大戰結束後只過了

六星期，就開設了胡百全律師事務所第

一間辦事處，幫助客戶處理已經被英軍

和日軍徵用的房地產。一直到1997年之

前某年某日，香港房地產市場蓬勃暢旺

起來，房地產轉易業務帶來可觀收入，

足夠讓律師行經營並發展下去。然而，

黃律師解釋，如果你看看今天法律市場

的房地產工作，就知道房地產交易不再

是賺大錢的法律工作。

「雖然我們用不著縮減房地產部門的人

手，但它不再是最賺錢的部門。房地產

部門有好幾個月僅僅收支平衡，因為我

們可以收取的客戶服務費實在低得很。

種種原因都令人難以說服年輕律師專門

從事這個領域。」他說。「如果我們放

眼望遠5至10年，就很難看得到房地產

業務會有甚麼光景，或者那時還有誰會

從事這方面的工作。這個不是胡百全律

師事務所獨有的問題，而且由於房地產

一直是香港經濟的支柱，因此問題實在

堪憂。我們的房地產分部需要處事精明

的律師，所需要的人數與商業或金融分

部所需要的差不多。」

黃律師在擔任律師會會長的時候，表達

過對某些問題的關注，包括律師行激烈

競爭房地產轉易工作，以及相關律師費

用受壓，他就此建議多項措施解決不健

康的情況。不過至今情況依然不變。

替代訴訟糾紛解決方案的影響

還有另一個有趣的發展，就是當事人越

來越倚賴替代訴訟糾紛解決方案，以作

為解決糾紛的方法，黃律師提到可以列

舉人身傷害案說明情況。替代訴訟糾紛

解決方案讓各方當事人能夠以保密方式

達成庭外和解，從而避開公眾耳目。

替代訴訟糾紛解決方案有許多好處，不

過黃律師指出，解決方案亦給奉行普通

法的社會（例如香港，香港的律師是以

案例為基礎提供法律意見）帶來各種獨


• April 2017


特的挑戰。既然決定是在保密情況下作

出，目前關於某些法律問題的傾向和想

法也許無法確定。譬如說，在人身傷害

案中，律師現在不是研究判給損害賠償

的百分比，而是不得不根據本身在其他

案件所得的經驗或所聽所聞，憑感覺決

定比率。

把握機遇

隨著中國朝向「一帶一路」倡議邁進，

以及有預測認為東盟會在2017年繼續擴

展，我們放眼可見很多有潛質的經濟機

會。黃律師認為律師的作用非常重要，

可以在業務上作出指引和建議之餘，亦

能提高客戶的合法權益並促進兩方的信

任，他強調律師具有重要性的同時，亦

希望律師會將來繼續與香港律師行緊密

合作，確保各律師行做好充足準備，隨

時緊抓住新冒起的商機。

律師會發揮的作用

黃律師在擔任律師會會長期間，注意到

法律服務全球化帶來的好處和挑戰。他

在2009年1月份的《主席的話》撰文

道：「法律界和監管機構一直關注執業

權利損害香港本地的利益。因為相信具

備某種專才的外國律師會給投資活動增

加的香港帶來好處，香港對外國律師的

政策是非常寬鬆的。本地專業人才進而

透過發展新技能而受益。此外，香港法

律專才亦因為能夠開拓通往香港以外地

區工作的渠道而受惠。」

就「一帶一路」倡議而言，黃律師相信

「一帶一路」會帶來龐大機遇，不過對

於香港來說，克服語言障礙以及專業人

員要準備在不大熟悉的地區工作都是大

難題。他說：「我們抱有一種心態，就

是要培育和栽培年青一代――使他們做

好準備冒這個險，並建立自己，窺準時

候，緊抓商機。」律師會已做好在「一

帶一路」倡議中帶路的準備。

黃律師認為，專業人員要開拓渠道走出

香港，就必須與外國同行建立關係。「

擔任會長期間，我特意邀請全球各地的

大律師公會出席我們的法律年度開幕典

禮。我這樣做有一個基本的理由，就是

借助開幕典禮宣傳香港，並透過與外國

律師建立關係，支持為使香港國際化所

盡的努力。我們渴望向全球擴展，透

過各項活動（例如法律年度開幕典禮）

鞏固彼此的友誼是重要的一步；長遠而

言，我們要達成目標就需要建立友誼。

我很高興見到律師會之後每年都廣邀大

律師公會和海外顯貴出席法律年度開幕

典禮。」

黃律師說，一直以來，律師會繼續與不

同司法管轄區簽訂諒解備忘錄，藉此

建立關係，發展友誼，同樣鼓舞人

心。他還希望將來見到更多年青律

師參與這類建立友誼的活動。他

說：「如果他們能夠在不同的司

法管轄區發展自己的網絡，推廣

香港法律，只會有利香港的未來

發展。」

規模的問題

長遠而言，黃律師希望香港法律界多花

心思，藉著進駐全球主要經濟活動中

心，擴展法律市場。

「我們的能力和經驗與全球某幾間頂級

律師行的不相伯仲，我們應當好好利用

能力和經驗，達至理想的效果。不過，

要有能力擴充業務，本地律師行所要具

備的不只是能力，還要有人力。要有能

力將人才送到外國去，律師行就必須有

空缺崗位，這就牽涉到規模的問題。香

港律師行的規模相對較少，這個事實解

釋了為甚麼我們在外國找不到香港的律

師行。」

他說：「如果將小型律師行合併為規模

較大的律師行，我想，對香港會是一件

好事。我當時雖然是律師會會長，但還

是希望見到有律師行合併，不過合併不

是簡單的事。在某種程度上，我覺得這

會窒礙香港執業律師投身更富挑戰性的

地區，力爭上游。鑒於有那麼多的海外


律師能夠在香港開設外國律師行，我們

應當想想香港律師行可有能力甚或已經

同樣遠赴海外開業。」

正因如此，他認為法例相當重要，例如

讓律師行能夠成為有限法律責任合夥及

律師法團的法例。他希望繼續見到律師

會竭盡所能，讓香港律師行能夠合併增

長。「在進展理想的路上絕對不能立例

諸多限制。如果香港律師行有增長的可

能，我想，律師會應當創造實現可能的

有利條件。」

法律服務的淨出口地

黃律師亦希望見到香港成為法律服務的

淨出口地。他曾經撰文寫道：「我們的

市場是向外開放的，具備輸出專業技能

所必要的基礎。不管怎樣，國際客戶沒

有被限制必須選用某些律師行，相反，

客戶都會找上最出色的律師行，即使要

將工作搬到香港亦然。香港為自己引入

大量外國投資，繼而把投資引進到中國

去。我們也是貫通中國與全球各地的貿

易樞紐。香港律師必須銳意向投資者和

海外商家輸出他們的服務，以求獲得好

處。律師會已經作出行動配合，繼續向

外推廣香港的強項，包括香港作為國際

爭議解決中心的地位。」

他亦提到，其他司法管轄區的律師，例

如美國和英國的，已經發展海外辦事

處，建立廣濶的業務網絡，從中得到不

少好處（例如交义銷售、提升生產力、

擴大客戶群、獲得其他辦事處轉介工

作、能夠利用全球資源）。黃律師認為

香港律師有能力衝出國際作進一步發

展。

「香港的律師已經做妥準備，隨時為本

地和外國客戶提供服務。心意堅定，準

備好追求更長遠回報，將會增強法律專

業人員各方面的能力。」

義務工作的文化

「當你想到義務工作的時候，往往聯想

到是幫助有官司纏身的客戶，而這些客

戶都是需要義務或半義務代表律師協助

渡過難關的。就此而論，『義務』一詞

通常離不開『尋求公義』的問題。胡百

全律師事務所也從事一些這一類的義務

工作，不過這不是我們唯一一種以義務

或半義務形式所做的事。我們也向多間

非政府機構提供服務，給各種各類的機

構和非商業企業提供工作意見。我們的

義務工作範圍廣泛，包括成立慈善組織

以及就政府問題向客戶提供意見。」黃

律師解釋說。

「香港有很多律師都是這樣貢獻自己的

時間。我想，這是香港法律專業人員的

過人強項。律師會每年都頒授公益法律

服務獎項，表揚律師在這方面付出的努

力。」黃律師覺得這是香港法律文化中

應當繼續在社區宣揚的重要特色。

黃律師說，就他個人而言，這一類工作

是他在法律事業中的「情趣」。「我如

果日以繼夜埋首工作，每天做同一樣的

事，處理同一類的問題、面對同一群客

戶，過去30多年的日子就很可能相當枯

燥。走出自己的框框去認識其他人，了

解他們所做的完全不一樣的事，也了解

他們處身的種種行業，我的生命就能增

添意義，否則，我就享受不到甚麼情趣

了！從這個意義說來，我不只希望繼續

有機會服務別人，也希望學有所長。這

是我一直堅持的做人態度。」

有一件事是黃律師希望從前線義務工作

演變過來的，就是委任人加入政府委員

會。「年青律師通常不獲委任加入這些

委員會。我希望這個情況將來會改變，

因為有更多年青人參與對香港只會是一

件好事。年輕一代的聲音對於我們的社

會非常重要，我想，我們透過政府的諮

詢平台就可以聽到他們的聲音，諮詢平

台是聆聽他們聲音的最好的渠道。」 n


• April 2017

LAW SOCIETY NEWS律師會新聞


• April 2017

The Hong Kong Academy of Law and The Law SocietyThe Law Society (“Society”) and Hong Kong Academy of Law (“Academy”) organised 17 seminars in February.

The Society jointly organised a seminar entitled “Cap. 622 – Three Years On” with the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants and The Hong Kong Institute of Chartered Secretaries on 27 February. The seminar highlighted the successes of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) (“Ordinance”) and identified areas which may be in need of further fine-tuning or reform. 195 participants attended the seminar.

Speakers of the seminar were Professor David C. Donald, Professor in the Law Faculty of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Mr. Peter Lake, Partner of Slaughter and May, Mr. Ernest Lee, Council Member of The Hong Kong Institute of Chartered Secretaries, Ms. Susan Lo, Executive Director, Director of Corporate Services and Head of Learning & Development of Tricor Services Limited, Professor C.K. Low, Associate Professor in Corporate Law, Business School of The Chinese University of Hong Kong and Dr. William M.F. Wong, S. C. of Des Voeux Chambers.

The Law Reform on Child Custody and Access: Joint Meeting with Legislative Council Members, Labour and Welfare Bureau, Social Welfare Department and NGOsOn 20 February, the Law Society’s Family Law Committee had a joint meeting with a few Legislative Council members and representatives from the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Social Welfare Department and NGOs. At the meeting, the parties had a useful exchange of views on the proposed Children Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill.

香港法律專業學會及律師會

香港法律專業學會及律師會於2月舉辦了合共17場專題講座。

律師會、香港會計師公會和香港特許秘書公會於2月27日合辦了題為「第622

章生效三年」的專題講座，重點討論《公司條例》(第622章)的成效，並探討

可作進一步微調或改革的領域。195位與會者出席了該專題講座。

該專題講座的講者包括香港中文大學法律學院蕭大衛教授、司力達律師樓合伙

人Peter Lake 先生、香港特許秘書公會理事李俊豪先生、卓佳專業商務有限公

司執行董事及學習與發展部主管及企業服務董事盧綺霞女士、香港中文大學商

學院公司法律副教授劉殖強教授及德輔大律師行王鳴峰資深大律師。

就子女管養權及探視權的法律改革：與立法會議員、勞工及福利局、社會福利署及非政府機構會面

律師會家事法委員會於2月20日與勞工及福利局、社會福利署、數名立法會議

員及非政府機構代表舉行了會議，就擬議的《子女法律程序(父母責任)條例草

案》進行了有建設性的意見交流。

GCLAC held its annual Brainstorming Session at the Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone.大中華法律事務委員會於前海深港現代服務業合作區舉辦集思會。

Ms. Lu Xi, Director of Anti-Corruption-and-Bribery Bureau and Vice-ministerial Level Member of Procuratorial Committee of The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China, (right sixth) with Law Society’s representatives. 反貪污賄賂總局盧希局長(右六)與香港律師會會晤。


April 2017 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

Supreme People's Procuratorate visits the Law SocietyLed by Ms. Lu Xi, Director of Anti-Corruption-and-Bribery Bureau and Vice-ministerial Level Member of Procuratorial Committee of The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China, a delegation paid a visit to the Law Society on 24 February. Vice President Mr. Amirali Nasir, Council Members Mr. Nick Chan, Mr. C M Chan, Mr. Simon Lai, Mr. Roden Tong, Committee members of the Greater China Legal Affairs Committee Ms. Catherine Mun, Ms. Alexandra Lo and Mr. Ronald Kan received the delegation and introduced the development of Hong Kong's legal services sector, the structure and management of the Law Society and the professional conduct of members of the Law Society.

Greater China Legal Affairs Committee Annual Brainstorming SessionThe Greater China Legal Affairs Committee ("GCLAC") held its annual Brainstorming Session and regular meeting, which was chaired by Vice President and Chairman of the Committee Melissa Pang, on 4 March at the Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone. Committee members reviewed the activities held last year and discussed the committee’s direction and programme in the coming year in a relaxed atmosphere. They also took this opportunity to visit a law firm located in the Cooperation Zone so as to get a better understanding of the cooperation and development of associations between Hong Kong and Shenzhen law firms.

大中華法律事務委員會集思會

大中華法律事務委員會於3月4日在前海深港現代服務業合作區舉行集思會暨例會，並由

副會長暨委員會主席彭韻僖律師主持會議。委員在輕鬆的氣氛下，回顧去年所舉辦的活

動，並討論來年的發展方向和活動計劃。委員亦藉著這個機會參觀位於合作區的律師事

務所，了解深港兩地聯營律師事務所的合作與發展。

最高人民檢察院訪問律師會

2月24日，最高人民檢察院檢察委員會副部級專職委員兼反貪污賄賂總局局長盧希女士

帶領代表團到訪香港律師會。由律師會副會長黎雅明律師、理事陳曉峰律師、陳澤銘律

師、黎壽昌律師、湯文龍律師、大中華法律事務委員會委員文理明律師、羅德慧律師和

簡汝謙律師接待，並向代表團介紹香港法律服務業的發展概況、律師會的架構和管理，

以及律師會會員的專業操守等題目。

By Allan Leung, Partner Hogan Lovells Thomas Wong, Senior Associate Hogan Lovells


• April 2017

The Environmental Impact Assessment Process and Hong Kong’s Third Runway

April 2017 • JUDICIAL REVIEW 司法覆核


REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

Judicial review proceedings against the approval of the Airport Authority Hong

Kong’s (“AAHK”) Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) Report and the grant of an environmental permit (“Permit”) for the proposed third-runway system at the Hong Kong International Airport (“HKIA”) were dismissed with costs on 22 December 2016 (HCAL 21 & 22/2015, 22 December 2016).

This is a crucial infrastructure project valued at HK$141.5 billion which aims to enhance Hong Kong’s standing as an aviation hub in the region and its economy.

The Court dismissed all of the challenges, finding that AAHK’s EIA Report met all legal requirements.

The EIA ProcessThe EIA Ordinance (Cap. 499) (“Ordinance”) prescribes a process for the proponent of a designated project to obtain a Permit without which construction of a designated project may not commence. An airport, including the proposed third-runway system, is such a “designated project”.

The EIA process begins with the project proponent applying to the Director of Environmental Protection (“Director”) for a Study Brief, by submitting, inter alia, a project profile that complies with the Technical Memorandum. The Technical Memorandum is generally applicable to all designated projects, whereas the Study Brief is project-specific.

Within 14 days, the Director is empowered to ask the applicant to give further information concerning the project profile or notify the applicant of any defects in the application. Thereafter, the Director is obliged to issue to the applicant an EIA Study Brief within 45 days.

The project proponent then completes an EIA report in accordance with the Study Brief and the Technical Memorandum and submits it to the Director, who has 60 days to decide whether the EIA report meets the requirements of the EIA Study Brief and the Technical Memorandum. Following a positive decision, the EIA report will be advertised, published and made available

for public inspection. Meanwhile, the Advisory Council on the Environment has 60 days to give their comments on the EIA report to the Director.

The EIA report then enters the critical stage of approval: the Director has 30 days to “approve, approve with conditions or reject” the EIA report. After the EIA report has been approved, it will be placed on the EIA register. Following this, and before the project proponent commences works in relation to a designated project, the proponent should refer to the EIA report on the register and apply to the Director for a Permit.

The Director has 30 days to reject the Permit application or approve it with conditions. The project proponent may not proceed to construct and operate the designated project without the Permit.

The Third-Runway System Judicial Review Proceedings: Four Key IssuesThe same EIA process applied to the third-runway system. The Director issued a Study Brief to AAHK, the project proponent, on 28 May 2012 pursuant to which the EIA Report was prepared. Eventually, the EIA Report was approved and the Permit granted on 7 November 2014.

Bearing in mind the EIA process described above, four key legal issues were raised in the third-runway system judicial review proceedings:

1. Whether “strict compliance” with the Technical Memorandum and Study Brief was required in every case.

2. Whether the so-called Tameside duty is applicable to the EIA process.

3. Whether the Technical Memorandum and Study Brief in this case required AAHK’s EIA Report to state an assumption that the immediate airspace in the Pearl River Delta area (“PRD Airspace”) would be available for use by the projected air traffic movements into or out of Hong Kong (the “PRD Airspace Assumption”).


• April 2017

4. Whether the Technical Memorandum and Study Brief mandated consideration and provision, in the EIA Report, of off-site compensation measures during the construction phase of the third-runway system in relation to the ecological impact assessment concerning Chinese white dolphins (“Dolphins”).

These issues are examined respectively below.

Issue 1: “Strict Compliance” with the Technical Memorandum and Study Brief

On this issue, the Court rejected the argument that any deviation or non-compliance from or with the Technical Memorandum and Study Brief, however minor, insignificant or inconsequential, would result in the invalidation of the Director’s approval of the EIA report. The correct position was set out in Shiu Wing Steel Ltd v Director of Environmental Protection & Airport Authority (No. 2) (Third Party) (2006) 9 HKCFAR 478 that:

• if the EIA report deviates from or does not comply with the Technical Memorandum and Study Brief, the Director should advise the project proponent of the reasons why the EIA report is unacceptable; and

• if the Director approved an EIA report not complying literally or fully with the Technical Memorandum and Study Brief, whether the Director’s decision was made without jurisdiction or unlawfully would depend on the circumstances of the case, including the nature and seriousness of the non-compliance. In particular, whether the non-compliance or breach is purely technical and has no material impact on the decision or on the environment.

Issue 2: Tameside Duty

The so-called Tameside duty, derived from the House of Lords’ decision in Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014, requires every decision-maker (here, the Director) “to take reasonable steps

to equip himself with the necessary relevant information to enable himself to make an informed decision”. In these judicial review proceedings, an Applicant contended that a Tameside duty exists alongside the statutory duties imposed on the Director.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that the express obligations imposed by the Ordinance were already highly detailed and prescriptive, and should be regarded as a sufficient discharge of the Director’s duties in relation to the EIA process. The court should not impose additional obligations on the Director.

However, the Court did not completely close the door on potential scope for further duties, whether in terms of Tameside or the duty to inquire/consult. But in any particular case, the Court should only strike down a decision for any such failure “if no reasonable [decision-maker] possessed of that material could suppose that the inquiries they had made were sufficient”.

Issue 3: PRD Airspace Assumption

One of the judicial review proceedings grounds challenged the assumptions on which the EIA Report was based, claiming that:

• AAHK’s EIA Report had to disclose the assumptions and their limitations, and the findings and calculations employed in arriving at the environmental impacts of capacity increase at the HKIA;

• the assumption that the PRD Airspace would be available for use by the projected air traffic movements into or out of Hong Kong was wrong; and

• accordingly assumptions adopted by, and upon which the EIA Report was based, were incorrect.

The Court rejected this line of argument, holding that the EIA Report’s noise impact assessment study is concerned with finding out what may be the third-runway system’s possible or likely noise

impact, and the assumptions on which this is based are not required to be justified in the EIA Report.

Issue 4: The Dolphins

Finally, on the Dolphins issue, the Applicant complained that the EIA Report failed to consider the possibility of off-site mitigation – specifically, compensation – measures during the third-runway system’s construction phase.

The Court also rejected this complaint, holding that the general policy for mitigating impacts on important habitats and wildlife, in order of priority, are avoidance, minimising, and compensation. In this case, the EIA Report already identifies and recommends a series of on-site mitigation measures during the third-runway system’s construction phase, which are designed to avoid and/or minimise the adverse ecological impacts caused by the third-runway system. Further, though off-site compensation measures during the construction phase had been considered but rejected because of impracticability, nothing in the Technical Memorandum or Study Brief requires the EIA Report to specifically “consider” or “provide” off-site compensation measures during the third-runway system’s construction phase.

Practical PointsChow J’s written judgment concludes with a strong reminder of the way in which Form 86 should be drafted by referring to a statement by Litton PJ in Lau Kong Yong v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300, that “what is required, in a proper Form 86, is to state the grounds of judicial review clearly, succinctly and in a few numbered paragraphs”. Chow J closes his judgment with the threat of Court actions to enforce compliance with these basic requirements of the Form 86.

Practitioners should take heed of these wise words. n

作者梁鎮宇合夥人霍金路偉律師行

黃偉傑高級律師霍金路偉律師行

就香港機場管理局(下稱「機管局」)

為擬興建的香港國際機場第三跑道

系統而編寫的「環評報告」獲得通過，以

及就有關的「環境許可證」獲得批予而提

起的司法覆核程序，被法庭於2016年12

月22日駁回，申請人並需支付訟費(HCAL

21 & 22/2015, 22 December 2016)。

這項造價達1,415億港元的龐大基建項

目，旨在增強香港作為地區性航空樞紐的

地位，以及促進香港的經濟發展。

法庭駁回了申請人所提出的全部質疑，裁

定機管局所編寫的「環評報告」符合所有

法律規定。

環境影響評估程序

《環境影響保護條例》(第499章)(以下簡

稱《條例》)訂明了「指定工程項目」的

倡議人在取得「環境許可證」方面的相關

程序，而在獲得發給該許可證以前，任何

與「指定工程項目」有關的建造工程均不

得展開，而機場(包括擬興建的第三跑道

系統)是屬於「指定工程項目」。

「環境影響評估程序」的展開，是先由

工程項目的倡議人提交符合「技術備忘

錄」要求的「工程項目簡介」，並要求環

境保護署署長(下稱「環保署署長」)根據

該簡介向其發出「研究概要」。一般而

言，「技術備忘錄」適用於所有「指定工

程項目」，而「研究概要」則按個別工程

項目而定。

環保署署長獲賦予權力，可在14天內要

求申請人提供與該「工程項目簡介」相關

的進一步資料，又或是告知申請人其申請

所存在的瑕疵。之後，環保署署長須於

45天內向申請人發出「環境影響評估研

究概要」。

接著，該工程項目的倡議人須依據「研究

概要」及「技術備忘錄」來編寫「環評報

告」，並向環保署署長提交該報告。在接

獲該份「環評報告」後，環保署署長可於

60天內決定其是否符合「環境影響評估

研究概要」及「技術備忘錄」之規定。倘

若符合有關規定，該「環評報告」將予以

公佈、刊發，並提供予公眾查閱。同時，

環境諮詢委員會會於60天內，向環保署

署長提交其對該份「環評報告」的意見。

之後，該份「環評報告」遂進入決定性的

審批階段：環保署署長可於30天內，批

准、有條件批准或拒絕批准該份「環評報

告」。假如獲得審批通過，該份「環評報

告」將會存置於「環境影響評估登記冊」

內。隨後，以及在該工程項目的倡議人展

開與該「指定工程項目」有關的建造工程

以前，倡議人須就該存置於登記冊的「環

評報告」，向環保署署長提出發給「環境

許可證」的申請。

環保署署長可在30天內，拒絕接納該要

求發給許可證的申請，又或是在有條件的

情況下作出批准。在獲發「環境許可證」

以前，工程項目的倡議人不得建造及營辦

該「指定工程項目」。

第三跑道系統的司法覆核程序：四個主要

爭議點

該「環境影響評估程序」同樣適用於第三

跑道系統。環保署署長在2012年5月28

日向該工程項目的倡議人(亦即機管局)發

出「研究概要」，以供其作為編寫「環評

報告」的根據。最後，該份「環評報告」

在2014年11月7日獲得通過，並獲發給

「環境許可證」。

April 2017 • JUDICIAL REVIEW 司法覆核


環境影響評估程序及香港的第三條跑道

在該項有關第三跑道系統的司法覆核程序

中，申請人基於上述的「環境影響評估程

序」，而提出以下四個主要爭議點：

1. 是否在每一情況中，都需要「嚴格遵

從」該「技術備忘錄」及「研究概

要」。

2. 所謂的Tameside責任，是否適用於該

「環境影響評估程序」。

3. 案中的「技術備忘錄」及「研究概

要」，是否要求機管局的「環評報

告」必須載有一項假設，指出在珠江

三角洲地區有即時的空域(下稱「珠三

角地區空域」)，可滿足未來的香港航

空交通需求(下稱「珠三角地區空域假

設」)。

4. 該「技術備忘錄」及「研究概要」是

否規定，在對中華白海豚的生態影響

評估方面，該「環評報告」必須考慮

和訂立在第三跑道系統建造期間的，

於工地範圍以外的補償措施。

以下我們就上述各個爭議點逐一加以討

論。

第一個爭議點：「技術備忘錄」及「研究

概要」的「嚴格遵從」

關於這一點，法庭並不同意任何對該「技

術備忘錄」及「研究概要」的偏離或不遵

從，不論其為如何次要、不顯著、或無足

輕重，都會導致環保署署長對該「環評

報告」所作的批准無效。法庭認為，正

確的取態應當是有如Shiu Wing Steel Ltd

v Director of Environmental Protection

& Airport Authority (No. 2) (Third Party)

(2006) 9 HKCFAR 478一案中所述的：

‧ 該「環評報告」倘若偏離「技術備忘

錄」及「研究概要」，或不遵從當中

的規定，環保署署長應當告知工程項

目的倡議人該「環評報告」不被接納

的理由；及

‧ 環保署署長所批准的該份「環評報

告」，倘若並沒有確切地遵從「技術

備忘錄」及「研究概要」的規定，則

環保署署長是否沒有權力又或是不合

法地作出該項決定，須視乎該案的實

際情況而定，當中包括所指的不遵從

是屬何性質，以及其嚴重程度如何。

尤其是，該等不遵從或違反規定的情

況，是否純粹屬於技術性質，其對所

作出的決定或是對環境，並不會構成

任何重大影響。

第二個爭議點：Tameside責任

所謂的Tameside責任，是源於上議院在

Secretary of State for Education and Sci-

ence v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014

一案中的裁決，當中要求每一名決策者

(在本案中即為環保署署長)「必須採取合

理步驟以取得所需的相關資料，從而在掌

握充分資料的情況下作出有關決定」。在

這項司法覆核程序中，一位申請人提出爭

辯稱，Tameside責任與委予環保署署長的

法定責任應當同時並存。

法庭拒絕接納這一論點，並認為《條例》

所委予的明文責任已經非常詳盡和具規範

性，環保署署長倘若已根據該「環境影響

評估程序」履行此等責任，便應被視為已

充分履行其職責，法庭不應向他施加額外

的責任。

然而，環保署署長是否有需要承擔進一

步的責任(無論是Tameside責任，還是調

查／諮詢責任)，法庭並沒有完全抹殺這

方面的可能。但在任何特定情況中，假如

「掌握該等資料的任何合理[決策者]，均

不會同意他們所作的調查已經充分」，法

庭方可在這情況下針對其失責情況而將有

關決定推翻。

第三個爭議點：珠三角地區空域的假設

該宗司法覆核案的其中一個爭議點，是對

作為該「環評報告」之編寫依據的該等假

設提出質疑，並認為：

‧機管局的「環評報告」必須披露該等假

設以及當中的局限性、相關的研究結

果，以及在考慮香港國際機場容量增

加對環境所產生的影響方面，其所使

用的量度方法；

‧該等關於珠三角地區空域可滿足未來的

香港航空交通需求之假設是不能成立

的；及

‧據此，該份「環評報告」所採納並以其

作為依據的該等假設是錯誤的。

法庭拒絕接納這些論點，並認為該份「環

評報告」的噪音影響評估研究，主要是為

了明瞭該第三跑道系統可能或相當可能產

生的噪音影響，而作為其依據的該等假

設，並不需要在該份「環評報告」中得到

證明。

第四個爭議點：中華白海豚

最後，關於中華白海豚方面的問題，該司

法覆核程序的申請人提出，該份「環評報

告」並沒有考慮在第三跑道系統的興建期

間，採取工地範圍以外的緩解措施(具體

而言，即是補償)之可能性。

法庭也駁回了這項申訴，並認為若要對重

要的棲息地和野生動物所造成的影響作出

緩解，所採取的一般政策，按其優先次序

應為：力求避免、將影響程度減至最低、

及給予補償。在本案中，該份「環評報

告」已經確認和建議了一系列在第三跑道

系統興建期間的工地緩解措施，其目的是

力求避免及／或緩減該第三跑道系統對生

態環境所造成的不利影響。此外，在第

三跑道系統的興建期間，雖然確曾考慮工

地範圍以外的補償措施，並基於實際情況

不可行而告放棄，但無論是該「技術備忘

錄」還是「研究概要」，都沒有規定該「

環評報告」須具體「考慮」或「訂明」在

第三跑道系統的興建期間，必須採取工地

範圍以外的補償措施。

實務要點

周家明法官在其書面判詞的最後結論中，

就應當如何草擬「第86號表格」作出了

一項重要提醒。他提述終審法院常任法

官列顯倫在Lau Kong Yong v Director of

Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300一案

中的一項陳述，就是「一份妥為擬備的

「第86號表格」，需要清晰和簡潔地按

段落排序的方式，述明提出司法覆核的各

項理由。」最後，周家明法官警告稱，對

於該等未能符合這些基本要求的「第86

號表格」，法庭將會採取強制遵從的措

施。

法律執業者務須留意這項善意提醒。 n


• April 2017

April 2017 • CORPORATE 企業


Memorandum of a Transaction Foretold

By Xin Fang, Associate Mayer Brown JSM


• April 2017

guarantee a solution. The parties may end up with a collapsed deal and a huge bill. Even if the issue is resolved in the end, this is not an efficient way to run a transaction. Moreover, in the case of a joint venture, the grilling negotiations may start the collaboration on the wrong foot.

So what are the key commercial issues that should be included in an MOU? Commercial issues can be categorised by their level of importance (ie, their potential to kill transactions) into (1) top priority issues; (2) high priority issues; and (3) low priority issues. An MOU should address all the known “top priority issues” and “high priority issues”.

Top Priority Issues

“Top priority issues” are the issues that go to the root of a transaction. Without agreement on these issues, there is simply no deal.

Although the focus and concerns of the parties to each transaction differ, in the context of an acquisition, the top priority issues are usually those relating to the target and the price. Questions as to whether the target would include the seller’s entire business or only part of it, the indicative price, whether the consideration would be satisfied by cash or a combination of cash and non-cash should be agreed.

Parties should also watch out for fundamental issues that are deal-specific. For example, in the context of a joint venture, if one party’s business imperative is to constitute the joint venture company as both parties’ sole platform for operating a certain line of business, this should be raised upfront and agreed in the MOU. Given the importance of this issue, the parties should also go into more detail of how this would work, such as:

• Would each party transfer its current business to the joint venture company?

• How would the parties ensure that

In an acquisition or a joint venture transaction, the first substantive

document on which the parties sign their name is the memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”). To a large extent, the MOU foretells the fate of the transaction.

The MOU (also known as heads of terms, letter of intent and term sheet) is a document that outlines the parties’ initial understanding of the terms of the transaction. It usually comprises a set of binding and non-binding provisions. Each set plays a different role. The binding provisions govern the mechanical processes while the non-binding provisions lay out the key commercial terms. The non-binding commercial provisions are the focus of this article.

The fate of the transaction is written in the non-binding provisions, but it is common for commercial parties to rush through them in order to commence due diligence and serious drafting. This article seeks to set out a systematic approach for determining the minimal commercial terms that an MOU should contain to ensure that there is a transaction within reach.

Binding Procedural ProvisionsThe binding provisions govern the process that leads to the execution of the definitive agreements. They define the parameters of the parties’ conduct and set out their obligations during the due diligence and negotiation stages. There is a fairly standard set of binding procedural provisions, which typically includes:

• an exclusivity provision (which is sometimes coupled with a deposit/earnest money provision) that is usually a precondition to the parties’ further investment of resources in the transaction;

• a confidentiality provision that facilitates the exchange of sensitive business information;

• a cost provision that typically specifies

that each party bears its own costs; and

• mechanical provisions such as the governing law and dispute resolution provisions.

Since the procedural provisions set out the ground rules of the pre-execution phase, the parties usually agree that they should be binding.

Non-Binding Commercial ProvisionsThe non-binding provisions lay out the substance of the deal. They are necessarily non-binding because the parties need to retain flexibility pending due diligence, financial modelling and further negotiations. Unlike the binding procedural provisions, there is no standard set of non-binding commercial provisions. They can range from the very vague to the very detailed, from being a little more than a formal way of saying “let’s make some money together” to being almost a full blown definitive agreement. The amount of commercial detail speaks volumes about how smoothly (or otherwise) the transaction will be.

How much commercial detail?

How much commercial detail should an MOU contain? Sometimes a purchaser may, for strategic reasons, favour a bare-bone MOU. This may occur where there are multiple bidders. The top priority for the bidders would be to secure an exclusivity arrangement with the seller as soon as possible, rather than to negotiate the commercial terms.

Putting strategic reasons aside, the more key commercial issues addressed in an MOU the better. Some parties prefer to leave the hard issues to the drafting stage, because they wish to commence the transaction on a friendly note and they believe that the sunk cost would be so great at the later stage that the parties would have to compromise.

This is a bad idea. If a hard issue is a deal breaker, saving it until last will not



future opportunities are referred to the joint venture?

• What level of approval is required for the joint venture company to take up the opportunity?

• If the joint venture company does not take up the opportunity, can one party pursue the opportunity either alone or with third parties?

The precise wording and mechanisms can be left to the drafting stage, but the parties should lay out the principles at the MOU stage.

High Priority Issues

“High priority issues” are potential deal breakers and matters that may have a significant impact on the timeline or structure of the deal. At the MOU stage, it is not necessary to settle all of these issues in detail. The aim should be to agree on the principles for addressing the deal breakers and to signpost the matters which may materially affect the transaction.

Warranty provisions are just one example of potential deal breakers. For instance, PRC sellers are, generally speaking, accustomed to a less extensive set of warranties than what is customary in Europe and the United States. Hence, there might be a discrepancy between the extent of warranties that a PRC seller is willing to provide and that which a European or American purchaser

requires. It is obviously premature to set out the warranties in the MOU, but the parties should agree on the principles (ie, whether “mere title warranties” or “a full set of title and business warranties” would be included in the transaction document).

Non-compete undertakings are another example of potential deal breakers. At a minimum, the parties should agree on whether restrictive covenants are required. They should also try to agree on the scope of the restricted activities, territorial reach and duration of the restrictions.

As mentioned, “high priority issues” also include matters that may significantly impact the timeline and deal structure. The purpose of including them in the MOU is not to find an immediate solution (which may not be available), but to identify hurdles, manage expectations and plan the next move. Time-consuming action items identified could also be taken care of at an early stage.

Take conditions precedent for instance. If the parties have flagged out “merger clearance” as one of the conditions precedent to completion, once the MOU is signed, the parties could kick off the legal work stream to conduct a more thorough analysis and prepare the filing documents. If governmental or regulatory approvals are conditions precedent,

the parties may wish to commence discussions with the government or regulators to explore, early on, whether such approvals would be forthcoming.

Low Priority Issues

“Low priority issues” are commercial issues that are unlikely to result in protracted negotiations. They are usually items that supplement the key commercial positions that have already been addressed as “top priority issues” or “high priority issues”. As such, the room for argument is limited. Examples would include the cap amount and de minimis threshold for warranty claims, pre-emption rights, drag-along rights, tag-along rights, the list of reserved matters. Unless a quick decision can be made, discussions on “low priority issues” could be left out of the MOU for negotiation at a later stage.

ConclusionThe non-binding commercial provisions in an MOU contain early signs of whether the road to completion is a smooth highway, a rough uphill track or a cul-de-sac. If circumstances permit, by advising clients on the “top priority issues” and “high priority issues” that should be addressed at the MOU stage, lawyers can help parties to ensure that there is a true meeting of minds and a transaction within reach. n


• April 2017

意向書：被忽略的預言

作者方心律師孖士打律師行

在併購和合資項目中，交易各方簽

署的第一份實質性文件就是「意

向書」。在很大程度上，它的內容和質

量預示了交易的命運。

意向書是一份概括性文件，旨在記錄各

方對交易條件的初步共識。它通常由兩

類條款組成。第一類條款屬於程序性、

規定性的條款，具有法律約束力。第二

類條款屬於商業條款，一般不具法律約

束力。這些商業條款正是本文的焦點。

交易是否順利、能否走到「成交」這一

步，很大程度取决於這些不具約束力的

商業條款。然而，交易各方為了盡快進

入盡責調查和草擬正式交易文件的階

段，往往草率地處理意向書裡的商業條

款。結果反而欲速不達，各方在投入了

很多人力資源後才發現他們在許多重大

的商業問題上存在分歧，必須减慢項目

的進度，甚至擱置交易。

若要避免這個結果，就必須確保各方在

簽訂意向書時，已經在交易的主要方面

達成共識，並且將此記錄在意向書內。

那麽，意向書應該包括哪些主要的商業

條款？本文通過對商業條款的分析和分

類，提供一個系統的解答。

具有約束力的程序性條款

一般來說，從簽訂意向書到簽訂正式交

易文件，中間相隔至少一兩個月。在這

段時間裡，各方會展開盡責調查、商業

談判、草擬正式交易文件等一系列工

作。交易各方在這個過程中的行為和義

務，由意向書裡的程序性條款管轄。這

些年來，業內已經發展出一套相當標準

的程序性條款，其中包括：

‧ 排他性條款，用於限制交易一方或各

方在談判期間與其他買家或投資者接

觸。這個條款表達了各方合作的誠

意，是各方進一步投放談判資源的前

提。

‧ 保密條款，其作用在於通過維護信息

披露方的權益，鼓勵各方交換敏感商

業信息，以推進盡責調查和項目評估

的工作。

‧ 費用攤分條款，一般規定各方應自行

承擔簽署正式交易文件之前的開銷。

‧ 管轄法律和爭議解决條款。

程序性條款定下簽署正式交易文件前的

「游戲規則」，因此交易各方一般會在

意向書中約定，該等條款具有法律約束

力。

不具有約束力的商業條款

商業條款是交易的骨架，可是在絕大數

情况下，這些商業條款都不具法律約束

力。這是因為在簽訂意向書時，各方尚

未完成盡責調查、還需要對項目的可行

性和風險程度進行更深入的分析、並與

對方討論更具體的操作性問題。由於這

些因素都會影響各方的决策，所以為了

給自己留下迴轉餘地，交易各方一般都

會在意向書中明文規定，其內的商業條

款不具法律效力。

與程序性條款不同的是，業內並沒有發

展出一套相對標準的商業條款。意向書

中的商業條款可以僅僅是一套表達合作



誠意的客套話，也可以是一套猶如正

式交易文件般全面詳細的條款。大部分

意向書裡的商業條款介於這兩個極端之

間。商業細節的多寡往往跟交易過程的

順利與否直接掛鉤。

應該包括多少商業細節？

一份意向書應該包括多少商業細節？出

於策略原因，買家有時偏向於一份簡約

的意向書。比如說，當市場上有幾個買

家對同一個目標公司感興趣，為了排除

其他競爭者，每個買方都希望盡快跟賣

方簽訂意向書。在這種情况下，買方的

主要目的是通過意向書內的排他性條款

限制賣方與其他買家接觸，而不是定下

交易的具體商業條款。

在沒有戰略原因的前提下，意向書中的

主要商業條款越多越好。有些交易方喜

歡把最難的議題留到最後。一方面，這

是因為他們想在一個輕鬆友好的環境下

展開談判；另一方面，他們打算到了後

期，隨着各方的沉沒成本越來越多，各

方會更有動力解決分歧、做出妥協。

這個做法的風險性很高。把一個致命的

商業議題留到最後，不代表一定會有解

决方案。如果這是一個各方都不能讓步

的商業點，那各方只能在投入了大量金

錢和時間後，分道揚鑣。如果事情發生

在一個合資項目中，就算一方最終妥協

了，他可能會覺得自己在談判過程中被

對方“挾持”了。彼此之間的嫌隙肯定

不利於他們未來的合作關係。

那麼意向書應該包括哪些主要的商業

點？我們可以根據其重要性，把商業議

題分為三類，即「關鍵議題」、「重要

議題」和「次要議題」。

關鍵議題

「關鍵議題」指的是交易成立的根本條

件。若各方在這些議題上存在分歧，那

就沒有繼續協商的必要。

以股權併購為例，其「關鍵議題」一般

與目標資產和收購價格相關。買賣雙方

必須商定買方是收購目標公司的全部還

是部分業務、初步收購價格、及收購價

格是否全以現金支付等基本問題。

每個交易都有其獨特性，也因此有其獨

特的「關鍵議題」。比如說，在一個合

資項目裡，如果一方的商業訴求是把合

資公司打造成雙方經營此類生意的唯一

平台，該方應該及早提出這個要求，並

就此與對方達成共識。既然這是交易的

基礎，各方應該更詳細地商討操作層面

的事項，例如：

‧ 各方現有的業務是否應該轉讓給合資

公司？

‧ 如何保證各方會將新的商機轉介給合

資公司？

‧ 若合資公司放棄該商機，一方能否獨

自或與第三方繼續發展該商機？

在這個階段，各方只需就「關鍵議題」

取得原則性的共識，具體的文字和操作

機制可以留到之後的正式交易文件起草

階段再慢慢琢磨。

重要議題

「重要議題」指的是有可能阻礙交易成

功的爭議點，或對交易的結構或時間表

造成重大影響的事項。在意向書裡提及

「重要議題」主要是為了約定這些議題

的處理原則，和策劃後續的跟進工作。

在併購交易中，買賣雙方經常為賣方對

目標資產提供的陳述與保證爭吵不休。

買方要求賣方提供的陳述與保證，賣方

未必願意給。例如，比起中國內地的賣

方，歐美地區的賣方一般會為目標資產

提供更廣泛詳盡的陳述與保證。因此，

歐美買方經常不滿意中國內地賣方提供

的陳述與保證。若要在意向書的階段列

出賣方的每個陳述與保證，顯然為時過

早。但是，雙方應該在這個階段約定原

則性問題，即賣方是僅僅提供產權方面

的陳述與保證，還是提供全套的產權和

商業經營方面的陳述與保證

另一個比較大的爭議點是競業禁止。由

於競業禁止會直接影響一方未來的業

務，所以雙方在談判時容易陷入膠着狀

態。在準備意向書的階段，各方至少應

該商定是否需要競業禁止。最好他們也

能約定競業禁止所限制的活動、區域和

期限。

「重要議題」也包括對交易的結構或時

間具有潜在重大影響的事項。把它們放

在意向書裡不是為了找到一個解決方案

（因為未必有一個快速解决的方法）

，而是為了界定問題，管理各方的期望

值，及計劃下一步行動。此外，對於需

要大量時間處理的「重要議題」，各方

可以及早安排跟進工作，减少其對項目

時間表的影響。

就拿先決條件作為一個例子。如果「反

壟斷審批」是交割的先決條件，意向書

一經簽署，各方就可以請其法律團隊對

此進行更深入的分析、準備審批材料

等。如果交易需要得到政府或監管部門

的批准，各方可以盡早安排與有關部門

溝通，了解他們對交易的看法。

次要議題

「次要議題」指的是那些相對容易解決

的問題。這些問題通常屬於輔助性事

項，按各方在「關鍵議題」和「重要議

題」上已商定的原則，對交易機制進行

補充和完善，因此爭議性不大。「次要

議題」包括陳述與保證的有效期、賠償

的封頂限制、優先購買權、隨售權、拖

售權等。除非各方可以在「次要議題」

上迅速達到共識，否則可以將「次要議

題」押後至草擬正式交易文件時再處

理。

結論

意向書中的商業條款是一個預兆，預示

通往成交的路是一條平坦的公路，還是

崎嶇的山路，或者死胡同。在草擬意向

書時，律師即應幫助客戶梳理、考慮和

商定「關鍵議題」及「重要議題」。這

樣才能確保交易各方在主要方面取得共

識，做好進入下一個階段的準備。n


• April 2017

Hong Kong’s Amended Winding-Up Legislation Enhances Protection for Creditors

By Cheung Kwun Yee, Partner Baker McKenzie Jenny Kung, Associate Baker McKenzie

April 2017 • INSOLVENCY 破產


Hong Kong’s Amended Winding-Up Legislation Enhances Protection for Creditors

REUTERS/Bobby Yip

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment)

Ordinance (Cap. 32) (the “Amendment Ordinance”) recently came into operation on 13 February 2017. The Amendment Ordinance brings Hong Kong’s winding-up procedures and insolvency law in line with international developments. As identified in the reform exercise, the underlying objectives are to have a more efficient administration of the winding-up process and enhanced creditor protection.

New and Improved Avoidance ProvisionsAn important aspect of the reform is the increased protection offered to creditors against asset depletion in an insolvent company. This includes a new provision on transactions at an undervalue (which was previously only applicable to individuals) and a self-contained provision on unfair preferences applicable to companies. Notably, there is greater clarity to the definition of associates and connected persons. The floating charge provision has also been improved to distinguish those charges created in favour of persons connected with the insolvent company and those created in favour of persons not so connected.

Transactions at an Undervalue and Unfair Preferences

The previous legislation did not include any avoidance provision for transactions at an undervalue for companies (although a provision existed in respect of individuals under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6)). A transaction at an undervalue takes place when the company makes a gift or enters into a transaction on terms providing for no consideration to the company, or enters into a transaction for a consideration the value of which is significantly less than the value of the consideration provided by the company. The provision empowers the court to make orders (for example, to require the property transferred to be vested in the company) in relation to a company which has entered into a transaction at an undervalue before its winding-up.

Furthermore, under the previous regime, the provisions on unfair preferences in relation to companies were incorporated by reference to the Bankruptcy Ordinance which concerns individuals only. There is now a self-contained provision on unfair preference applicable to companies, largely mirroring that of the Bankruptcy Ordinance.

Both transactions at an undervalue and unfair preferences can only arise during the “relevant time”:

• the relevant time for a transaction at an undervalue to be caught is any time within the period of five years ending with the commencement of the winding-up;

• the relevant time in relation to unfair preferences given to a person who is connected with the company is at a time in the period of two years ending with the commencement of the winding up. In other cases of unfair preference, the relevant time is at a time in the period of six months ending with the commencement of winding up.

In addition to the above, the company must have been unable to pay its debts at the time of the transaction or unfair preference, or became unable to pay its debts as a result of the transaction or unfair preference.

Separately, the previous legislation also had anomalies in the definition of “associate” under the Bankruptcy Ordinance when applied in the context of companies. The definition of “associate” has now been specifically tailored for companies and a concept of “person connected with the company” has been added. A “person connected with the company” means:

• an associate of the company; or

• an associate of the company’s director or shadow director.

The definition of “associate” includes:

• in respect of individuals (eg, directors), a person is an associate of another


• April 2017

person if that person is a spouse or cohabitant of that other person;

• in respect of companies, a company is an associate of another company if the same person has control of both companies; and

• a person can be considered as having control of a company if he is entitled to exercise, or control the exercise of, more than 30 percent of the voting power at any general meeting of the company or of another company which has control of it.

Floating Charges

The previous regime provided that floating charges created on an undertaking or property of a company within 12 months of commencement of its winding up were invalid, unless it was proved that the company was solvent immediately after the charge was created. This was designed to prevent companies from creating, at a time when liquidation was imminent, floating charges which give no new value to the company and which resulted in converting unsecured creditors into secured creditors in preference to other unsecured creditors. However, the provision did not distinguish between floating charges created in favour of persons connected with the insolvent company (eg, a director) and floating charges created in favour of persons not so connected. This has now been addressed.

The Amended Ordinance has increased the clawback period for floating charges created in favour of a person who is connected with the company to a period of two years ending with the commencement of winding up. For floating charges created in favour of persons who are not connected with the company, the relevant time remains as 12 months. The company must also have been unable to pay its debts at the time or became unable to pay its debts as a result of the transaction creating

the charge. As with the previous regime, however, if new money was paid to the company in consideration for the charge at the same time or after the charge was created, the charge will only be invalidated to the amount not covered by the new money. The Amended Ordinance further provides that the consideration for the charge can either be new money paid at the direction of the company, or property or services supplied to the company.

New Liability of Past Shareholders and Directors for Share Redemption or Buy-Back Out of CapitalUnder the Amendment Ordinance, past directors and members can be potentially liable for improperly returning share capital to members prior to the insolvent winding-up of a company. This can occur where a company has redeemed or bought back its own shares by payment out of its capital and the company became insolvent and was wound up within one year of the redemption or buy-back. Past shareholders and the directors (who made the relevant solvency statement for the payment out of capital without having reasonable grounds for the opinion expressed in the statement) will be jointly and severally liable to contribute to the assets of the company an amount not exceeding the payment in respect of the shares.

This is a new provision that protects the company against any divestment of capital prior to its insolvent liquidation and members getting a preference in circumstances where they ought not do so. To manage any risk of exposure, shareholders and directors should ensure that they are properly acquainted with the company’s financial state and that the company has sufficient assets prior to any redemption or buy-back of capital.

Enhanced Creditor Protection in a Creditors’ Voluntary Winding-UpUnder the previous regime, the first creditors’ meeting had to be held on the same or the following day of the members’ meeting for commencing a creditors’ voluntary winding-up case. There was no minimum notice period for calling the first creditors’ meeting which meant that creditors were often not given sufficient time to prepare for the first meeting.

The Amendment Ordinance requires the first creditors’ meeting in a creditors voluntary winding-up to be held on a day not later than 14 days after the members’ meeting. There will then be a minimum notice period of seven days for calling the first creditors’ meeting. In addition to improving the efficiency of a creditors’ voluntary winding-up, this will protect the company’s assets and provide creditors with sufficient time for considering their position and making the appropriate decisions.

Meanwhile, additional safeguards are in place to limit the powers of the liquidator appointed by the members during the period before the holding of the first creditors’ meeting. The powers of the directors will also be restricted (before the appointment of a liquidator) so that they cease to have full management powers and can hand over the administration of the company’s affairs to a duly appointed liquidator as soon as possible.

New Provisions on Provisional Liquidators and LiquidatorsNew provisions have also been added in relation to a provisional liquidator or liquidator’s appointment, disqualification, disclosure and liability. These improve the transparency and integrity of the winding-up process, and include:

• The list of persons disqualified from



香港的清盤法例修訂加強對債權人的保障

作者張珺儀合夥人貝克‧麥堅時律師事務所律師貝克‧麥堅時律師事務所

acting as a provisional liquidator or liquidator has been expanded to include certain persons with a conflict of interest and those subject to a disqualification order.

• A provisional liquidator or liquidator (excluding those appointed for a members’ voluntary winding-up) must file a disclosure statement disclosing specified relationships (eg, the creditor, debtor or auditor, etc. of the company).

• The prohibition on touting has been expanded to any person who offers an inducement to anyone to secure or prevent an appointment or nomination as a provisional liquidator or liquidator.

• An order for release of a liquidator will not absolve the liquidator from liabilities arising from his misfeasance or breach of duty or trust.

Practical Tips for Companies and CreditorsBusinesses need to be continually vigilant and seek advice when negotiating transactions, especially in volatile times, to ensure that transactions are not eventually found to be at an undervalue. This may require conducting professional valuations of the assets.

Similarly, any creditors receiving payments or security from companies that may be under financial distress should be wary of the risk of the payment or security being an unfair preference. Advice should be sought early on as to the surrounding circumstances of the payment or granting of the security (eg, reasons for providing the credit or security and how demands were made). This can have a substantial impact on whether a court finds that there has been an unfair preference. n

《公司(清盤及雜項條文)(修訂)條例》(第

32章) (下稱《修訂條例》)已於近期－即自

2017年2月13日起－開始實施，這有助香港

的公司清盤程序和無償債能力法規與國際的

發展接軌。正如在相關的改革陳述中所指出

的，它的主要目的是為了使清盤程序變得精

簡，並加強對債權人的保障。

新訂立與作出改進的防止條文

該項改革的其中一個重點，是加強對債權人

的保障，使債權人不致因無償債能力的公

司所出現的資產折耗而蒙受損失。當中的舉

措，包括訂立一項涉及遜值交易的新條文(

此等條文以往只適用於個人)，以及一項涉

及不公平優惠並適用於公司的獨立條文。另

一點值得注意的是，《修訂條例》也對「有

聯繫人士」及「有關連的人」等用語之定

義，作出了更進一步的述明。此外，《修訂

條例》也對浮動押記的條文作出了改進，從

而對「旨在惠及與無償債能力的公司有

關連的人而設立的押記」，與對「旨在

惠及該些沒有如此關連的人而設立的押

記」這二者作出區分。

遜值交易與不公平優惠

以往並無任何法例訂立涉及遜值交易並

適用於公司的防止條文(儘管《破產條

例》(第6章)中訂立了適用於個人的條文)

。當公司作出饋贈，或訂立一項交易，

而該交易的條款訂明，該公司不收取

任何代價；又或是，當公司訂立一項交

易，而其代價的價值，是顯著低於該公

司所提供的代價之價值，此等情況將會

導致遜值交易的產生。上述條文賦予法

院權力，可以對一間在清盤前訂立了遜

值交易的公司作出頒令(例如，下令將已

經轉移的財產歸予該公司)。


• April 2017

此外，在以往的架構下，任何涉及公司

的不公平優惠條文，都是藉著提述該

項只適用於個人的《破產條例》而被納

入；但一項獨立的、適用於公司，並主

要反映《破產條例》中之規定的不公平

優惠條文現時已經訂立。

遜值交易與不公平優惠只可以在「有關時

間」內作出：

‧ 一項遜值交易的有關時間，是指於

該公司開始清盤當日終結的一個為

期 5 年的期間內的任何一個時間；

‧ 向與該公司有關連的人提供不公平

優惠，其有關時間是指於該公司開

始清盤當日終結的一個為期 2 年的

期間內的某一個時間；倘若屬於其

他不公平優惠的情況，則其有關時

間是指於該公司開始清盤當日終結

的一個為期 6個月的期間內的某一

個時間。

除上述規定外，在進行有關交易或給予

不公平優惠之時，該公司必須已是沒有

能力支付其債務，又或是因著該交易或

所給予的不公平優惠，而成為沒有能力

支付其債務。

另一方面，在以往的法例中，當要將

《破產條例》中關於「有聯繫人士」的

定義適用於公司的情況時，便往往會出

現有欠恰當之處。現時關於「有聯繫人

士」的定義，是專門為公司而制訂，並

同時增加了一個「與該公司有關連的

人」的新概念，而「與該公司有關連的

人」是指：

‧ 該公司的有聯繫人士；或

‧ 該公司的董事或幕後董事的有聯繫

人士。

「有聯繫人士」的定義包括：

‧ 就個人而言(例如董事)，某人如為另

一人的配偶或同居人士，該人即為

該另一人的有聯繫人士；

‧ 就公司而言，倘若兩間公司受同一

人控制，則其中一間公司即屬另一

間公司的有聯繫人士；及

‧ 任何人倘若在一間公司的股東大會

上，或在控制該公司的另一間公司

的股東大會上，有權行使多於百分

之三十的表決權，或有權控制多於

百分之三十的表決權的行使，則該

公司可被視為受該人所控制。

浮動押記

以往的架構規定，一間公司如在開始清

盤後的12個月內，就其業務或財產設

立浮動押記，那麼，除非有證據可以證

明，在緊接該押記設立之後，該公司仍

具有償債能力，否則該項押記即屬無

效。此舉旨在避免一間公司於臨近清盤

之時，設立不能為其自身帶來任何新價

值的浮動押記，並且會導致一些無抵押

債權人成為了有抵押債權人，從而得以

比其他無抵押債權人享有更優先的地

位。然而，對於旨在惠及與無償債能力

的公司有關連的人而設立的浮動押記(例

如董事)，以及對於旨在惠及該些沒有如

此關連的人而設立的浮動押記，有關條

文並沒有對此二者作出任何區分。

對於旨在惠及與公司有關連的人而設立

的浮動押記，《修訂條例》已經將相關

的回溯期限延長至兩年(並於該公司開始

清盤當日終結)。對於旨在惠及該些與

公司沒有關連的人而設立的浮動押記，

有關時間仍然維持在12個月。此外，

該公司在當時也必須沒有能力支付其債

務，又或是因著設立該項押記的交易，

而成為沒有能力支付其債務。然而，

就像以往的架構一般，倘若該公司在同

一時間、又或是在有關押記設立之後獲

得支付新的款項，以作為設立該押記的

代價，則該押記的無效程度，將須依據

該新款項所涵蓋的範圍以外的款額來確

定。《修訂條例》亦進一步規定，為該

押記而支付的代價，可以是按該公司所

作出的指示而支付的新款項，又或是供

應予該公司的財產或服務。

前股東及董事以公司的資本贖回或回購股份的新法律責任

在《修訂條例》下，倘若一間公司在其

無償債能力清盤程序開始之前，不適當

地將股本退回給其股東，該公司的前董

事及股東可能將須為此承擔法律責任。

此等情況的發生，可能是由於：該公司

以其自身的資本贖回或回購其本身的股

份，而在贖回或回購該等股份後的一年

內，該公司成為無償債能力並最終被清

盤。該公司的前股東及董事(他們雖已就

有關的資本撥付作出償付能力陳述，但

未能就當中所表達的意見提供合理理由

作為依據)須就分擔提供該公司的資產，

承擔共同及個別的法律責任(其範圍不超

過就該等股份而支付的金額)。

這是一項新訂立的條文，旨在保護公司

的資產，使其免於在無償債能力清盤程

序展開之前被剝離，以及避免股東在不

應當取得相關優惠的情況下而取得該等

優惠。為了管控任何可能出現的風險，

股東及董事應當確保其適切地了解公司

的財政狀況，並確保公司在贖回或回購

其資本以前已擁有足夠的資產。

在債權人自動清盤程序中加強對債權人的保障

在以往的架構下，首次債權人會議的舉

行時間，必須在為展開債權人自動清

盤程序而召開的股東會議的同一天，又

或是在該股東會議召開後的第二天。然

而，法例並沒有規定召開首次債權人

會議所須給予的最短通知期限。這意味

著，債權人經常欠缺充足時間來為首次

債權人會議作準備。

《修訂條例》規定，關於債權人自動清

盤的首次債權人會議，必須在相關股東

會議召開後的14日內舉行，而之後若要

召開首次債權人會議，亦必須給予至少



7天的通知期限。這一規定，除了有助提

升債權人自動清盤的效率，也可以對公

司的資產作出保護，並同時讓債權人獲

得充足時間來考慮其自身情況和作出適

當的決定。

與此同時，該項法例也訂立了一些額外

保障措施，以期在首次債權人會議舉行

之前的該段期間，對該等由股東委任的

清盤人所享有的權力作出限制。另一方

面，該法例也同樣對董事所享有的權力

作出限制(在清盤人被委任之前)，使其不

再全面擁有公司的管理權，以便在適當

委任清盤人後，能盡快將公司的行政管

理權移交給該清盤人。

對臨時清盤人和清盤人的新規定

至於其他新訂立的條文，則是與臨時清

盤人或清盤人的委任、資格取消、披露

及法律責任等有關，而這將有助提升清

盤程序的透明度和誠信，當中並包括：

‧ 把無資格獲委任為臨時清盤人或清

盤人的人士的類別擴大，以包含該

些存在利益衝突，及受制於取消資

格令的人士。

‧ 臨時清盤人或清盤人(但在股東的自

動清盤程序中獲委任的除外)必須提

交披露陳述書，以披露其與對方的

特定關係(例如：是否屬於公司的債

權人、債務人或核數師等)。

‧ 關於禁止招徠方面的規定，已經擴

展至任何人向其他人提供誘因，而

其出發點，是為了確保或阻止某人

獲委任或提名為公司的臨時清盤人

或清盤人等情況。

‧ 解除清盤人責任的命令，不會令致

清盤人因其失當行為、失職行為、

或違反信託行為而須承擔的法律責

任獲得免除。

對公司和債權人的提醒

企業需要不斷地保持警覺，並應當在有

關的交易進行磋商之際，向專業人士尋

求意見(特別是在情況多變的環境下)，以

確保該等交易最終不會被法庭裁定為屬

於遜值交易，而要達致這一目的，也許

需要對相關資產進行專業估值。

同樣地，如果有處於財政困境的公司向

債權人作出支付或提供抵押品，債權人

便必須留意該等支付或抵押品的提供，

是否蘊含給予不公平優惠的風險，並應

盡快就該等支付或抵押品提供之周遭環

境(例如，提供該等信用或抵押品的因

由，以及付款的要求是如何提出)，向專

業人士尋求意見。此舉對於法庭是否會

裁定存在不公平優惠情況，將會產生關

鍵性的影響。n

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS業界透視ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING

Lawyers and Designated Non-Financial Businesses and ProfessionsAs reported in the February 2017 edition of the Hong Kong Lawyer (“DNFPBs”), the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (“FSTB”) has recently undertaken a consultation, proposing to extend client due diligence (“CDD”) and record-keeping requirements contained in the

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance (Cap. 615) (the “Ordinance”) to certain professions; including, law firms and registered foreign law firms in Hong Kong.

Since the consultation was launched it is has become clearer that the law profession’s Practice Direction P (“AML”) is the most comprehensive guidance given to any profession in Hong Kong.

Indeed, Practice Direction P was recently revised and updated (Law Society Circular 17/167(SD), 13 March 2017, “Amendments to Practice Direction P”). Practice Direction P is not just a set of guidelines; it is a standard for good practice*. Some of its provisions are mandatory (for example, paras. 18–28, including Client identification, verification and due diligence). It is also used as a source of reference by some other professions in Hong Kong.

A question posed, in these circumstances, is why has the solicitors’ profession in Hong Kong been put in the same category as (for example) estate agents or accountants?

Of the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations (on international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing), Recommendation 22 relates to DNFBPs’ CDD. The underlying principle as regards financial institutions is that CDD and record-keeping requirements should be set out in law (which includes legislation and relevant binding judicial decisions). The means by which it is proposed to extend certain CDD and record-keeping requirements to (among others) lawyers in Hong Kong is for the Ordinance to be amended to contain a definition of DNFBPs (including, solicitors and foreign lawyers). However, Practice Direction P was promulgated pursuant to the statutory powers of the Law Society of Hong Kong, has been tested and approved in court and is enforceable.

If the consultation proposals purport to be no more than a codification of current professional practice requirements (insofar as law firms in Hong Kong are concerned), a further question remains – why does FSTB consider there is a “regulatory gap” with respect to lawyers? Particularly, given that it is widely acknowledged that Practice Direction P is fit for purpose and the standard of AML “reporting” by law firms to the relevant authorities is pretty good.

Furthermore, consistent with the consultation proposals being a codification exercise, they do not purport to increase the regulatory powers of the Law Society of Hong Kong. Therefore, what appears to be driving the proposals may be something else in (for example)

“FATF world”, as Hong Kong approaches her fourth on-site mutual evaluation in the last quarter of 2018.

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

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

打擊清洗黑錢

律師和指定非金融企業及行業

正如《香港律師》2017年2月期刊(「指

定非金融企業及行業」)所報道，財經事

務及庫務局(「財庫局」)最近進行過諮

詢，諮詢文件建議把《打擊洗錢及恐怖分

子資金籌集(金融機構)條例》(第615章)

(「《條例》」)包含的客戶盡職審查及備

存紀錄規定，擴大至涵蓋某些專門行業，

包括香港律師行和註冊外地律師行。

有一件事在諮詢展開以後越發明顯，那就

是，法律專業人員的Practice Direction P(

「打擊洗錢」)是給香港各個專業提供的

最全面的指引。

Practice Direction P事實上最近經過

修訂，更新過內容(律師會2017年3月

13日通告17/167(SD)「Amendments

to Practice Direction P」)。Practice

Direction P不只是一套指引；它也是良好

實務的標準*。當中某些規定是強制性的

(例如第18–28段，包括客戶身份識別、

核實和盡職審查)。它也被香港其他專業

人士用作為參考資料。

有人會問，在這些情況下，為甚麼香港的

律師與(譬如說)地產代理或會計師被列人

同一個專業類別？


• April 2017

財務行動特別組織(關於打擊洗錢和恐怖

分子資金籌集的國際標準)的建議之中，

第22項與指定非金融企業及行業的客戶

盡職審查有關。關於金融機構的基本原則

是，客戶盡職審查和備存紀錄規定應在

法律訂明(包括法例和相關並具約束力的

司法決定)。有建議把某些客戶盡職審查

和備存紀錄規定擴大至(其中包括)香港律

師，方法是修訂《條例》包含的非金融企

業及行業(包括律師和外國律師)的定義。

然而，Practice Direction P是依據香港律

師會法定權力制定，已經接受過測試，在

法庭獲認可，並可予強制執行的。

即使(就香港律師行而言)諮詢建議的本

意，只不過是把現行專業實務規定編纂為

成文法則，仍然會有人問：為甚麼財庫

局認為現時存在與律師有關的「監管上的

不足」(regulatory gap)？特別是Practice

Direction P是廣獲公認的合用指示，也是

律師行向有關當局「舉報」洗黑錢的相當

不錯的標準，為甚麼還有不足呢？

此外，他們貫徹諮詢建議編纂成文法則的

本意，沒有表示要增加香港律師會法定權

力。因此，正值2018年最尾季度香港快

接受第四輪現場相互評估之時，看來推動

建議可能別有原委，譬如說，「世界性的

財務行動特別組織」的某些事情所致。

- Jason Carmichael 合夥人，

Smyth & Co與RPC聯營

* 2015年4月《業界透視》「內部監控— 勿推諉

責任或視而不見」。

ARBITRATION

Court Upholds Enforcement of ICC Award, Reinforcing Its Pro-Enforcement AttitudeIn U v A (unrep., HCCT 34/2016, 23 February 2017 per Mimmie Chan J), the Court of First Instance dismissed an application to set aside an order granting leave to enforce an ICC arbitral award, in the process dismissing arguments that (i) the Respondents (“A”) in the arbitration had been unable to prevent their case; (ii) the award deals with a difference

not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration; and (iii) it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the award.

The case, in which the authors acted for the Claimant (“U”) in the arbitration and before the Court, illustrates the much vaunted pro-enforcement approach of the Hong Kong courts. In line with this approach, the exhaustive grounds set out in s. 86 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) by which the Court may refuse enforcement are to be narrowly construed, enforcement should be “almost a matter of administrative procedure” and the Court should be “as mechanistic as possible” (see KB v S, reported previously in Hong Kong Lawyer, November 2015).

Background

The parties had entered into an agreement (the “PAC”) for inter alia U’s purchase of majority shareholdings in a PRC joint venture company (the “JV”), the transfer of certain assets from the 2nd Respondent to the JV, and effecting changes to the JV’s board composition. Disputes arose in respect of the latter two issues. U commenced ICC arbitral proceedings (seated in Hong Kong) as a result and, having prevailed, U was awarded specific performance, damages and costs.

In September 2016, U obtained an Order granting it leave to enforce the award; in October, A applied to set aside the Order on the grounds stated above.

Decision and Key Take-Aways

Mimmie Chan J emphasised inter alia as follows in respect of the grounds relied upon by A:

The conduct complained of must be sufficiently serious, such that due process is undermined or the structural integrity of the award is in doubt, before a court could find that a party was unable to present his case. So long as the parties were able to make representations in respect of any decision that might affect the arbitration, whether procedurally or substantively, they will have been afforded due process and given a fair hearing. On such basis, Her Ladyship rejected A’s contention that they were unable to present their case because the arbitrator had refused to admit into evidence a PRC court judgment which was purportedly relevant to the validity of the PAC. She held that the arbitrator was entitled to impose timetables for the filing of evidence in the proper exercise of case management and procedural discretion, and in any event, A had been given fair and full opportunity to address the arbitrator on the validity of the PAC.

The phrase “a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration” should only catch issues clearly unrelated to or not reasonably required for the determination of the arbitration. Her Ladyship therefore rejected A’s contention that the issue of whether U is entitled to appoint the chairman of the JV is not within the scope of the arbitration. She held that, on the whole, A had been given fair and ample notice of U’s claim that it is entitled to appoint the chairman, and full opportunity to prepare and answer such claim.

The phrase “contrary to public policy” means contrary to the fundamental conceptions of morality and justice of Hong Kong, and must not be a

April 2017 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

www.hk-lawyer.org 45www.hk-lawyer.org 45

catchall provision to be used whenever convenient. Her Ladyship rejected A’s contention that it is contrary to public policy to enforce the award in Hong Kong as the PAC is purportedly invalid for lack of registration and approval by PRC authorities. She held that A was essentially arguing that the arbitrator had made an error of law in holding that the PAC is valid, but it is not for the Court to review the correctness of the arbitrator’s decision.

The decision demonstrates once again the Hong Kong courts’ reluctance, absent compelling grounds, to set aside arbitral awards. Parties should give careful thought before bringing such applications, particularly given the courts’ practice of imposing indemnity costs against an unsuccessful applicant.

- Matthew Townsend, Legal Manager, and Zi Wei Wong, Associate, Peter Yuen & Associates in Association with Fangda Partners

仲裁

法庭對ICC仲裁裁決的強制執行予以維持，增強其對強制執行的支持態度

在U v A (unrep. , HCCT 34/2016,

23 February 2017 per Mimmie Chan J)

一案中，原訟法庭駁回了一項撤銷命令的

申請，而被要求撤銷的該項命令，是一項

批准強制執行某項仲裁裁決的命令。在審

訊過程中，法庭駁回了以下論點：(i) 答辯

人(“A”)未能在有關的仲裁中鋪陳其論

據；(ii) 該仲裁裁決所處理的分歧，並非

提交仲裁的條款所預期者，或該項分歧並

不屬該等條款所指者；及 (iii) 強制執行該

仲裁裁決，會違反公共政策。

該宗案件(本文作者在有關的仲裁程序及

法院程序中，作為申索人 (“U”) 的代表

律師)顯示香港法院所經常強調的一點，

就是：對仲裁裁決的強制執行抱支持的態

度。基於香港法院的這一取態，《仲裁條

例》(第609章)第86條所載述的各種情況

(法庭可據此拒絕強制執行有關的仲裁裁

決)，都須以狹義的方式來進行詮釋；對

仲裁裁決的強制執行，應當只視作「幾近

是一項行政程序」；以及，法庭應該「盡

可能地機械性」(參見 KB v S一案，曾經

在2015年11月號的《香港律師》予以報

導)。

背景

各當事方共同訂立了了一項協議 ( 下

稱“PAC”)，當中訂明(除其他事項以

外)：U收購一家中國合營公司的多數股

權；若干資產將會從第二答辯人那兒轉

移至該合營公司；以及，變更合營公司

董事會的成員組成。所產生的爭議，涉

及後兩項規定。U展開了ICC(國際商會)仲

裁程序(以香港作為仲裁地)，並且獲得勝

訴，仲裁庭判U可獲得強制履行(specific

performance)、損害賠償及訟費等濟助。

2016年9月，U獲法庭頒發一項命令，批

准強制執行該項裁決；但A 在10月根據

上述所提出的理由，申請將該項法庭命令

撤銷。

裁定及主要重點

原訟法庭法官陳美蘭就A所依據的理由，

作出若干強調(除其他事項以外)如下：

在法院裁定某一當事方不能鋪陳其理據之

前，其所投訴的行為，必須被證明為是性

質嚴重，以致正當的法律程序受損，又或

是該仲裁裁決的結構整體性受到懷疑。然

而，只要當事方有機會就任何可能影響有

關仲裁的決定(不論是在程序還是在實體

上)作出陳述，他們是已經獲得提供正當

的法律程序及公平的聆訊。基於這一點，

陳美蘭法官拒絕接納A所提出的爭議，亦

即是：由於仲裁員拒絕接納中國法院所作

出的一項判決作為證據(該項判決據稱是

與該PAC的有效性相關)，以致他們未能

鋪陳自己的理據。陳美蘭法官裁定，仲裁

員在適當行使其於案件管理及程序方面的

酌情決定權時，有權就證據的提交訂立時

間表，而不論怎樣，A已經獲得提供公平

及充分的機會，就該PAC的有效性向仲裁

員作出陳述。

至於「所處理的分歧，並非提交仲裁的條

款所預期者，或該項分歧並不屬該等條款

所指者」等語句，它們只應當涉及與該

仲裁所作之決定明顯不相關的，或在作出

該仲裁之決定方面並非合理需要的議題。

因此，李美蘭法官拒絕接納A所提出的爭

議，亦即是：究竟U是否有權委任該合營

公司的董事長，這並不在該項仲裁的範圍

內。李美蘭法官裁定，整體而言，A已經

就U聲稱其有權委任合營公司的董事長，

獲得給予公平及充分的通知，以及準備和

回答該等聲稱的十足機會。

此外，「有違公共政策」一語，是指背離

香港在道德和公義方面的基礎觀念，而這

一用語，不得作為一項涵蓋所有情況，並

可隨時不加思索地運用的條文。陳美蘭法

官拒絕接納A所聲稱的，由於該PAC並沒

有獲得中國有關當局給予註冊和批准，因

此屬於無效，故在香港強制執行有關的仲

裁裁決，是有違公共政策。陳美蘭法官認

為A所提出的主要爭議點是：該案的仲裁

員裁定該PAC有效，是在法律上犯錯，但

法庭在本案的責任，並非審視該仲裁員所

作的決定是否正確。

法庭所作的該項裁定再次顯示，在缺乏強

而有力理由的情況下，香港的法院並不願

意撤銷仲裁庭所作的裁決。當事方在提出

有關申請之前，必須深思熟慮，尤其需要

謹記，法庭會向敗訴的申請人施加彌償訟

費。

- Matthew Townsend法律事務經理

及Zi Wei Wong律師，阮葆光律師

事務所聯營方達律師事務所

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Interest on Judgment Debts: Keep It SimpleSection 49 (“Interest on judgments”) of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4)

“(1) Judgment debts shall carry simple interest –

(a) at such rate as the Court of First Instance may order; or

(b) in the absence of such order, at such rate as may be determined from time to time by the Chief Justice by order…”

In some difficult trading conditions and an active disputes resolution market, at present, it is (perhaps) no surprise to


• April 2017

see parties become involved in disputes concerning entitlement to pre- and post-judgment interest, following judgments in certain high value claims.

Some of these developments are summarised in Industry Insights for August (“Pre-judgment Interest Rate”) and November 2016 (“Post-judgment Interest”).

In the more recent case of Lo Yuk Sui v Fubon Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd [2016] HKEC 2909, HCA 409/2005, besides claims for enhanced costs and pre-judgment interest pursuant to the regime for sanctioned offers, the successful plaintiff also sought a higher rate of post-judgment interest than the 8 percent per annum as determined by order of the Chief Justice (which has not changed since 2009)*.

Given that the defendant paid the judgment debt soon after judgment was handed down, the amount of the extra post-judgment interest claimed by the plaintiff does not appear to have been that significant; particularly, when compared with the plaintiff’s claim for pre-judgment interest. However, the court still recognised the practical importance of the issue generally – in particular, the express power of the court to order post-judgment interest at a different rate.

The court went out its way to clarify that this power (s. 49(1)(a) of the Ordinance) should not be exercised in the absence of “special circumstances” and that the convention is to award post-judgment interest at the rate set down by the Chief Justice from time to time. As the court notes, this is justified on the basis of a need for consistency and certainty. Furthermore, the “normal” post-judgment interest rate should be justification enough for a judgment debtor who can pay to do so.

At the time of writing, it appears that the certain appeal points arising from the case are headed to the Court of Appeal (CACV 47/2017). In recent years, the Court of Appeal has shown a strong disposition for keeping things simple when it comes to determining issues

relating to pre- and post-judgment interest rates.

In the absence of any contractual entitlement, the default rate for pre-judgment interest is prime rate (“best lending rate”) plus 1 percent; in order to compensate the plaintiff on the basis of having notionally had to borrow to fund a shortfall pending judgment. Absent special circumstances (which would appear to be exceptional), post-judgment interest is based on the rate as determined by the Chief Justice and does not look like it is going to change anytime soon.

- Ben Yates, Senior Associate, Smyth & Co in association with RPC

* See http://www.judiciary.hk/en/crt_services/interest_rate.htm.

民事訴訟程序

判定債項的利息：簡單行事

《高等法院條例》(第4章)第49條(「判決

的利息」)

「(1)判定債項……須帶有單利 ——

(a)利率按原訟法庭所命令者計算；或

(b)如無該項命令時，利率則按終審法院首

席法官不時藉命令所決定者計算……」

隨着某些涉及高價值的申索案作出判決之

後，在營商艱難的環境和活躍的爭議解決

市場之中，現在即使有當事人涉及關乎

判決前利息和判決後利息權利的爭議，也

(可能)不是甚麼出奇的事。

《業界透視》2016年8月(「判決前利

率」)和8月(「判決後利息」)有就某些爭

議的發展作過概述。

在更近期的Lo Yuk Sui v Fubon Bank

(Hong Kong) Ltd [2016] HKEC

2909(HCA 409/2005)之中，勝訴的原

告人除了申索增加了的訟費和依據附帶條

款和解提議規定計算判決前利息之外，亦

要求判決後利息按照相較終審法院首席法

官藉命令決定的每年8%(自2009年以來

沒有變動過)為高的利率計算*。

由於被告人在判決書頒布後不久就支付判

定債項，原告人所申索的額外的判決後利

息看來並不怎麼高；特別是相對於原告人

所申索的判決前利息而言。然而，法庭仍

在整體上確認該爭議實際的重要性――特

別是法庭明確有權命令按不同利率計算判

決後利息。

原訟法庭不厭其煩地闡明，這項權力

(《條例》第49(1)(a)條)不應在沒有「特

殊情況」的時候行使，傳統的做法是按終

審法院首席法官不時訂定的利率計算判給

的判決後利息。正如法庭提到，在需要連

貫性，需要確定性的基礎上，這是有根有

基的。此外，「正常的」判決後利率應該

是一個合理的利率，足以令有能力支付判

定債項的判定債務人支付判定債項。

我撰寫本文時，若干源自案情的上訴論點

似乎要被提到上訴法庭(CACV 47/2017)

。近幾年，上訴法庭每當要就關乎判決前

利率和判決後利率的問題作出決定時，都

表現得極想簡單行事。

在沒有任何合約權利的情況下，判決前利

息的預設利率是優惠利率加一厘；目的是

要在原告人理論上得借款湊足有待判決的

不足之數的基礎上，補償原告人。如果沒

有特殊情況(看來會是一種例外的情況)，

判決後利息是按終審法院首席法官所決定

的利率計算，看來不會在短時間內改變。

- 叶子彬資深律師，

Smyth & Co與RPC聯營

* 見http://www.judiciary.hk/en/crt_services/

interest_rate.htm。



CORPORATE

Reining in IPO Share Price VolatilityOn 20 January 2017, the SFC and the HKEX issued a joint statement regarding the price volatility of GEM stocks and a guideline to sponsors, underwriters and placing agents involved in the listing and placing of GEM stocks (the “Guideline”). This was in part a response to the volatile price movements of an increasing number of GEM stocks in recent years – some with first-day share price surges reaching 500 percent!

The Guideline serves as a stern reminder to GEM listing applicants to abide by the GEM Listing Rules. The Guideline especially focused on the importance of respecting the spirit of GEM Rule 11.23 – that there must be an open market in the securities for which listing is sought – which is to ensure there is sufficient liquidity of the shares in the market to protect minority shareholders.

According to GEM Rule 11.23(2)(b), the equity securities in the hands of the public should be held among at least 100 persons, but, as the Guideline points out, this is merely a guideline, and even if this minimum number has been met, it does not necessarily mean GEM Rule 11.23 has been satisfied. There were cases where the top 25 placees took up more than 90 percent of the offering. This scenario is quite common on GEM: the conditions for an open market may not exist even if securities are held by more than 100 persons.

Soon after the Guideline was published, a few companies that were undergoing the listing process postponed their planned listings “due to enquiries made by regulators in relation to requirements under GEM Rule 11.23”. This may suggest that the Guideline is effective in curbing undesired behaviour from GEM applicants, but it is yet to be seen whether the SFC and the HKEX will take stronger actions to enforce the Listing Rules against already listed companies.

While the Guideline appears to be

relevant only to GEM listings, the Guideline reiterates the general obligations of placing agents, applicable to both GEM and Main Board listings, to (i) conduct adequate “know your client” procedures under the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the SFC, (ii) have a robust marketing and placing strategy and allocation basis with a view to achieving an open market in the offered securities, including an adequate spread of shareholders, and (iii) ensure that the percentage of securities in public hands meets the relevant regulatory requirements. Counsel for underwriters in Main Board listings may want to follow this development and see whether the Guideline will have any repercussions on tightening the requirements of sponsors, underwriters and placing agents for Main Board listings as well.

- Danny Kan and Jasmine Wee, Linklaters

企業

壓制首次公開招股股價波動

2017年1月20日，證監會與聯交所發表

有關創業板股份股價波動的聯合聲明，

並向參與創業板股份上市和配售的保薦

人、包銷商和配售代理發出指引(「該

指引」)。此舉部分是為了回應近幾年

創業板股份股價波動和數目持續增加的

情況――有些股份的首日股價颷升高達

500%！

該指引對於創業板股份上市申請人是當頭

棒喝，提醒申請人要好好遵守《創業板上

市規則》。該指引尤其強調尊重《創業

板上市規則》第11.23條背後精神的重要

性――該條規定尋求上市的證券必須有一

個公開市場――以確保股份的市場流動性

足以保護小股東。

按照《創業板上市規則》第11.23(2)(b)

條的規定，公眾持有的股本證券須最少由

100個人持有，不過正如該指引所指出，

該指引只是一份指引，即使達到最低人

數，也不代表符合《創業板上市規則》第

11.23條的規定。有些情況是首25名承配

人取得的提呈配售股份合共超過90%。

這種情況在創業板相當普遍；即使證券已

由超過100個人持有，營造一個公開市場

所需的條件可能亦不存在。

該指引公布後不久，有幾家正在進行上市

程序的公司「因應監管機構就《創業板上

市規則》第11.23條的規定作出查詢」，

推遲它們的上市計劃。這可能意味該指引

有效阻止了創業板申請人作出不合宜的行

為，不過，證監會和聯交所會否採取更嚴

厲的行動，針對現有的上市公司強制執行

上市規則，至今仍然有待分曉。

雖然該指引看來只關係到創業板上市，但

是該指引重申配售代理的一般責任，創業

板上市和主板上市同樣適用，這些責任包

括：(i)根據《證券及期貨事務監察委員會

持牌人或註冊人操守準則》好好進行「認

識你的客戶」程序，(ii)制訂健全的推銷及

配售策略和配發基準，藉以就所發售證

券營造一個公開的市場(包括由不同方面

的人士持有證券)，以及(iii)確保由公眾持

有的證券的百分比符合相關監管規定。法

律顧問，凡為新股主板上市的包銷商工作

的，可能想跟進這方面的發展，看看該指

引會否收緊對新股主板上市的保薦人、包

銷商和配售代理的規定，對它們產生間接

影響。

- 簡家豪及Jasmine Wee，年利達律師事務所

DATA PRIVACY

Data Protection: Lessons in Direct MarketingOn 26 January 2017, the Court of First Instance handed down a judgment on s. 35G of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (“PDPO”) in HKSAR v Hong Kong Broadband Network Limited, HCMA 624/2015. The case involves a telecommunications service provider (the data user) (“A”) approaching its then customer (the data subject) by telephone to offer an extended service at a discounted price.


• April 2017

The data subject was a customer of A since December 2011 for two years, with a contract expiring in December 2013. Despite an earlier request given by the data subject to A, demanding that A cease using his personal data in direct marketing, an employee of A left a voice message to the data subject informing him that his contract would expire soon and that A could provide a renewal offer

at a discounted price.

The voice message reads, inter alia, “Hello Mr. Chan … your contract is about to expire … there will be an increase in price in June and we do not wish you to pay a higher price … therefore I would like to let you know that if you are happy with our 1000M services, we can give you a promotional offer this month so that you will not be affected by the increase in price. Please return a call to me when you receive

this voice message … .”

A was convicted of having contravened s. 35G of the PDPO which provides that a data user who receives a request from a data subject to cease using his or her personal data in direct marketing must

comply with such request.

It was argued by A in the appeal that the purpose of the voice message was a reminder to the customer of his expiring contract and that the Prosecution must prove that A had the mens rea to conduct direct marketing beyond reasonable doubt. It was further argued that the voice message was only a demonstration of good after-sales customer service which does not constitute a “new purpose” as stipulated in Principle 3 of

the Data Protection Principles.

The Court of First Instance had a different view.

It was held that on the true construction of the legislative intent of the PDPO and having regard to the regulatory nature of s. 35G, it is not necessary for the Prosecution to prove mens rea in respect of s. 35G, particularly in view of the wording used and the statutory defence provided in the same section.

So far as this case is concerned, direct

marketing refers to the offering or advertising of the availability of goods, facilities or services. It was held that the first part of the voice message which reminded the data subject of his expiring contract was merely an opening remark for A to offer other services. The voice message went beyond a simple reminder, and since “offering” and “advertising” must not be narrowly interpreted, the voice message constituted a “new purpose” and direct marketing.

The precautions in place were insufficient to prevent direct marketing. It was argued by the Defence that the employee departed from the standard script of A; however, the Court found that the standard script itself included words that introduce the renewal of service plans and therefore constituted direct marketing. Audio recordings of telephone calls were also held to be insufficient measures to prevent employees from violating the laws.

As a result, A was unable to rely on the statutory defence as it had not taken all reasonable precautions or exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence.

Take-Away Points

This is one of the earliest prosecutions under s. 35G of the revised PDPO, which came into effect on 1 April 2013. The Defendant was fined HK$30,000. Following conviction in the Magistracy, the then Privacy Commissioner issued a statement indicating that he hoped the verdict would enhance respect for the privacy of personal data. Solicitors whose

clients engage in direct marketing should advise them of this recent case and work with them to ensure their activities are compliant with the law as interpreted.

- Morley Chow Seto

個人資料私隱

個人資料保障：直接促銷的一課

2017年1月26日，原訟法庭頒下香港特別

行政區訴香港寬頻網絡有限公司案(HCMA

624/2015)的判決書，內容與《個人資料

(私隱)條例》(第486章)(「《條例》」)第

35G條有關。案件涉及一間電訊服務公司

(資料使用者)(「A」)致電其當時的客戶

(「資料當事人」)，向他提供延長服務優

惠價。

資料當事人於2011年12月開始使用A的

服務，合約期為兩年，於2013年12月屆

滿。雖然資料當事人早前要求過A停止在

直接促銷中使用他的個人資料，但A的一

名僱員留下留言訊息通知資料當事人，他

的合約快將屆滿，而A可以給他提供續約

優惠價。

留言訊息內容包括「 H e l l o ，陳生你

好，……con t r a c t期方面即將完結架

啦，……嚟緊6月份開始個續約價錢會調

整架，到時會貴啲，咁我哋都唔希望貴咗

之後比唔返平價陳生你啦，就通知返，咁

所以呢就係想阿陳生你如果1000M服務

用得滿意嘅話，今個月有番個內部優惠俾

返陳生，確保唔會收到任何加價影響嘅。

麻煩如果陳生你收到口訊，覆個電話比我

丫……」



A被裁定違反《條例》第35G條；第35G

條規定資料使用者當收到資料當事人的要

求時，必須按照要求，停止在直接促銷中

使用他或她的個人資料。

A在上訴時辯稱，留言訊息的目的是提醒

客人他的合約快將屆滿，控方必須在毫無

合理疑點下證明A有進行直接促銷的犯罪

意圖。A亦進一步辯稱，留言訊息只顯示

A妥善地履行客戶售後服務，並不構成保

障資料原則第3原則所指的「新目的」。

原訟法庭有另一套看法。

原訟法庭裁定，按照對《條例》立法原

意的真確詮釋，並考慮第35G條的監管性

質，特別是鑒於同一條文的用字和所提供

的法定抗辯理由，控方無需要就第35G條

證明A的犯罪意圖。

就這宗案件而言，直接促銷指要約提供貨

品、設施或服務，或者提供貨品、設施或

服務的廣告宣傳。原訟法庭裁定，留言

訊息的開頭部分，即提醒資料當事人他的

合約即將屆滿的部分，只是A要約提供其

他服務的開場白。留言訊息並非純粹提醒

資料當事人約滿事宜，而由於對「要約提

供」和「廣告宣傳」的詮釋一定不能過於

狹窄，留言訊息構成「新目的」和直接促

銷。

現設的預防措施不足以預防直接促銷。

辯方指稱該僱員偏離了A的標準講稿；然

而，法庭認為標準講稿本身包括介紹續約

計劃的字眼，因此構成直接促銷。法庭亦

裁定，員工向客戶的電話有錄音，但此舉

不足以預防僱員違反法例。

因此，由於沒有採取所有合理預防措施

及作出一切應有的努力，以避免犯該罪

行，A不能夠倚賴法定抗辯理由。

粹言

經修訂《條例》於2013年4月1日生效。

這宗是根據經修訂《條例》第35G條最早

提出的檢控之一。被告人被罰款30,000

港元。被告人在裁判法院被判罪名成立之

後，私隱專員發出新聞稿，表示希望裁決

能夠提高個人和機構對個人資料的尊重。

律師應將這宗新案件告知從事直接促銷的

客戶，與客戶合力確保客戶的活動符合按

照法庭解釋的法例。

- 麥樂賢周綽瑩司徒悅律師行

GC AGENDA

SAFE Relaxes Capital Inflow Controls and Strengthens Outflow Authenticity ReviewsOn 26 January 2017, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”) issued the Notice on Further Promoting Foreign Exchange Administration Reform and Perfecting Authenticity and Compliance Review.

The notice is aimed at relaxing certain foreign exchange inflow controls and strengthening the authenticity and compliance reviews for capital outflows carried out by China’s designated foreign exchange banks.

Specifically, the notice:

• Expands the scope of domestic foreign exchange loan settlement.

• Permits the proceeds of an outbound guarantee to be repatriated for use in China through cross-border lending or equity investment.

• Facilitates the centralised operation and management of foreign exchange by a multinational by allowing full onshore utilisation of the deposit in the MNC’s foreign exchange master account.

• Permits the foreign exchange settlement of non-resident institutional free trade accounts opened in China’s pilot free trade zones.

• Requires banks to examine relevant board or partner resolutions, tax declarations and audited financial statements of foreign-invested enterprises, and ensures their prior-year losses are made up, before remitting profits abroad.

• Requires banks to examine the source and planned use of foreign exchange, as well as related board or partner resolutions, contracts and other authenticity documents, in carrying out outbound investment foreign exchange registration and capital remittance procedures.

• Clarifies that an onshore entity’s foreign currency and RMB outbound financing must share the same outbound financing quota (that is, an aggregate of no more than 30 percent of the entity’s audited equity).

Market Reaction

Alan Xu, Partner, Zhong Lun Law Firm, Hong Kong

“In line with the Chinese government’s recent policies of encouraging inbound investment and capital inflow, by issuing this notice SAFE aims to funnel proceeds raised from offshore bond issuance into China. In addition, the implementation of the notice will likely encourage more and more Chinese bond issuers to use a simple guarantee structure for their offshore bond issuance, and keepwell agreements, as a way to enhance a bond issuer’s credit quality, will become much less popular in China.”

Action Items

General Counsel for offshore companies and foreign-invested enterprises should work with finance colleagues to take full advantage of any opportunities presented by the notice. In addition, counsel will want to advise finance colleagues to review any revisions to the authenticity and compliance review procedures in place at their foreign exchange bank in China to avoid unnecessary delays in outward remittances of foreign exchange.

- Practical Law China


• April 2017

法律顧問備忘錄

外管局放寬資金流入管制並加強資金流出的真實性審查

2017年1月26日，國家外匯管理局

(「外管局」)發出《關於進一步推進外匯

管理改革完善真實合規性審核的通知》

(「《通知》」)。

《通知》旨在對中資外匯指定銀行放寬若

干外匯流入管制，並加強資金流出真實

性、合規性的審查。

《通知》具體要求如下：

‧ 擴大境內外匯貸款結匯範圍。

‧允許通過跨境放貸、股權投資，將內保

外貸項下資金調回中國境內使用。

‧便利跨國公司外匯資金集中運營管理，

准許境內全數運用跨國公司外匯資金

主賬戶存款。

‧允許中國自由貿易試驗區內境外機構境

內外匯賬戶結匯。

‧規定銀行審核外資企業相關的董事會決

議、稅務備案表原件、經審計的財務

報表，確保利潤匯出前已經彌償以前

年度虧損。

‧規定境內機構辦理境外直接投資登記和

資金匯出手續時，銀行審查外匯來源

和使用計劃，以及相關董事會決議或

合夥人決議、合同或其他真實性證明

材料。

‧澄清外幣境外放款餘額與人民幣境外放

款餘額相同(即合計最高不得超過其上

年度經審計財務報表中所有者權益的

30%)。

市場回應

徐建輝合夥人，中倫律師事務所香港辦

事處

「外管局發出《通知》，旨在注入中國境

外債券發行所得收益，符合中國政府最近

鼓勵對內投資和資金流入的政策。此外，

《通知》的實施很可能鼓勵更多更多中資

債券發行人把簡單的保函結構用於境外債

券發行，以及維好協議，作為提高債券發

行人信用質量的一種方法，因此《通知》

在中國不會那麼受歡迎。」

跟進事項

境外公司和外資企業的法律顧問應與負責

融資的同事並肩工作，一起充分利用《通

知》造就的機會。此外，法律顧問會想向

融資同事提出建議，希望他們檢視公司或

企業的中國外匯銀行真實性和合規性審查

程序的任何修訂，以避免不必要地延遲匯

出外幣匯款。


GC AGENDA

SPC Issues Judicial Interpretation on Trade Mark Authorisation RightsOn 10 January 2017, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Adjudication of Administrative Cases on Granting and Affirming Trademark-related Rights, which will take effect

1 March 2017.

The provisions apply to cases brought in the People’s Courts by related parties or interested parties who disagree with administrative decisions on:

• Trade mark re-examination.

• Trade mark registration review.

• Trade mark revocation review.

• Trade mark invalidation declarations and invalidation declaration review.

• Other administrative acts of the Trademark Review and

Adjudication Board (“TRAB”).

Specifically, the provisions clarify:

• The meaning of the certain terms and phrases in the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China 2013 (2013 Trademark Law).

• The application of certain provisions of the 2013 Trademark Law.

• When a trade mark damages the prior copyrights of a copyright holder, what documents may be used as prima facie evidence of copyright ownership and what documents may be used as preliminary evidence of ownership.

• When a trade mark damages a natural person’s name rights, whether a person’s name rights extend to his or her pen name, stage name, translation and so on, and when the registration of a trade mark identical or similar to a person’s name is likely to lead to confusion among the relevant public.

• The circumstances where a trade mark can lead to public misunderstanding of the name of a copyrighted work and the characters in that work, or of the short name of a well-known enterprise name.

• The circumstances under which the People’s Courts may admit new facts and evidence.

• The circumstances where the People’s Courts may not accept an application to re-adjudicate a matter in relation to which a valid judgment has been issued.



Market ReactionChris Smith, Consultant, Baker & McKenzie, Hong Kong

“Many of the provisions are likely to only be of interest to trade mark practitioners, but they do include important guidance on how the courts should examine cases where a disputed trade mark is alleged to infringe the prior rights of the party bringing the dispute. The provisions also provide guidance in terms of how to assess fame and on situations where bad faith can be inferred on the part of the owner of a disputed trade mark. They will not satisfy everyone, but as the examination standards of Chinese courts are generally quite opaque the provisions are to be welcomed for bringing increased clarity, particularly in terms of highlighting the types of evidence that courts should be looking for when examining a complainant’s claims.”

Action Items

General Counsel for clients involved in or considering administrative litigation in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and beyond in relation to a TRAB decision should carefully study and review the provisions with trial counsel to ensure everyone has a common understanding of the relevant sections, including the clarified evidentiary requirements.


法律顧問備忘錄

最高院發出關於商標授權確權的司法解釋

2017年1月10日，最高人民法院發出《

最高人民法院關於審理商標授權確權行政

案件若干問題的規定》(「《規定》」)，

自2017年3月1日起施行。

《規定》適用於相對人或利害關係人因不

服與下列事項有關的行政決定而向人民法

院提起訴訟的案件：

‧商標覆審。

‧商標註冊覆審。

‧商標撤銷覆審。

‧商標無效宣告及無效宣告覆審。

‧商標評審委員會其他行政行為。

具體而言，《規定》闡明：

‧2013年《中華人民共和國商標法》

(《2013商標法》)某些詞和短語的涵

義。

‧《2013商標法》某些規定的應用。

‧在甚麼情況下商標損害著作權人的在先

著作權，甚麼文件可以用作證明著作

擁有權的表面證據，以及甚麼文件可

以用作證明擁有權的初步證據。

‧在甚麼情況下商標損害某自然人的姓名

權，姓名權是否延伸至涵蓋他或她的

筆名、藝名、譯名等，以及在甚麼情

況下註冊與某人姓名相同或相近的商

標容易導致相關公眾產生混淆。

‧商標能夠誤導公眾的情況，即令公眾誤

認商標為受著作權保護作品的名稱及

作品中的角色的情況，或誤認為知名

企業名稱的簡稱的情況。

‧在甚麼情況下人民法院可以接納新的事

實和新發現的證據。

‧如果已就事情作出有效判決，人民法院

在甚麼情況下可以不接受重新作出裁

決的申請。

市場回應

Chris Smith 顧問，貝克‧ 麥堅時律師事

務所香港辦事處

「許多規定可能只會引起商標從業人員

的興趣，但當中實在包括法庭在受爭議

商標被指侵犯提出爭議一方的在先權利

的情況下，應如何審查案情的相關指

引。《規定》亦就評定名氣的方法和可

以推斷受爭議商標擁有人心存惡意的情

況提供指引。不會每個人對《規定》都

感到滿意，但是由於中國法庭的審查標

準的確一般都不是透明公開，《規定》

將會因為闡明細節，尤其是特別說明法

庭在審查申訴人的申索時應當尋找的證

據種類，所以受到歡迎。」

跟進事項

法律顧問，其客戶涉及北京知識產權法庭

或更高級法院關乎商標評審委員會決定的

行政訴訟的，或者正考慮提起行政訴訟

的，應當與出庭律師一起仔細研究並審閱

《規定》，確保人人對相關部分都有共

識，包括已經闡明在證據方面的規定。


INSOLVENCY

Annual Insolvency Law and Practice ConferenceOn 9 March 2017, the Hong Kong Law Society’s Academy of Law launched its inaugural Annual Insolvency Law and Practice Conference. The hugely popular event took place in a packed auditorium of the Hong Kong Exhibition Centre with over 300 delegates. In attendance were members of the legal and financial press who had been invited to report on recent landmark restructuring rulings of the Companies Court, a division of the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong, as well as topical issues.

Keynote speaker, Mr. Justice Jonathan Harris, spoke on a panel with offshore litigation lawyer Ian Mann of Harneys; the panel was moderated by Hong Kong barrister, Victor Joffe QC of Temple Chambers.

Melissa Pang, Vice President of the Law Society, opened the conference with a rousing call to practitioners to focus on training and continuing professional development in this particularly exciting area of law. Ms. Pang noted the increasing regional insolvency and restructuring work and the skill of Hong Kong practitioners.

Ms. Christina Cheung, a law officer of the Department of Justice of the HKSAR Government noted the commitment of government to this area of law and the continuing development and improvement within the profession.

Mr. Keith Ho of Wilkinson & Grist and Chairman of the Insolvency Law Committee promised an exciting inaugural conference addressing a


• April 2017

number of live issues.

In what is thought to be first in legal history, Mr. Justice Harris’ panel included pre-recorded video commentary from judges of three of the major offshore jurisdictions – the BVI, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The audience watched in palpable amazement as the four judges comments were delivered to them in a dynamic panel. Having access to extra-judicial comments from four eminent judges of the various jurisdictions in an interactive and engaging panel was the highlight of the day.

The four jurisdictions share a proud history with the UK and are bonded forensically and culturally by the common law. An increasing number of applications are made by offshore liquidators to the Hong Kong Court for “recognition and assistance” by way of “common law recognition”. Mr. Justice Harris enthralled the assembled lawyers with the reasoning behind his landmark decision in The Joint Official Liquidators of A Company v B Company [2014] HKEC 1244 and the many cases that have followed. He also discussed the idea of recognising an offshore provisional liquidator, the tool for restructuring in those places, such that parallel schemes of arrangement could take place between an offshore court and the Hong Kong court. This was a creative way to recognise restructuring in a way that might otherwise not be available.

Ian Mann noted that as a non-Hong Kong lawyer and “a consumer of Hong Kong legal services” he was delighted with the Hong Kong Court’s progressive approach to recognising offshore liquidations as well as parallel restructuring. He noted that Hong Kong “is the de facto restructuring hub of Asia” with an “innovative and quality first instance court that Hong Kong lawyers should be proud of”. He noted “there is no other Court in the world driving the boundaries of common law assistance as much as Hong Kong – with perhaps the exception of Bermuda”.

Justice Barry Leon of the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court spoke by video on the recent Judicial Insolvency Network, a network of judges who have proposed a protocol for co-operation in cross-border insolvency cases for the efficient disposal of cases.

Chief Justice Anthony Smellie of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands spoke by video citing recent cases of cross-border insolvency co-operation between the courts of the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong.

Chief Justice Ian Kawaley of the Bermuda Supreme Court spoke of the flexibility of the Bermuda provisional liquidator as a restructuring tool that could then be recognised, if appropriate, by a Hong Kong Court.

Camille Jojo of Norton Rose and a member of the Insolvency Law Committee, Phyllis McKenna, the Official Receiver, and Dr. Stefan Lo, Deputy Principal Government Counsel (acting) of the Department of Justice, had a lively panel discussion outlining proposed legislative reforms that would create a “provisional supervision” and would allow Hong Kong companies to enter into a legal breathing space to restructure their financial and operational structures when they are in financial difficulty. Employee protection featured strongly as the backdrop to these reforms.

Ian de Witt of Tanner de Witt, Rupert Purser of Burford Capital and Edward Middleton of KPMG conducted a humorous and thoughtful panel discussion on the use of litigation funding in insolvency matters. The

discussion was refreshingly in-depth and practical. Edward Middleton unabashedly probed funder, Rupert Purser, about what threshold he would have to meet to obtain funding in any particular case. The panel heard the exact returns that funders look for, as well as the necessary due diligence that is conducted.

In what to many was an eye-opening detailed discussion on the trading, purchasing and restructuring of non-performing loans, Keith Ho, Theron Alldis of SC Lowy, Paul Forgue of Alvarez & Marsal and Ian Mann rounded off the day. The panel asked Theron Alldis to reveal the secrets of how one makes money out of non-performing loans and an impressive discussion of financial restructuring, negotiations with stakeholders, an understanding of the underlying business of a debtor ensued.

- Thomson Reuters

破產

破產法與實務週年會議

香港法律專業學會於2017年3月9日舉行

了其首屆破產法與實務週年會議。這項活

動在香港會議展覽中心的一個會議廳舉

行，共有300多位代表出席，深受大家歡

迎。出席人士當中，包括來自法律與金融

資訊媒體的記者，而大會邀請他們出席，

是希望有更多媒體能為公司法庭(其從屬

於原訟法庭)在近期所作出的具里程碑意

義的重組裁決，以及就其他熱點議題進行

廣泛報導。

當晚的主題演講嘉賓是香港原訟法庭法官



夏利士，他與衡力斯法律事務所的離岸訴

訟律師Ian Mann在同一個專題研討會中擔

任講者，而該研討會的主持人為Temple

Chambers 的Victor Joffe御用大律師。

為大會主持開幕儀式的，是香港律師會副

會長彭韻僖律師，她呼籲法律執業者重視

這個什受關注的法律範疇，並將焦點放在

相關培訓與持續專業發展方面。彭韻僖律

師亦提到區內的破產及重組工作正在增

加，以及香港法律執業者的技能。

律政司的民事法律專員張錦慧女士指出，

香港特區政府十分重視這一法律範疇及這

個專業的持續發展與改進。

高露雲律師行合夥人兼香港律師會破產法

委員會主席何文基律師稱，這個首趟舉行

的會議別具意義，並將會論述一系列的當

今議題。

由夏利士法官參與的該專題研討會，當中

包含由英屬維爾京群島、開曼群島、百慕

大等三個司法管轄區的法官預先錄影的評

論視頻，而此舉更被認為是開法律界之先

河。各與會者可以看到，這四位法官在一

個動態進行的研討會中分享他們各自的看

法，份外覺得生動有趣，而當日的亮點所

在，就是會眾能夠在一個互動和氣氛熱烈

的研討會中，聆聽四位來自不同司法管

轄區的知名法官所作的司法體系以外的評

論。

這四個司法管轄區均與英國有著一段共同

的驕人歷史，而它們之間更透過普通法而

在法律與文化上緊密相連。現時由離岸清

盤人向香港法院提交的申請越來越多，要

求藉「普通法的承認」而給予「承認和

協助」。夏利士法官闡述他在The Joint

Official Liquidators of A Company v B

Company [2014] HKEC 1244一案中的

具里程碑意義的裁決和其後的許多案例的

背後理據，大大引起各與會的法律界人士

的興趣。此外，他也論及承認離岸臨時清

盤人(該等地區所運用的一項重組工具)的

舉措，目的是讓並行的債務償還安排，得

以同時在離岸法院與香港法院之間進行。

這是一個若非如此便可能無法實行的具創

意的承認重組方法。

Ian Mann指出，他自己作為一位非香港律

師，以及作為「一名香港法律服務的消費

者」，很高興看到香港法院在承認離岸清

盤及並行重組方面的進步措施。他指出，

香港是「亞洲事實上的重組中心」，並「

擁有一個優質及具創造力的原訟法庭，足

以令本地的律師感到自豪」。他續稱，「

世界上可能除了百慕大以外，沒有其他地

方的法院能夠像香港的法院般積極提供普

通法的協助。」

英屬維爾京群島高等法院商事法庭法官

Barry Leon透過視像，就近期成立的司法

破產網絡發表講話。有一些法官建議訂立

一項協定，以促進在跨境破產案件中的合

作，從而有效處理該等案件，而司法破

產網絡是指一個由這些法官組成的網絡。

開曼群島大法院首席法官Anthony Smellie

透過視像發表演講，當中他援引了數宗關

於開曼群島法院與香港法院在跨境破產方

面進行合作的近期案件作為例子。

百慕大最高法院首席法官Ian Kawaley論

及百慕大臨時清盤人(作為一項重組工具)

所具備的靈活性，而在合適的情況下，香

港的法院也可對其予以認可。

諾頓羅氏富布萊特香港的莊鏡明律師、

破產管理署署長麥錦羅女士、律政司副首

席政府律師(署理)盧偉正先生等進行了一

場生動的專題討論，當中闡述了一些促使

實行「臨時監管」的立法改革建議，從而

讓香港的公司得以在法律上獲得喘息的空

間，以便利其在遇到財政困難時，於財務

及運營架構上進行重組。在這些改革背後

的一項重要考慮，就是為僱員提供保障。

泰德威律師事務所的泰德威律師

、Burford Capital的Rupert Purser、畢馬

威會計師事務所的Edward Middleton等

人，就破產案件中的訴訟資助運用，進行

了幽默和發人深省的專題討論。該項討論

具有新意和深度，而且相當實用。Eddie

Middleton 毫不忌諱地，向作為資金提供

者的Rupert Purser 查詢，如果他在任何

特定案件中欲獲得提供訴訟資金，他需要

符合什麼最低門檻，而研討會的與會者亦

獲得告知資金提供者所期望獲得的確切回

報，以及所須進行的必要盡職審查。

當天的最後一個環節，是由何文基律

師、SC Lowy 的Theron Alldis、Alvarez

& Marsal的Paul Forgue、及Ian Mann就

不良貸款的交易、購買及重組，進行有助

我們拓寬視野的詳盡討論。在該場研討

會中，Theron Alldis被問及從不良貸款中

獲利的竅門。其後，大家亦進行了財務重

組、與持份者談判、了解債務人相關業務

等方面的深入討論。

- Thomson Reuters

PRC

The Potential Impact of China’s Proposed New Forex Regime for Cornerstone Investment in Hong Kong IPOs

Cornerstone investors have been playing an increasingly dominant role in Hong Kong IPOs. In fact, PRC institutional investors in particular have demonstrated their strong appetite for cornerstone investment. As a case in point, the Postal Savings Bank IPO in 2016 saw state-owned enterprises (“SOEs”) such as China Shipbuilding Industry Corp. and State Grid Overseas Investment taking up over 75 percent of the HK$57.6 billion deal’s total offering.

PRC investors may be more active in Hong Kong IPO’s cornerstone tranche due to China’s proposed new forex regime for cornerstone investors. Currently, PRC institutional investors invest in Hong Kong IPOs under the Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (“QDII”) scheme, which allows onshore investors to invest based on the QDII quota. However, going forward, onshore investors may be allowed to invest in Hong Kong IPOs by Chinese companies based on the forex quota subject to certain conditions, according to Guo Song of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”). This includes repatriation by the issuers of a portion of the IPO proceeds and repatriation by the cornerstone investors of a portion of the sale proceeds after selling their investments. This suggests


• April 2017

that the proposed new regime may be part of Chinese regulators’ wider efforts to boost China’s foreign exchange reserves and manage capital outflow.

While it is difficult to grasp the full implications of the proposed new regime until SAFE officially announces the relevant details, there has already been much discussion over whether it is a boon or bane to Hong Kong’s IPO landscape. On the one hand, it may encourage more mainland companies to list in Hong Kong by expanding the pool of potential cornerstone investors. On the other hand, issuers may not find the new regime attractive given the repatriation requirements, and identifying new investors and educating them about Hong Kong’s IPO regulations may take considerable time.

As the implementation details of the proposed new regime have not yet been officially announced, it remains to be seen whether the new arrangement is supposed to replace the current QDII regime or serve as an additional avenue for potential cornerstone investors to invest in Hong Kong IPOs.

- Danny Kan and Jasmine Wee, Linklaters

中國內地

中國適用於香港首次公開招股基礎投資的外匯新制度建議的潛在影響

基礎投資者在香港首次公開招股

(「IPO」)中發揮的主導作用一直有增無

減。事實上，中國機構投資者尤其展示了

他們對基礎投資有極佳的胃口。舉一個例

子，中國郵政儲蓄銀行2016年在香港進

行IPO，集資總額達576億港元，其中超

過75%是由中國船舶和國家電網海外投

資等國有企業(「國企」)認購。

香港IPO的基礎投資者大多數都是中國

投資者，究其原因，可能是中國適用於

基礎投資者的新的外匯制度建議所致。

目前，中國機構投資者是按照合格境內

機構投資者(「QDII」)計劃投資香港IPO

的；在QDII計劃下，境內投資者可以按照

QDII額度進行投資。然而，按照國家外匯

管理局(「外管局」)郭松的說法，在若干

條件的規限下，境內投資者可以獲准在

香港投資中國企業的IPO。這包括發行人

得調回部分IPO所得款項，以及基礎投資

者售出其投資後，得調回部分的銷售後

所得款項。在中國監管機構加大力度，

增加中國外匯儲備和加強管理資金流出

的時候，這令人聯想建議的新制度可能

是監管機構所盡的一部分努力。

儘管外管局一日未正式公布相關細節，我

們一日都難以全盤掌握新制度建議的影

響，但是已有不少人討論新制度對於香港

IPO環境是好還是壞。一方面，新制度可

以擴大潛在基礎投資者的藏庫，鼓勵內地

企業來港上市。另一方面，由於調回所得

款項是有規定的，發行人可能不覺得新制

度有甚麼吸引力，而且識別新投資者和教

導新投資者香港IPO規例可能耗時甚長。

究竟新安排是否可以取替現有QDII制度？

是否給潛在基礎投資者提供投資香港IPO

的其他途徑？由於外管局現時仍未正式公

布新制度建議的實施細節，後事如何，還

需拭目以待。

- 簡家豪及Jasmine Wee，年利達律師事務所

TRUST

“Tainted Love”? There is a line in the famous song of the same title that goes something like: “The love we share, seems to go nowhere”.

Not only is there an industry out there of such things as “Telephone Scams”, “Online Romance Scams” and “Online Naked Chat Blackmail” (Industry Insights, November 2015), recent cases in Hong Kong suggest that some parties may be losing substantial amounts of money due to what the judge in Karla Otto Ltd v Bulent Eren Bayram [2017] HKEC 378, HCA 821/2011, described as, perhaps, “misplaced trust which is generated when parties are engaged in a romantic relationship”*.

The judgment is interesting for a number of reasons and provides a cautionary tale.

A certain “Ms. Otto” and the first defendant had been in a personal relationship and the latter had, apparently, been allowed to operate one of the plaintiff company’s online bank accounts. After the relationship ended, the plaintiff sought the return of monies paid out of its bank account some of which appear to have ended-up in the bank account of the second defendant, a Hong Kong company of which the first defendant was the sole shareholder and director.

Given that the first defendant was found to be acting as a de facto director of the plaintiff company, he owed it a fiduciary duty and was held liable, together with the second defendant company (which, in effect, he controlled), to return the money to the plaintiff.

The comprehensive set of reliefs granted by court to the plaintiff (in addition to repayment of the money) is worth noting; for example, declarations, delivery up of share certificates or books and records of the second defendant in the first defendant’s possession, the resignation of the first defendant as a director of the



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

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

中的法律意見或被視作取代法律意見。

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

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

電郵：[email protected]

second defendant pursuant to s. 729 (“Court may order remedies“) of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622).

There is also a suggestion in the judgment that the first defendant may have attempted to adjourn the trial by the use of a questionable “doctor’s note” (also see – “Video testimony and doctors’ notes”, Industry Insights, October 2013).

A lesson to be learned is that business and personal relationships often do not mix very well.

Furthermore, without reference to any particular case, no one should allow another person to operate their bank account. In a sign of the times, appropriate due diligence is required not only in a business context but also prior to entering into and during a personal relationship. Indeed, anything else risks a financial loss and an exposure to being held accountable for another person’s alleged nefarious activities.

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

* Also see Chu Wen Jing Jennifer v Sin Hon Wai

[2016] HKEC 2474, HCA 10, 6 and 121/2016.

信託

腐朽的愛？名曲《Tainted Love》(意譯：腐朽的愛)

有一句的中文意思大概是：「我倆的愛似

乎不會有好結果」。

香港不但有「電話騙案」、「網上情緣」

和「網上裸聊勒索」(2015年11月《業界

透視》)等騙人招數，而且最近有案件的

當事人之所以損失巨款，就是因為高院法

官在Karla Otto Ltd v Bulent Eren Bayram

[2017] HKEC 378(高院民事訴訟2011年

第821號)所說的「投入戀情以致所託非

人」*所致。

是項判決之所以有趣的原因有很多，判決

的背後是一個警世故事。

某位「Otto女士」與第一被告人有過一段

感情關係，那時後者明顯獲准管理原告人

公司其中一個網上銀行賬戶。二人的關係

結束之後，原告人要求獲歸還由該銀行賬

戶撥款支付的款項，其中一部分似乎最終

存入了第二被告人的銀行賬戶；第二被告

人是香港公司，第一被告人是第二被告人

唯一的股東兼董事。

由於第一被告人被斷定是以原告人公司實

際董事的身分行事，他負有受信責任，因

此被判有責任歸還款項給原告人，第二被

告人(實際上由他控制的公司)同樣有此責

任。

法庭授予原告人的濟助(除了獲償還款項

之外)相當全面，值得我們留意；例如法

庭命令作出宣告、交出第二被告人由第一

被告人管有的股票或簿冊及紀錄、以及以

《公司條例》(第622章)第729條(「原訟

法庭可命令作出補救」)為依據，命令第

一被告人辭任第二被告人董事一職。

判決中亦有指第一被告人可能是利用有問

題的「醫生紙」試圖押後審訊(亦見2013

年10月《業界透視》「以視像系統作供

及「醫生的筆記」)。

這個警世故事的教訓是，商業關係和感情

關係通常不會並存而相安無事的。

此外，不用參照任何具體案例也當知道，

任何人都不應容許另一人管理自己的銀行

賬戶。時移勢易，現在不只做生意的需要

在適當的盡職審查，我們連交朋結友、投

入感情關係之前也需要如此。事實上，不

這樣的話，就有可能招致金錢上的損失，

也有可能要就另一人被指歹毒之事，負上

責任。

- 施德偉及莊偉倫，Smyth & Co與

RPC聯營

* 亦請參閱Chu Wen Jing Jennifer v Sin Hon Wai [2016] HKEC 2474(高院民事訴訟2016年第10、6及121號)。


• April 2017

April 2017 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

CASES IN BRIEF案例撮要

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Hudson Timothy George Loh v Director of Immigration [2017] HKEC 126Court of First InstanceConstitutional and Administrative Law List No. 50 of 2015Anderson Chow J25 January 2017

Director of Immigration – Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports Appeal Board – decisions refusing application for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport on basis applicant not Chinese national – judicial review

X’s parents (M and F), both of Chinese descent, were born in Canada and were Canadian nationals. F and M had resided in Hong Kong since 1995 and 1996 respectively and became Hong Kong permanent residents in 2002 and 2008 respectively. During a temporary stay by F in Canada due to the outbreak of SARS in Hong Kong in 2003, X was born in July 2003 and acquired Canadian nationality at birth. Since September 2003, X had continuously been a resident and settled in Hong Kong. In 2012, X became a Hong Kong permanent resident. In August 2013, M on behalf of X applied for an HKSAR passport. The Director of Immigration (the “Director”) rejected the application. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports

Appeal Board (the “Board”) dismissed M’s appeal and rejected the contention that X was a Chinese national by virtue of para. 2 of the Explanations of Some Questions by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Concerning the Implementation of the Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (adopted at the Nineteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People’s Congress on 15 May 1996) (the “NPC Explanations”), which states that “All Hong Kong Chinese compatriots (香港中國同胞) are Chinese nationals, whether or not they are holders of the ‘British Dependent Territories Citizens passport’ or ‘British Nationals (Overseas) passport’…”. Section 3(2)(a) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports Ordinance (Cap. 539) provides that the Director shall not issue a HKSAR passport to an applicant unless the applicant has satisfied, inter alia, the condition that he is a “Chinese citizen” as defined in s. 2 as “a person of Chinese nationality under the Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China [PRC Nationality law], as implemented in the [HKSAR] in accordance with [the NPC Explanations] … .”

Held, dismissing the application, that para. 2 of the NPC Explanations dealt with the status of the “British Dependent Citizens” or “British Nationals (Overseas)” passports held by “香港中國

同胞 (Hong Kong Chinese compatriots)” and made it clear that such persons shall be regarded as Chinese nationals. To

read para. 2 as creating a further class of Chinese nationals consisting of persons falling within the expression “香港中國

同胞 (Hong Kong Chinese compatriots)” would be inconsistent with the clear meaning and effect of para. 1 which exhaustively defined two categories of persons as being Chinese nationals insofar as the implementation of the PRC Nationality Law in the HKSAR was concerned.

行政法

Hudson Timothy George Loh v

Director of Immigration[2017] HKEC 126

原訟法庭

高院憲法及行政法列表2015年第50號

原訟法庭法官周家明

2017年1月25日

入境事務處處長 — 香港特別行政

區護照上訴委員會 — 決定拒批香

港特別行政區護照申請，理由為

申請人並非中國公民 — 司法覆核

X的父母親(以下分別稱為M及F)具有中

國血統，在加拿大出生，並為加拿大公

民。F及M分別自1995及1996年起在香

港居住，並分別於2002及2008年成為香

港永久性居民。2003年，「沙士」疫症

在香港爆發，F因而前往加拿大暫住，而

X於同年7月出生，並於出生時取得加拿

大國籍。X自2003年9月起在香港連續居

住和定居，並於2012年成為香港永久性


居民。2013年8月，M代表X申請香港特

別行政區護照。入境事務處處長拒批該申

請。M提出上訴，而香港特別行政區護照

上訴委員會駁回上訴，並拒絕接納指X憑

藉《全國人民代表大會常務委員會關於

〈中華人民共和國國籍法〉在香港特別行

政區實施的幾個問題的解釋》(1996年5

月15日第八屆全國人民代表大會常務委

員會第十九次會議通過)(下稱「《人大解

釋》」)第2段而屬於中國公民的論據。該

段訂明﹕「所有香港中國同胞，不論其是

否持有『英國屬土公民護照』或者『英國

國民(海外)護照』，都是中國公民」。《

香港特別行政區護照條例》(第539章)第

3(2)(a)條規定，除非申請人符合若干條

件，否則入境事務處處長不得發出香港特

別行政區護照，條件之一為申請人須是「

中國公民」，而該條例第2條把「中國公

民」界定為「按[《人大解釋》]而在香港

特別行政區實施的《中華人民共和國國籍

法》所指具有中國國籍的人」。

裁決 — 駁回申請﹕

《人大解釋》第2段處理持有「英國屬土

公民護照」或「英國國民(海外)護照」的

香港中國同胞的身份，並指明該等人士須

視為中國公民。假如把第2段解讀為產生

另一類包含屬於「香港中國同胞」的中

國公民，則這將與《人大解釋》第1段的

清晰涵義和效力不符。為了在香港特別行

政區實施《中華人民共和國國籍法》，第

1段盡列兩類人士為中國公民。

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Yifung Developments Ltd v Liu Chi Keung Ricky (No. 2)[2016] HKEC 2750Court of First InstanceHigh Court Action No. 1341 of 2014Queeny Au-Yeung J20 December 2016

Costs – action commenced without authority but subsequently ratified – relation back of ratification as equivalent to antecedent authority – pre-ratification costs and post-ratification costs – solicitors did not have to bear any costs – nor did directors

An action in the name of the plaintiff-company (“C”) was commenced without authority. But its commencement was then ratified. D1’s summons on the issue of authority was dismissed. It was ordered nisi: that D1 should have certain pre-ratification costs of the authority summons; that C’s solicitors (the “Solicitors”) show cause why they should not bear those costs; and that half of C’s post-ratification costs of the authority summons be paid by D1. In addition, C was called on to make representations as to whether a mandatory injunction should be set aside for non-disclosure and consequently, whether the action had been necessary. Both sides sought variation of the order nisi. A variation summons taken out by C and a subsequent application to amend that summons were both dismissed with costs to D1. D1’s variation summons sought the costs of the hearing of the authority summons and, as an alternative to the Solicitors’ potential

costs liability, asked that C’s directors (the “Directors”) pay his costs.

Held, dismissing D1’s summons, making the order nisi absolute, and ruling that there was no basis for costs to be ordered against the Solicitors or Directors nor had there been any material non-disclosure, that:

• That the action had been commenced without a compliant board resolution to do so, that C succeeded in only one of its four lines of argument and that it had made unjustified complaints that D1 lacked locus and of abuse of process had all been reflected in the order nisi that C have only half of its post-ratification costs. There was no reason to order any variation in D1’s favour.

• The ratification related back and was deemed to be equivalent to antecedent authority. The Solicitors should not be ordered to bear any of D1’s costs.

• There was unity of purpose of all the stakeholders, and the Solicitors had all along taken instructions from two of the Directors as constituting the entire board of C. In all the circumstances, the Solicitors need not bear any of their client’s costs.

• The action was for the purpose of recovering C’s assets. And the Directors could not have been the true beneficiaries of the action or the summons. There was no basis for making them personally liable.

• No reason to question the obtaining of the injunction or the necessity of the action was made out. D1 having triggered the Court’s concern on those matters, he should bear C’s costs of making representations thereon.


• April 2017


民事訴訟程序

Yifung Developments Ltd v Liu Chi

Keung Ricky (No. 2)

[2016] HKEC 2750

原訟法庭

高院民事訴訟案2014年第1341號

原訟法庭法官歐陽桂如

2016年12月20日

訟費 — 訴訟未獲授權而展開，但

其後獲追認 — 追溯確認權限等同

於先前授予權限 — 追認前訟費和

追認後訟費 — 律師不須承擔任何

訟費 — 各董事也不須承擔

一宗訴訟在未獲授權的情況下以原告公司

的名義展開，但其後獲追認。第一被告人

就權限問題發出的傳票(「權限傳票」)被

駁回。法庭作出暫准訟費令：第一被告人

應當確定權限傳票截至追認當日之前的訟

費；原告公司的律師(「原告律師」)必須

提出因由解釋為甚麼不應由他們承擔訟

費；由被告人支付原告公司在作出追認後

就權限傳票所支付的訟費的一半。此外，

原告公司被傳召就兩個問題，即強制性禁

令應否由於有人不披露事實而擱置及是否

有必要提起訴訟，作出陳述。訴訟兩方俱

要求更改暫准訟費令。原告公司就更改暫

准訟費令發出的傳票及其後為了修改該傳

票而提出的申請都被駁回，第一被告人獲

判給訟費。第一被告人就更改暫准訟費令

發出傳票，要求獲判給聆訊權限傳票的訟

費，也要求原告公司各董事(「各董事」)

支付他的訟費，取代原告律師潛在的訟費

責任。

裁決–撤銷第一被告人的傳票，命令暫准

訟費令是絕對命令，並裁定沒有理據支持

作出不利原告律師或各董事的訟費令，也

從來沒有人不披露關鍵事實：

‧ 原告公司在暫准訟費令下只討回其追

認後訟費的一半，這充分反映了三件

事：該訴訟是在未經董事會決議授權

展開的情況下展開的、原告人的四項

論據只有一項成立，以及原告公司無

理由投訴第一被告人缺乏起訴資格及

濫用法律程序。法庭無理由命令作出

任何對第一被告人有利的更改。

‧ 追溯確認權限被視為等同於先前授予

權限。原告律師不應被命令承擔第一

被告人的訟費。

‧ 所有持份者的目的是一致的，原告律

師一開始就聽令於兩名董事，而原告

公司董事會就是由這兩名董事組成。

在任何情況下，原告律師都不需要承

擔其當事人的訟費。

‧ 原告公司提起訴訟的目的是要討回其

資產。各董事由始至終都不可能是訴

訟或傳票的真正受益人。本案並無任

何支持由他們承擔個人責任的理據。

‧ 法官認為沒有理由質疑原告公司要求

禁制令或提起訴訟的必要性。第一

被告人觸發原訟法庭對上述問題的關

注，因此應由他承擔原告公司就此作

申述的相關訟費。

CIVIL PROCEDURE

AA v Securities and Futures Commission [2017] HKEC 54Court of First InstanceConstitutional and Administrative Law List No. 41 of 2016Zervos J in Chambers13 January 2017

Parties – joinder – judicial review of decision of Securities and Futures Commission to transmit compelled answers, testimony and documents to foreign regulators – whether leave to be granted for Secretary for Justice to intervene in proceedings in respect of constitutionality of s. 181 – Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) s. 181

In May 2016, Xs obtained leave (the “Leave Decision”) for judicial review of the decision of the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) to transmit their compelled answers,

testimony and documents to Japanese regulators (the “SFC’s Decision”). Xs sought a declaration that the SFC had thereby acted unlawfully, absent a binding prohibition of the use of those materials in criminal proceedings and/or a proper assurance against them, or their contents, being leaked to the media and otherwise made public; and a declaration that s. 181 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (the “SFO”), contravened Art. 10 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap. 383) and was unconstitutional. In February 2016, Xs had obtained an anonymity order requiring leave before the court file, including the Form 86 and supporting affirmations and documents relevant to the anonymity application, could be inspected by any interested party and the public (the “Anonymity Order”). In July 2016, the SFC informed the Department of Justice (“DoJ”) of the proceedings and invited the DoJ to consider joining as an interested party, enclosing a copy of the Form 86. In December 2016, the DoJ requested copies of all documents filed by the parties before deciding whether to intervene. The SFC then provided the parties’ affirmations, the Leave Decision, the originating summons and various court orders to the DoJ believing it was entitled to do so under s. 378(3)(f)(iii) and (5) of the SFO; which was in breach of the Anonymity Order. The present hearing was to determine applications by: (a) the Secretary for Justice (“SJ”), made on 23 December 2016, to join as an intervener in the proceedings but only on the issue of the constitutionality of s. 181 of the SFO; and (b) the SFC for an order that “retrospective leave be granted to [the SFC] to provide all Court documents and affirmations in these proceedings to the [DoJ].” Xs opposed the SJ’s application to intervene, relying on the SJ’s delay in making it until shortly before the hearing of the substantive judicial review hearing scheduled for 17 January 2017 and the resultant prejudice to them. At the hearing, the SFC sought to amend the order sought by inserting the words: “Without prejudice to [Xs’] right of action


for any alleged breach of the [Anonymity Order], ...” (the “SFC’s Amendment”).

Held, granting the SJ’s application and dismissing the SFC’s application, that:

• The constitutional importance of Xs’ challenge to s. 181 concerning the SFC’s regulation of the financial services industry; and that the SJ was the guardian of the public interest and had a legitimate interest in the outcome, warranted the SJ’s intervention.

• As for Xs’ opposition to the SJ’s application, the SJ’s draft skeleton argument was filed on 11 January 2017 in compliance with the Practice Directions within three clear days of the substantive hearing. The SJ’s submissions would not significantly lengthen the hearing or disadvantage Xs. Further, to appropriately address Xs’ concerns, the constitutional issue could be dealt with on the last of the three days set aside for the substantive application. The SJ was accordingly joined as an intervener in the proceedings.

• However, Xs’ objection to the SFC’s Amendment was valid, given the SFC conceded there was a breach of the Anonymity Order and the amendment still sought retrospective leave to regularise its conduct in the face of a possible action for contempt of court which Xs were entitled to make.

• There was no wilful or serious infraction of the Anonymity Order by the SFC. What had occurred was an innocent oversight. Nor was there any prejudice or inconvenience caused. If the SFC had sought leave to supply the court documents to the DoJ, it would have been granted to enable the DoJ to consider whether to intervene. It was also significant that the SJ, having been allowed to intervene, would as a party to the proceedings have full access to the court documents in any event. However, the Court did not consider that the order for retrospective

leave sought by the SFC, even in its amended form, was an appropriate order for the Court to make.

民事訴訟程序

AA v Securities and Futures

Commission [2017] HKEC 54

原訟法庭

高院憲法及行政訴訟2016年第41號

原訟法庭法官薛偉成內庭聆訊

2017年1月13日

訴訟各方 — 加入訴訟 — 司法

覆核證券及期貨事務監察委員會

關於把被逼作出的回答、證供和

文件交給外國監管機構的決定 —

是否批予許可，容許律政司司長

就第181條的合憲性介入訴訟 —

《證券及期貨條例》(第571章)

第181條

證券及期貨事務監察委員會(「證監會」)

把兩名申請人被迫作出的回答、證供和文

件交給日本監管機構(「證監會的決定」)

；兩名申請人在2016年5月就證監會的決

定取得司法覆核許可(「許可判決」)。兩

名申請人要求法庭宣告，證監會這樣做是

非法行事，因為證監會沒有就那些資料在

刑事程序的用途作出具約束力的禁制及／

或取得足夠保證，確保日本監管機構不會

把那些資料或其內容向傳媒透露，也不會

向外公開；以及要求法庭宣告，《證券及

期貨條例》(第571章)(「《條例》」)第

181條違反《香港人權法案條例》(第383

章)第十條，並且違反憲法。兩名申請人

在2016年2月取得身分保密令，規定有

利害關係的一方及公眾人士必須先獲得許

可，才能查閱法庭檔案，包括表格86及

支持誓章，以及身分保密申請的相關文件

(「身分保密令」)。證監會在2016年7月

致函律政司告知該宗訴訟，邀請律政司考

慮以有利害關係方的身分加入，隨附表格

86的副本。律政司在2016年12月還未決

定是否介入訴訟的時候，要求獲提供全

部由各方提交的文件的副本。證監會相信

在《條例》第378(3)(f)(iii)條及第378(5)

條之下，證監會有權向律政司提供法庭文

件，因此向律政司提供了各方的誓章、許

可判決、原訴傳票及多項法庭命令；證監

會這樣做違反了身分保密令。是次聆訊的

目的是要就兩項申請作決定，即：(a)對

律政司司長在2016年12月23日為了加入

訴訟成為介入人而提出的申請作決定，律

政司司長只以《條例》第181條是否合憲

的爭議作為申請理據；及(b)對證監會的

申請作決定，證監會在申請中要求法庭命

令「批予具追溯效力的許可，容許[證監

會]向[律政司]提供法律程序中所有法庭

文件和誓章。」兩名申請人反對律政司司

長申請介入訴訟，理據是律政司司長延遲

至預定進行司法覆核的實質聆訊之日前不

久，即2017年1月17日之前不久才提出

申請，導致兩名申請人受到損害。進行聆


• April 2017


訊時，證監會要求修訂所要求的命令，

加入「不損害[兩名申請人]就任何被指

稱違反[身分保密令]的事情進行訴訟的權

利，……」(「證監會的修訂」)。

裁決 –批准律政司司長的申請，駁回證

監會的申請：

‧ 第181條關乎證監會對金融服務業的

監管，兩名申請人對第181條提出質

疑，在憲法上具有重大意義；律政司

司長是公眾利益的保衞者，在結果中

享有合法利益，足以支持律政司司長

介入訴訟。

‧ 至於兩名申請人反對律政司司長的申

請，律政司司長在2017年1月11日

呈交擬備的論點綱要，符合《實務指

引》在實質聆訊前3整天之前呈交論

點綱要的要求。律政司司長的陳詞不

會大幅加長聆訊時間或損害兩名申請

人的利益。此外，法庭預留了3天時

間聆訊實質申請，把是否合憲的爭議

放在最後一天處理，應該可以妥善地

消除兩名申請人的憂慮。律政司司長

因而加入訴訟成為介入人。

‧ 然而，兩名申請人反對證監會的修訂

是合理的，因為證監會已經承認存在

違反身分保密令的情況，而且兩名

申請人是有權就藐視法庭罪提起訴訟

的，證監會面對兩名申請人有可能提

起的訴訟，仍然提出修訂，要求具有

追溯力的許可，為的就是合法化其行

為。

‧ 證監會沒有故意或嚴重違反身分保密

令。事件的發生是無心之失，完全沒

有引致任何損害或不方便的情況。要

是證監會提出要求的話，證監會早就

獲批予向律政司提供法庭文件的許

可，讓律政司司長能夠考慮是否介入

訴訟。同樣重要的是，律政司司長如

果獲准介入訴訟，就會成為訴訟一

方，在任何情況下都可以取閱所有法

庭文件。然而，原訟法庭不認為原訟

法庭適宜作出證監會所要求的追溯許

可命令，即使是已經修訂的命令亦不

適宜。

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

HKSAR v Frank Laurent [2017] HKEC 26Court of AppealCriminal Appeal No. 243 of 2015Lunn V-P, Macrae and McWalters JJA10 January 2017

Ambit of defence counsel’s power to conduct trial in best interests of client – decisions to not apply for severance and to rely on exhibit – client’s informed consent – irrespective of such consent, client was responsible for tactical decisions made by his counsel within ambit of counsel’s power – Judge’s duty to direct on issues whether or not defence wished that direction thereon be given

D was tried on three counts. Count 1 was of raping Ms. W at a hotel on 1 May 2013. D was acquitted on this count. Count 2 was of indecently assaulting Ms. X in his apartment on 8 August 2013 while Count 3 was of raping Ms. Y in that apartment on 24 October 2013. D was convicted on these two counts. He sought leave to appeal against his convictions. The grounds of appeal put forward on his behalf were as follows. Ground 1 was that there was a lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction in respect of Ms. X because there was evidence that she might have been influenced by two former girlfriends of D’s to make a false allegation against him. Ground 2 was that there was a lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction in respect of Ms. Y because: she had gone to D’s apartment knowing that they would be alone there; she did not tell him that she did not consent to sexual intercourse; and in those circumstances, he had honest and genuine grounds to believe that the sexual intercourse between them was consensual. Ground 3 was that the Judge had erred in directing the jury to consider whether D’s WhatsApp message to Ms. Y at 23:20 hours saying,

“I stopped when you asked me to stop” was “so spontaneous and so immediate as does suggest to you that he may have been telling the truth”, there being no evidence as to why there was a delay in D making that response to Ms. Y’s message at 22:16 hours in which she had said, “You should never force anyone if they are unwilling to do it”. Ground 4 was that the Judge had erred in giving the jury directions on recklessness, contrary to defence counsel’s submission, the issue not having arisen on the evidence since it was the prosecution’s case that D knew full well that Ms. X and Ms. Y did not consent, and it was not D’s case that he had mistakenly believed that they consented. Ground 5(a) was that it was a material irregularity that the three counts were tried together since the defence to Count 3 was separate and distinct from the defence to Counts 1–2; that D’s counsel at trial had failed to advise him to apply for severance and had erred in failing so to apply, thus depriving him of the opportunity to make an informed decision on severance and depriving him of a fair trial. Ground 5(b) was that, given that the prosecution did not rely on similar fact evidence, D had been subjected to impermissible and highly prejudicial cross-examination by prosecuting counsel in respect of Ms. X, the questions having been suggestive of an uncharged offence of attempting to rape her. And Ground 5(c) was that D was deprived of a fair trial by the admission into evidence in cross-examination of Ms. W and Ms. X of highly prejudicial hearsay evidence of his conduct, in particular as set out in Exhibit D4 a Facebook message, namely that he had tricked women into having sex, communicated venereal disease and violently attacked a girlfriend. The application for leave to appeal was made out of time, but the prosecution did not object to it being so made, and the Court entertained it.

Held, refusing leave to appeal, that:

• The trial proceeded as a trial of all three counts and Exhibit D4 was adduced into evidence in the cross-


examination of Ms. W and Ms. X with D’s informed consent. That way of conducting the defence fell within the ambit of defence counsel’s power to conduct the trial in the best interests of his client. In any event, it would have been very difficult to succeed in an application for severance. Defence counsel was alive to the advantages and disadvantages of conducting the defence in the way in which it was conducted, which included relying on Exhibit D4. Irrespective of the fact of D’s consent, these decisions were tactical decisions in the defence case, for which decisions D was responsible.

• The lurking doubt formula must be applied with great caution; an appellate court reading papers and not seeing the witnesses must be cautious in imposing its subjective feelings for the conclusion of the jury which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility; and “lurking doubt” means not an insubstantial doubt but a substantial remaining doubt. In the circumstances, there was no merit in the grounds of appeal asserting the existence of a lurking doubt.

• The issue of recklessness did arise on the evidence. And whether or not the defence wished that a direction on recklessness be given, the Judge had a duty to give the jury such a direction.

刑事證據

HKSAR v Frank Laurent

[2017] HKEC 26

上訴法庭

刑事上訴案件2015年第243號

上訴法庭副庭長倫明高

上訴法庭法官麥機智

上訴法庭法官麥偉德

2017年1月10日

辯方大律師在職權範圍內以符合當事人最大利益的方式進行審訊 — 不申請分割審理和依賴證物的決定 — 當事人在知情的情況下同意 — 不管有否同意，當事人要就他的大律師在大律師職權範圍內作出的策略性決定負上責任 — 原審法官有責任就爭議給予指示，不論辯方是否希望原審法官作出這個指示

被告人就三項控罪接受審訊。罪名1是

2013年5月1日在一間酒店強姦W女士。

被告人被裁定這項罪名不成立。罪名2是

2013年8月8日在他的寓所猥褻侵犯X女

士，罪名3是2013年10月24日在同一寓

所強姦Y女士。被告人被裁定這兩項罪名

成立。他不服定罪，尋求上訴許可。現

列出被告人大律師提出的上訴理由。理

由1：裁定被告人猥褻侵犯X女士罪名成

立穩妥與否，存在「潛在疑點」(lurking

doubt)，因為有證據顯示她有可能是受到

被告人兩名前女友的影響，才對他作出失

實指控。理由2：裁定被告人強姦Y女士

罪名成立穩妥與否，存在「潛在疑點」，

因為她到被告人寓所的時候是知道寓所內

只會有他們二人，並且她沒有告知被告人

她不同意性交；在該等情況下，被告人有

真誠真摯的理由相信，他倆性交是在雙方

同意下進行的。理由3：Y女士在22:16發

給被告人的WhatsApp短訊說「如果人家

不願意，你就不應該強迫人」，被告人到

了23:20才發出WhatsApp短訊說「你一

叫我停，我就停下來了」，案中並無任何

證據解釋被告人為甚麼延遲答覆Y女士，

但是原審法官卻錯誤指示陪審團考慮被告

人23:20的答覆是否「真的發自內心，真

的是即時反應，以致你認為他可能一直在

說真話」。理由4：原審法官犯錯，因為

他就被告人有否罔顧X女士和Y女士是否

同意的爭議給予陪審團指示，沒有理會辯

方大律師的陳詞。這項爭議不是基於證供

產生的，因為控方所指的是被告人完全知

道X女士和Y女士並不同意，而辯方所指

的不是他錯以為她們同意。理由5(a)：對

罪名3的答辯和對罪名1-2的答辯是各自

獨立，並不相干，一併審理三項罪名是極

不妥當的做法；而且被告人大律師在原審

時犯錯，因為他沒有建議被告人申請分割

審理三項罪名，致令被告人被剝奪在知情

的情況下就分割審理作出決定的機會，也

被剝奪了得到公平審訊的機會。理由5(b)

：由於控方不倚賴相近的事實證據，被

告人被控方大律師盤問與X女士有關的問

題，但那次盤問是不獲准許並對被告人極

為不利的。當中的問題令人聯想被告人不

被控告企圖強姦X女士。理由5(c)：在盤

問W女士和X女士的過程中對被告人極為

不利的傳聞證據，特別是證物D4面書短

訊中的細節，即是他花言巧語欺哄女人與

他發生性行為，傳染性病，暴力襲擊一名

女朋友，獲接納為證據，以致被告人得不

到公平審訊。上訴許可的申請是逾時提出

的，不過控方沒有就此提出反對。法庭受

理申請。

裁決–拒絕許可上訴：

‧ 原審時審理的是三項罪名，W女士和

X女士接受盤問時，證物D4在徵得被

告人的知情同意下被呈堂作為證據。

抗辯屬辯方大律師職權範圍內之事，


• April 2017


抗辯的方式必須符合他當事人的最大

利益。無論如何，分割審理的申請本

來就極難成功。辯方大律師意識到他

進行抗辯的方式(包括在抗辯中依賴證

物D4)的利與弊。不管被告人事實上

有否同意，有關決定是辯方的策略性

決定，被告人須就決定負上責任。

‧ 潛在疑點的原則必須萬分謹慎地應用；

上訴法庭只閱讀文件，看不見證人，陪

審團則有目睹證人作供及評定他們可信

性的優勢，因此上訴法庭必須謹慎，不

容許其主觀的感受取代陪審團的結論；

「潛在疑點」不是指不重大的疑點，而

是指重大剩餘的疑點。在這情況下，辯

方的上訴理據，即辯方聲稱存在潛在疑

點，並不成立。

‧ 被告人有否罔顧X女士和Y女士是否同

意的爭議，的確是基於證供產生的。

而且，不論辯方是否希望原審法官就

罔顧的爭議給予指示，原審法官都有

責任就這爭議給予指示。

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

HKSAR v Ip Tsz Yau [2017] HKEC 147Court of AppealCriminal Appeal No. 199 of 2015Lunn V-P, Macrae and McWalters JJA26 January 2017

Prosecution’s duty of disclosure – non-disclosure of police notebooks – potentially relevant and disclosable – non-disclosure rendered conviction unsafe

D was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, trafficking in a dangerous drug and possession of a dangerous drug. The prosecution case was that, during an anti-narcotics operation by eight police officers, including PW1–3, D was intercepted after leaving his flat and ketamine was found on D and in his flat. At trial, PW1–3 denied that anyone else had been at the scene, apart from the police, D and his neighbour, DW1. This was contrary to D’s testimony that he

was outside his flat chatting with two friends, L and DW2, when someone suddenly pulled him away and he was pressed to the ground; L and DW2 were taken to a rear staircase, while D was taken to another staircase where he was threatened, assaulted and the ketamine was planted on him and in his flat. Although DW1–2 confirmed D’s evidence, the Judge rejected D and DW1–2’s testimony. The Judge, however, stated, “Although [DW1–2’s] evidence do not say directly as to how the police had threatened [D] and planted the drugs …, their evidence, if accepted, would cast a reasonable doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.” D appealed against his convictions, relying on the prosecution’s non-disclosure of the notebooks of the other five police officers, Xs, at the scene (the “Notebooks”), which each verified L and DW2’s interception in the vicinity of D’s flat, albeit a few minutes after D’s arrest. D sought to admit the Notebooks as fresh evidence. The prosecution applied to admit a floor plan to show the different times and locations of D’s arrest, and L and DW2’s interception, and emphasised that the latter occurred after PW1–3 had entered D’s flat and so even if the Notebooks had been disclosed, they would not have undermined the prosecution evidence.

Held, allowing the appeal by quashing the convictions, but ordering a retrial, that:

• The Notebooks were disclosable. Xs were present at the scene as part of the police operation and the Notebooks were potentially relevant. However, there was no bad faith in the prosecution not disclosing the Notebooks.

• Given the defence case to be advanced, namely that Xs had played a far more prominent part not only in D’s arrest but the interception of L and DW2 at about the same time, D’s counsel would not only have wanted but also needed to see the Notebooks, yet made no such request of the prosecution. However, the suggestion that the defence deliberately did not ask for such disclosure was rejected.

Once it became clear that the material was potentially relevant to the issues before the Court, it was incumbent on prosecuting counsel to disclose the Notebooks to the defence. Although the Notebooks were not passed to him and were in a foreign language, that could not abrogate the vital and continuing duty to make necessary and timely disclosure.

• The evidence of the Notebooks and the plan should be admitted for this appeal as both necessary and expedient in the interests of justice. By virtue of the non-disclosure of the Notebooks, and the essential findings of credibility relating to all defence witnesses including D, which this material might be said potentially to impugn, the verdict could not be regarded as safe and satisfactory. Had the Judge known that Xs had all confirmed the interception of L and DW2 at the scene that day, he could not have found it an “irresistible inference” that D, DW1–2 had all lied about the latter’s presence.

刑事證據

HKSAR v Ip Tsz Yau

[2017] HKEC 147

上訴法庭

刑事上訴案件2015年第199號

上訴法庭副庭長倫明高

上訴法庭法官麥機智

上訴法庭法官麥偉德

2017年1月26日

控方的披露責任 — 不披露警員記

事冊 — 可能有關係而須予披露 —

不作披露令定罪不穩妥

被告人被裁定「襲擊正在執行職務的警務

人員罪」、「販運危險藥物罪」及「管

有危險藥物罪」罪名成立。控方案情是，

被告人離開住宅單位時，八名警務人員

(包括控方第1-3證人在內)正在執行掃毒

行動，被告人被截查，之後被發現他身

上及他單位藏有氯胺酮。審訊時，控方第


1–3證人否認現場除了警方、被告人和

他的鄰居(即被告第1證人)之外，還有其

他人在場。控方案情與被告人的證供相

反，被告人作供稱，他在自己單位外與兩

名朋友L君和被告第2證人閒聊的時候，

突然被人拉開，之後被壓倒在地上；L君

和被告第2證人被帶到後樓梯間，被告人

則被帶到另一樓梯間；被告人在樓梯間被

恐嚇、襲擊，而他身上和他單位內的氯胺

酮是被插贓嫁禍的。雖然被告第1–2證

人確認被告人的證供，但原審法官拒絕接

納被告人和被告第1–2證人的證供。不

過原審法官表示「雖然[被告第1–2證人

的]證供沒有直接指出警方是怎樣恐嚇[被

告人]和怎樣把毒品栽贓於……，他們的

證供如果獲接納，會使人對控方證人的可

靠性產生合理的懷疑。」被告人不服定

罪，提出上訴，上訴理據是控方沒有披露

現場其餘五名警務人員(「五名警員」)的

記事冊(「五本記事冊」)每本記事冊都證

明L君和被告第2證人在被告人單位附近

被截查，但截查時間是在被告人被捕數

分鐘之後。被告人要求法庭接納五本記事

冊為新證據。控方提出申請，要求法庭接

納一張樓面平面圖為證據，該平面圖證

明被告人被拘捕與L君、被告第2證人被

截查，在時間和地點上都不一樣；控方

強調，L君和被告第2證人是在控方第1-3

證人走進被告人單位之後才被截查的，因

此，即使五本記事冊早已被披露，控方證

據也不會被削弱。

裁決 –上訴得直，撤銷定罪但命令重審

案件：

‧ 五本記事冊須予披露。五名警員當時

身在現場，是警方行動的部分成員，

而五本記事冊是可能有關係的證據。

然而，控方不是惡意不披露五本記事

冊。

‧ 基於辯方將會提出的案情，即五名警

員不單在拘捕被告人一事的作用遠較

其他人明顯，在L君和辯方第2證人差

不多在同一時間被截查一事上，也同

樣有明顯作用，被告人大律師不只是

想看看五本記事冊，也是有需要看，

不過卻沒有向控方提出要求。然而，

辯方故意不要求控方披露五本記事冊

的說法不獲接納。有關資料與法庭席

前的爭議潛在的關係一旦清楚可見，

控方大律師就有職責向辯方披露五本

記事冊。雖然五本記事冊沒有傳到他

手上，並且是以外語寫成，但不會就

此消除他履行重要並須持續履行的責

任，就是作出必要的及適時的披露。

‧ 就是項上訴而言，五本記事冊和平面

圖應獲接納為證據，為了公平起見，

這樣做是必要的，也是合宜的。五本

記事冊可以被說成可能令人對辯方

所有證人(包括被告人在內)的可靠性

表示懷疑，而由於五本記事冊不被披

露，並且原審法官就該等證人的可靠

性作了關鍵性的裁斷，原審時的裁決

不能被視為安全穩妥。若果原審法官

早知道五名警員當日即場講定了L君

和辯方第2證人被截查一事，他就不

可能認定是「無可避免地推斷」被告

人、辯方第1–2證人都撒謊，胡說辯

方第1–2證人身在現場。

CRIMINAL SENTENCING

Secretary for Justice v Wan Hoi Ming[2017] HKEC 93Court of AppealApplication for Review No. 2 of 2016Lunn V-P, Macrae and Pang JJA20 January 2017

Manslaughter – aggravating factors – use of stupefying substance – planning and premeditation – sustained and violent manner of overcoming victim’s resistance – care to be taken not to give duress undue weight as mitigation – instances in which appropriate to adopt sentencing starting point in manslaughter cases – whether “review” discount to be given on review of sentence

D pleaded guilty to “unlawful act” manslaughter and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, the Judge having adopted a starting point of four and a half years and discounted it by one-third for plea. The victim, V, was D’s mother-in-law. It was at the flat in which D, his wife, his son, his mother-in-law and a domestic helper lived that the incident took place. D was indebted to, and unable to pay, a loanshark who threatened to harm his wife and son unless he paid up. The loanshark was holding the wife hostage. In order to obtain the money to repay the loanshark, D asked V for a loan. She refused. D did not tell her of the threat to her daughter and grandson. Instead he decided to render V unconscious and then to search the flat for, and rob her of, her valuables. Having sent the domestic helper out of the flat, D rendered V unconscious by covering her mouth and nose with a towel impregnated with a stupefying substance, namely thinner. As she lay motionless on the floor, D searched for her valuables. Seeing that she remained motionless, he telephoned the police, saying that he had suffocated her to death. Among


• April 2017


the injuries which she sustained were chemical burns over her face. Some days later, she died in hospital. The cause of her death appeared to be brain damage and aspiration pneumonia, which could have been caused by the inhalation of the stupefying substance, by smothering due to the blockage of the external respiratory orifices or by a combination of both. In sentencing D, the Judge noted that D had been under duress; took the view that there was no aggravating factor in the commission of the offence; and made no specific reference to premeditation. The Secretary for Justice applied for a review of sentence.

Held, allowing the application by substituting a sentence of six years and two months’ imprisonment, that:

• The use of a stupefying substance to commit a crime was an aggravating factor.

• Duress was to be taken into account as mitigation, but considerable care had to be taken not to accord stress and fear too much weight lest it be thought that it in any way justified what was done.

• There was an element of planning and premeditation by D in the commission of the offence, albeit the acts of planning occurred in a period of only 40 minutes prior to the attack. This was an aggravating factor.

• The sustained and violent manner in which D had overcome V as she resisted his attack was also an aggravating factor.

• The sentence imposed by the Judge was unduly lenient, the starting point of four and a half years’ imprisonment failing to reflect D’s culpability.

• It was not always appropriate to adopt a sentencing starting point in manslaughter cases, but this was an appropriate instance in which to do so. The appropriate starting point in this case was 10 years. Discounting that by one third yielded a sentence of six years and eight months’ imprisonment. Since D had already completed the sentence imposed

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》。

by the Judge, he would on review of sentence be given a further discount of six months. So, the final sentence would be six years and two months’ imprisonment.

刑事判決

Secretary for Justice v Wan Hoi Ming

[2017] HKEC 93

上訴法庭

上訴法庭覆核申請2016年第2號

上訴法庭副庭長倫明高，上訴法庭法官

麥機智及彭偉昌

2017年1月20日

加刑因素 — 使用麻醉物質 — 有

計劃和預謀地犯案 — 以持續和粗

暴的方式制止受害人反抗 — 須小

心避免對被告人受脅迫一事給予

不恰當的減刑份量 — 在誤殺案

中，法庭可在適當情況下採納量

刑基準 — 在覆核判刑時應否因「

覆核」而扣減刑期

本案被告人承認「非法行為」誤殺罪。原

審法官採納監禁四年半為量刑基準，並因

被告人認罪而把刑期扣減三份之一，結果

判處被告人監禁三年。案情指出，受害人

是被告人的岳母。而案件在被告人、其妻

兒、其岳母和一名家務助理同住的寓所

內發生。被告人欠下高利貸，而貸款人

揚言，倘若被告人不還款，他的妻兒將受

傷害。貸款人更脅持被告人的妻子作為人

質。被告人無力還債，並向受害人借錢以

協助還債，但受害人拒絕貸款予被告人。

被告人沒有告知受害人其女兒和孫兒受到

威脅，反而決定令受害人不省人事，然後

在寓所進行搜掠和盜走受害人的財物。他

吩咐家務助理離開寓所，然後用一塊浸漬

了麻醉物質(即天拿水)的毛巾掩蓋受害人

的口鼻，令她不省人事。她躺在地上時，

被告人搜掠她的財物。其後，被告人看見

受害人仍沒有動靜，於是致電警方，表示

他令受害人窒息死亡。受害人的傷勢包括

臉部被化學物灼傷。她於若干日之後在醫

院去世，死因看來是腦部受損及吸入性肺

炎，其起因可能是吸入麻醉物質及／或外

呼吸孔阻塞導致窒息。原審法官量刑時表

示留意到被告人曾受脅迫、認為案中沒有

加刑因素，以及沒有具體提到被告人有預

謀地犯案。律政司司長申請覆核判刑。

裁決 — 批准申請，改判被告人監禁六年

零兩個月﹕

‧ 在犯罪過程中使用麻醉物質，乃屬加

刑因素。

‧ 被告人曾受脅迫一事應作為減刑因素

而予以考慮，但法官須小心避免對困

擾和恐慌等給予過大比重，以免令人

覺得該些因素令被告人的行為變得有

理可據。

‧ 被告人的犯罪行為涉及某程度的計劃

和預謀，縱使計劃只在犯案前40分鐘

內進行。這屬於加刑因素。

‧ 被告人以持續和粗暴的方式制止受害

人反抗，亦屬加刑因素。

‧ 原審法官所判處的刑罰過份寬大，監

禁四年半的量刑基準亦不足以反映被

告人的罪責。

‧ 在誤殺案中，採納量刑基準的做法並

不一定恰當，但在本案中採取該做法

乃屬恰當。在本案中，恰當的量刑基

準為監禁十年。扣減三份之一後，刑

期為六年零八個月。由於被告人已服

畢原審法官所施加的刑罰，而本申請

屬於判刑覆核，故被告人可獲額外六

個月減刑。因此，最終的刑期為六年

零兩個月。


What Women Want: Career Management Ideas for Women in Law

By Karishma Khemaney, Senior Consultant Lewis Sanders

More women than ever are choosing a career in law – over the past

15 years Hong Kong’s legal profession has seen an increase in female lawyers entering the profession and they now constitute around 50 percent of Hong Kong’s legal professionals. However, the numbers at the most senior end of the career spectrum in law firms – partners, particularly equity partners – paints another picture. Even though women no longer face the same challenges they encountered 30 years ago, conservative social attitudes still play an element in shaping the female narrative.

Conventional wisdom suggests that it is only a matter of time before women climb the ranks to partnership. However, this rationale does not stack up when applied to the legal profession that has employed a critical mass of women for

many years. As competition for legal talent increases (and with women making up a significant amount of the talent pool at the entry level), retaining and advancing women’s careers is essential for law firms seeking to attain a competitive advantage. This article outlines career management ideas for women that can have an important impact on career satisfaction, success and longevity.

Be Smart About Managing Your CareerThe beginning of your career is the time to start taking a long term view on your professional goals and to have a plan for the next three to five years. You are free to change it as time passes, but it is important to have a professional development plan. Hard work alone does

not necessarily guarantee the career you want or are qualified to do: you also need to make the right decisions regarding career direction and the platform that will best support your growth. Failure to do this can see you work in an area designated by your firm rather than one based on your own personal interests, which can be difficult to change due to the firm’s business needs or your own inertia. Therefore, understand how the choices you make at the beginning of your career have a lasting impact and be passionate about the path you choose. Take notice of whether there are female partners and other women in the senior ranks of the practice you have chosen. As you progress, start building your skillset and carving out a niche practice or set of clients that will make you indispensable. Becoming a specialist in a niche area


• April 2017

April 2017 • CAREER DEVELOPMENT 事業發展

could ensure your skills are always in demand.

As you progress through your career, evaluate if partnership is still what you want. The idea of partnership is very different to the ongoing demands of partnership. If it is your chosen path, take control of your career and actively seek out opportunities that will assist you in achieving it – no-one is more invested in your career than you. Be prepared to work late nights and weekends, develop business and client relationships vigorously and be in a position where you will be able to generate work to be self-sufficient after making partner. Too many of us think that by putting our heads down, we will be given the career progression that we “deserve”, when in actual fact we need to articulate our expectations and be clear on the path to achieving the objective. Ideally you should be in a growth practice area at your current firm and also consider the firm’s overall financial health and growth strategy for the next couple of years. If your firm is losing key partners and not replacing head count at associate level then you may need to consider looking at other firms. Do your due diligence on the firm and the partners that you want to join and research whether the firm has a track record of stifling or nurturing female talent.

NetworkingThe traditional steps to climbing the law firm career ladder require hours spent outside the office at networking events, drinks after work and lunches. Women who are juggling careers and young families are often unable to attend these functions and by doing so miss the valuable opportunities of establishing relationships that will help them advance professionally. Your network represents both clients who would follow you and people who will support you, therefore, it is important to invest time in this and find a way to balance family and work life that is suitable for you.

Your network should consist of peers at other law firms (should you ever need to make a move you want to have a strong reputation and connections in the market), clients and most importantly supporters within your own firm.

Find a MentorWhilst it is important to build your technical skills it is also important to build your soft skills – for example, learn to please multiple demanding partners and also know when to push back. Find someone who you think has done this well and start to build a relationship with them – take them to lunch – this is a valuable way to build a relationship while gaining information. There is growing support from the legal community in Hong Kong to encourage a larger female presence in the senior ranks of the legal industry. A number of private practice and in-house lawyers have joined forces to launch “Women in Law Hong Kong” (WILHK). WILHK was established as a platform to help women in the legal profession connect and collaborate and to assist law firms in retaining female talent. WILHK offers a mentoring programme as a result of feedback from both women and law firms who have identified a significant lack of senior female lawyers compared to their male counterparts. Other specialist female professional groups that have been formed in Hong Kong include LILA (Ladies in Litigation and Arbitration) and IWIRC Hong Kong (International Women’s Insolvency and Restructuring Confederation). The Women’s Foundation also has a host of programmes and resources to assist women with career planning and development.

MotherhoodShould you step into motherhood the focus then becomes balancing family with work obligations. However, this is a priority for both parents and therefore it is important to talk to your partner about

both of your respective career and family aspirations. In order for both of you to remain successful at work and home, you will likely have to work as a team. Returning from maternity leave can feel daunting and whether your career aspirations change or remain the same, you need to figure out how to manage your career effectively. It can be difficult to think past the next few months or years, but you will need to in order to keep your options open. Pro-actively restart career conversations and let it be known that you are still looking for progression and are committed to doing what is necessary to achieve it – lead and be in control of the conversation.

Women bring a distinctive way of thinking to the workplace as managers, leaders and peers whose value is increasingly recognised to the people who matter most to law firms: their clients. Women should not need to emulate the behaviour of men around them to be successful – aggressive female attorneys are often labelled “hard” or unpleasant and the quieter individuals as weak or lacking self-confidence – be who you are. Women do, however, need to put thought into what they want their career paths to be. Career management is the individual’s responsibility and you therefore need to consciously choose if partnership (and private practice) is what you want. Do not become so caught up performing your role that you do not have time to keep a perspective on whether achieving partnership is what you are really looking for. Obviously you will need to be conscientious in order to do a good job but this should not be to the exclusion of managing your career as it is not enough to keep your head down and work hard to assure success and security.

Choose your career, do not let it choose you! n


作者 Karishma Khemaney 高級顧問 Lewis Sanders

女性期望如何：在法律界工作的女性須有的事業管理概念

現時有越來越多女性投身法律界，

香港女律師的人數，在過去15年

不斷攀升，現時香港的法律界中，約有

一半律師是女性。然而，在律師事務所

的最高層(亦即合夥人 – 特別是權益合

夥人)中，卻又是另一番景象。儘管今天

的女性已不必面對三十年前她們所面對

的挑戰，但在形成社會對女性地位的看

法方面，保守的社會態度依然起著不容

忽視的作用。

傳統的智慧告訴我們，女性攀登至合夥

人的位置，只是一個時間上的問題。可

是，如果我們將這一說法套用到多年以

來已有不少女性進入的法律界，這又好

像是與真實情況不符。由於法律界在人

才方面的爭奪日趨激烈，而在初入行的

律師族群中，女性又佔有一個頗大的比

重，因此律師事務所若要取得競爭上的

優勢，女性員工的留任和晉升，便成為

一個十分重要的問題。本文將概述女性

的事業管理概念，此等概念在取得工作

滿足感、成就感、及任職時間的長久性

方面，都有著非常重要的影響。

有效地管理你的事業

我們在事業剛起步的階段，便需要先從

長遠的角度，衡量我們在專業上所欲達

至的目標，然後制訂一個未來三至五年

的計劃。隨著時間慢慢地過去，我們可

以按實際情況修訂這些計劃，但是為自

己訂立一個專業發展計劃，卻是至關重

要的。將全副精神放在工作上，並不保

證你必然可以根據你自己的抱負、或你

所擁有的資歷來開展你的事業。你需

要正確地認定：你的事業發展方向是什

麼？什麼平台最能為你的事業發展提供

支援？否則，未來看到的只會是，你要

聽從指派，在律師事務所指定(而並非

根據你的個人興趣)的業務範疇工作。

基於律師事務所本身的業務需要，又或

是基於你個人的慣性，在往後的日子要

改變這一局面的機會並不大。因此，你

需要在事業剛起步的階段，明白如何為

自己做抉擇，這對你所選擇的未來事業

路向，以及你是否能持續地熱愛你的工

作，都將會產生深遠的影響。此外，你

亦需要留意到，在你所選擇發展的事業

範疇中，是否有女性擔任合夥人或其他

一些高層職位。隨著你朝向個人事業的

目標邁進，你需要開始建立自己的專門

領域，並形成一個細分的服務範疇或特

定的客戶群，使你所提供的服務，在你

的客戶群中是無人可取代。如果你能夠

令自己成為一個細分服務範疇的專門提

供者，這將可以確保你所擁有的技能，

會成為你的客戶不可或缺的東西。

在你的事業穩步發展的同時，你需要思

考合夥人一職，是否仍是你所追求的


• April 2017

April 2017 • CAREER DEVELOPMENT 事業發展

目標？合夥人的概念，與對合夥人的持

續要求存在很大分別。如果這確是你所

選擇發展的路向，你便需要管控自己的

個人事業，並積極尋求能夠助你達成這

一目標的機會，因為沒有人比你更重視

自己的事業發展。你要有埋頭苦幹至深

夜，以及在週末上班的心理準備。你

要不斷努力地開拓業務及與客戶建立關

係。當你成為合夥人後，你需要擁有自

給自足的業務。許多人認為，只要我們

肯埋頭苦幹地工作，便會最終得到「應

得」的回報。但真正來說，我們需要

將自己期望的東西明白表達出來，並清

楚知悉達至我們所訂下的目標之確實途

徑。較為理想的情況是，你現時所執業

的範疇，在你所服務的律師事務所中，

是一個具有業務增長的範疇。除此以

外，你需要關注你的律師事務所的整體

財政狀況是否健全，它在未來數年的增

長策略是什麼等。如果你的律師事務所

出現主要合夥人流失的情況，而助理律

師層級的工作人員數目亦沒有補充，那

麼你便要考慮是否需要另謀出路了。假

如你計劃進入某一律師事務所工作，你

需要事先深入瞭解這家律師事務所及其

合夥人的情況，並根據其過往記錄，察

看它對女性員工的事業發展是造成窒礙

還是予以積極提攜。

建立社交網絡

要登上律師事務所的事業階梯，傳統的

路徑就是經常出席社交活動，在下班

或午膳後，與業務上有來往的人把酒談

天。這些活動對於需要同時兼顧事業

與家庭的年青女性來說，實在難以抽空

出席。於是，她們失去了藉此建立關係

的寶貴機會，因而無法在事業上更上一

層樓。所謂的網絡，是指對你不離不棄

的客戶及用心支持你的人，而這種關係

確實值得我們投放時間來經營。所以，

你應當努力尋求一個在家庭生活和工作

上取得適當平衡的方法。你所建立的網

絡，應當包含其他律師事務所中與你的

資歷相約的人(假如你有意在市場上為

自己建立顯赫的名聲和廣泛的聯繫)、客

戶、以及最重要的 – 在你的律師事務所

中那些給予你支持的人。

尋求導師協助

建立技術性的技能固然重要，但發展軟

技能也同樣不容我們忽視 – 例如，學

習如何迎合不斷提出要求的合夥人，但

又懂得何時敢於對他們說不。你可以嘗

試認識在這方面表現出眾的人，並與他

們建立關係，一起午膳；這不單有助

建立雙方的關係，也能讓你取得有用的

資訊。香港法律界對這方面的支持也

正在增加，以鼓勵更多女性擔任法律

界的高層職位。一個名為‘Women in

Law Hong Kong’ (WILHK)的組織，

是由一些私人執業和一些擔任機構內部

法律顧問的律師共同推動發展。WILHK

的成立，旨在成為一個協助法律界女性

進行相互聯繫和協作的平台，並在女性

職員的留任方面，為律師事務所提供幫

助。WILHK目前正在推行一個導師計

劃，原因是有一些女性及律師事務所向

她們反映，指出在律師事務所中，資深

的女律師人數，遠比資深的男律師人數

少。其他在香港成立、具專門性的女性

專業團體包括：LILA (Ladies in Litigation

and Arbitration)、國際婦女破產和重組

聯合會(International Women’s Insol-

vency and Restructuring Confederation)

等。此外，婦女基金會也在推動一系列

的計劃和提供各項資源，協助婦女實現

對自身的事業規劃和發展。

母親的角色

如果你已經肩負著母親的角色，那麼你

現時所關心的，便是如何在家庭與工作

責任之間取得適當的平衡。然而，照顧

家庭是一種優先責任，需要由父、母親

一起共同分擔。因此，你需要與伴侶就

各自對事業和家庭的期望進行坦誠的對

話。你們大家需要作為一個團隊，相互

配搭，從而無論是在工作還是在照顧家

庭方面，都取得令人滿意的成果。當你

放完產假重返自己的工作崗位後，你可

能會遇到棘手的問題。不論你的事業願

景是否已經有所改變(抑或是依然保持不

變)，你都需要考慮如何對你的事業作

出有效管理。你要為自己在未來數月或

數年所發生的事情作預先籌劃。雖然這

確實不容易做到，但為了讓自己能夠獲

得各個可供選擇的方案，你必須如此實

行。你需要積極地，為你的個人事業發

展重新展開談話，讓別人知道你仍然渴

求事業上的升遷，並且甘願為達成這一

目標而付出 – 你要盡量主導及掌控有關

的談話。

女性可以為她們所服務的機構帶來獨特

的思維(不論是作為管理人、領導層或

一般階層)，而她們的價值觀，正日益

受到律師事務所最重視的一群人(亦即

它們的客戶)所認可。女性要事業成功，

並不需要仿效她們身邊周圍的男性的行

為 – 有事業野心的女律師，經常會被標

籤為「強硬」或不友善；較為沉靜的一

群，又會被標籤為軟弱或缺乏自信 – 最

重要的，是你要做回自己。然而，女性

確實需要認真想想她們希望自己的事業

路途該如何走下去。管理自身的事業，

是每個人自己應負的責任。所以，你需

要明智地考慮，合夥人的職位(以及私人

執業)，是否真的是你想追求的目標？你

要避免將全盤精神放在完成日常的工作

上，而無暇從一個清晰的角度觀察你所

真正追求的目標，是否就是要成為一位

合夥人。無庸置疑的，你需要盡心竭力

地工作，力求在工作崗位上爭取出色的

表現。然而，這並不是說，你可以不必

思考你需要如何管理你的事業。畢竟，

要令自己的事業得到成功，職業得到安

全保障，終日埋首工作，保持低調是不

夠的。

應該讓你去選擇自己的事業，別讓事業

來選擇你！ n


PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

Newly-Admitted Members 新會員

CHAI WENWEN 柴雯雯

BAKER & MCKENZIE 貝克‧ 麥堅時律師事務所

CHAN DA CUNHA SANTOS INES 山澤東

BRYAN CAVE 博凱律師事務所

CHIK WING KI 戚詠琪

SLAUGHTER AND MAY 司力達律師樓

CHOI SZE MAN 蔡思敏

WONG & CO., SIMON 黃國康律師事務所

DONG ZHI YAO ROGER 董之嶢

ASHURST HONG KONG 亞司特律師事務所

HUI TOK CHUNG CALVIN 許拓翀

CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON (HONG KONG) 佳利(香港)律師事務所

KWOK FU KEUNG 郭富強

LAU YIP WAI 劉業唯

LEUNG SIU TUNG SHELDON 梁兆彤

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER 富而德律師事務所

LI YUEN LIM JEREMY 李元念

LI SIU LUN AARON 李肇倫

BRYAN CAVE 博凱律師事務所

LIU XINYIN 劉昕吟

NU SKIN ENTERPRISES HONG KONG LLC.

LUN SHIU YAN BERNITA 倫肇恩


MA MENGWEI 馬梦蔚

ALLEN & OVERY安理國際律師事務所

MA WING SUM MICHELLE 馬泳森

STEPHENSON HARWOOD 羅夏信律師事務所


• April 2017

CHAN CHING NGA VERBENA 陳清雅

LI & CO., JOSEPH 李超華律師行

CHAN HIU TUNG 陳曉彤

YOUNG & CO., ROWDGET W. 楊振文律師行

CHAN KING YIU KAREN 陳敬堯

SLAUGHTER AND MAY 司力達律師樓

CHAN WING YIN CHRISTINE 陳頴賢

FOO AND LI 李鳳翔律師事務所

CHEUNG HOI WAI 張愷蕙

CHIU & PARTNERS 趙不渝馬國強律師事務所

CHING MAN TING 程敏婷

CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON (HONG KONG) 佳利(香港)律師事務所

CROWTER ROBYN 高如貝

HAM YAN KI 咸欣琦

LI & CO., MICHAEL 李智聰律師事務所

HUI SUI HANG 許瑞恒

KWAN HOI YUM 關愷音

YU & ASSOCIATES 余大峰律師行

NG YIN YEE TIFFANY 伍彥而

CHEUNG & CHOY 張世文蔡敏律師事務所

SUM WAI YIN 岑惠賢

LI & CO., MICHAEL 李智聰律師事務所

SZE-TO CHING 司徒晴

TO, LAM & CO. 杜林律師事務所

SZE-TO YAT HEI TIFFANY 司徒一熹

KING & WOOD MALLESONS 金杜律師事務所

TAI SIU YUEN 戴兆源

LATHAM & WATKINS瑞生國際律師事務所

YEUNG THEODORA 楊暋勵

PANG WAI KIU HELEN 彭慧翹

BAKER & MCKENZIE 貝克‧麥堅時律師事務所

Editorial Note: the photo of PANG HELEN WAI KIU, Baker & Mckenzie, did not appear in the February 2017 issue of Hong Kong Lawyer.

編按﹕2017年2月號的《香港律師》內遺漏了彭慧翹(貝克‧麥堅時律師事務所)的相

片，敬希垂注。

POON WING YEE WINNIE 潘詠怡


TSE YUEN TING 謝婉婷

WONG KA YUEN 黃家元

KCL & PARTNERS 廖廣志律師事務所

WONG YIU CHUNG 黃耀宗

WONG ZI WEI 黃子維

KING & WOOD MALLESONS 金杜律師事務所

WU KA KI 胡嘉琦

YE DONG 叶棟


April 2017 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向


Partnerships and Firms合夥人及律師行變動 changes received as from 1 February 2017

取自2017年2月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

• CHAN LUNG JUNE commenced practice as a partner of Luk

& Partners as from 13/02/2017. 陳瓏自2017年2月13日成為新開業陸繼鏘律

師事務所合夥人。

• CHAN WING LEUNG ceased to be a partner of Partick Chan

& Co. as from 01/03/2017 and the firm closed on the same day.

陳永良自2017年3月1日不再出任陳永超律師

樓合夥人一職，而該行於同日結業。

• CHEUNG CHUN PUN commenced practice as a partner of Luk

& Partners as from 13/02/2017. 張俊斌自2017年2月13日成為新開業陸繼鏘律


• CHEUNG SAU YI WINNIE became a partner of Au-Yeung, Cheng,

Ho & Tin as from 23/02/2017. 張修儀自2017年2月23日成為歐陽.鄭.何.田律


• CHEUNG YING commenced practice as a partner of Luk

& Partner as from 13/02/2017. 張瑩自2017年2月13日成為新開業陸繼鏘律


• CHIK PUI HONG joined Ashurst Hong Kong as a partner

as from 16/02/2017. 植沛康自2017年2月16日加入亞司特律師事務

所為合夥人。

• CHONG YI JANNEY joined Smyth & Co as a partner as from

15/02/2017. 莊怡自2017年2月15日加入Smyth & Co為合

夥人。

• CROOCK JAMES MAXWELL became a partner of Dechert as from

01/03/2017. 自2017年3月1日成為德杰律師事務所合

夥人。

• FERGUSON DONOVAN JOHN joined King & Wood Mallesons as a

partner as from 27/02/2017. 自2017年2月27日加入金杜律師事務所

為合夥人。

• FUNG LAI YIN FREDERICK ceased to be the sole practitioner of

Fung, Law & Ng as from 15/02/2017 and the firm closed on same day. Mr. Fung joined LCP as a partner as from 16/02/2017.

馮禮賢自2017年2月15日不再出任馮禮賢,

羅國良, 吳裕雄律師行獨資經營者一職，而該行於同日結業。馮律師於2017年2月16日加入梁陳彭律師行為合夥人。

• HUI KEE SING ceased to be a partner of Patrick

Chan & Co. as from 01/03/2017 and the firm closed on the same day.

許祺星自2017年3月1日不再出任陳永超律

師樓合夥人一職，而該行於同日結業。

• JI HUI joined Jeffrey Mak Law Firm as a

partner as from 01/03/2017. 季輝自2017年3月1日加入麥振興律師事

務所為合夥人。

• KWAN HOI TING HELEN ceased to be a partner of Christine M.

Koo & Ip, Solicitors & Notaries LLP as from 02/02/2017 and remains as a consultant of the firm.

關凱婷自2017年2月2日不再出任顧張文

菊、葉成慶律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• LAU KOON TAI ceased to be a partner of Patrick

Chan & Co. as from 01/03/2017 and the firm closed on the same day.

劉觀帶自2017年3月1日不再出任陳永超律

師樓合夥人一職，而該行於同日結業。

• LUK KAI CHIANG EDWIN commenced practice as a partner of

Luk & Partner as from 13/02/2017. 陸繼鏘自2017年2月13日成為新開業陸繼鏘

律師事務所合夥人。

• PANG CHUNG FAI BENNY ceased to be a partner of Loeb &

Loeb LLP as from 01/02/2017. 彭中輝自2017年2月1日不再出任Loeb &

Loeb LLP合夥人一職。

• SCHEMUTH MATTHIAS BERND OLIVER ceased to be a partner of Ashurst Hong

Kong as from 18/02/2017 and joined DLA Piper Hong Kong as a partner as from 20/02/2017.

自2017年2月18日不再出任亞司特律師事務所合夥人一職，並於2017年2月20日加入歐華律師事務所為合夥人。

• SMITH FERGUS CHARLES ceased to be a partner of Herbert Smith

Freehills as from 02/03/2017. 自2017年3月2日不再出任史密夫斐爾律師

事務所合夥人一職。

• SO SUK YEE ANITA became a partner of Lily Fenn & Partners

as from 06/02/2017. 蘇淑儀自2017年2月6日成為范家碧律師行合夥

人。

• SZETO WAI SUN ceased to be a partner of Patrick Chan

& Co. as from 01/03/2017 and the firm closed on the same day.

司徒維新自2017年3月1日不再出任陳永超律師樓合

夥人一職，而該行於同日結業。

• TEO JU PING PAUL joined Baker & McKenzie as a partner as

from 13/02/2017. 張儒平自2017年2月13日加入貝克‧ 麥堅時律師

事務所為合夥人。

• TSANG HING SEE PANSY ceased to be a partner of Szwina Pang,

Edward Li & Company as from 18/02/2017 and remains as a consultant of the firm.

曾慶鍶自2017年2月18日不再出任李國強、彭

書幗律師行合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。

• TSANG KAI KIN CLINTON became a partner of Kwok Yih & Chan as

from 28/02/2017. 曾啟健自2017年2月28日成為郭葉陳律師事務所

合夥人。

• WONG SHING YEUNG BILLY commenced practice as a partner of Luk &

Partner as from 13/02/2017. 黃承揚自2017年2月13日成為新開業陸繼鏘律師

事務所合夥人。

• WONG YUK KING became a partner of M.C.A. Lai Solicitors

LLP as from 14/02/2017. 黃玉琼自2017年2月14日成為賴文俊(有限法律責

任合夥)律師行合夥人。


• April 2017

CAMPUS VOICES法學院新聞

April 2017 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

CityU: Visit by Delegation of Korea University to Hong Kong Centre for Maritime and Transportation LawProfessor Captain Kim In Hyeon, Professor of School of Law and Director of Maritime Law Centre of Korea University, and his six students visited the Hong Kong Centre for Maritime and Transportation Law (“HKCMT”) on 13 February 2017. Dr. Xing Lijuan and Dr. Zhao Liang, Associate Directors of HKCMT and Assistant Professors of the School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, received the delegation.

Dr. Xing and Dr. Zhao welcomed the delegation at the reception. Dr. Zhao further delivered a seminar titled “Chinese Maritime Law and Recent Development” in which he sketched the definition, source and practice of Chinese Maritime Law. However, the highlight of the seminar was Dr. Zhao’s elaborations on recent heated cases from Supreme People’s Court of China concerning bills of lading, maritime salvage and marine insurance.

The seminar ended with an engaging discussion, during which the students from Korea University actively raised questions. In the evening, Professor Captain Kim also met students from CityU School of Law and gave a guest lecture on “Liability of the Time Charterer”.

On behalf of HKCMT, Dr. Xing and Dr. Zhao presented souvenirs. Both sides look forward to more collaborative academic opportunities in the future.

韓國高麗大學代表團訪問城大香港海事及運輸法研究中心

韓國高麗大學法學院教授兼海商法研究中心主任金仁顯教

授率領6名學生於2017年2月13日到訪城市大學香港海事

及運輸法研究中心。香港海事及運輸法研究中心副主任兼

城大法律學院助理教授邢立娟博士及趙亮博士接待了來訪

的代表團。

邢博士及趙博士對韓國高麗大學代表團來訪表示歡迎。隨

後，趙博士就「中國海商法及其最新發展」發表演講。趙

博士對中國海商法的定義、來源和實踐作簡要闡述，並重

點解讀了最近中國最高人民法院處理的關於海運提單、海

上救助和海上保險的案件。

講座結束後，韓國高麗大學的學生踴躍提出各種疑問，趙

博士與學生們進行了富有成果的討論。當晚，金教授也會

見了城大法律學院的學生，並發表題為「定期租船承租人

責任」的講座。

邢博士及趙博士代表香港海事及運輸法研究中心向韓國高

麗大學代表團贈送了法律學院的紀念品。雙方期待將來在

學術方面有更全面的合作。


中大法律學院主辦亞洲區域能源合作會議

討論「一帶一路」沿線能源投資監管

香港中文大學策略計劃2016-2020把「環境與持續發展」

列為四大研究範疇之一，加上為探索能源與法律相關的問

題，中大法律學院與Konrad Adenauer Stiftung(KAS)及國

際能源憲章於2月23日至25日在香港合辦了題為「亞洲區

域能源合作會議：『一帶一路』沿線的能源投資監管」的

國際性會議。主辦機構有幸邀得「一帶一路」專員蔡瑩璧

小姐於開幕當天(2月23日)作主題演講，就「一帶一路」

下香港如何在法律及財務環境為能源合作作出貢獻，分享

她的看法。

會議包括6個全體會議和隨後的小組討論，吸引了來自世

界各地40多位專家學者參加，就「中國『一帶一路』的

能源政策目標」、「能源合作制度框架」、「FDI和能源

市場改革：『一帶一路』國家的觀點」、「能源投資融

資」、「能源投資爭議解決」和「能源過渡」發表意見。

會議上討論了「一帶一路」下

法律對中國實現能源安全的作

用，並探討了「一帶一路」政

策與國內和多邊能源安全舉措

的相互作用。會議詳情請瀏覽

http://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/

OBOR_Energy_Conference。

CUHK Law Hosts a Conference on Regional Energy Cooperation in Asia to Discuss Regulation of Energy Investments along ‘Belt & Road’Exploring the issues associated with energy and the law, and alongside The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) Strategic Plan 2016–2020 which identifies “Environment and Sustainability” as one of the four major research areas, CUHK Faculty of Law co-organised with Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (“KAS”) and International Energy Charter an international conference on “Meeting on Regional Energy Cooperation in Asia: The Regulation of Energy Investments along the ‘Belt and Road’” from 23–25 February 2017 in Hong Kong. The Organisers were honoured to invite Miss Yvonne Choi, Commissioner for Belt and Road, to deliver a keynote address on the opening day (23 February) to share her views on how Hong Kong can contribute to energy cooperation in legal and financial context under the Belt and Road Initiative.

Left to right: Prof. Christopher Gane, Dean, Faculty of Law, CUHK; Dr. Masami Nakata, Assistant Secretary General, the Energy Charter Secretariat; Prof. Fanny Cheung, Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-President, CUHK; Miss Yvonne Choi, Commissioner for Belt and Road; Dr. Peter Hefele, Director, KAS Regional Energy Security and Climate Change Project; Prof. Anatole Boute, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, CUHK.左至右：中大法律學院院長Christopher Gane教授、能源憲章秘書處助理秘書長中田真佐美博士、中大副校長張妙清教授、「一帶一

路」專員蔡瑩璧小姐、KAS區域能源安全和氣候變化項目總監Peter Hefele博士、中大法律學院Anatole Boute副教授。


• April 2017


The three-day Conference attracts more than 40 experts and academics from all over the world to speak on the regulation of energy investments along the “Belt and Road”.為期三天的會議吸引了來自世界各地的40多位專家學者就「一帶一路」對能源投資的監管發表演講。

The Faculty Dean presents a souvenir to the keynote speaker Ms. Yvonne Choi, Commissioner for Belt and Road.法律學院院長致送紀念品予主講嘉賓「一帶一路」專員蔡瑩璧小姐。

Consisting of 6 plenary sessions and subsequent discussion sessions, the Conference attracted more than 40 experts and academics from all over the world to speak on topics related to “Energy Policy Objectives of China’s OBOR”, “Institutional Frameworks for Energy Cooperation”, “The Perspective of the OBOR Countries: FDI and Energy Market Reform”, “Financing Energy Investments”, “Resolution of Energy Investment Disputes” and “Energy Transit”. The Conference critically discussed the role of law for the achievement of China’s energy security under this initiative and explored the interaction of Belt and Road policy with the domestic and multilateral energy security initiatives. Further details of the Conference are obtainable at http://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/OBOR_Energy_Conference.


University Honours HKU Law Professor with Knowledge Exchange Excellence Award 2016

The University of Hong Kong (“HKU”) introduced the Knowledge Exchange (“KE”) Excellence Award in 2015/16. This University-level award has been introduced to recognise outstanding KE accomplishments that have made significant economic, social or cultural impacts to benefit society. Only Faculty KE Awardees in current and past years may be nominated by their Faculty to compete for the University’s award. As a past winner of the Law Faculty’s KE award in 2011, the Faculty nominated Ms. Amanda Whitfort, Associate Professor in the Department of Professional Legal Education, for the University-level award this year. Having reviewed the knowledge transfer impact of her publication: Review of Animal Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong (2010), the KE Executive Group selected Ms. Whitfort as the winner of the inaugural KE Excellence Award 2016. The Award Presentation Ceremony for Excellence in Teaching, Research and Knowledge Exchange 2016 was held on 27 March 2017 at the Grand Hall, Lee Shau Kee Lecture Centre, Centennial Campus.

KE together with Teaching and Research, form the three pillars that underpin all activities at HKU. HKU defines KE as engaging, for mutual benefit, with business, government or the public to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to enhance material, human, social, cultural and environmental well-being. The KE work Ms. Whitfort has undertaken, in partnership with Dr. Woodhouse of the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has had profound policy implications and clear impact on society.

In 2008, Ms. Whitfort and Dr. Fiona Woodhouse, Deputy Director (Welfare) of Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (HK), were granted a Public Policy Research grant, by the Research Grants Council, to conduct a comparative study evaluating animal protection legislation. Hong Kong’s animal protection laws were drafted in the 1930s and the study was timely. After spending two years reviewing the adequacy of all of Hong Kong’s laws protecting animals kept for companionship, food, entertainment and laboratory use, and controlling wild and feral animals, the Review of Animal Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong was published.

The Review found that Hong Kong’s anti-cruelty legislation lacked the necessary power to assist animals in danger of suffering and abuse. The law is enforced only when an animal is the victim of an overtly cruel act. Criminal neglect of animals is not regarded as an offence. The study recommended significant reform to Hong Kong’s laws through the introduction of a new Animal Welfare Ordinance, which would impose on owners a positive duty to care properly for their animals. In regard to sentencing practices in animal cruelty cases, the study found that despite the maximum penalty for the offence having been raised in 2006, court sentences had remained lenient, even following convictions for sustained and serious abuse.

大學榮譽香港大學法學教授獲2016年「卓越知識交流獎」

香港大學於2015/16年度推出「卓越知識交流獎」。

該大學層面獎旨在表彰傑出的知識交流成就在經濟、社

會或文化方面大大造福人群。只有今年及往年的院系

「知識交流獎」獲獎者才可由其院系提名，以爭取

獲得該大學的獎項。作為2011年法律學院「知識交

流獎」獲得者，法律專業學系副教授韋凱雯(Amanda

Whitfort)女士獲得了該學院在今年的大學層面獎的提

名。在審視了她的出版作品有關知識轉移的影響:《香

港動物褔利立法之檢討》(2010) (Review of Animal

Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong)(2010)之後，知識交

流執行小組選出韋凱雯女士作為首屆2016年「卓越知

識交流獎」獲獎者。頒發2016年「卓越教學，研究與

知識交流」獎的頒獎典禮於2017年3月27日在百周年

校園李兆基會議中心大會堂舉行。

知識交流及教學與研究，形成了支持香港大學所有活動

的三大支柱。香港大學將「知識交流」定義為為了達致

互惠互利之目的，與企業、政府或公眾互動，以產生、

獲取、應用和接觸到該等增加物質、人文、社會、文化

和環境福祉所需的知識。韋凱雯女士與「香港愛護動物

協會」的侯安娜醫生(Dr. Woodhouse) 合作進行的「知

識交流」工作，對政策有深邃的意義及對社會有明顯的

影響。

在2008年，「研究資助委員會」授予「公共政策研

究」資助金給韋凱雯女士及香港愛護動物協會福利部副

總監侯安娜醫生進行比較研究以評估動物褔利的立法。


• April 2017


The Review also uncovered serious failures at local slaughterhouses and in live wet food markets to meet animal welfare standards prescribed by the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2009 (Slaughter of Animals), to which China is a signatory.

In relation to the pet trade, the Review found Hong Kong’s lack of legislative control on animal trading had resulted in only two licensed dog breeders offering animals for sale in Hong Kong, with the remaining animals coming from unlicensed hobby breeders or import dealers. The study highlighted that the continued lack of legislation requiring the licensing of all dog breeders had allowed animals of dubious origin and health to be widely sold throughout the Territory, threatening public health and compromising animal welfare standards.

The Review provided the first and, to date, only empirical study of the adequacy of animal protection legislation in Hong Kong. It generated widespread public discussion about the treatment of animals and critically, provided empirical data to support NGO’s working in the field and seeking law reform. In 2011, the former Executive Director of SPCA (HK) made the following comments on the importance and impact of the Review:

This is the first review of its kind conducted in Hong Kong and its publication has been of immense value to society. It has created an excellent platform for positive change and much needed reform. We are currently utilising the Review’s findings as a basis for dialogue with government and other animal welfare stakeholders. We have also disseminated the results of the Review to our members and are using the findings as a means to marshal support for law reform.

The publication of Ms. Whitfort and Dr. Woodhouse’s Review raised a previously neglected field of study to a topic of widespread public debate and concern. Societal awareness of the poor state of Hong Kong’s animal welfare laws led to intense pressure on government

香港的動物褔利法是在二十世紀三十年代起草的，而

該研究可謂正合時宜。經過兩年檢討是否有足夠的香

港動物褔利法例應對有關飼養動物作陪伴、食物、娛

樂和實驗室用途以及控制野生動物後，出版了《香港

動物褔利立法之檢討》。

該《檢討》發現，香港的反虐待動物立法缺乏在動物

遭遇痛苦和虐待時提供協助的必要權力。法律只有當

一種動物被公然殘酷對待時才被執行。對動物的刑事

疏忽不屬於犯罪行為。研究報告建議通過引入新的動

物褔利條例，對香港的法律進行重大改革，這將對動

物主人施加積極義務，妥善照顧其動物。關於虐待動

物案件的量刑做法，研究發現，儘管2006年提出了犯

罪行為的最高處罰，但法庭即使對因持續和嚴重虐待

而被定罪的判決仍然寬鬆。

該《檢討》還揭露了當地屠宰場和活牲畜濕食品市場

的情況嚴重，不足以符合中國簽署的「世界動物衛生

組織」《2009年陸生動物衛生法》(動物屠宰)規定的

動物褔利標準。

關於寵物貿易方面，該《檢討》發現香港缺乏對動物

貿易的法例管制，導致只有兩名持牌犬種育種者在香

港出售動物，其餘動物來自無牌的、作為愛好的育種

者或進口商。研究報告強調，若繼續缺乏立法以牌照

規管所有犬種育種者，將使不明來歷和健康有問題的

動物到處廣泛銷售，從而威脅著公眾健康，損害了動

物褔利標準。

《香港動物褔利立法之檢討》提供了有關香港動物褔

利法例是否充夠的第一次，也是迄今為止唯一一次的

實證研究。該《檢討》引起了公眾有關對待動物的廣

泛討論，批評性地提供了實證數據，以支持非政府組


to introduce law reform. Ms. Whitfort has given public lectures on her research, and has been invited to present her findings and recommendations to several government departments, including the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”), the Department of Food and Environmental Hygiene, the Department of Justice, the Hong Kong Police, Legislative Council members (“LegCo”) and other stakeholders, including veterinarians and frontline animal rescue officers.

Since publishing the Review, Ms. Whitfort has received regular requests to provide input to local and international news articles, radio talk back programmes and television exposés, focusing on animal protection laws in Hong Kong. The media has documented an increasing public concern with the adequacy of legislation available to address cases of cruelty to animals. Ms. Whitfort’s work has resulted in the introduction of specialised training for police and prosecutors in presenting animal cruelty cases at court and the AFCD is now meeting regularly with the police and SPCA (HK) to discuss animal welfare cases. The Department of Justice is also proactively reviewing sentences for animal cruelty convictions.

In a 2014 video, the former Secretary to the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission made the following observation of Ms. Whitfort’s work:

Professor Whitfort’s research on animal welfare legislation is extremely important. It puts forward the case, very strongly, for reform of Hong Kong’s legislation and it informs and encourages debate within government and the wider community. It is extremely difficult to have legislation changed. Virtually any government is conservative and resistant to change, but the process of change is hugely helped if you have, supporting your arguments, the kind of empirical, comparative research that Professor Whitfort has produced.

The Review has spawned important changes in legislation and policy. In November 2010, it was endorsed and adopted by six legislative

織的實地工作和尋求法律改革。在 2011年，香港愛

護動物協會前執行總監就《香港動物褔利立法之檢

討》對香港的重要性及影響作出以下評論：

這是香港進行的第一次這樣的檢討，其出版對社會

來說是非常具有價值，為積極改變及急需的改革創

造了良好的平台。我們正在利用該《檢討》結果作

為與政府和其他動物褔利持分者進行對話的基礎。

我們也向成員傳遞《檢討》的結果，並將調查結果

作為組織支持法律改革的手段。

韋凱雯女士與侯安娜醫生發表的《香港動物褔利立法

之檢討》，將以前被忽視的研究領域提升到受廣泛公

眾辯論和關注的話題。社會認識到香港缺乏動物褔利

法，因而導致政府面對引進法律改革的巨大壓力。韋

凱雯女士已經公開演講她的研究報告，並被邀請向幾

個政府部門，包括漁農自然護理署(「漁護署」)、食

物環境衛生署、律政司、香港警務處、立法會議員及

其他持分者，包括獸醫及前線動物救援人員提供研究

所得資料及建議。

韋凱雯女士發布該《檢討》後，收到邀請定期向當地

和國際新聞文章，電台回訪節目和電視爆料節目提供

資料，其重點是關注香港的動物褔利法。根據媒體資

料表示，公眾日益關注是否有足夠法例應對虐待動物

的案件。韋凱雯女士的工作導致她就法庭上虐待動物

案件，為警方和檢察機關提供了專門培訓，而漁護署

現正定期與警方及「香港愛護動物協會」會面討論動

物褔利個案。律政司也積極覆核虐待動物定罪的判

決。

在2014年的視頻中，前香港法律改革委員會秘書對

韋凱雯女士的工作有以下觀察：

韋凱雯教授關於動物褔利立法的研究非常重要。該

研究大力提出改革香港立法的情況，並向政府及廣

大社會提供資訊和鼓勵其辯論。立法改變是非常

困難的。幾乎任何一個政府都是保守的，不願變革

的，但是如果你有韋凱雯教授的實證比較研究支持

你的觀點，那麼對這個變革的過程是非常有幫助。

《香港動物褔利立法之檢討》引發了法例和政策的

重大變化。在2010年11月，六個立法會黨派在立法

會支持及採納該《檢討》，共同呼籲政府落實研究結

果，為香港提供新的動物褔利政策。在同一年，韋凱

雯女士和侯安娜醫生被邀請加入漁護署動物福利諮詢

小組法律小組委員會，擔任專家顧問。小組委員會

負責引發動物褔利法的積極性及制訂漁護署動物褔利

政策的計劃。2011年，漁護署作為回應《檢討》中


• April 2017


parties sitting in LegCo who made a joint call on the government to implement the study’s findings in new animal welfare policies for Hong Kong. In the same year, Ms. Whitfort and Dr. Woodhouse were invited to join the AFCD’s Animal Welfare Advisory Group’s Legal Sub-committee, as expert advisors. The Sub-committee is charged with developing animal welfare initiatives in law and policy for the AFCD. In 2011, in response to one of the key recommendations made in the Review, the AFCD announced the introduction of a trial “Trap-Neuter-Return” programme (in conjunction with the SPCA) for managing the welfare of feral dogs and improved policies for the management of abandoned animals which allow easier adoption access for the public.

In 2016, Ms. Whitfort and Dr. Woodhouse’s key recommendations for reform of the pet trade were passed into law by the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) Regulations. Alongside the new regulations, legally enforceable Licensing Conditions and Codes of Practice for the care of companion animals in Hong Kong were drafted by the Sub-committee, on the basis of the Review findings. These will come into effect in 2017 (initially for dogs and later for cats and exotic pets).

Ms. Whitfort’s pioneering work to improve the legislative protection of animals is far from over. The Sub-committee she sits on, within the AFCD, continues to examine the findings of the Review to support further law reform initiatives including Hong Kong’s need to update its legislation to comply with OIE requirements for pre-slaughter stunning of food animals in wet markets and the modernisation of Hong Kong’s animal cruelty laws to recognise criminal negligence as a basis for liability for prosecution. The Faculty and the University celebrate Ms. Whitfort’s significant achievements and support her continued endeavors to improve society.

提出的一項主要建議，宣布推出一項試驗「捕

捉、絕育、放回」計劃(與香港愛護動物協會聯

合)，管理野狗的褔利和改進管理被遺棄動物的

政策，使公眾更容易進行收養。

在2016年，韋凱雯女士和侯安娜醫生對寵物貿

易改革的主要建議，通過《公眾衞生(動物及禽

鳥)(動物售賣商)規例》成為法律。除新訂的規

例外，小組委員會根據《檢討》的結果，起草

了可強制執行的牌照條件及營業守則，以配合

香港的伴侶動物。該等法例將於2017年生效(

最初為狗隻，後來為貓和異國情調的寵物)。

韋凱雯女士改善動物保護法律的開創性工作仍

任重道遠。她在漁護署內參與的小組委員會繼

續研究《香港動物褔利立法之檢討》的調查

結果，以支持進一步的法律改革措施，包括香

港需要更新其法例，以符合世界動物衛生組織

對在濕市場內屠宰前的食用物動受驚的規定，

和使香港的虐待動物法律更現代化，承認刑

事疏忽作為起訴的依據。學院和大學慶祝韋凱

雯女士的重大成就，並支持她繼續努力改善社

會。



• April 2017

With the surge in coffee production and consumption

in Asia in recent years, the coffee bean seems primed to stage a coup in Eastern markets that have for centuries kowtowed to the tea leaf. According to a 2014 report compiled by the International Coffee Organisation, Asia has experienced the most dynamic growth in coffee consumption in the world from 1990 to 2012, growing by an average rate of 4 percent per annum, increasing to 4.9 percent since 2000. While more tea than coffee is consumed in most Asian countries, the blossoming coffee culture in the East, coupled with the dynamics and high population density of developing markets, seems promising to those in the coffee sector.

As for Hong Kong, local consumer

To Bean, or Not to Bean, That is the Question

preferences seem to be changing in tandem with broader regional trends. To embrace the City’s evolving hot beverage preferences, the Member Benefits Committee organised a Coffee Day at the Law Society Clubhouse in March, providing members with the opportunity to increase their appreciation and understanding of coffee production, preparation and tasting. Assisting the Committee with this event, a local coffee shop prepared a variety of drinks using their signature house blends, which included espresso, black coffee and white coffee variations (ie, latte, cappuccino, flat whites and piccolo).

The event kicked off with coffee cupping or tasting, which is the practice of

observing the aromas, fragrances and flavours of brewed coffee. As explained by the Specialty Coffee Association, a standard cupping procedure generally involves deeply sniffing the coffee, then strongly slurping the coffee to aspirate it over the entire tongue. Through these techniques, the coffee taster attempts to assess aspects of the coffee’s taste, such as its body, flavour and aftertaste. Since a coffee bean’s flavour contains clues about the region where it was grown, professional cuppers often attempt to identify the bean’s origin through its flavour profile. The house blend espresso coffee served at the event was a mixture of beans harvested in 2016: 30 percent of the mixture comprised Brazilian coffee beans harvested from

LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情April 2017 •


Fazenda Ouro Verde and the remaining 70 percent comprised Colombian coffee beans harvested from the El Danubio Farm.

In addition to origin, the method used to process coffee from the seed of a coffee cherry into a ready-to-roast green coffee bean also impacts its final flavour profile. The local coffee shop representative explained that the two beans comprising its house blend espresso coffee underwent two different processing methods, with the Brazilian beans undergoing a natural or dry process and the Colombian beans undergoing a washed or wet process.

The natural process, which is one of the oldest methods, entails, just as its name suggests, drying coffee cherries after they are harvested. For those who have never seen a coffee cherry, it is covered by a skin that wraps closely around a thin layer of pulp, known as mucilage. Both the skin and mucilage encase the seed, which usually contains two coffee beans. During the drying process, the entire cherry is left intact, with the coffee beans absorbing some of the characteristics of the pulp and skin. After the coffee cherry is dried to the appropriate moisture level, which can take up to four weeks, the layers surrounding the bean are hulled. The natural or drying process is used for about 80 percent of the coffee beans produced in Brazil and Ethiopia. Naturally processed coffee beans have

bold, fruity flavours, which are inherited from the coffee cherry’s sweet pulp and skin. Generally, these beans produce a heavier bodied cup of coffee.

In contrast, with the washed or wet process, the coffee bean is separated from the cherry in a procedure called de-pulping. This relatively new method of processing involves coffee cherries being dropped into processors and carried by water to a holding tank directly after being harvest. Any defective, or less dense cherries, float to the top and are skimmed off. The good cherries sink and are sent through a de-pulping device. From there the seeds are directed to a fermentation tank to rest for one to two days. After the pulp is removed, the beans are dried and then hulled. Washed coffees are typically described as tasting cleaner, brighter and fruitier. The term “clean” does not connote that washed coffees are of a higher quality; rather it means that flavours intrinsic in the seed are communicated more clearly, as opposed to the flavour of the fruit.

During the tasting, members noted that the Colombian and Brazilian bean mixture gave the coffee a fruity taste, similar to the taste of grapefruits. They also detected floral undertones and a trace of a nutty finish. The texture of this cup of espresso was creamy and intensely sweet, which differs from a cup of milk coffee that normally gives you the taste of nuts mixed in milk chocolate, with an

extra creamy and smooth body.

A survey was conducted to determine the most favoured beverage. Surprisingly, most participants chose either the mocha drink or the latte. Those who chose the mocha drink explained that they fancied the taste combination of chocolate with bitter coffee. Those who preferred the taste of the latte indicated that they enjoyed the bold, bitter taste of coffee coupled with fresh, sweet steamed milk over it.

As evening fell, the Clubhouse was transformed into a latte art workshop with the help of Ms. Lamont Loo, a licensed Q-grader. The 8 members that attended learned how to create a simple heart-shaped pattern in the foam topping of their latte by using basic techniques of “high and mix” and “down and pour”. They also learned how to froth milk, which involved submersing a steam wand into a pitcher of milk until the milk reached the appropriate temperature and texture. While steaming milk may seem simple, it is remarkably difficult to do well, as it involves two phases – aerating (or stretching) and emulsifying (or texturing). Members learned that you have to attain a certain texture to the steamed milk to create latte art and that varying aerating and emulsifying techniques are used to create different types of milk-based espresso drinks. n

做豆，不做豆，問題在於做些甚麼豆


• April 2017

隨着亞洲近年掀起咖啡熱，泡咖啡，

喝咖啡蔚成風氣，咖啡豆在茶葉

稱王幾世紀的東方市場，看來已經蓄勢發

動政變。根據2014年一份由國際咖啡組

織撰寫的報告，亞洲是1990年至2012年

全球咖啡消耗量增長最富動力的地區，自

2000年起一直增至4.9%，每年平均增長

4%。雖然大多數亞洲國家消耗茶比消耗

咖啡多，但咖啡文化正在東方綻放，加上

發展中市場動力十足，人口密度高，咖啡

產業看來大有可為(見Coffee consumption

in East and Southeast Asia)。

至於香港，香港消費者的偏好似乎跟隨影

響廣泛的地區趨勢走。香港人越來越愛

喝熱飲，風氣漸成，為了支持這股風氣，

會員福利委員會三月在律師會會所舉辦

「咖啡日」，給會員機會提升鑑賞咖啡的

能力，也了解多點咖啡的生產、泡製咖啡

的準備工夫，以及如何品嚐咖啡。委員會

得到一家本地咖啡店提供協助，當日預備

了該家咖啡店多款招牌混合咖啡，包括特

濃咖啡、齋啡，以及好幾種白咖啡(意大

利鮮奶咖啡、泡沫咖啡、鮮奶濃縮咖啡、

短笛咖啡)。

活動一開始先介紹杯測，一種在咖啡

泡成後用來評鑑濕香、乾香和味道的方

法。按照精品咖啡協會(Specialty Coffee

Association)的解釋，標準的杯測一般先

要用力嗅一嗅咖啡的氣味，然後再用力吸

啜咖啡，讓舌頭每處位置都嚐到咖啡的

味道。透過這兩樣技巧，品嚐者嘗試品評

咖啡味道的多個方面，例如咖啡的質感、

風味和餘甘。由於咖啡豆蘊藏出產地的風

味，專業杯測者通常嘗試透過風味層次，

分辨咖啡豆的原產地。會員在「咖啡日」

品嚐到的招牌混合特濃咖啡，是由2016

年採收的兩種咖啡豆調製而成：30%是

Fazenda Ouro Verde的巴西咖啡豆，70%

是El Dunubio Farm的哥倫比亞咖啡豆。

除了原產地之外，咖啡的處理方法，即是

由咖啡果種子製成為綠色可供烘培的咖啡

豆所用的方法，亦影響咖啡最終的風味層

次。該家本地咖啡店的代表解釋說，他們

的招牌混合特濃咖啡是用兩種咖啡豆泡製

而成，處理兩種豆的方法並不一樣，巴西

豆是用日曬或乾式處理，哥倫比亞豆是用

水洗或濕式處理。

日曬式是其中一種最古老的處理方法，顧

名思義，就是將採收得的咖啡果曬乾。

你可能未見過咖啡果，咖啡果有一層外果

皮，外果皮緊緊包着薄薄的果肉，名為果

膠層。果皮和果肉包住種子，種子通常有

兩粒咖啡豆。乾式處理咖啡果，整粒咖啡

果就只放在日光下曝曬，咖啡豆期間會

吸收果肉果皮的部分精華。日曬的時間可

能長達四星期，當咖啡果曬乾至濕度達適

中水平之後，咖啡豆外層會剝落。巴西和

埃塞俄比亞出產的咖啡豆，大約80%是

用日曬或乾式處理方法。日曬處理的咖啡

豆，承傳源自咖啡果的甜果肉和果皮的特

質，通常口感扎實，帶有果香味道。一般

來說，一杯用這種豆泡製的咖啡，質感較

重。

相反，水洗或濕式處理的咖啡豆，豆是

在稱為「去果肉」的程序中從果實分隔出

來。這種是相對較新的處理方法，採收到

的咖啡果被倒進處理器，順水流直送到水

槽。浮面的壞的、不大結實的果實全被撇

走。沉底的好的果實被送到去果肉

機。種子由去果肉機送到發酵

槽，在那裏發酵一至兩日。果

肉去掉後，咖啡豆被曬乾去皮。

水洗咖啡常被形容為味道更清、

色澤更亮、果味更香。「清」

並不隱含水洗咖啡質素較佳的意

思；「清」所指的是種子蘊含的

味道更清晰傳達，而不是果香的

味道。

各會員在品嚐咖啡期間留意到，混合哥倫

比亞豆和巴西豆泡製的咖啡，有一種近似

葡萄味的果香味道。他們也嚐到淡淡的花

香和一點果仁味。這是一杯口感細膩，有

濃厚甜味的特濃咖啡，牛奶咖啡通常夾雜

果仁味和牛奶朱古力味，口感更細膩，質

感更軟滑；兩種咖啡可不一樣。

當天還向參加者調查了哪種咖啡最多人愛

喝。出乎意料之外，大部分參加者不是選

鮮奶咖啡飲品就是選意大利鮮奶咖啡。那

些選鮮奶咖啡飲品的解釋，他們迷上帶苦

味的朱古力味咖啡。那些鍾情意大利鮮奶

咖啡的表示，他們愛喝口感扎實的苦咖

啡，咖啡面還要蓋上一層新鮮味甜的奶

泡。

隨着夜幕降臨，會所變身為拉花工作坊，

由認可咖啡品質鑑定師羅芷灝小姐負責

主講。八位出席會員學習如何運用「高而

細」、「低而粗」兩個基本動作，用打好

了奶泡的牛奶在意大利鮮奶咖啡面做出簡

單的心形圖案。他們也學習如何打奶泡，

先將牛奶注入牛奶壺，再把蒸氣棒沒入牛

奶中，直至牛奶溫度和質地適中為止。羅

小姐說，雖然打奶泡(意大利鮮奶咖啡)看

似簡單，但要打得好並不容易，因為當中

涉及兩個階段――打氣(或充氣)和乳化(或

打棉)。會員學曉，要成功拉花，已打奶

泡的牛奶就要有某種質感，不同

款式的牛奶特濃咖

啡要用上不同

的打氣和乳

化技巧。 n

LEGAL TRIVIA #36

1. Why was the Hello Kitty murder case in Hong Kong so-called?A. It was the name of the bar that the victim worked at.B. Kitty was the name of one of the victims.C. Parts of the victim’s body were found inside a Hello

Kitty doll.D. The body was found in a room full of cats.

2. What flavour was the milkshake that Nancy Kissel used to drug her husband before killing him? A. StrawberryB. BananaC. ChocolateD. Vanilla

3. Rurik Jutting was a graduate of which university?A. Oxford UniversityB. Cambridge UniversityC. University of LondonD. Harvard University

4. Edith Carew who was convicted of killing her husband, Walter, in the British Court for Japan in Yokohama used which poison?A. ArsenicB. CyanideC. Fugu (blowfish)

5. Why was the Hong Kong “Jars Murderer” so-called? A. He used a jar to kill his victims.B. He placed jars around his victims’ bodies to ward of

evil spirits.C. He kept parts of his victims’ bodies in various

containers.

This month, our questions focus on some famous criminal cases in Hong Kong and other British courts in Asia.

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

6. Which Vice-President of the Court of Appeal was a junior counsel in the Braemer Hill Murder case?A. Wally YeungB. Michael LunnC. Johnson Lam

7. Atma Singh, a Sikh policeman who was convicted of murder by the British Supreme Court at Shanghai and sentenced to death by hanging is remembered in history for what reason?A. He assassinated the British Minister to China.B. He survived his hanging.C. A group of Sikhs surrounded the courthouse after his

sentencing and freed him.

8. The “Cathay Girl in the Bath” case is so-called because?A. A senior government official was caught in the bath with

a Cathay girl during an ICAC raid.B. A Cathay Pacific stewardess was killed while bathing.C. The badly decomposed body of a Cathay Pacific

stewardess was found in a bath.

9. Cheung Tsz-keung aka “Big Spender” who was involved in high profile kidnappings in Hong Kong in the 1990s was convicted in which jurisdiction for the kidnappings?A. Hong Kong B. The Mainland of ChinaC. MacauD. He was never convicted.

10. Katherine Hadley was convicted in 1933 in the British Supreme Court at Shanghai of murdering her common law husband. How many times had she been prosecuted for murder before this?A. 0B. 1C. 2D. 3

Answers to Legal Trivia Quiz #35 1. C. 2. D. 3. B. 4. A. 5. A. 6. C. 7. A. 8. A.

9. A. & C. 10. B.

The Full Court first sat in 1913.

The British Coat of Arms may still be seen on the exterior of the Court of Final Appeal.

The first puisne judge was appointed in Hong Kong in 1856.

Sir Alexander Grantham at one time in his career served as Chief Magistrate.

There was only one Chinese solicitor practising in Hong Kong in 1891, Mr. Wyson Ho.

Robert Tang was born in Shanghai.

Archie Zimmern was the first local barrister to be appointed directly to the High Court.

In the 1980s the Supreme Court had courts on the 31st and 32nd floors of the Sung Hung Kai Centre.

Aston & Bell designed the façade of Buckingham Palace and the Victoria & Albert Museum.

The first Patents Ordinance was enacted in Hong Kong in 1862.


• April 2017

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

法律知識測驗 #36 本月的問題圍繞香港和亞洲其他英國法院審理過的著

名刑事案件。

問題由馬錦德大律師編製。歡迎建議下期問題。

1. 「Hello Kitty藏屍案」因何得名？

A. 這是受害人工作酒吧的名稱。

B. 其中一名受害人名叫Kitty。

C. 受害人的部份殘肢被藏於Hello Kitty娃娃內。

D. 受害人的遺體在一間充滿貓的房間內尋回。

2. Nancy Kissel在殺死丈夫之前，在什麼味道的奶昔下

藥？

A. 士多啤梨

B. 香蕉

C. 朱古力

D. 雲呢拿

3. Rurik Jutting 畢業於哪所大學？

A. 牛津大學

B. 劍橋大學

C. 倫敦大學

D. 哈佛大學

4. 被橫濱的英國在日法院判處謀殺親夫Walter的Edith

Carew使用哪種毒藥？

A. 砒霜

B. 山埃

C. 河豚

5. 「瓶子殺手」(Jars Murderer)因何得名？

A. 他用瓶子殺死受害人。

B. 他把瓶子放在受害人遺體周圍，以驅走惡靈。

C. 他把受害人的殘肢存放於不同的容器內。

6. 哪位上訴庭副庭長在寶馬山謀殺案中擔任大律師？

A. 楊振權

B. 倫明高

C. 林文瀚

7. 錫克教警員Atma Singh被上海英國在華最高法院判處謀殺

罪成，處以繯首死刑。他因何在歷史上留名？

A. 他暗殺到訪中國的英國大臣。

B. 他在繯首死刑中倖存。

C. 一群錫克教徒在判刑後包

D. 法院並釋放了他。

8. 「國泰空姐浴缸案」(Cathay Girl in the Bath)因何得名？

A. 一名政府高官在廉政公署突擊調查期間被發現與國泰空

姐一起洗澡。

B. 一名國泰空姐在洗澡時遇害。

C. 一名國泰空姐的遺體被發現在浴缸裏溶解。

9. 綽號「大富豪」的張子強於90年代涉及多宗高調綁架案，

他於哪個司法管轄區被判綁架罪成？

A. 香港

B. 中國內地

C. 澳門

D. 他從未被定罪

10. Katherine Hadley於1933年在上海的英國在華最高法院被

判謀殺同居丈夫。在此之前，她被起訴謀殺多少次？

A. 0

B. 1

C. 2

D. 3

April 2017 • LEGAL TRIVIA QUIZ 法律知識測驗

法律知識測驗#35的答案合議庭於1913年首次組成。

終審法院外仍展示英國國徽。

香港首位按察司於1856年獲委任。

葛量洪爵士曾同時擔任首席裁判司。

1891年僅一位華籍律師（何衛臣先生）在香港執業。

鄧國楨法官於上海出生。

Archie Zimmern是首位被直接委任為高等法院法官的本地大律師。

是。在80年代，最高法院曾位處新鴻基中心31樓及32樓。

Aston & Bell曾設計白金漢宮外觀及維多利亞和艾伯特博物館。

香港最早的專利條例於1862年制定。

1. C.

2. D.

3. B.

4. A.

5. A.

6. C.

7. A.

8. A.

9. A. & C.

10. B.


競賽規則：

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

2007年Ch. La Croizil le葡萄酒，請將問題答案寄交

[email protected]。

首位能提供最多正確答案(答錯的題目不得多於三題)的讀者將成

為優勝者。湯森路透就得獎者所作的決定是最終及不可推翻的。

Legal Director › 10+ PQE › Financial InstitutionJoining an established group with a medium sized office in Hong Kong, you will report directly to the CEO working closely with senior management and the business, in supporting the core businesses within the group including Securities, Lending, Asset Management and Financing. You will be supported by a paralegal and a compliance manager. The ideal candidate will be a 10+ PQE qualified lawyer with strong corporate experience, and financial institution exposure will be highly regarded. Experience in handling securities and lending matters are preferred, as is familiarity with local regulatory guidelines. Strong communication skills are required including English and business fluent Mandarin. Ref: 3920363

Group Legal Counsel › 7+ PQE › Chinese Conglomerate Our client is an industry leader with expansion plans to grow in Asia including an IPO project in the pipeline. They are now seeking a Legal Counsel to join them at the group level. You will be reporting to the Group General Counsel and be responsible for providing strategic legal advice to the senior management. You will be the key person leading the IPO project in Hong Kong and various M&A projects across Asia Pacific. The successful candidate will have a minimum of 7 years’ PQE with strong interpersonal and communication skills. Fluency in both written and spoken English and Chinese (Mandarin) is required. Ref: 3917960

Leveraged Finance Lawyer › 2-6 PQE › Red Circle Firm One of the red circle firms is seeking to take on a mid-level banking & finance lawyer. In this role, you will focus on acquisition finance, cross border lending, structured finance and mainstream banking matters. You will join a fast growing team of three associates and face demanding and intellectually stimulating work. The ideal candidate will be a Hong Kong qualified solicitor who is a native Cantonese speaker with good Mandarin and English language skills. Newly qualified lawyers with outstanding academics and relevant experience during traineeship will also be considered. Ref: 3920604

Corporate Lawyer › 4+ PQE › Financial InstitutionOur client is a newer financial institution however backed by a very established and sizable group in China. With a core focus on private equity, funds and direct investments in Hong Kong, you will be working closely with senior management and relevant business heads, to advise on these transactions as well as to draft and negotiate relevant documentation. You will report to the CEO and receive support from the company secretarial team, with an opportunity to further help the team expand. You will be a HK qualified corporate lawyer with at least 4 years’ PQE, being familiar with IPO and M&A work, understanding the local regulatory guidelines. Strong language skills in English and Chinese are required. Ref: 3920386

PRC Legal Counsel › 3+ PQE › Infrastructure CompanyOur client is a Hong Kong based company with international infrastructure and construction management projects overseas. Responding to business growth, they need a Legal Counsel to take up an independent role to provide legal support to local and overseas businesses. You will identify legal risks in projects and provide advice in contract management. It is an excellent opportunity to define the legal function. The ideal candidate will be a PRC qualified lawyer with at least 3 years’ PQE and well versed in drafting and reviewing contracts and agreements. Native Mandarin is required as is fluency in spoken and written English. Ref: 3918818

Senior DCM Lawyer › 6+ PQE › International Law Firm A leading international law firm with established offices in Hong Kong and other Asian major cities created a new headcount to take on a junior debt capital markets and structured finance solicitor. In this role you will be exposed to a wide range of high-profile and award-winning transactions, covering DCM transactions, bonds and securitization matters. The ideal candidate is a Hong Kong or UK qualified solicitor with good English and Chinese language skills. Candidates with solid banking finance experience from international law firms who interested in exploring a career in the DCM will be considered. Ref: 3920601

LegalSpecialists in legal recruitment

www.michaelpage.com.hk

SPECIALISTS IN LEGAL RECRUITMENTMICHAEL PAGE LEGAL

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

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

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

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

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

MEET THE TEAM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMERCIAL PRIVATE PRACTICE

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

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

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

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

Legal Director › 10+ PQE › Private Equity HouseA family owned private investment house specializing in investments of resources and real estate, is currently seeking to take up a new lawyer to join the HK Office, joining the existing legal team of 3 senior lawyers. Due to increased transactions across the globe, the new lawyer will have the autonomy to independently run transactions with exposure to both cross border and outbound M&A deals. The ideal candidate will be a 10+ years PQE corporate M&A lawyer, with dual qualification in HK and the PRC. Willingness to handle corporate governance matters is required as is the occasional ad hoc in house legal matters. Strong English and Chinese language skills required. There is some travelling involved. Ref: 3918752

IP Legal Manager › 2+ PQE › Luxury Retail Group Our client is a reputable retail brand, headquartered in Europe with operations in over 100 countries. Due to their growing business across the globe, they are currently looking for a Legal Manager to join the team. Based in Hong Kong, you will be supporting the APAC operations, including intellectual property related issues as well as some general commercial work. You will be reporting to the Head of Legal, APAC and leading a paralegal. The ideal candidate will have a minimum of 2 years’ PQE with the ability to work independently under pressure and tight deadlines. You will also need to be driven and people oriented with strong communication skills in spoken and written English and Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese). Ref: 3912130

Senior Property Lawyer › 10+ PQE › Hong Kong Law FirmOur client is a large Hong Kong law firm seeking to hire a Senior Property Lawyer with hands-on experience with property developer clients supporting them from land acquisition to property development and property sales. The ideal candidate should possess at least 10 years’ PQE specializing in real estate finance, property development, investment acquisitions and sales. You will also have solid experience in drafting and reviewing leasing and tenancy agreements for commercial and residential properties. Fluency in English and Mandarin is a must, as is the ability to draft in Simplified Chinese. Prior experience as an in-house counsel is advantageous, lawyers wishing to return to private practice are welcome to apply for this role.Ref: 3884960

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

Tina Wang, Managing Consultant, In-House CorporateTina has over 4 years’ recruitment experience within the in house commercial space, specialising in recruitment of in-house lawyers at all levels. She has an excellent track record working with multinationals, state-owned enterprises, as well as domestic private and listed companies in Hong Kong. Tina’s in-depth market knowledge and extensive networks in the region allows her access to high calibre candidates and clients. Tina is CPA qualified with a

prior career in PriceWaterhouse Coopers prior to joining Michael Page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalism.

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

www.alsrecruit.comTo apply in confidence, please send your updated resume to [email protected], or contact one of our Legal Consultants in Hong Kong:

Hong Kong • Singapore • Beijing • ShanghaiSpecialising in Legal, Financial Services, and Commerce

Georgeanna MokTel: +852 2920 9101Email: [email protected]

Claire ParkTel: +852 2920 9134Email: [email protected]

William ChanTel: +852 2920 9105Email: [email protected]

www.alsrecruit.comTo apply in confidence, please send your updated resume to [email protected], or contact one of our Legal Consultants in Hong Kong:

Hong Kong • Singapore • Beijing • ShanghaiSpecialising in Legal, Financial Services, and Commerce

Georgeanna MokTel: +852 2920 9101Email: [email protected]

Claire ParkTel: +852 2920 9134Email: [email protected]

William ChanTel: +852 2920 9105Email: [email protected]

Private Practice In-houseCONSTRUCTION HONG KONG SA/PARTNERInternational law firm is actively seeking a senior associate or junior partner to join its construction practice. Whilst a following isn’t necessary, you will have established a good network of contacts and have a good reputation amongst the construction community. Immediate partnership on offer. (HKL 15077)

ASSET FINANCE HONG KONG 3-8 PQE Leading international law firm seeks a highly-motivated asset finance lawyer to join their well-established team. This is a great opportunity to gain exposure to complex asset leasing and financing transactions. Excellent career prospect on offer. Chinese language is not required; open to overseas candidates. (HKL

14980)

FUNDS HONG KONG 3-7 PQEInternational law firm seeks an experienced funds associate to join their growing practice. Preference for PE funds formation experience although clients include both hedge funds and private equity. New York salary on offer. (HKL 15031)

BANKING FINANCE HONG KONG 3-6 PQECity firm seeks a banking finance lawyer to join their well-established tier 1 team. You should be qualified in a common law jurisdiction plus solid experience in leveraged, structured or acquisition finance. Spoken Mandarin is critical for this role. (HKL 15102)

CORPORATE/M&A HONG KONG 2-6 PQEThis leading international law firm is looking for top tier corporate lawyers with fluent Mandarin language skills to manage an interesting array of both ECM and M&A (both public and private) work. New York salaries on offer and opportunity to work on high profile deals. (HKL 15026)

CORPORATE ASSOCIATE HONG KONG NQ-6 PQE This notable US law firm is seeking a corporate lawyer to work on a wide range of corporate transactions including IPO, M&A and Private Equity deals. This is a great opportunity to join a leading practice where you will advise blue chip clients including global banks and MNCs. Mandarin language skills essential. (HKL 15112)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION HONG KONG 1-3 PQE Top-tier international law firm is looking for litigators to join their dispute resolution practice. You will be working with leading clients on matters ranging from domestic/international commercial disputes, regulatory and finance litigation. Competitive salary on offer. (HKL 15126)

REGIONAL GC HONG KONG 12+ PQEThis well-known MNC has a vacancy for a senior in-house commercial lawyer with good China and regional experience. Work will involve advising senior management on an interesting mix of contract, general commercial, employment and some compliance work. Opportunity to manage a small legal team. (HKL 15097)

SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL HONG KONG 10+ PQELeading financial services provider seeks a senior lawyer to advise on all aspects of the business, including issues relating to asset management and global markets. The successful candidate should possess solid experience gained in a financial institution. Fluency in Mandarin is required. An attractive package is offered. (HKL 15109)

FMCG HONG KONG 5-10 PQEUK listed company with significant growth plans for Asia Pac has headcount to appoint an in-house counsel in Hong Kong to support the regional management team covering Asia Pac. Great opportunity to support a dynamic and young executive team in a business that is one of the sectors’ best global performers. (HKL 15027)

AVIATION FINANCE LAWYER HONG KONG 5-10 PQE Global airline business seeks a strong aviation lawyer to oversee a wide range of aircraft financing transactions including aircraft trading, leasing and acquisition. Solid experience in aircraft leasing and finance is required; open to overseas candidates. (HKL 14694)

LEGAL ADVISOR HONG KONG/CHINA 4-8 PQE Global technology company has a vacancy in their international legal team. This team advises on all aspects of the company’s international business, including issues related to e-commerce, b2b commerce, digital data storage, and global regulatory matters. Fluency in English and Mandarin is critical. (HKL 15135)

EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL SINGAPORE 4-8 PQE Global financial institution seeks an employment lawyer to join their Corporate Services team based in Singapore. The lawyer will focus on advising the bank on employment related issues such as employment benefits, severance, and disputes across the APAC region, but will also be exposed to other general commercial work. Fluency in Mandarin is required. (HKL 14965)

SECURITISATION HONG KONG 3-6 PQE Well known investment bank seeks an experienced mid level lawyer with derivatives, structured products, and/or securitisation experience. Excellent opportunity to move from private practice to in-house. Competitive salary on offer. (HKL 15104)

SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENTLEGAL PROFESSIONALS

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

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

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

FINANCIAL SERVICES

VP, AMLGLOBAL INVESTMENT BANK QPD/ 551850

This is a VP level AML compliance advisory role for a boutique investment bank. This platform specialises in ECM, DCM, advisory, M&A, cash equities, fixed income and is rapidly expanding across APAC. This role will report directly to the head of compliance and will offer increased exposure and responsibility.

LEGAL COUNSELGLOBAL FASHION BRANDOAA/ 557090

Global fashion house seeks a junior lawyer to join the Hong Kong office. The business is developing a stronger retail presence, growing rapidly in China and also merging some business lines, so there is a broad portfolio of work to do including commercial contracts, litigation and translation. The APAC legal team has four people and the role reports directly to the Head of Legal. The team sits in Quarry Bay and there will be some travel to China.

DIRECTOR, AML POLICY AND ADVISORYLEADING ASIAN BANKQPD/ 552870

This dynamic platform is expanding their FCC team and looking for an AML/FCC policy expert who can help to define the AML strategy for the bank and lead a team. This is a newly created position and offers wide exposure and ability to make an impact.

HEDGE FUND COMPLIANCE/ OPERATIONS MANAGERAPAC HEDGE FUNDWDM/ 554210

Well established hedge fund in Hong Kong is seeking to expand their infrastructure to increase bandwidth for their COO and General Counsel. This high performing fund is looking for a sharp, motivated hedge fund infrastructure professional with strong knowledge of SFC regulations and the evolving compliance landscape. Additionally experience in fund accounting and project management would be an asset.

SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL GLOBAL CONGLOMERATEOAA/ 557400

This Hong Kong listed company is a leading conglomerate in Greater China with diverse business interests in e-commerce, mobile internet, publishing, outdoor media, television and entertainment and across markets in Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. They are looking for a senior lawyer to join a team and report directly to the CFO.

LEGAL & COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR BROKERAGE HOUSEWDM/ 547770

Growing financial technology company with robo-advisory and mobile brokerage businesses is seeking a compliance director with legal training or qualification who can oversee all firm compliance and legal administration matters. This person will be the principal person for all regulatory matters and report directly to the firm’s CFO/COO. This company has been in operation for over five years and remains poised for significant growth.

Key Requirements:

■ A minimum five years’ experience in AML/ FCC in the investment banking space■ Strong knowledge of banking regulations/ guidelines relating to anti-money

laundering and sanctions■ Ability to develop productive relationships across functions■ Excellent English communication skills

Key Requirements:

■ Hong Kong or PRC qualified lawyer with zero to four years’ PQE■ Strong corporate commercial experience and ideally some exposure to PRC

matters■ Fluency in spoken and written English, Cantonese and Mandarin is required

Key Requirements:

■ At least eight years’ relevant experience in banking space, ideally in corporate or wholesale banking, covering financial crime compliance

■ Excellent knowledge and understanding of financial crime regulations in Hong Kong, both HKMA and SFC.

■ Experience in Trade and cross border transactions and issues will be an advantage■ Proven management experience

Key Requirements:

■ Experience in a compliance and operational role within a lean high-performing hedge fund

■ Strong knowledge of evolving regulatory environment for APAC hedge funds with particular emphasis on SFC requirements

■ Demonstrated experience in leading projects and working with IT teams■ Additional middle-office or fund accounting experience would be a major asset

Key Requirements:

■ Hong Kong qualified lawyer with a minimum of eight years’ PQE, ideally gained from listed companies

■ Proficiency in Hong Kong listing rules and M&A projects■ Experience in managing legal staff in Mainland China■ Fluency in spoken and written English, Cantonese and Mandarin is required

Key Requirements:

■ A minimum of eight years’ experience in legal/ compliance function in Hong Kong ■ Expert knowledge of SFC requirements of retail brokerage industry■ Willingness to work in start-up, tech-centric environment■ Fluency in spoken and written English, Cantonese and Mandarin is required

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

FINANCIAL SERVICES

www.atticus-legal.com

Corporate M&A/IPO5+ PQE Hong Kong

This is an excellent opportunity for an associate looking to join a well-established and collegiate team. You will focus on HK listing work with exposure to some M&A transactions. The team is well structured and is able to offer the right candidate a career path. Mandarin skills preferred. HKL4316

Derivatives & Structured Finance2-4 PQE Hong Kong

This top tier practice seeks a lawyer to join their market leading international practice. You will work with highly regarded partners and be exposed to a wide range of structured finance and derivatives transactions, including repackagings, total return swaps, CLOs, CDOs and also OTC derivatives. HKL4231

Litigation 4+ PQE Hong Kong

This is a fantastic opportunity for a disputes lawyer looking for something slightly different. You will join this market-leading practice and work for a highly regarded partner within a collegiate team on a mix of high profile, complex commercial litigation and arbitration matters. Mandarin preferred but not essential. Contract role also available. HKL4298

Capital Markets4-6 PQE Hong Kong

A fantastic opportunity for a lawyer to become part of this renowned practice with this US law firm. Your work will include focusing on a range of IPO and innovative merger and acquisition transactions on a global scale assisting highly-regarded partners. You will be common law qualified. Mandarin language skill essential. HKL4469

Corporate/Funds3+ PQE Hong Kong

This is a stellar opportunity for an ambitious UK qualified associate to join the Funds/Corporate team of this notable practice. The ideal candidate will have solid experience in private equity or general corporate experience. Candidates with Japanese will be a bonus. HKL4476

Dispute Resolution1-3 PQE Hong Kong

This is a superb opportunity for a US qualified junior litigator to join this top tier law firm and its established team to work on securities litigation, regulatory and government investigations. Ideal candidates will possess native Mandarin language skills and the ability to draft in English. HKL4467

Corporate M&A/PE 3+ PQE Hong Kong

Premier practice seeks a mid level associate looking for a broad mix of work. You will work for highly regarded partners on a range of complex M&A, Private Equity and Cap Market transactions for premier clients in a rewarding environment with manageable working hours. Mandarin essential. HKL4050

Funds3-5 PQE Hong Kong

This is a stellar opportunity for an ambitious lawyer to join the Funds team, in a tight knit team. The ideal candidate will have prior exposure to hedge funds, PE fund formation work. Corporate M&A lawyers keen to transition will also be considered. You will be admitted in a common law jurisdiction. Chinese required. HKL4501

Dispute Resolution8+ PQE Hong Kong

This well-established litigation practice seeks a senior associate or counsel to join the ranks and handle contentious and non-contentious advisory and complex disputes and general commercial disputes in a collegiate environment. Opportunity to get on track if you are keen. You will be admitted in a common law jurisdiction. HKL4500

Corporate M&A3-5PQE Beijing

This is an outstanding opportunity for a midlevel associate with solid experience gained at an international law firm. You will join this top tier firm to focus on M&A/PE and China outbound transactions. PRC associates or lawyers admitted to the NY bar will also be considered. HKL4360

Debt Capital Markets2-6 PQE Hong Kong

This is a fantastic opening for a lawyer to join a leading international practice and to work on a variety of global debt capital markets transactions advising issuers and underwriters, amongst a collegiate and professional team. UK/US/HK qualification required for this role; Mandarin required. HKL4449

Banking and Finance1-2 PQE Hong Kong

This global law firm seeks a HK qualified junior lawyer to join their practice, assisting renowned individuals and high profile clients. You will work on big ticket deals, including corporate lending; equity-backed financing, restructuring and mainstream syndicated lending. The ideal candidate will have previous experinece preferably with an international firm. HKL4453

Dispute Resolution 2-3 PQE Cayman Islands

This firm is providing an excellent opportunity for a UK qualified lawyer with commercial litigation, corporate governance cross-border restructuring and insolvency experience to take their career offshore for a few years before returning to Hong Kong. Mandarin and Cantonese essential. HKL4478

Head of Legal10+ PQE Hong Kong

Leading asset management and investment firm seeks a competent lawyer to take on a legal role working closely with various departments within the business. You will be a corporate lawyer admitted in HK with private banking or securities house experience. Chinese essential. HKL4443

Banking and Finance2+ PQE Sydney

This eminent firm seeks a Common law qualified lawyer to join their practice, assisting renowned partners and high profile clients. You will work on big ticket deals, including corporate lending, equity-backed financing, restructuring and mainstream syndicated lending, and leveraged finance. HKL4486

trust | honesty | integrity | partnership

This is a selection of our current vacancies; for more information in complete confidence,

please call the Hong Kong office on +852 2503 2500 or email us at

[email protected]

taylorrootchina

www.atticus-legal.com

Corporate M&A/IPO5+ PQE Hong Kong

This is an excellent opportunity for an associate looking to join a well-established and collegiate team. You will focus on HK listing work with exposure to some M&A transactions. The team is well structured and is able to offer the right candidate a career path. Mandarin skills preferred. HKL4316

Derivatives & Structured Finance2-4 PQE Hong Kong

This top tier practice seeks a lawyer to join their market leading international practice. You will work with highly regarded partners and be exposed to a wide range of structured finance and derivatives transactions, including repackagings, total return swaps, CLOs, CDOs and also OTC derivatives. HKL4231

Litigation 4+ PQE Hong Kong

This is a fantastic opportunity for a disputes lawyer looking for something slightly different. You will join this market-leading practice and work for a highly regarded partner within a collegiate team on a mix of high profile, complex commercial litigation and arbitration matters. Mandarin preferred but not essential. Contract role also available. HKL4298

Capital Markets4-6 PQE Hong Kong

A fantastic opportunity for a lawyer to become part of this renowned practice with this US law firm. Your work will include focusing on a range of IPO and innovative merger and acquisition transactions on a global scale assisting highly-regarded partners. You will be common law qualified. Mandarin language skill essential. HKL4469

Corporate/Funds3+ PQE Hong Kong

This is a stellar opportunity for an ambitious UK qualified associate to join the Funds/Corporate team of this notable practice. The ideal candidate will have solid experience in private equity or general corporate experience. Candidates with Japanese will be a bonus. HKL4476

Dispute Resolution1-3 PQE Hong Kong

This is a superb opportunity for a US qualified junior litigator to join this top tier law firm and its established team to work on securities litigation, regulatory and government investigations. Ideal candidates will possess native Mandarin language skills and the ability to draft in English. HKL4467

Corporate M&A/PE 3+ PQE Hong Kong

Premier practice seeks a mid level associate looking for a broad mix of work. You will work for highly regarded partners on a range of complex M&A, Private Equity and Cap Market transactions for premier clients in a rewarding environment with manageable working hours. Mandarin essential. HKL4050

Funds3-5 PQE Hong Kong

This is a stellar opportunity for an ambitious lawyer to join the Funds team, in a tight knit team. The ideal candidate will have prior exposure to hedge funds, PE fund formation work. Corporate M&A lawyers keen to transition will also be considered. You will be admitted in a common law jurisdiction. Chinese required. HKL4501

Dispute Resolution8+ PQE Hong Kong

This well-established litigation practice seeks a senior associate or counsel to join the ranks and handle contentious and non-contentious advisory and complex disputes and general commercial disputes in a collegiate environment. Opportunity to get on track if you are keen. You will be admitted in a common law jurisdiction. HKL4500

Corporate M&A3-5PQE Beijing

This is an outstanding opportunity for a midlevel associate with solid experience gained at an international law firm. You will join this top tier firm to focus on M&A/PE and China outbound transactions. PRC associates or lawyers admitted to the NY bar will also be considered. HKL4360

Debt Capital Markets2-6 PQE Hong Kong

This is a fantastic opening for a lawyer to join a leading international practice and to work on a variety of global debt capital markets transactions advising issuers and underwriters, amongst a collegiate and professional team. UK/US/HK qualification required for this role; Mandarin required. HKL4449

Banking and Finance1-2 PQE Hong Kong

This global law firm seeks a HK qualified junior lawyer to join their practice, assisting renowned individuals and high profile clients. You will work on big ticket deals, including corporate lending; equity-backed financing, restructuring and mainstream syndicated lending. The ideal candidate will have previous experinece preferably with an international firm. HKL4453

Dispute Resolution 2-3 PQE Cayman Islands

This firm is providing an excellent opportunity for a UK qualified lawyer with commercial litigation, corporate governance cross-border restructuring and insolvency experience to take their career offshore for a few years before returning to Hong Kong. Mandarin and Cantonese essential. HKL4478

Head of Legal10+ PQE Hong Kong

Leading asset management and investment firm seeks a competent lawyer to take on a legal role working closely with various departments within the business. You will be a corporate lawyer admitted in HK with private banking or securities house experience. Chinese essential. HKL4443

Banking and Finance2+ PQE Sydney

This eminent firm seeks a Common law qualified lawyer to join their practice, assisting renowned partners and high profile clients. You will work on big ticket deals, including corporate lending, equity-backed financing, restructuring and mainstream syndicated lending, and leveraged finance. HKL4486

trust | honesty | integrity | partnership

This is a selection of our current vacancies; for more information in complete confidence,

please call the Hong Kong office on +852 2503 2500 or email us at

[email protected]

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

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

www.lewissanders.com

In-House Private Practice

M&A PARTNER HONG KONG 8-15 years

Top tier international firm seeks a Counsel or Junior Partner to join its M&A practice. You will have extensive APAC M&A experience, fluency in English & top tier firm training. Excellent opportunity for a Counsel to step into a partnership role. No book of business needed. HKL6390

BANKING PARTNER HONG KONG 9-20 years

US law firm is seeking a banking partner to expand its finance capability. You will be an experienced senior finance lawyer at a reputable international law firm in HK, who is a Junior Partner or a Counsel looking to make a step up to partnership. Fluent Mandarin language skills preferred. HKL6403

LITIGATION HONG KONG 5-10 years

UK law firm is looking to expand its disputes practice by adding a Senior Associate with experience in commercial litigation & regulatory investigations. Experience representing PRC clients in litigation preferred. HK qualification & Mandarin language skills essential. HKL6378

REAL ESTATE PSL HONG KONG 5+ years

An international law firm is seeking a professional support lawyer to support the property department with legal & regulatory changes, maintain the knowledge management function including documents, practice notes & precedents & provide training to internal & external clients. HKL6249

FUNDS HONG KONG 3+ years

Top tier firm seeks a funds associate with 3 - 5 years’ post-qualification experience, solid training from a peer firm & be admitted in a Commonwealth jurisdiction. Lawyers with M&A or finance experience will be considered. Chinese language skills are preferred. HKL6355

LITIGATION / INVESTIGATION HONG KONG 6-10 years

In-house opportunity for a mid-level litigator with experience in general commercial or financial services litigation. Interesting work & good work/life balance on offer. Strong analytical skills & ability to understand complex issues are required. Fluent English & Chinese essential. HKL3989

LEGAL DIRECTOR HONG KONG 10-15 years

Technology solution provider listed in HK seeks a Legal Director in HK to manage a team of lawyers in China & handle M&A, commercial contracts & listing compliance matters. Prior in-house experience & fluent English & Mandarin are required. HKL6413

FUNDS HONG KONG 5-8 years

Well-known PRC asset manager is looking for a funds lawyer to join its in-house legal team. You should have experience in a range of investment products/financial services regulatory work (both retail & private). Business level Mandarin & ability to read & write in Chinese are essential. HKL6204

ED - CORPORATE SECRETARY HONG KONG 10+ years

Global bank seeks an Executive Director – Corporate Secretary to provide corporate secretarial services & support to its businesses. You will have a strong knowledge of company laws, corporate governance & compliance matters as well as the gravitas to advise the Board. HKL6238

M&A / COMMERCIAL HONG KONG 1-3 years

Private investment firm with strong connections in the region is looking to expand its legal team. This role will involve providing legal support to the business on M&A/PE & other direct investments, as well as asset management & finance-related work. Mandarin skills essential. HKL6401

REGULATORY HONG KONG 2-4 years

Well-established UK law firm is seeking an associate for its regulatory practice. You will advise on the setting up of regulated businesses in HK, compliance, regulatory corporate governance, AML & data privacy amongst other issues. Fluent Chinese language skills are preferred. HKL6348

LEGAL RECRUITER HONG KONG 2+ years

Lewis Sanders is busy across in-house and law firm recruitment & we are seeking a legal recruitment consultant to cover both areas. You may be a legal recruitment consultant with at least 2 years’ experience or a junior/mid-level lawyer looking for a change in career direction. HKL1000

BANKING/DCM HONG KONG 4-8 years

Bulge bracket bank seeks a mid-level lawyer with banking & finance and/or DCM experience to join its legal team. Experience in leveraged acquisition finance ideal and candidates from both private practice & in-house will be considered. US Securities experience would be an advantage. HKL6379

M&A/COMMERCIAL HONG KONG 5-10 years

Leading MNC is looking for a mid to senior level corporate/commercial lawyer. This role reports into the GC for Asia & you will advise on M&A, JVs, financial services & regulatory issues as well as general commercial matters. England & Wales qualification preferred. HKL6051

Major, Lindsey & Africa, founded in 1982, is the world’s largest and most experienced legal search firm, offering unparalleled service and strategic advice to candidates and clients looking to gain access to Asia Pacific, Australia, EMEA and the United States.

CARL HOPKINSManaging Partner, Law Firm Group, Asia Pacific (ex Japan)[email protected]

ANDREW NGManaging Consultant, Hong Kong/Palo Alto +852.3628.4698/[email protected]

NATHAN PEART Consultant, Hong [email protected]

MAGGIE KWOKConsultant, Hong [email protected]

FRANNY GAOAssociate, Hong [email protected]

MIKAELA ORMEConsultant, [email protected]

LAURIE LEBRUNPartner, [email protected]

Our dedicated Search Consultantsare experts and ready to speak

with you about your plans in Asia

> Partners & Partner Teams> New Market Entry> Associates

> In-House Counsel & Compliance Counsel

AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BALTIMORE BASKING RIDGE BEIJING ** BOSTON CHARLOTTE

CHICAGO DELHI ** HONG KONG HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON LOS ANGELES MIAMI

MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY PALO ALTO PHILADELPHIA SAN DIEGO

SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SEOUL* SINGAPORE*** SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C.

WWW.MLAGLOBAL.COM*Strategic Alliance **Affiliate ***Major, Lindsey & Africa (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Lic. No. 16S8347

To find out more, contact Amantha Chia at [email protected] or (65) 6870 3917

REACH OUTTO A LEGAL

DATABASE OF19,000

SUBSCRIBERS

ENHANCEDJOB FILTERS

ANDSEARCHES FOR

CANDIDATES

IMPROVEDJOB POSTING

FUNCTIONALITYFOR

RECRUITERS

IMPROVEDANALYTICS

ON THEWEBSITE

AND MORE!

THE NEW ALB LEGAL JOBS CENTREWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM/LEGAL-JOBS

Pure Search

Tina Lu | In House FS Hires + 852 2520 5877 | [email protected]

Michael Allen | In House FS Hires + 852 2499 9796 | [email protected]

Mike Wright | Private Practice Hires + 852 2520 5298 | [email protected]

Alex Tao | In House C&I Legal + 852 2499 9293 | [email protected]

puresearch.com

Pure Search International Pte Ltd, Level 61, Unit 09, The Center99 Queen’s Rd Central Hong Kong

Access to the best roles, a prestigious client network, professional and informed career advice, a targeted search tailored to your needs:

Transform your career with Pure Search.

LONDON | HONG KONG | SINGAPORE | NEW YORK

Pure Search

Tina Lu | In House FS Hires + 852 2520 5877 | [email protected]

Michael Allen | In House FS Hires + 852 2499 9796 | [email protected]

Mike Wright | Private Practice Hires + 852 2520 5298 | [email protected]

Alex Tao | In House C&I Legal + 852 2499 9293 | [email protected]

puresearch.com

Pure Search International Pte Ltd, Level 61, Unit 09, The Center99 Queen’s Rd Central Hong Kong

Access to the best roles, a prestigious client network, professional and informed career advice, a targeted search tailored to your needs:

Transform your career with Pure Search.

LONDON | HONG KONG | SINGAPORE | NEW YORK

Shaping the careers of city professionals since 2002, Oliver James Associates partners with leading law firms and blue-chip multinationals worldwide. Our consultants have unrivalled knowledge of their vertical markets and networks that span the global legal sector, enabling you to access the most exclusive opportunities in the industry. Working from 12 international locations, we represent legal professionals within the Asia-Pacific regions, the US, UK and the EU, placing them in Associate, Legal Counsel, General Counsel and Partner-level positions. Embrace your future, transform your career and contact Oliver James Associates today.

Whether you are seeking your next career move now, or you would like to have a confidential discussion about the legal market to feel more informed, please contact us today.

Where does your path lead? Brighter futures begin with Oliver James Associates

Arron Leale - Manager+852 3708 [email protected]

Richard Whalley - Senior Consultant+852 3708 [email protected]

David Chin – In-House Consultant+852 3708 [email protected]

Patrick Haughey – Consultant+852 3708 [email protected]

Erik Bainbridge - Consultant+852 3708 [email protected]

www.ojassociates.comoliver-james-associates @ojassociatesHK

HK Lawyer - April.indd 6-7 27/03/2017 09:45

lester huangjp - hong kong lawyer

Documents