Margaret Fong 方舜文 Melissa K

月七民事訴訟程序 HK$308 二零二一年 2021 Submitting to the Jurisdiction 接受司法管轄 JULY CIVIL PROCEDURE CIVIL PROCEDURE

證券法

Analysis of The Exchange’s Reform of the Main Board Profit Requirement – Right Time for Hong Kong To Move On? 港交所改革主板盈利規定之分析 —— 香港改革是否正當其時? SECURITIES LAW SECURITIES LAW 封面專題

Fong

個人資料私隱方舜文 COVER STORY STORY COVER

香港貿易發展局總裁 Margaret Trade Development Council Council Development Trade

Executive Director, Hong Kong Hong Kong Executive Director,

將有助遏止「起底」 Data in the Companies Register Will Help Curb Doxxing 限制公司登記冊披露個人資料 Limiting Disclosure of Personal DATA PRIVACY PRIVACY DATA

JULY 2021 2021年7月 100

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

Editorial Board 編輯委員會

Chairman 主席 Huen Wong 王桂壎

Nick Chan 陳曉峰 Inside your July issue Peter CH Chan 陳志軒七月期刊內容 Charles CC Chau 周致聰 Michelle Cheng 鄭美玲 Heidi KP Chu 朱潔冰 Julianne P Doe 杜珠聯 3 EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話 Elliot Fung 馮以德 Warren P Ganesh 莊偉倫 4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 會長的話 Julienne Jen 任文慧 Karen Lam 藍嘉妍 6 CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者 Bernard Yue 余志匡 Stella SY Leung 梁淑儀 8 DISCIPLINARY DECISION 紀律裁決 Sauw Yim 蕭艷 Adamas KS Wong 黃嘉晟 12 FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊 Tony YH Yen 嚴元浩 15 FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題 THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG 17 COVER STORY 封面專題香港律師會理事會 Face to Face with 專訪 President 會長 Margaret Fong 方舜文 Melissa K. Pang 彭韻僖 Executive Director, Hong Kong Trade 香港貿易發展局總裁 Development Council Vice Presidents 副會長 Amirali B. Nasir 黎雅明 23 LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞 Brian W. Gilchrist 喬柏仁 C. M. Chan 陳澤銘 28 NOTARIES NEWS 香港國際公證人協會新聞 Council Members 理事會成員 30 DATA PRIVACY 個人資料私隱白樂德 Denis Brock Limiting Disclosure of Personal Data in 限制公司登記冊披露個人資料將莊偉倫 Warren P. Ganesh the Companies Register Will Help Curb 有助遏止「起底」湯文龍 Roden M.L. Tong Doxxing Jonathan Ross 羅彰南 Pierre T.H. Chan 陳達顯 36 SECURITIES LAW 證券法 Eric T.M. Cheung 張達明 Analysis of The Exchange’s Reform of the 港交所改革主板盈利規定之分析 Karen Lam 藍嘉妍 Main Board Profit Requirement – Right —— 香港改革是否正當其時 ? Careen H.Y. Wong 黃巧欣 Time for Hong Kong To Move On? Calvin K. Cheng 鄭偉邦 Mark Daly 帝理邁 41 CIVIL PROCEDURE 民事訴訟程序 Doreen Y.F. Kong 江玉歡 Submitting to the Jurisdiction 接受司法管轄 Christopher K.K. Yu 余國堅 Kenneth Lam 林洋鋐 46 INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視 Janet H.Y. Pang 彭皓昕 Michelle W.T. Tsoi 蔡頴德 55 CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要 Davyd Wong 黃耀初 64 PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向 Secretary General 秘書長 Heidi K.P. Chu 朱潔冰 68 LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情 Deputy Secretary General 副秘書長 Furry Friends Who Become Family 成為家人的毛孩子 Christine W.S. Chu 朱穎雪 73 CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞 Law Society’s Contact: www.hklawsoc.org.hk 與律師會聯繫 Tel: +852 2846 0500 88 PRACTICE SKILLS 實踐技能 Annual Subscription 全年訂閱: HK$3,696

Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Limited 15/F, Cityplaza 3, 14 Taikoo Wan Road, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2847 2088 www.thomsonreuters.com ISSN 1025-9554

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

www.hk-lawyer.org 1 JULY 2021 二零二一年七月 HK$308

Lead Editor 編輯 Sonali Khemka [email protected] Tel: +852 9124 5956

Managing Editor 代理編輯 Ranajit Dam 鄧文杰 [email protected] Tel: +65 6870 3393

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:

Head of Legal Media Group, Asia & Emerging Markets Amantha Chia 謝京庭 [email protected] Tel: +65 6870 3917

For subscriptions contact:

Traffic Administrator 統籌 Chris Wan 温灝文 [email protected] PRINT Tel: +852 3952 5828 SUBSCRIPTION AVAILABLE

STAY IN THE KNOW All information and views expressed by contributors and advertisements in Hong Kong Hong Kong Lawyer, as the official monthly magazine of The Lawyer do not necessarily reflect Law Society of Hong Kong, provides the legal community with the official opinion of The Law news and insights necessary to keep abreast of the latest trends Society of Hong Kong. Whilst and developments. every effort is made to ensure editorial and commercial integrity, no responsibility is accepted by The magazine focuses on topical, relevant content through the Publisher or The Law Society features and regular sections, and ensures that each issue is of Hong Kong for the accuracy of read and trusted amongst the legal community. To get it online, material appearing in this journal. simply go to www.hk-lawyer.org. Members are encouraged to contribute but the Editorial Board To receive a hard copy of Hong Kong Lawyer, you can make a single of The Law Society of Hong Kong purchase of HKD308 for 1 issue, or HKD3,696 for 12 issues. reserves the right to publish only To proceed with print subscription, please contact material it deems appropriate. Chris Wan at: [email protected]

2 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • EDITOR’S NOTE 編者的話

EDITOR'S NOTE 編者的話

The Hong Kong economy is externally oriented and highly 香港的經濟是外向型的，高度依賴與世界其他地區 dependent on trade with the rest of the world. In 2020, the value 的貿易。2020 年，香港的商品貿易總額達到 81,973 of Hong Kong’s total merchandise trade reached HK$8,197.3 億港元（10,568 億美元），即佔該年本地生產總值 billion (US$1,056.8 billion), or around 302% of the Gross Domestic 的 302% 左右。進口額為 42,698 億港元（5,504 億美 Product (GDP) in that year. The value of imports amounted to 元），約為本地生產總值的 158%。出口值為 39,275 HK$4,269.8 billion (US$550.4 billion) or around 158% of GDP. 億港元（5,063 億美元），約佔本地生產總值的 The value of exports was HK$3,927.5 billion (US$506.3 billion) or around 145% of GDP. Hong Kong was the world’s sixth largest 145%。2020 年，香港是全球第六大貨物貿易實體， trading entity in goods in 2020, eighth largest importer and sixth 也是第八大進口地和第六大出口地。 largest exporter. 香港貿易發展局成立於 1966 年，是負責促進本港貿 Established in 1966, the Hong Kong Trade Development Council 易的法定機構。與其他政府機構一樣，香港貿易發展 (HKTDC) is the statutory body responsible for promoting the city’s 局也經歷了轉變，並從這場疫情中獲得了寶貴的經 trade. Like any other government organisation, the HKTDC has 驗。我們本月的「封面專題」與香港貿易發展局總裁 experienced shifts and gained valuable takeaways because of the 面對面交談，她分享了該組織的一些主要里程碑事件 pandemic. Our Cover Story this month comes face-to-face with the Executive Director of the HKTDC in which she shares some 和成就，以及她對香港作為貿易中心的願景和未來的 key milestones and achievements of the organisation, her vision 計劃。 for Hong Kong as a trading hub as well as plans moving forward. 我們本月的第一個專題詳細探討了公司註冊處的新查 Our first feature this month explores in detail the Companies 冊制度，提供了關於其重要性、影響和立法歷史的重 Register’s new inspection regime, providing key insight on its 要見解。我們的第二個專題是關於主板上市，特別是 significance, implications, and legislative history. Our second 關於最近諮詢文件所引發的新的利潤要求。我們的最 feature is on Main Board listings, specifically regarding the new 後一個專題是關於服從司法管轄權的話題，仔細研究 profit requirement that arose as a result of a recent consultation paper. Our final feature is on the topic of submitting to the 了上訴法院在 Chan Hon v Bayer Healthcare Limited, Bayer jurisdiction and closely examines Part IV of the Court of Appeal Diagnostics Limited and Bayer Weimar GMBH Und Co.Kg judgment in Chan Hon v. Bayer Healthcare Limited, Bayer 一案判案書中的第四部分，解讀了相關規則的要求以 Diagnostics Limited and Bayer Weimar GMBH Und Co. Kg to 及相關各方可能面臨的陷阱。 unpack the requirements of the relevant rules and the pitfalls that might be faced by parties involved. 在本月的「律師閒情」欄目中，我們邀請了一位熱心的動物愛好者分享她在香港領養動物的經驗，以及此 In our “Lawyers at Leisure” section this month, we have an avid 舉不僅給動物，而且給領養者帶來的好處。我們的 animal lover share her experience with animal adoption in Hong Kong and the benefits it brings to not just the animals, but to the 「實踐技能」欄目探討了律師事務所的合規培訓，以 adopter as well. Our “Practice Skills” piece looks at compliance 及專業人士如何通過創新技巧使培訓更有吸引力和令 training in law firms and how professionals can make it more 人難忘。 engaging and memorable through innovative techniques.

Sonali Khemka Sonali Khemka Lead Editor, Hong Kong Lawyer 《香港律師》編輯

www.hk-lawyer.org 3 • July 2021

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE 會長的話

Equality and Inclusivity

The Law Society of Hong Kong places high In addition, survey respondents importance on the values of inclusivity employed in the legal profession and equality and we encourage members at the time of the survey were to do the same. These aspirations asked to indicate their earnings are prerequisites to a sustainable per annum based on their tax practice environment, one that is free of return. It was found that male discrimination with no barrier to equal respondents were generally opportunities. earning more than female respondents. According to the survey Out of the 2.9% who indicated that they In a membership survey conducted by the results, 12.7% of male respondents had experienced sexual harassment, Law Society in 2019, members’ feedback earned HK$4 million or above compared about one-fifth (20.3%) indicated that and experiences relating to equality and to 4.3% of female respondents with the they had been subject to unwelcomed discrimination issues within the legal same range of earnings. intimate act or physical contact. More profession were invited. than one-tenth (14.9%) received For the solicitors’ profession, the indecent or sexual remarks while some The survey respondents who have been proportion of women practitioners varies encountered unwanted sexual advance in the legal profession in Hong Kong at different stages of the career path (2.9%) and received remarks on their for the past five years at the time of the in a law firm. Whilst more than half of appearance (2.3%). Over half (56.9%) survey were asked to indicate whether the new entrants to the profession are preferred not to answer the question. they had experienced any discrimination female, only one third at the senior level in their workplace in that period. Most is female. As of June 2021, women made The above statistics on discrimination and respondents (82.4%) indicated that they up of 65% of trainee solicitors, 61% of harassment experiences might appear had not, while close to one-fifth (17.6%) assistant solicitors, 38% of consultants; relatively low, compared to the published revealed that they had experienced at and 30% of partners. On the basis of the information in other jurisdictions, least one kind of discrimination. statistics, a substantial number of female but even so, it is disappointing and lawyers are dropping out along the way. disturbing to learn of the existence of “Gender discrimination” (7.0%) If this trend of talent loss continues, the such unacceptable behaviour within the was the most prevalent form of profession will have difficulty sustaining legal profession. discrimination, followed by “Family its growth in the long term, having regard status discrimination” (5.3%), to the trend that the majority of the new One of the universal core values for “Race discrimination” (5.2%), “Age entrants are likely to be female in the lawyers is respect for the rule of law, which discrimination” (4.8%), “Socio- foreseeable future. embraces the principles of equality and economic background discrimination” fairness. Discrimination and harassment (3.5%), “Sexual orientation The survey respondents who have been in go directly against these principles. discrimination” (1.2%), “Disability the legal profession in Hong Kong for the discrimination” (0.4%), “Religious past five years were also asked if they had The Law Society has been in close discrimination” (0.4%), “Language experienced sexual harassment in their liaison with the Equal Opportunities discrimination” (0.1%), and other kinds workplace in this period. 97.1% noted that Commission with a view to promoting of discrimination (0.7%). they had not. the values of inclusivity and equality to

4 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE 會長的話

law firms and assisting them to formulate issues and how to manage their impact leading to improved staff retention. This in plans and take practical steps to prevent on staff morale and firm reputation are turn saves costs in recruiting and training discrimination and harassment. It is very useful. We hope that through proper replacement staff, maintains productivity, important to note that as an employer, training, we can enhance members’ and minimizes disruption to clients. The a law firm is liable for the actions of their commitment to inclusivity, diversity and natural outcome is a higher chance of employees unless they can prove that equality and facilitate the turning of their success to the business operation. they have taken reasonable preventive commitment into positive action for their measures. CPD courses on how to ensure practices, staff and clients. that a firm’s employment policy complies with equal opportunity obligations, how to An inclusive working environment prevent discrimination and harassment in embracing equal opportunities allows the workplace, how to handle complaints staff to feel respected and valued. They relating to discrimination and harassment are likely to stay with the employer longer Melissa K Pang President

就律師行業而言，在律師行中的各個視及騷擾直接違背了這些原則。平等與包容職業階段，女性執業者的比例各不相同。雖然超過一半的新入行者是女律師會一直與平等機會委員會保持香港律師會高度重視包容性及平等性，但只有三分之一的高級職位是女密切聯繫，以期向律師行推廣包容及的價值觀，我們鼓勵會員也這樣做。性。截至 2021 年 6 月，女性於實習平等的價值觀，並協助他們製定計這些願望是建立一個可持續的執業律師的比例為 65%、律師為 61%、劃及採取實際步驟，防止歧視及騷環境的先決條件，這個環境沒有歧顧問為 38%；以及合夥人為 30%。擾行為。需要注意的是，作為僱主，視，沒有對平等機會的障礙。根據統計資料，相當數量的女性律師除非律師行能夠證明他們已經採取正在沿途退出。如果這種人才流失的了合理的預防措施，否則就要為其僱在律師會於 2019 年進行的會員調查趨勢繼續下去，考慮到在可預見的未員的行為負責。關於如何確保律師行中，邀請了會員對法律行業內的平等來大多數新入行者可能是女性的趨的就業政策符合平等機會義務、如何及歧視問題提供反饋及分享體驗。勢，本行業將很難長期保持增長。防止工作場所的歧視及騷擾、如何處理與歧視及騷擾問題有關的投訴以在調查時，已經在香港從事法律專業在過去五年中一直在香港從事法律及如何管理其對員工士氣及律師行五年的應答者被要求說明他們在這工作的調查對象也被問及他們在此聲譽的影響的「持續專業進修課程」期間是否在工作場所經歷過任何歧期間是否在工作場所遇到過性騷擾。 (CPD) 是非常有用。我們希望，通過視。大多數應答者（82.4%）表示他 97.1% 的人指出沒有。適當的培訓，我們可以加强會員對包們沒有，而接近五分之一（17.6%）容性、多樣性及平等的承諾，並促進透露他們經歷過至少一種歧視。在 2.9% 表示經歷過性騷擾的人中，他們的承諾轉化為對其業務、員工及約有五分之一（20.3%）表示他們受客戶的積極行動。「性別歧視」（7.0%）是最普遍的到了不想接受的親密行為或身體接歧視形式，其次是「家庭地位歧視」觸。超過十分之一（14.9%）的人遭一個包容的工作環境，全力支持平等（5.3%）、「種族歧視」（5.2%）、受了不雅或性的言論，而一些人遇到的機會，將使員工感到被尊重及被重「年齡歧視」（4.8%）、「社會了不想接受的性要求（2.9%）及遭視。他們有可能在僱主那裡留任更經濟背景歧視」（3.5%）、「性取受了關於他們外表的言論（2.3%）。久，從而提高員工的留用率。這反過向歧視」（1.2%）、「殘疾歧視」超過一半（56.9%）的人選擇不回應來又節省了招聘及培訓替代人員的（0.4%）、「宗教歧視」（0.4%）、這個問題。成本，保持生產力，並最大限度地減「語言歧視」（0.1%）及其他種類少對客戶的干擾。自然的結果是引領歧視（0.7%）。與其他司法管轄區公佈的資訊相比，業務經營成功的機會更高。上述關於歧視及騷擾經歷的統計資此外，在調查時受僱於法律界的應答料可能顯得相對較低，但即便如此，者根據他們的報稅表指出他們的年得知法律界存在這種不可接受的行收入。調查發現，男性應答者的收入為，還是令人失望及不安。普遍高於女性應答者。調查結果顯示，12.7% 的男性應答者收入在四百律師的普遍核心價值之一是尊重法彭韻僖會長萬港元或以上，而相同收入範圍的女治，它包含了平等及公平的原則。歧性應答者只有 4.3%。

www.hk-lawyer.org 5 • July 2021

CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

Ada Chung Lai-ling 鍾麗玲 Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data 個人資料私隱專員 Ada was appointed as the Privacy Commissioner for Personal 鍾麗玲女士於 2020 年 9 月起出任為個 Data of Hong Kong in September 2020. 人資料私隱專員。

She was qualified as a barrister-at-law and a Certified Public 鍾女士具有大律師及專業會計師資格， Accountant. She has solid legal expertise and abundant 並擁有豐富的法律專業知識及行政經 administrative experience. Before her appointment as the Privacy 驗。獲委任為個人資料私隱專員前，鍾 Commissioner, Ms Chung was the Registrar of Companies and 女士為公司註冊處處長，並曾於律政司 had held various posts in the Department of Justice, including 擔任不同職位，包括民事法律科副民事 the Deputy Law Officer (Civil Law). In her role as the Registrar 法律專員。擔任公司註冊處處長期間， of Companies, she contributed significantly to the rewrite of the Companies Ordinance in Hong Kong and she spearheaded the 她積極參與重寫《公司條例》的工作， implementation of the new Companies Ordinance in Hong Kong. 並領導推行新的《公司條例》。

JI Hui 季輝 Partner, Jeffrey Mak Law Firm 麥振興律師事務所合夥人 JI Hui is the Partner of Jeffrey Mak Law Firm. She is a Hong Kong 季輝女士現為麥振興律師事務所合夥 qualified lawyer and has a Master of Law degree. She mainly 人。她是一名香港律師，擁有法學碩士 specializes in corporate finance related legal services, including 學位。她主要從事企業融資有關的法律 but not limited to debt offerings of large-scale state-owned 服務，包括但不限於大型國有及民營企 enterprises and private enterprises, such as public bond issuance, 業的債券發行，比如公募債、私募債和 private placement and perpetual bond issuance, etc. She has 永續債發行等。她對於中資企業在香港 much experience in IPO projects of Chinese enterprises on the 主板及 GEM 板的首次公開招股上市業務 Main Board or GEM Board of Hong Kong Stock Exchange as well. 也很有經驗。她也代表中資企業處理各 She also represented Chinese enterprises to deal with various 類貸款項目及收購合併項目。 loan transactions and merger and acquisition transactions.

Henry Wong 黃浩翔 Partner, WMC Partners 黃麥朱律師行合夥人 Apart from managing the firm founded in 1998, Henry’s practice 除了管理 1998 年成立的律師事務所外， is mainly in civil and commercial matters, both contentious and 黃律師的業務主要是民事及商業事務， non-contentious, oftentimes matters with difficult factual and/ 包括訴訟和非訴訟事務，經常有困難的 or legal issues, and oftentimes coming with a fair bit of urgency. 事實及 / 或法律問題，而且經常有相當 Henry was admitted as a solicitor in New South Wales, Australia 大的緊迫性。黃律師在澳大利亞新南威 (1989), in England and Wales (1992) and in Hong Kong (1992). He 爾士州（1989 年）、英格蘭及威爾士 is also a Fellow of the CPA, Australia (Associate in 1989, Fellow （1992 年）以及香港（1992 年）獲得律 in 2010), and a keen promoter of mediation in dispute resolution 師資格。他也是澳大利亞註冊會計師協 since about 2008. 會的資深會員（1989 年為準會員，2010 年為會員），並自 2008 年起熱衷於在爭議解決中推廣調解。

6 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CONTRIBUTORS 投稿者

Tanya Parmanand Tanya Parmanand Paralegal, WMC Partners 黃麥朱律師行律師助理 Upon completing her LL.B. degree at the University of 在華威大學完成她的法學學士學位後， Warwick, Tanya took the year working as a paralegal at WMC Tanya 在黃麥朱律師行做了一年的律師助 Partners before commencing her PCLL in August 2021. With 理，然後在 2021 年 8 月開始她的法學專 the firm’s broad range of practice areas mainly in civil and 業證書課程。律師行的業務範圍廣泛，主 commercial matters, in commercial disputes, Tanya assists 要是民事和商業事務，在商業糾紛方面， partners of the firm in both local and cross-border litigation, Tanya 協助事務所的合夥人處理本地及跨境 acting for a wide range of clients including individuals, 訴訟，代表廣泛的客戶，包括個人、教育 educational institutions, private equity funds/partners and 機構、私募股權基金 / 合夥企業與跨國公 multinational companies. Tanya is diligently building up her 司。在現實生活的實踐中勤奮地積累 knowledge and insight of the law in real life practice. Tanya 著自己的法律知識和加強洞察力。

Annie Tsoi 蔡小婷 Co-head of Intellectual Property Department, 的近律師行知識產權部聯席主管，專業 Professional Standards & Development Partner, 規格及培訓負責合夥人 Deacons 蔡小婷律師是的近律師行知識產權部的聯 Annie is the Co-head of Deacons’ Intellectual Property 席主管合夥人，同時負責專業規格及培訓 Department, and Partner in charge of Professional Standards 事宜。她擁有超過 25 年處理各項知識產權 & Development. She has over 25 years of experience in 法律事務的經驗，能就在中國內地營商而 advising on all aspects of intellectual property work and 產生的各種獨特挑戰提供法律意見。她曾 on the unique challenges arising from doing business in 就知識產權權利的保障、維權及商業開發 Mainland China. Annie has advised many major Hong 的策略性問題向許多主要的本地及國際客 Kong and international clients on strategic issues relating 戶提供法律意見，並擔任全球奢侈品、時 to the protection, enforcement and commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights and she represents some of 裝、化妝品、酒店、娛樂、食品及餐廳、 the world’s leading companies in the luxury goods, fashion, 先進科技、醫藥及電子等行業中領先企業 cosmetics, hotels, entertainment, food and restaurants, 的代表律師。 advanced technology, pharmaceutical, and electronics industries. 蔡律師曾就公司收購及重組涉及的各種知識產權問題提供廣泛的法律意見，包括技 Annie has advised extensively on the IP aspects of acquisition 術轉移、特許與合作事宜、技術開發與改 and restructuring of businesses including technology transfer, 進等事項。 licensing and cooperation issues, technology development and improvement.

www.hk-lawyer.org 7 • July 2021

DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決

Wong Chi Kau (黃智球) 黃智球（「答辯人」） (“Respondent”) • 《香港事務律師專業操守指引》第一冊（第三版）（下稱《指引》）第 6.04 及 14.02 條原則 • Principles 6.04 and 14.02 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct, Vol. 1 (3rd Ed.) (“the Guide”) • 《法律執業者條例》（第 159 章）（下稱《條例》） • Section 8AA of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) (“LPO”) 第 8AA 條 • Rule 2(a) and (d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (Cap 159H) (“SPR”) • 《律師執業規則》（第 159H 章）（下稱《規則》）第 2(a)及(d)條 Hearing dates: 5 June 2020, 20 October 2020 and 27 November 2020 聆訊日期： 2020 年 6 月 5 日、2020 年 10 月 20 日 Statement of Findings and Order: 19 March 2021 及 2020 年 11 月 27 日

On 27 November 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) 裁斷及命令日期： 2021 年 3 月 19 日 found the following complaints against the Respondent proved on his own admission : 律師紀律審裁組（下稱「審裁組」）於 2020 年 11 月 27 日就答辯人承認的以下申訴裁斷屬實： Complaint 1 The Respondent had failed to answer fully and promptly to correspondence from a client or former clients or on their behalf, 第一項申訴 inquiries from the Law Society in relation to his conduct in the handling 答辯人沒有全面地及從速地回覆當事人或前當事人 of the transfer of shares of a property pursuant to a court order (“the 或律師會代表他們向答辯人作出關於其根據法庭命 Transaction”), contrary to Principle 6.04 of the Guide. Such conduct 令處理財產份額的轉讓（「交易」）中專業操守的 compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair his 查詢，因而違反了《指引》的第 6.04 條原則，而該 independence or integrity and his own reputation and the reputation 行為危及或損害或相當可能危及或損害他的獨立性 of the profession, in breach of rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR. 或正直品格、其個人名譽或律師專業的名譽，因而 Complaint 2 違反了《規則》第 2(a)及2(d) 條。 The Respondent had failed to comply with a Notice of Inspection to produce documents in relation to the Transaction (“the Outstanding 第二項申訴 Documents”) served on him on 17 July 2019, contrary to section 8AA 答辯人沒有遵從於 2019 年 7 月 17 日送達予他本人 of the LPO. Such conduct compromised or impaired or was likely 的調查通知，而出示有關交易的文件（「欠缺的文 to compromise or impair his independence or integrity and his own 件」），因而違反了《條例》第 8AA 條；而該行為 reputation and the reputation of the profession, in breach of rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR. 危及或損害或相當可能危及或損害他的獨立性或正直品格、其個人名譽或律師專業的名譽，因而違反 Complaint 3 了《規則》第 2(a)及2(d) 條。 The Respondent, as a solicitor, had committed professional misconduct by breaching the terms of his professional undertakings to produce 第三項申訴 the Outstanding Documents, contrary to Principle 14.02 of the Guide. 答辯人作為一名律師，違反了專業承諾未有出示欠 Such conduct compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise 缺的文件，其專業失當行為違反了《指引》第 14.02 or impair his independence or integrity and his own reputation and the 條原則；而該行為危及或損害或相當可能危及或損 reputation of the profession, in breach of rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR. 害他的獨立性或正直品格、其個人名譽或律師專業的名譽，因而違反了《規則》第 2(a)及2(d) 條。

8 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決

On 19 March 2021, the Tribunal made the following orders against 審裁組於 2021 年 3 月 19 日向答辯人作出以下命令： the Respondent: (1) 譴責答辯人； (1) be censured; (2) 就三項申訴分別罰款港幣 30,000 元，合共港幣 (2) to pay a fine of HK$30,000 for each of the 3 complaints, totalling 90,000 元； a sum of HK$90,000; (3) 自 2021 年 6 月 1 日起，暫時吊銷執業資格 12 個月； (3) be suspended from practice as a solicitor for a period of 12 months 在 2022 年 6 月 2 日後，答辯人可恢復律師執業， from 1 June 2021; after 2 June 2022, the Respondent may resume 但必須在一名在香港連續執業不少於 20 年的律 practice as a solicitor but only under the supervision of a solicitor who has practised continuously in Hong Kong for not less than 20 師的監督下進行。答辯人不得在香港的律師行以 years. The Respondent shall not practise as a sole practitioner, 獨資執業者、合夥人或顧問的身份執業；及 partner or consultant in a law firm in Hong Kong; and (4) 支付紀律程序的費用，包括律師會和審裁組書記 (4) to pay the costs of these proceedings including the costs of the 的費用，金額由審裁組評定。 Law Society and the Clerk to the Tribunal summarily assessed by the Tribunal. 檢控員博凱立有限法律責任合夥的 Glenn Haley 先生代表申請人香港律師會 Mr. Glenn Haley of Messrs. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Prosecutor for the Law Society, the Applicant 答辯人出席聆訊 The Respondent in person 審裁組書記許文傑先生 Mr. Patrick Hui Man Kit, Clerk to the Tribunal 審裁組成員： Tribunal Members: 黃德琪女士 ( 主席 ) Ms. Wong Tak Kay Alison (Chairperson) 陳家能先生 Mr. Chan Kar-nang Sherman 龔痠鳴先生 ( 於 2020 年 6 月 16 日辭任 ) Mr. Kung Yin Ming (resigned on 16 June 2020) 梁傑文先生 ( 於 2020 年 7 月 6 日被委任 ) Mr. Leung Kit-man Andy (appointed on 6 July 2020)

Fung Lai Yin Frederick (馮禮賢) 馮禮賢及羅國玲（「答辯 and Lo Kwok Ling Mabel 人」），為馮禮賢、羅國良、 (“Respondents”) (羅國玲), both 吳裕雄律師行（已結業） former solicitors of Messrs. Fung, （「律師行」）的前律師 Law & Ng (a closed firm) (“the • 《律師執業規則》（第 159H 章）（下稱《執業規 Firm”) 則》）第 2(a)、(d)及(e)條 • 《律師帳目規則》（第 159F 章）（下稱《帳目規 • Rules 2(a), (d), (e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (Cap 159H) (“SPR”) 則》）第 10(6)條 • Rule 10(6) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules (Cap 159F) (“SAR”) • 《香港事務律師專業操守指引》第一冊（第二版） • Principle 2.03 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional （下稱《指引》）第 . 條原則 Conduct, Vol. 1 (2nd Ed.) (“Guide”) 2 03

Hearing Date: 3 November 2020 聆訊日期 : 2020 年 11 月 3 日 Statement of Findings and Order: 3 March 2021 裁斷及命令日期 : 2021 年 3 月 3 日 Order on Costs: 27 April 2021 訟費命令日期 : 2021 年 4 月 27 日

On 3 November 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) 律師紀律審裁組（下稱「審裁組」）於 2020 年 11 月 found the following complaints against the Respondents proved on 3 日就答辯人承認的以下申訴裁斷屬實： their own admission:

Complaint 1 第一項申訴 The Respondents, being the former partners of the Firm, understated 答辯人作為律師行的前合夥人，少報了律師行於 the gross fee income (“GFI”) of the Firm for the indemnity years from 2007/08 至 2012/13 彌償年度的總費用收入 (「總收 2007/08 to 2012/13, in breach of Rules 2(a) and (d) of the SPR. 入」)，因而違反了《執業規則》第 2(a)及(d) 條。

www.hk-lawyer.org 9 • July 2021

Complaint 2 第二項申訴 The Respondents, being the former partners of the Firm, failed 答辯人作為律師行的前合夥人，沒有妥善備存律師行於 to keep proper accounting records of the Firm for the years 2008/09 至 2009/10 的會計帳目，因而違反了《執業規則》 2008/09 to 2009/10, in breach of Rules 2(d) and (e) of the 第 2(d)及(e) 條及《帳目規則》第 10(6) 條。 SPR and Rule 10(6) of the SAR. 第三項申訴 Complaint 3 The Respondents, being the former partners of the Firm, gave 答辯人作為律師行的前合夥人，在律師會調查答辯人的少 inconsistent or untrue explanations to and misled the Law 報律師行的總收入的專業失當行為時，向律師會提供不一 Society in its investigations of the Respondents’ professional 致或不真實的解釋並誤導律師會，因而違反了《執業規則》 misconduct of the understatement of the Firm’s GFI, in breach 第 2(a)及(d) 條。 of Rules 2(a) and (d) of the SPR. 第四項申訴 Complaint 4 答辯人作為律師行的前合夥人，沒有適當監督其員工而導 The Respondents, being the former partners of the Firm, failed to properly supervise their staff which resulted in 致律師行的總收入被少報，因而違反了《指引》第 2.03 條 understatement of the Firm’s GFI, in breach of Principle 2.03 原則。 of the Guide. 審裁組於 2021 年 3 月 3 日作出以下命令： On 3 March 2021, the Tribunal made the following orders : (1) 譴責答辯人； (1) the Respondents be censured; (2) 答辯人在命令發出日期後 56 天內共同及個別地支付罰 (2) the Respondents be jointly and severally liable to pay 款(i) 就第一項申訴，港幣 300,000 元；(ii) 就第二項申 fines of (i) HK$300,000.00 for the Complaint 1; (ii) HK$25,000.00 for the Complaint 2; (iii) HK$50,000.00 for 訴，港幣 25,000 元；( iii) 就第三項申訴，港幣 50,000 元； the Complaint 3; and (iv) HK$50,000.00 for the Complaint 及(iv) 就第四項申訴，港幣 50,000 元；及 4 within 56 days from the date of the order; and (3) 答辯人在三年內不得以律師行的獨資經營者或合夥人執 (3) the Respondents shall not practise as a sole proprietor or 業。 partner of a firm of solicitors for three years. 審裁組於 2021 年 4 月 27 日命令答辯人在訟費命令發出日 On 27 April 2021, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondents 期後 56 天內共同及個別地支付檢控員、律師會及審裁組 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the fixed costs of the 書記的費用。 Prosecutor, the Law Society and the Tribunal Clerk within 56 days from the date of the order. 檢控員博凱立有限法律責任合夥的 Geoffrey Shaw 先生代表 Mr. Geoffrey Shaw of Messrs. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP 申請人香港律師會 for the Law Society, the Applicant 梁陳彭律師行指示 John Reading 資深大律師代表答辯人 Mr. John Reading, SC, instructed by Messrs. LCP for the 審裁組書記許文傑先生 Respondents Mr. Patrick Hui Man Kit, Clerk to the Tribunal 審裁組成員： Tribunal Members: Charles William Allen 先生 (主席) Mr. Charles William Allen (Chairman) 馮志文先生 Mr. Fung Chi Man, Henry 陳詠琪女士 Ms. Chan Wing Ki

Tse Kin (謝堅)(“Respondent”) 謝堅（「答辯人」）

• Rule 8(1) and Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors • 《律師（專業彌償）規則》（第 159M 章）（下稱《彌償 (Professional Indemnity) Rules, (Cap 159M) (“PIS Rules”) 規則》）第 8(1) 條及附表 1 第 1 段 • Rule 2(d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules, (Cap 159H) (“SPR”) • 《律師執業規則》（第 159H 章）（下稱《執業規則》） • Principle 6.04 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to 第 2(d)條 nd nd Professional Conduct Vol. 1 (2 Ed.) (“the Guide, 2 Ed.”) • 《香港事務律師專業操守指引》第一冊（第二版）（下稱 • Principle 6.04 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to 《第二版指引》）第 6.04 條原則 Professional Conduct Vol. 1 (3rd Ed.) (“the Guide, 3rd Ed.”) • 《香港事務律師專業操守指引》第一冊（第三版）（下稱《第三版指引》）第 6.04 條原則

10 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS 紀律裁決

Hearing date: 27 October 2020 聆訊日期 : 2020 年 10 月 27 日 Statement of Findings and Order: 15 April 2021 裁斷及命令日期 : 2021 年 4 月 15 日

On 27 October 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) 律師紀律審裁組（下稱「審裁組」）於 2020 年 10 月 found the following complaints against the Respondent proved : 27 日就以下申訴裁斷屬實： Complaint 1 The Respondent, being the former sole proprietor of Messrs. Tse & Co. 第一項申訴 (a closed firm) (“the Firm”), was in breach of Rule 8(1) of the PIS Rules 答辯人作為 Messrs. Tse & Co.（已結業）（「律師行」） and Rule 2(d) of the SPR in that he had failed to file a final gross fee 的前獨資經營者，沒有在規定時間內提交律師行於 income report of the Firm (“Final GFI Report”) for the period from 1 2010 年 5 月 1 日至 2010 年 12 月 20 日期間的最終總 May 2010 to 20 December 2010 within the stipulated time and to settle 費用收入報告（「最終總收入報告」），以及沒有結 the debit note for an amount equal to 200% of the rate of contribution 清金額相等於上一個彌償期間的二百倍供款率的欠款 for the preceding indemnity period (“the 1st Debit Note”) and thus compromised or impaired his own reputation or the reputation of the 單（「第一張欠款單」），因而危及或損害他的個人 profession. 名譽或律師專業的名譽，違反了《彌償規則》第 8(1) 條及《執業規則》第 2(d) 條。 Complaint 2 The Respondent was in breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide, 2nd Ed. 第二項申訴 in that he had failed to give response to the Law Society’s letter dated 答辯人他沒有回應律師會於 2013 年 5 月 8 日發出的 8 May 2013 and written reminders dated 23 May 2013, 4 June 2013 信函，以及分別於 2013 年 5 月 23 日、2013 年 6 月 4 and 20 June 2013 respectively concerning the Law Society’s request 日和年月日發出的要求提交最終總收入報 to submit the Final GFI Report and to explain his failure to settle the 2013 6 20 1st Debit Note. 告並解釋其沒有結清第一張欠款單的書面提醒，因而違反了《第二版指引》第 6.04 條原則。 Complaint 3 The Respondent, being the former sole proprietor of the Firm, was in 第三項申訴 breach of Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the PIS Rules and Rule 2(d) of 答辯人作為律師行的前獨資經營者，沒有支付律師行 the SPR in that he had failed to pay the Firm’s contribution reduction 的供款扣減調整（「第二張欠款單」），因而危及或 adjustment (“the 2nd Debit Note”) and thus compromised or impaired 損害他的個人名譽或律師專業的名譽，違反了《彌償 his own reputation or the reputation of the profession. 規則》附表 1 第 1 段及《執業規則》第 2(d) 條。 Complaint 4 The Respondent was in breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide, 3rd Ed. 第四項申訴 in that he had failed to give response to the Law Society’s letter dated 答辯人沒有回應律師會於 2014 年 1 月 22 日發出的信 22 January 2014 and the written reminders dated 11 February 2014, 函，以及分別於 2014 年 2 月 11 日、2014 年 2 月 20 20 February 2014 and 28 February 2014 respectively to explain his 日和 2014 年 2 月 28 日發出的要求其解釋未有結清第 failure to settle the 2nd Debit Note. 二張欠款單的書面提醒，因而違反了《第三版指引》第 6.04 條原則。 The Tribunal made the following orders :

(1) for Complaint 1 and Complaint 3, the Respondent be censured and 審裁組作出以下命令： fined HK$40,000.00 for each complaint totalling HK$80,000.00; (1) 就第一及第三項申訴，對答辯人進行譴責，並分 (2) for Complaint 2 and Complaint 4, the Respondent be censured and fined HK$30,000.00 for each complaint totalling HK$60,000.00; 別罰款港幣 40,000 元，合共港幣 80,000 元； and (2) 就第二及第四項申訴，對答辯人進行譴責，並分 (3) the Respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings summarily 別罰款港幣 30,000 元，合共港幣 60,000 元；及 assessed by the Tribunal. (3) 答辯人支付紀律程序的費用，金額由審裁組評定。 Ms. Anita Chan, Assistant In-House Prosecutor of the Law Society as the Applicant 香港律師會助理駐會檢控員陳藹霞女士代表申請人 The Respondent was absent 答辯人缺席 Mr. Wellington Kwok Hsien Chao, Clerk to the Tribunal 審裁組書記趙國賢先生

Tribunal Members: 審裁組成員： Mr. Chung Kwok Fai, Rix (Chairperson) 鍾國輝先生 (主席) Ms. Sharon Karina Nye Ms. Yung Wai Chi 李綺華女士容慧慈女士

www.hk-lawyer.org 11 • July 2021

FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

Heidi Chu, Secretary General 秘書長朱潔冰律師

Legal Talent 法律人才招聘 Recruitment Scheme 計劃（實習律師） (Trainee Solicitors) 由於「2019 冠狀病毒病」對經濟的不利影響，根據政府公布的資料，香港經濟在 Due to the adverse impact of COVID-19 on the economy, according to the 2020 年整體收縮了 6.1%，是有記錄以來 published government data, Hong Kong’s economy contracted by 6.1% for 2020 as a whole, the sharpest annual decline on record. The high uncertainty 最大幅度的年度下降。疫情帶來的高度不 associated with the pandemic and other risk factors like the evolving China- 確定性和其他風險因素，如不斷變化的中 US relations and geopolitical tensions have dampened business plans and 美關係和地緣政治緊張局勢，抑制了商業 indirectly impacted recruitment strategy of employers who are more likely to 計劃發展，間接影響了僱主的招聘策略， adopt a prudent approach of “wait and see”, to hold off any expansion plans 他們更傾向於採取「觀望」的審慎做法， and to cut costs as much as possible as a risk management measure. 暫緩任何擴張計劃，並儘可能地削減成本作為風險管理措施。 Comparing the profile statistics of our profession in 2019 and 2020, one category that displayed a marked decrease was the number of trainee solicitors. It has dropped by 10.5% from 1,219 in 2019 to 1,091 in 2020. 比較 2019 年和 2020 年我們行業的概況統計，顯示出明顯下降的一個類別是實習律

While the employers’ prudence in their hiring plan is understandable in view 師的數量。數目從 2019 年的 1,219 人下降 of the economic uncertainty on the impact of the legal service market, the 到 2020 年的 1,091 人，下降了 10.5%。 resulting contraction of recruitment of trainee solicitors in law firms may have the unintended consequences of losing legal talent to other sectors and of the 鑑於經濟的不確定性對法律服務市場的影 inability of the legal sector to catch up with the required manpower resources 響，僱主在招聘計劃上的謹慎是可以理解 when the market picks up in due course.

12 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • FROM THE SECRETARIAT 律師會秘書處資訊

To relieve the unemployment situation due to the outbreak of the pandemic, 的，但由此導致律師行招聘實習律師的收 the Government has earmarked $6 billion under the Anti-epidemic Fund 2.0 縮，可能會產生意想不到的後果，即法 (“AEF 2.0”) to create jobs in the public and private sectors for people of different 律人才流失到其他行業，以及在市場適時 skill sets and academic qualifications. The Law Society is in full support of the 回暖時，法律行業無力追趕所需的人力資 Government’s job creation initiatives. We are pleased to have obtained approval 源。 for funding under AEF 2.0 for implementation of the Legal Talent Recruitment Scheme (Trainee Solicitors) (“Scheme”). 為了緩解因疫情爆發而造成的失業狀況，

The Scheme aims to provide incentives for law firms to create new job openings 政府已在「防疫抗疫基金」2.0 下預留了 to improve the employment situation that has been adversely affected by the 60 億元，用於在公共和私營領域為不同 outbreak of COVID-19. In addition to creating new jobs, the Scheme also aims 技能和學歷的人創造就業機會。律師會完 at ensuring the sustainable development of the legal sector in the long term 全支持政府的創造就業舉措。我們很高興 by maintaining sufficient opportunities for legal professionals to work in the 獲得「防疫抗疫基金」 2.0 的撥款，以實 legal sector and to continue to gain relevant experience notwithstanding the 施法律人才招聘計劃（實習律師）（「計 difficulties and uncertainties brought about by the pandemic. 劃」）。

Under the Scheme, a Hong Kong law firm that fulfils the eligibility criteria can apply for a specified amount of monthly salary subsidy for one job opening 計劃旨在為律師行提供激勵措施，以創造 for a trainee solicitor position for up to 12 months. To fulfil the need to nurture 新的工作機會，改善因「2019 冠狀病毒 more legal talent that supports Hong Kong’s status as an international legal 病」的爆發而受到不利影響的就業狀況。 hub and a centre for dispute resolution services, an applicant firm must also 除了創造新的工作機會，計劃還旨在確保法律界的長期可持續發展，使法律專業人員保持足夠的機會在法律界工作，並在疫情帶來的困難和不確定性下繼續獲得相關經驗。

根據計劃，符合資格條件的香港律師行可以為一個新增的實習律師職位申請指定

金額的薪金津貼，最長為期 12 個月。為了滿足培養更多法律人才的需要，以支持香港作為國際法律中心及爭議解決服務中心的地位，申請的律師行還必須證明其

業務領域及發展策略與香港的整體發展 President of the Law Society and the Secretary for Justice after the signing of the MOU with respect to the Legal Talent Recruitment Scheme (Trainee 方向一致。 Solicitors) 律師會會長與律政司司長為法律人才招聘計劃（實習律師）簽署諒解備忘錄

www.hk-lawyer.org 13 • July 2021

show that its practice areas and development strategy align with the overall 由於計劃是為了鼓勵創造新的就業機 development direction set for Hong Kong. 會，因此，薪金津貼的申請必須是為新增職位提出的。在申請期間簽訂兩年的 As the Scheme is to encourage the creation of new jobs, an application for salary 實習律師合約，而該實習律師合約的生 subsidy must be for a new headcount. It will be considered a new headcount if a 效日期距離本計劃的截止申請期不超過 new trainee solicitor contract of two years is entered into during the application 兩個月，將被視為新增職位。 period, and the date of the commencement of the trainee solicitor contract falls not more than two months from the expiry of the application period of the Scheme. 申請期為四個月，由7月 5日至11月 5日。申請將按隨到隨審基準辦理，計劃所資

The application period is for four months from 5 July to 5 November. Applications 助的新增職位總數上限為 130 個。申請 will be processed on a rolling basis and the total number of new job openings 獲得批准的前提是相關的實習律師合約 to be funded under the Scheme is capped at 130. Approval of an application is 成功地獲律師會註冊，而津貼的支付是 subject to successful registration of the relevant trainee solicitor contract by the 以實報實銷的方式發放。 Law Society and payment of the subsidy is on a reimbursement basis.

計劃相關的申請表格和指引說明已在律 The application form with the guidance notes in relation to the Scheme is posted 師會網站上公布。 on the Law Society website.

Monthly Statistics on the Profession 業界每月統計資料 (updated as of 31 May 2021): ( 截至 2021 年 5 月 31 日 )：

Members (with or without Practising Certificate) 12,432 會員(持有或不持有執業證書) 12,432 Members with Practising Certificate 10,867 持有執業證書的會員 10,867 (out of whom 7,984 (73%) are in private practice) (當中有7,984 (73%) 是私人執業) Trainee Solicitors 1,130 實習律師 1,130 Registered Foreign Lawyers 1,516 註冊外地律師 1,516 (from 34 jurisdictions) (來自34個司法管轄區) Hong Kong Law Firms 947 (48% are sole proprietorships and 香港律師行 947 (獨資經營佔48%，2至5名合夥人的 41% are firms with 2 to 5 partners, 50 are limited liability 律師行佔41%，50間為按照《法律執業者條例》 partnerships formed pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance) 組成的有限法律責任合夥律師行) Registered Foreign Law Firms 86 (from 22 jurisdictions, 15 are limited liability 註冊外地律師行 86 (來自22個司法管轄區，15間為按照 partnerships formed pursuant to the 《法律執業者條例》組成的有限 Legal Practitioners Ordinance) 法律責任合夥律師行) Civil Celebrants of Marriages 2,195 婚姻監禮人 2,195 Reverse Mortgage Counsellors 448 安老按揭輔導法律顧問 448 Solicitor Advocates 78 訟辯律師 78 (72 in civil proceedings, 6 in criminal proceedings) (民事程序：72位，刑事程序：6位) Student Members 188 學生會員 188 Registered Associations between Hong Kong law firms and 37 香港律師行與外地律師行 37 registered foreign law firms (including Mainland law firms) (包括內地律師行)在香港聯營

14 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE 理事會議題

Consultation from The Stock 香港聯合交易所有限公司 Exchange of Hong Kong Limited （聯交所諮詢文件） (“Exchange”) 海外發行人上市制度的 Consultation on the Listing Regime 諮詢文件 for Overseas Issuers 聯交所於 3 月 31 日發表了諮詢文件，就加強和 The Exchange issued a consultation paper on 31 March to seek views 簡化在香港和中華人民共和國境外註冊成立的 on its proposals to enhance and streamline the listing regime for issuers 發行人（海外發行人）上市制度的建議諮詢意 incorporated outside of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China 見。 (“Overseas Issuers”). 根據建議，聯交所旨在 (a) 簡化規定，統一股 Under the proposals, the Exchange aimed to (a) streamline the 東保障標準，確保所有投資者得到一致的保障； requirements for Overseas Issuers with a single set of shareholder ( ) 擴闊第二上市制度，容許經營傳統行業而沒 protection standards to ensure consistent protection is provided to all b investors; (b) expand secondary listing regime for overseas-listed Greater 有採用不同投票權架構的海外上市大中華公司 China companies from traditional sectors without weighed voting rights; 申請上市；及 (c) 給予雙重主要上市的發行人 and (c) allow greater flexibility for issuers seeking dual-primary listings 更大靈活性，可沿用既有的不同投票權架構及 whilst maintaining their existed weighted voting right structures and 可變利益實體架構。 variable interest equity structure. 律師會原則上支持有關建議，並提交了意見書 The Law Society in principle supported the proposals, and made a 作出回應。有意查閱意見書的會員，可透過以 submission in response thereto. Members who are interested may refer 下連結瀏覽律師會網站： to the link below on the Law Society’s website for the submission. http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/ http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/ 20210526.pdf submissions/20210526.pdf

Consultation on the Review of 有關檢討《企業管治守 Corporate Governance Code and 則》及相關《上市規則》 Related Listing Rules 條文的諮詢文件 The Exchange also issued a consultation paper on “Review of Corporate 聯交所又於 4 月 16 日發表有關檢討《企業管治 Governance Code and Related Listing Rules” (“Consultation Paper”) on 守則》及相關《上市規則》條文的諮詢文件， 16 April. The Consultation Paper sets out among other things proposed

www.hk-lawyer.org 15 • July 2021

enhancements to the Corporate Governance Code and the Corporate 建議提升《企業管治守則》及《企業管治報告》， Governance Report, which include new measures for corporate culture, 包括引入新措施提升企業文化、董事會獨立性、 director independence, refreshment and succession planning, as well 新成員及繼任規劃、多元化、與股東的溝通，以 as diversity, communication with shareholders and Environmental, 及環境、社會及管治的披露和水平等。 Social and Governance disclosures and standards. 公司法委員會審視了該諮詢文件並提出了意見。 The Company Law Committee has studied the Consultation Paper and 在律師會理事會的同意下，律師會提交了意見 rendered views. Their views were endorsed by the Council of the Law Society and appear in a submission which is available at the following 書，查閱意見書的全文，可瀏覽律師會的網站： link on the Law Society’s website: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/ http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/ submissions/20210608b.pdf 20210608b.pdf

Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2021 《2021年刑事罪行(修訂)

Council of the Law Society has reviewed the Crimes (Amendment) 條例草案》 Bill 2021 (the “Amendment Bill”). The Amendment Bill was gazetted 律師會理事會已審視《2021 年刑事罪行 ( 修訂 ) on 19 March. It seeks to amend the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) to, 條例草案》（《條例草案》）。《條例草案》於 inter alia, introduce new offences of voyeurism and non-consensual recording of intimate parts, and related image publication offences. 3 月 19 日刊憲，旨在修訂《刑事罪行條例》（第 The Amendment Bill follows a previous consultation by the Law Reform 200 章），以訂定下述新罪行：窺淫、未經同意 Commission on voyeurism and non-consensual upskirt-photography. 下拍攝私密部位，以及發布相關的影像。《條例草案》是基於法律改革委員會早前有關窺淫及未 With the assistance of the Criminal Law & Procedure Committee, 經同意下拍攝裙底的諮詢而制訂。 Council put forward a detailed submission on the Amendment Bill to the Bills Committee of the Legislative Council. Apart from expressing 在刑法及訴訟程序委員會的協助下，理事會向立 the Law Society’s support for a voyeurism offence, the Submission also 法會《條例草案》委員會提交了詳細的意見書。 sets out comments on various parts of the Amendment Bill, as well as 除了表達律師會支持訂立窺淫罪外，意見書亦就 suggestions relating to the publication of intimate images. 《條例草案》的各部分提出意見，包括就公布私 The above submission could be found in the Law Society’s website: 密影像提出建議。 http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/submissions/ 查閱上述意見書的全文，可瀏覽律師會網站： 20210608a.pdf http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/news/ submissions/20210608a.pdf

16 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • COVER STORY 封面專題

Face to Face with Margaret Fong Executive Director, Hong Kong Trade Development Council

By Sonali Khemka

With an international career and an international mindset, Margaret Fong, Executive Director of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council (HKTDC) is keen on firmly reinforcing Hong Kong’s position as a global investment and business hub, one that not only connects international businesses from both emerging and traditional sectors, but also fulfills its role in local and national strategies.

www.hk-lawyer.org 17 • July 2021

Learning the Trade to live and work in. To achieve this, we CES in the US, Mobile World Congress Fong has been working with the Hong brought the ‘Hong Kong family’ together in Spain, as well as our own large-scale Kong government since the start of and launched the “Think Asia, Think Hong business promotions in emerging and her career. A graduate of the University Kong” campaign in London in 2011 – the mature markets,” she shares. of Hong Kong with a major in English biggest-ever promotion of Hong Kong in Literature, she joined the government the UK,” she shares. “More than 2,600 Not underestimating the role start- as an Administrative Officer and worked people participated in the programme, ups play in the wave of technological in different policy areas over the years. which was supported by 18 government innovation, Fong has made them a new Her international career began when and industry organisations from Hong focus of the HKTDC since 2015. “We have she spent six years in the United States Kong and over 30 UK organisations. The transformed our Entrepreneur Day into a of America, over the course of two highlight of the week-long programme flagship event for start-ups and developed stints. “I worked first as Deputy Director was a one-day symposium that featured a year-round development programme, General and later as Director General of breakouts covering our pillar sectors as Start-up Express, through which start- the Washington Office of the Economic well as emerging ones. We also held a ups can gain exposure and find new and Trade Office, and then spent two special dinner, a presentation of Hong networks, as well as meet potential years as Commissioner for Economic Kong films and a street fair offering a investors and mentors,” she shares. “We and Trade Affairs, USA - the Hong Kong taste of Hong Kong,” she adds. have also set up Startup Zones, bringing government’s most senior representative start-ups into our sector events, which are in the United States,” she shares. The promotion was a success and the fertile ground for them to gain exposure HKTDC received more than 10,000 and seek market validation. To support Upon return to the city, she took up a business enquiries per month in the six this community, we have been working variety of roles in transport and tourism months following it. For Fong herself, with other public organisations such as with the Hong Kong government before what stood out about this event is that it the Science Park, Cyberport, Invest Hong joining the HKTDC in 2010 as Deputy was the first time the HKTDC broke away Kong and commercial incubators and Executive Director. “My time in the from its previous approach of sectoral accelerators, to provide comprehensive US and as Commissioner of Tourism promotions that only showcased Hong support for international and local start- highlighted the importance of Hong Kong’s strengths as a business hub. ups, no matter what stage their business Kong’s international network to the city’s Instead, it highlighted the city’s overall life cycle is at,” she adds. “We have also continued success as a business hub; it appeal as an international, culturally increasingly been working with young also showed me that communication is enriched, fun, and unique place. “My entrepreneurs and start-ups, showcasing key to reinforcing our value proposition career up to that point had put me or adopting their solutions at our events. to global partners and that an agile on the frontlines of representing and I think the entrepreneurial spirit is part of approach to capturing new opportunities differentiating Hong Kong to overseas the Hong Kong DNA and I find it exciting is crucial to Hong Kong staying relevant audiences and I was keen to communicate to see a vibrant community of start- in an evolving economic and geopolitical that this is not just another business ups evolve in the city – a community of landscape,” she shares. “All this prepared center; this is a living, breathing and entrepreneurs from near and far who have me well for my current role at the HKTDC, remarkable city that will engage you chosen Hong Kong as the place to pursue a Hong Kong statutory organisation on many levels; one of the world’s great their dreams,” she shares. whose mission is to create and facilitate cities,” she shares. opportunities in global trade for Hong Working in the area of technology and Kong companies,” she adds. Keeping Up with Technology innovation has not only enabled the Another key area of focus for Fong has HKTDC to be at the forefront of Hong A Holistic Hong Kong been the integration of technology into Kong’s current economic evolution, but When Fong came to the role, she held the all of the HKTDC’s activities. “Whether it has also been personally extremely firm belief that the HKTDC must develop it is e-commerce, fintech, biotech and rewarding for Fong, who has been able strategies that considered the Hong healthtech, marketingtech, entertainment to collaborate with a range of pioneering Kong brand as a whole and not just from tech or manufacturing tech, smart individuals, from students in local labs to the point of view of any one sector. She city and AI, or R&D and technology world-renowned tech visionaries. believed it should be demonstrated that commercialisation, in recent years our Hong Kong is a global city that welcomes sectoral trade fairs and conferences in Hong Kong’s Role in China’s National international talent to reside, work and Hong Kong have been gathering relevant Strategies play. “One of the first projects I was in players from around the world to make Hong Kong has a well-established and charge of was a new mega promotion business happen. In addition to bringing pivotal role in China’s development by presenting a holistic picture of what the world to Hong Kong, during this time linking its economy to the global economy Hong Kong can offer in terms of talent, we have also been bringing Hong Kong’s at every stage of the country’s opening. opportunities and networks but also as tech and innovation players abroad, for As China’s economy has continued a dynamic, exciting cosmopolitan city example to join top global shows such as

18 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • COVER STORY 封面專題

to evolve, Hong Kong’s role has also the pandemic and the country’s “dual changed and increased in importance. circulation” strategy,” she adds. Another key focus area for the HKTDC has been ensuring it effectively communicates Looking Forward relevant new opportunities both locally The pandemic brought about several and overseas and provides useful tools challenges for the HKTDC including a and platforms to help companies access complete halt on physical tradeshows them. “For example, Hong Kong is the and exhibitions. With it, however, also ideal international platform to facilitate came several significant lessons. These commercial and professional service include the need to be as technologically elements of infrastructure, digital or other adept and ready as possible as well projects for the Belt and Road Initiative. as the importance of community Since 2015, we have been putting partnerships. “We had been pursuing significant efforts into reinforcing Hong our own digital roadmap before the Kong’s role as the two-way investment pandemic and supporting the digital and business hub of Asia by positioning transformation of businesses through the city as an international commercial support programmes and by providing hub for the Belt and Road,” shares Fong. expert insights and intelligence. “Our work focused on creating a global COVID-19 brought an urgency to these networking and business facilitation activities and we believe this will last platform in Hong Kong through the for years to come. We are learning to flagship Belt and Road Summit, setting become comfortable with frequent, if These were partnership up a Belt and Road Global Forum of not constant, transformation,” shares networks we built and maintained long organisations worldwide interested Fong. “When the COVID-19 pandemic before the current crisis,” shares Fong. in business opportunities, organising brought a sudden halt to physical investment, manufacturing partnership events and international travel in 2020, Fong believes that despite technological missions to Belt and Road countries, and we immediately sought solutions to advancements and its widespread launching a Belt and Road portal – an digitalise our events and services and adoption across industries, face-to-face online digital resource,” she adds. started launching a series of new interaction is still crucial in businesses offerings to keep business going despite and in building meaningful relationships. Another opportunity the organisation lockdowns. Learning as we proceeded, we “This is the feedback we get, and it is has been helping companies leverage continuously refined our digital platforms unsurprising – we are social creatures on is the Guangdong-Hong Kong- to improve the user experience and after all,” she explains. “At the same time, Macao Greater Bay Area development to deliver effective business matching we have also had first-hand experience plan, a group of 11 cities in Southern results. We have also started laying of capturing new business opportunities, China that offer a hotbed of innovation, the foundation for our post-pandemic reaching new audiences and markets, plethora of services, rich manufacturing fairs, conferences and promotions, and enriching event content with virtual capacity, and advanced infrastructure which will combine the best of physical technologies. We will continue to apply in finance, logistics and trading. “To event management with sophisticated these learnings even when travel and help international, regional and Hong technologies to capture wider audiences physical gatherings return to normal, Kong businesses realise the potential and provide participants with a more augmenting physical business events of this emerging powerhouse, we have flexible and customised experience, with virtual elements and on-demand been fostering business opportunities whether they are in the venue or engaging content,” she adds. by showcasing key elements of this remotely,” she adds. region at our Hong Kong-based fairs and Besides these key take-aways, Fong is conferences, conducting seminars and Further, the HKTDC’s strong relationships optimistic about certain sectors that have organising outbound missions to help internationally became essential emerged stronger in the city during the Hong Kong companies target promising to maintaining business continuity pandemic, such as health-tech, bio-tech, areas in individual cities and most and helped their stakeholders find edu-tech and smart city technology. “We recently developing a one-stop GoGBA opportunities despite the unprecedented are keen to capture new opportunities at platform of digital resources, advisory challenges posed by the pandemic. “We the point where healthcare, technology services and workshops,” shares Fong. were able to meet their expectations with and innovation converge by leveraging “Additionally, in the last year, we began the help of our colleagues and partners, the city’s traditional strengths as a drawing on our traditional strength as including our international network of 50 leading international financial and a two-way investment and business offices, business associations worldwide, commercial hub, its robust research and platform to capitalise on the mainland’s international chambers, the consular development capabilities and its strategic relatively quick economic recovery from community in Hong Kong and others. position in the Greater Bay Area,” she

www.hk-lawyer.org 19 • July 2021

shares. explains, adding that the HKTDC remains to be an active player in our worldwide committed to supporting Hong Kong promotion of the strength of the Hong On an international front, Fong says companies in traditional markets such Kong platform and establish Hong Kong the HKTDC is keen on developing Hong as the United States, Europe and Japan. as the critical link between the Greater Kong’s trading relationships and business Bay Area and ASEAN with the rest of ties with countries within the Association Lawyers and the HKTDC the world,” she shares. “This will be in of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as Fong believes that Hong Kong’s legal addition to sectoral promotion of the well as the whole Asia-Pacific region as system is a cornerstone of the city’s legal and dispute resolution services covered by the Regional Comprehensive success as a two-way platform for targeting specific markets, especially with Economic Partnership (RCEP). “ASEAN is international business and investment. our affirmed new role as an arbitration a growth market, and one that I believe She regards Hong Kong’s robust legal and dispute resolution centre under the Hong Kong is well placed to capitalise on. regime, commitment to the rule of law, 14th Five-year Plan,” she adds. With Hong Kong’s unique position under cluster of international talents in legal the ‘One Country Two Systems’ principle, and other professional services and According to Fong, promoting Hong the growing business connections extensive global networks in legal and Kong services has been an important between the Mainland and ASEAN other sectors, as key components to part of the HKTDC’s work and endorsing and the separate free trade agreement the success of the city. “With Mainland Hong Kong as Asia’s legal and dispute between Hong Kong and ASEAN China, in particular the Greater Bay resolution hub will be a focus for their economies, I foresee a lot of opportunity Area, and ASEAN being major engines service promotions and anchor events in in this region in the coming years. Hong of growth, we expect international and Hong Kong, Mainland China and overseas Kong’s role as an international financial cross-border investment will only grow this year. “The Law Society of Hong Kong centre in the Greater Bay Area further and that’s where Hong Kong’s expertise has been our long-standing partner for increases the potential for more economic in IP protection, dispute resolution, risk many of these events and I hope we can engagement with ASEAN countries management and international law work even more closely in the years to looking to tap into the potential of this comes in. Hence, we want the legal sector come,” says Fong. emerging economic powerhouse,” she

香港貿易發展局總裁專訪擁有國際思維和方舜文豐富國際經驗的香港貿易發展局文：Sonali Khemka 總裁方舜文，一直致力為鞏固香港作為全球投資和商業樞紐的地位工作，不僅促進新興和傳統行業連繫各地業務夥伴，同時推動香港在自身和國家發展策略中發揮作用。

20 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • COVER STORY 封面專題

學習貿易會。她說：「我到任不久，便推出全的商業推廣活動。」方舜文投身職場以來，一直在政府或新的大型推廣活動，全面展示香港的相關機構服務。她畢業於香港大學，多元面貌，既具備人才、機會和商方舜文沒有低估初創企業在科技創主修英國文學，其後加入政府擔任網，亦是充滿活力和動感，宜居宜工新浪潮中扮演的角色，自 2015 年起政務主任，多年來在不同的政策部作的國際大都會。為此，我們將『香已把它們確立為香港貿發局的推廣門工作，曾兩度被派駐美國，展開港大家庭』聚集起來，於 2011 年在新焦點。她說：「我們把『創業日』其合共六年的國際仕途。她說：「我倫敦首次舉辦了『邁向亞洲首選香轉型為初創企業的旗艦活動，又推先後擔任過香港駐華盛頓經濟貿易港』(Think Asia, Think Hong Kong)活出全年初創培育計劃『創業快綫』辦事處副處長及處長，然後出任香動，這是歷來在英國舉辦最大規模的 (Start-up Express)，初創企業可以通港駐美國總經濟貿易專員兩年，是香港宣傳活動，有超過 2,600 人參過該計劃獲得曝光、尋找新網絡及結香港政府在美國的最高級別代表。」加，共得到 18 個香港政府機構和商識潛在的投資者和導師的機會。」她會組織，以及超過 30 間英國機構支補充：「我們還在不同行業的商貿展回港後，她擔任過運輸和旅遊範疇持。作為這個為期一周的活動亮點，覽內設立『初創專區』，讓初創企業的職務，並於 2010 年離開政府，加當中的大型論壇設有分論壇介紹我有機會打響名堂和確立市場。此外，入香港貿易發展局（香港貿發局）們的支柱產業和新興行業。我們還舉我們更與香港科技園、數碼港等公營出任副總裁。她說：「在美國工作辦了一場特別的晚宴、香港電影介紹機構、投資推廣署及其他商業孵化器和其後擔任旅遊事務專員的經驗，會，以及讓人感受香港風情的街頭市及加速器合作，為處於不同發展階段使我明白國際網絡對香港作為成功集。」的國際及本地初創企業提供全面支商業樞紐的重要性，亦令我體會到援。」她分享道：「我們也加強與年溝通是讓全球經貿夥伴認識香港特推廣活動十分成功，在接下來的六輕企業家和初創企業合作，在活動中殊價值的關鍵；香港必須靈活敏捷個月，香港貿發局每月接獲超過展示或採用他們的創新商業解決方地把握新機遇，才能在不斷變化的 10,000 個業務查詢。對方舜文而言，案。我認為創業精神是香港基因的一經濟和地緣政治格局下與時俱進。」這次活動的特別之處是打破以往的部分，當我看到初創生態圈在香港蓬她補充：「這些寶貴的經驗和體會，推廣方式，由集中個別行業的推廣工勃發展，而來自世界各地的企業家紛有助我擔任香港貿發局總裁一職後，作、僅展示香港商業樞紐的優勢，轉紛扎根此地追尋夢想時，實在感到十領導這個法定機構做好為香港企業向凸顯香港作為一個國際化、文化豐分興奮。」創造商機和促進全球貿易的工作。」富、有趣而獨特都市的整體吸引力。她分享道：「過往的工作經驗讓我站在科技和創新領域的工作，以及期間香港品牌在代表香港的前線，把香港獨特的優與業界先驅的接觸，不管是埋首實驗方舜文上任時堅信，香港貿發局必須勢推介予海外企業，並傳達一個重要室的本地學生或是舉世知名的科技制訂策略，建立整體而全面的香港品的信息：香港不僅是一個商業中心，界巨擘，都讓香港貿發局站在香港當牌，而不僅是推廣個別行業。她認為更是一個生機勃勃、充滿活力的非凡前經濟變革的前沿，更為方舜文帶來應把香港塑造為歡迎世界各地人才城市，在許多層面上具有吸引力，絕無比的滿足感。到來定居、工作和玩樂的國際大都對是一個國際大都會。」香港在國家策略中的角色科技發展與時並進香港在中國內地改革開放的各個階方舜文的另一個工作重點是通過貿段中，一直扮演着促進內地經濟與全發局不同活動推廣科技的發展。她球經濟接軌的關鍵角色。當內地經濟說：「近年，我們在香港舉辦的商不斷發展，香港的角色亦隨之改變，貿展覽和會議，都加入了科技元素。重要性亦與日俱增。香港貿發局的另這些活動讓不同領域的業界翹楚，無一個工作重點，是向本地和海外商界論是來自電子商務、金融科技、生物傳達箇中的新機遇，並提供適切的工和健康科技、營銷科技、娛樂科技具和平台，助企業把握商機。她說：或生產科技、智慧城市和人工智能，「例如，香港是促進『一帶一路』倡還是研發和科技商業化範疇，都會找議中有關基礎建設、數碼或其他項目到發展機遇。與此同時，我們亦將香的商業和專業服務元素的理想國際港的創新科技帶到海外，例如參加美平台。自 2015 年起，我們一直致力國拉斯維加斯的消費電子展 (CES)、加強香港作為亞洲雙向投資和商業西班牙的世界流動通訊大會 (Mobile 平台的角色，將香港定位為『一帶一 World Congress) 等全球頂級展會，路』的國際商業樞紐。」她補充道：並且在新興和成熟市場舉辦大規模「我們的工作重點包括舉辦旗艦活動

www.hk-lawyer.org 21 • July 2021

『一帶一路』高峰論壇，藉此構建全的體驗。」球網絡及促進商機的平台；組織『一帶一路』國家的投資和製造業商貿考此外，儘管疫情帶來了前所未有的挑察團；以及推出『一帶一路』資訊網戰，香港貿發局與國際商界的深厚關站。」係，對維持業務營運和協助持份者尋找商機，亦極為重要。她說：「我們香港貿發局亦協助企業把握「粵港澳在危機發生之前早已建立的合作夥大灣區」發展規劃的機遇。大灣區 11 伴網絡，包括我們全球 50 個辦事處、個城市是創新創意的基地、是多元化世界各地的商貿組織、國際商會、駐服務的總匯、具備產能優勢，以及金港領事館等組成的國際網絡，在我們融、物流和貿易領域的完善基礎設的同事和合作夥伴的協助下，讓我們施。她指出：「為協助國際、區內和能夠滿足持份者的期望。」香港企業了解這個經濟增長引擎的發展潛力，我們一直在香港舉辦的展方舜文認為，雖然科技進步，並在各覽和會議上介紹大灣區的機遇，並舉行各業得到廣泛應用，但面對面的接辦研討會和考察團，以協助香港公觸對企業建立互信關係，仍然很重司瞄準不同大灣區城市的獨有潛力要。她說：「這是業界的心聲，也是所在。最近推出的『GoGBA 一站式人之常情，畢竟我們是群體動物。」平台』，提供數碼資源、諮詢服務，她說：「與此同時，我們亦擁有通過並舉辦工作坊，支援港商進軍大灣虛擬技術捕捉新商機、接觸新受眾和律師與貿發局區。」她補充：「自去年起，我們更市場，以及豐富活動內容的第一手經方舜文認為，法律制度是香港賴以致力善用香港作為雙向投資和商業驗。即使旅遊和實體聚會恢復正常，成功作為國際商業和投資雙向平台平台的傳統優勢，把握內地疫後經濟我們也會繼續應用這些經驗，來豐富的基石。她強調，健全的法律制度、迅速復蘇和國家『雙循環』策略帶來實體的商業活動，包括加插虛擬元素捍衛法治的決心、法律和其他專業的機遇。」和提供視像內容點播功能。」服務領域國際人才雲集，以及法律和其他行業的全球網絡，是香港成展望未來此外，方舜文對疫下崛起的行業如健功的關鍵因素。她說：「隨着中國疫情無疑為香港貿發局帶來諸多挑康科技、生物科技、教育科技和智慧內地，尤其是大灣區和東盟成為增戰，包括令實體展覽完全停辦，但亦城市科技的發展前景感到樂觀。她長的主要引擎，我們預計國際和跨給我們上了寶貴一課，讓我們明白到說：「我們希望充份發揮香港作為首境投資會持續增長，香港在知識產掌握科技應用的重要性，以及讓我屆一指國際金融和商業中心的傳統權保護、解決爭議、風險管理和國們體會到商界夥伴關係能夠發揮的優勢、強大的研發能力，以及在大灣際法方面的專業知識正可大派用場。關鍵作用。她說：「早在疫情之前，區的策略地位，在醫療、科技和創新我們希望法律界積極參與我們在全貿發局已制訂自己的數碼發展藍圖，融合方面抓住新機遇。」球各地的活動，一起推廣香港平台並通過支援計劃、專家指導和資訊，的實力，並把香港打造成大灣區和支援企業數碼轉型。新冠疫情加速了在國際方面，方舜文說，香港貿發局東盟與世界其他地區之間的重要橋樑。」她補充說：「此外，《十四五數碼化步伐，而我相信這趨向會一直致力建立香港與東盟 (ASEAN) 以至規劃綱要》支持香港建設仲裁及解持續下去，因此，我們必需學習適應區域全面經濟夥伴關係 (RCEP) 下整頻密甚或是持續不斷的轉型。」她補個亞太地區的貿易關係和商業聯繫。決爭議服務中心，我們會針對特定市場所需，推廣香港的法律和爭議充：「2020 年新冠疫情導致實體活她解釋：「東盟是具備增長潛力的市動和國際旅遊突然停止，我們當時立場，我相信香港有充分條件打入這個解決服務。」即尋求解決方案，將活動和服務數碼市場。憑藉香港在『一國兩制』下的化，並推出一系列新服務和平台，讓獨特地位、內地與東盟日益增強的商方舜文表示，推廣香港專業服務一企業在重重限制下繼續營運業務。我業聯繫，以及香港與各東盟國家簽訂直是香港貿發局的工作重點之一，們邊做邊學，不斷完善數碼平台，改的自由貿易協定，我預計未來幾年該而確立香港作為亞洲法律和爭議解善用戶體驗並提升商貿配對成效。我地區將會商機處處。對於想開拓大灣決中心的定位，將成為今年在香港、們也開始為疫後的展會、會議和推廣區市場的東盟國家而言，香港作為大中國內地和海外活動的推廣重點。活動打好基礎，這些活動將結合實體灣區的國際金融中心，自然是他們理她說：「香港律師會是我們此類活活動與尖端科技的優點，以吸引更廣想的經貿夥伴。」她補充說，香港貿動的長期合作夥伴，希望我們在未泛的參加者，無論他們到場或遙距參發局亦會繼續致力支援香港公司開來日子裏能更緊密合作。」與，均可為他們提供更靈活和個人化拓美國、歐洲和日本等傳統市場。

22 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

Hong Kong Academy of Law

The Hong Kong Academy of Law organised 15 courses and seminars by webinars in May which were attended by about 2,200 participants.

One of the seminars was “Should Arbitration Clause Be Used in Solicitor-client Retainers?” delivered by Mr. Huen Wong, BBS, JP, Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Law Society (“Society”) and Mr. Eric Woo, member of the Arbitration Committee of the Society and partner of ONC Lawyers on 4 May. The speakers discussed why arbitration clauses should be used in solicitor-client retainers, and the advantages of arbitration vis-a-vis litigation including enforceability of arbitral awards, confidentiality, finality, Mr. Huen Wong, Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Law Society procedural simplicity, more restrictive discovery process, fewer 律師會仲裁委員會主席王桂壎律師 mandatory procedural rules and flexibility. The seminar attracted Mr. Eric Woo, Member of the Arbitration Committee of the Law Society and Partner of ONC Lawyers 395 participants. 律師會仲裁委員會成員及柯伍陳律師事務所合夥人胡慶業律師

Another was a sharing session entitled “UN Convention on Mediation: How is it relevant to Hong Kong lawyers/mediators?” conducted by Professor Nadja Alexander, Director, Singapore International 香港法律專業學會 Dispute Resolution Academy, Singapore Management University School of Law and Mr. Iu Ting Kwok, consultant of Kwok, Ng & Chan 香港法律專業學會於 5 月舉辦了 15 個網上課程和 on 24 May. The speakers briefed attendees on the background 講座，吸引了超過 2,200 位參加者。 and the major provisions of the UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (“Convention”) 其中一個是 5 月 4 日舉行的「仲裁條款應是否應用 and the relevance to and the impact of the Convention on Hong Kong. The sharing session attracted 215 participants. 於律師與客戶的聘用協議？」講座，講者為律師會仲裁委員會主席王桂壎律師及律師會仲裁委員會成員及柯伍陳律師事務所合夥人胡慶業律師。兩位講者討論了為什麼律師與客戶的聘用協議中應該使用 Professor Nadja Alexander, 仲裁條款，以及仲裁相對於訴訟的好處，包括仲裁 Director, Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy, 裁決的可執行性、保密性高、裁決較難被推翻、程 Singapore Management University School of Law 序相對簡單、有限度的文件披露過程及較少必要程新加坡管理大學新加坡國際序規則和靈活度高。講座吸引了約 395 位參加者。爭議解決學院總監 Nadja Alexander 教授另一個為 5 月 24 日舉行的「《聯合國調解公約》與香港律師及調解員的關係」分享會，新加坡管理大學新加坡國際爭議解決學院總監 Nadja Alexander 教授及郭吳陳律師事務所顧問律師姚定國律師向參

Mr. Iu Ting Kwok, Consultant, 加者介紹了《聯合國關於調解所產生的國際和解協 Kwok, Ng & Chan 議公約》的背景和主要條款，以及該公約對香港的郭吳陳律師事務所顧問律師姚定國律師關聯和影響。分享會吸引了約 215 位參加者。

www.hk-lawyer.org 23 • July 2021

“Laws in the Greater Bay Area” Seminar Series cum Real Estate Law Online Seminar for Lawyers in the Greater Bay Area

The "Laws in the Greater Bay Area" Seminar Series is one of the initiatives proposed at the Joint Meeting for Lawyers Associations in the Greater Bay Area, which aims to promote the exchange of professional and practical legal experience among lawyers in the three regions. Hosted by the Law Society, the first event on 8 May focused on real estate law and was hosted by Mr. Neville Cheng, Vice-Chairman of the Greater China Legal Affairs Committee (GCLAC). After a welcome speech by Mr. C.M. Chan, Vice-President of the Law Society and Chairman of the GCLAC, Ms. Careen Wong, Council Member of the Law Society and member of the GCLAC, joined the representatives from Guangdong and Macau in presenting the characteristics of real estate law in the three regions. Around 110 lawyers attended the webinar.

「灣區說法」系列研討會暨粵港澳三地房地產法律研討會

「灣區說法」系列研討會乃粵港澳大灣區律師協會聯席會議提出的其中一個倡議，旨在促進三地法律專業和實務經驗交流。由律師會主辦的首個活動聚焦房地產法律，並於 5 月 8 日舉行，由大中華法律事務委員會副主席鄭宗漢律師擔任主持人。律師會副會長暨大中華法律事務委員會主席陳澤銘律師先在會上致歡迎辭，律師會理事暨大中華法律事務委員會委員黃巧欣律師則代表律師會，聯同廣東省和澳門的代表講解三地房地產法律的特色。是次網上研討會吸引了近 110 名律師參與。

Lawyers from Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macau exchanged views on legal matters in land policies and property transactions. 三地律師交流土地制度及物業買賣的法律事宜。

Online Roundtable Meeting on Contract Law

A roundtable meeting themed "2021 Decoding Hong Kong Contract Law series – Part II : Restatement of Hong Kong Contract Law on Negotiations and Competitive Bidding" was held on 20 May. At the invitation of the co-organisers, CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center and the International Dispute Resolution Academy, Mr. C.M. Chan, Vice-President of the Law Society and Chairman of the GCLAC, gave an opening speech at the event. Vice-President C.M. Chan was invited to give an opening speech for the event. 副會長陳澤銘律師獲邀為活動致開幕辭。合同法線上圓桌會議

「2021 解讀《香港合同法》系列網路圓桌會議──第二期：締約與競投之規則重述」於 5 月 20 日舉行。應聯合主辦方中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會香港仲裁中心及國際爭議解決研究院的邀請，律師會副會長暨大中華法律事務委員會主席陳澤銘律師為活動致開幕辭。

24 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

Joint Course with Peking University

Since the signing of the memorandum with Peking University in 2019, the Law Society has jointly organised a 32-hour course under the title “An Introduction to Legal Services and Risk Management for Cross-border Transactions” for law students in Peking University for the third year in a row.

This year, a group of lawyers, including Mr. C.M. Chan, Vice-President, Ms. Careen Wong, Council Member, Mr. Ambrose Lam, Past President, Mrs. Cecilia Wong and Mr. Nick Chan, former Council Members, Mr. Henry Wai, Vice-Chairman of the GCLAC, Ms. Catherine Mun and Mr. William Ling, members of the GCLAC, Ms. Council Member Careen Wong hosted the first lecture of the Heidi Chui, member of the Standing Committee on Standards and Development, course. and Mr. Chin Yeoh, member of Interest Group on Mergers and Acquisitions, 理事黃巧欣律師為課程的第一課打響頭炮。 shared their knowledge on cross-border legal services with the students through e-learning platform once again. The four-day course was successfully completed in May and June. 與北京大學合辦課程

律師會自 2019 年與北京大學簽訂合作備忘錄起，連續三年與該校聯手以「跨境法律服務與風險管理：跨境律師入門」為題，為法學院的學生舉辦合共 32 小時的課程。

本年一眾律師，包括副會長陳澤銘律師、理事黃巧欣律師、前會長林新強律師、前理事黃吳潔華律師和陳曉峰律師、大中華法律事務委員會副主席韋業顯律師、大中華法律事務委員會委員文理明律師和凌永山律師、專業 Vice-President C.M. Chan (second from left) exchanged views with students online. 水平及發展常務委員會委員徐凱怡律師，以及合併收購副會長陳澤銘律師（左二）與一眾學生於線上交流。興趣小組成員楊順真律師，再次運用遙距授課平台，為法律學生講解跨境法律知識。課程分為四天，並於 5 月及 6 月順利完成。

RTHK “Inter-Collegiate Debate Competition 2021” Finals

Mr C.M. Chan, Vice-President of the Law Society, served on the judging panel at the “Inter-Collegiate Debate Competition 2021” Finals organised by Radio Television Hong Kong on 6 June. The teams from City University of Hong Kong and The University of Hong Kong debated over the motion “The WTO should waive patent for COVID-19 Vaccines”.

The Vice-President was impressed by students’ excellent Vice-President C.M. Chan served on the judging panel of the RTHK “Inter-Collegiate performance in the debate. He remarked that students have Debate Competition 2021” on behalf of the Law Society. contributed eye-opening arguments that inspired both the judges 副會長陳澤銘律師代表律師會擔任香港電台「2021 大專辯論賽」的評判。 as well as the general public, and he believed that this was a very successful event to raise the public’s awareness on current issues.

The full-video of the competition is available on YouTube, interested members please visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=eJXktoyApUQ

www.hk-lawyer.org 25 • July 2021

香港電台「2021 大專辯論賽」決賽

律師會副會長陳澤銘律師於 6 月 6 日擔任香港電台主辦的「2021 大專辯論賽」決賽評判。香港城市大學和香港大學的隊伍就「世界貿易組織應暫時豁免新型冠狀病毒疫苗專利」辯題展開辯論。

學生們在比賽中的出色表現，令副會長留下深刻印象。他表示，學生們的論點令人大開眼界，讓評判和

公眾均受到啟發，他認為這次活動非常成功，可提高 The team from the University of Hong Kong won the championship debating against the 公眾對時事的關注。 motion “The WTO should waive patent for COVID-19 Vaccines”. 反方香港大學隊勝出「世界貿易組織應暫時豁免新型冠狀病毒疫苗專利」的辯論。

有興趣的會員可在 YouTube 上觀看辯論賽的完整視頻： https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=eJXktoyApUQ

Webinar – Why Use Hong Kong Law

The Law Society was pleased to sponsor a webinar “Why Use Hong Kong Law” held on 31 May. This webinar was jointly organised by the Department of Justice and the Asian Academy of International Law, and was the third edition of the ‘Why Hong Kong’ webinar series. Distinguished speakers from local and international circles provided in-depth analysis on the distinctive advantages of using Hong Kong law from different perspectives, and they spoke on the unique aspects of Hong Kong law. President Melissa Pang joined the panel discussion on arbitration, litigation and insolvency law in Hong Kong. She shared views on among others reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments with the mainland China in various practice areas. Vice-President C.M. Chan on the other hand helped the panel discussion on “Strengths and Challenges of Hong Kong Law for Companies”.

The event was well-received with more than 450 registrants from more 40 jurisdictions.

「為何使用香港法律」網上研討會

律師會很榮幸贊助是次由律政司與亞洲國際法律研究院於 5 月 31 日合辦的「為何使用香港法律」網上研討會。該網上研討會為「為何香港」系列的第三部。本地和國際傑出講者從不同的角度，深入分析使用香港法律的獨特優勢，並就香港法律的特點發表演講。會長彭韻僖律師參加了關於香港仲裁、訴訟和破產法的小組討論，就與內地互相承認和執行裁決及其他執業領域，分享了意見。此外，副會長陳澤銘律師則協助「香港法律對公司的優勢和挑戰」的 President Melissa Pang shared her views on among others arbitration, reciprocal 小組討論。 recognition and enforcement of judgments with the mainland China in various practice areas in the webinar. 會長彭韻僖律師在網上研討會上，就仲裁、與內地互相承認和執行裁決及其他執業領域，分享了她的看法。此次活動獲來自 40 多個司法管轄區超過 450 位與會者的好評。

26 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • LAW SOCIETY NEWS 律師會新聞

IBA Bar Executive Committee Virtual Meeting

As an institutional member of the International Bar Association (“IBA”), Secretary General Heidi Chu was invited to join the speaker panel at the IBA Bar Executive Committee virtual meeting titled “Access to the courts during COVID” on 28 May. From a Hong Kong perspective, the Secretary General shared how COVID-19 has affected access to the courts and what the ramifications have been and would be of this to the rule of law, and what our role as bar associations and law societies is in such a situation. 國際律師協會律師會行政人員委員會線上會議

作為國際律師協會 (International Bar Association) 的機構成員，香港律師會秘書長朱潔冰律師獲邀參加 5 月 28 日舉行的國際律師協會律師會行政人員委員會線上會議，議題為「新冠疫情期間的法庭運作」。秘書長從香港角度分享了疫情如何影響法庭運作、對法治造成及將會帶來的影響，以及律師會在此情況下擔當的角色。 Together with other eminent speakers, the Secretary General (first row, second from left) shared the situation of Hong Kong amid the pandemic. 連同其他知名講者，秘書長（第一排左二）分享了香港在疫情下的情況。

Sweat & Glory Series 2021 – Webinar on 企業律師的苦與樂 "The Future of E-Contract and E-Signing 2021 - 「電子合同和 - Is COVID Putting an End to Pen and 數碼簽署的普及： Paper?" 紙和筆的年代會否在

On 28 May, the In-House Lawyers Committee ("IHLC") held its second webinar under 新冠疫情下終結？」 the In-House Lawyers: Sweat & Glory Series in 2021 on the topic "The Future of 網上研討會 E-Contract and E-Signing: Is COVID putting an end to pen and paper", which was well attended by over 80 participants comprising in-house lawyers from a variety of 企業律師委員會於 5 月 28 日舉辦了 backgrounds. 「企業律師的苦與樂 2021」第二場研 Speakers from Link Asset Management Limited, including Mr Alex Au, General 討會，題為「電子合同和數碼簽署的 Counsel (M&A), and Mr Paul Fong, General Counsel (Hong Kong), were joined by 普及：紙和筆的年代會否在新冠疫情 moderator Ms Karen Wong, Regional Senior Legal Counsel for Oriente Finance (HK) 下終結？」，吸引超過 80 名會員參與， Limited, at this webinar. The panelists mainly discussed the current legislation which 當中包括來自不同背景的企業律師。 governs e-contract and e-signing in Hong Kong, its legal impacts and constraints, and compared Hong Kong's position with those of some other jurisdictions e.g. mainland 網上研討會由領展資產管理有限公司 China, the UK and the US. They also touched upon current industrial practices and 總法律顧問（併購）區永謙律師及總 trends in this area of which in-house legal teams should keep abreast of. 法律顧問（香港）方培智律師擔任講者，並由Oriente Finance (HK) Limited 亞太區高級法律顧問黃鎧琳律師擔任主持。幾位嘉賓主要討論了香港現行與電子合同 / 簽署的相關法例及其於法律層面上的影響和限制，並比較香港與其他司法管轄區，如內地、英國及美國，於這個領域的現況及發展。 (From left) Mr Alex Au, Mr Paul Fong, 他們亦就主題分享了行業的最新資訊 and Ms Karen Wong 及趨勢，讓企業律師團隊與時俱進。 (左起) 區永謙律師、方培智律師及黃鎧琳律師

www.hk-lawyer.org 27 • July 2021

NOTARIES NEWS 香港國際公證人協會新聞

The Hong Kong Notarial System 香港的公證制度

History of the Hong Kong Notarial System 香港公證制度的歷史沿革

The notarial system in Hong Kong largely follows that in England and 香港的公證制度以英格蘭和威爾士為藍本。公證 Wales. A notary public is a public officer constituted by law. In Hong 人是依法設立的公職人員。在香港，公證人的委 Kong the appointment, registration and regulation of notaries public 任、登記和管理，按照《法律執業者條例》來進 is governed by the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. Notaries public 行。公證人屬於香港法律執業人員的三大分支之 belong to one of the three branches of legal practitioners in Hong 一（其他兩個分別是由香港律師會監管的事務律 Kong (the other two being solicitors, regulated by the Law Society 師，和由香港大律師公會監管的大律師）。香港 of Hong Kong, and barristers, regulated by the Hong Kong Bar Association). The Hong Kong Society of Notaries was incorporated in 國際公證人協會成立于 1977 年，並在公證人任命、 1977 and has an important role to play in the appointment of notaries 專業發展和管理方面起到重要作用。該協會還參 public and the development and regulation of the profession. The 與公證人考試和專業發展規劃的管理、公證執業 Society is also involved in the administration of the notaries public 的指導和監督、年度公證執業證書的頒發，及調 examination, professional development programs, the guidance and 查針對公證人的不當專業行為的投訴和指控。 monitoring of notarial practice, issuing annual practising certificates and investigating complaints and allegations of professional misconduct by notaries public. 在香港，公證人這一專業有著悠久的歷史。據史料記載，1844 年，第一批香港公證人被任命；年，開始公證人的註冊制度。在年月 The notaries public profession has a long history in Hong Kong. 1871 1997 7 According to traceable records, the first Hong Kong notary public 1 日香港回歸之前，所有的香港公證人都是由坎特 was appointed in 1844 and the practice of registration started in 1871. 伯雷大主教從英國任命的。公證人應當是合格的 Prior to reunification on 1 July 1997, all Hong Kong notaries public 律師，這是香港的公證專業恪守的核心原則。 were appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury from England. It has always been a central and important tenet of the profession in 在 1993 年之前，為成為公證人，候選者應具備 10 Hong Kong that notaries public should be qualified lawyers. 年以上香港事務律師資格，並獲得至少 30 名擁有良好聲譽的業內人士支持，這 30 人包括至少 5 名 Before 1993, in order to be a notary public, a candidate had to have at 司法官員、至少 10 名執業公證人、事務律師或大 least 10 years of post-admission experience as a Hong Kong solicitor 律師。一旦過了這關，候選者就可以向英國坎特 and also get the support of at least 30 persons of good standing, including at least five judicial officers and at least 10 practising 伯雷大主教提出關於任命的申請，如果成功，大 notaries public, solicitors or barristers. Once this hurdle was cleared 主教將授予公證人的資格。公證人的考試制度始 a candidate would apply to the Archbishop of Canterbury in England 於 1993 年，擁有至少七年香港律師執業經驗的事 for appointment and, if successful, would be issued with a notarial 務律師才能申請參加考試。此外，和過去一樣，

28 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • NOTARIES NEWS 香港國際公證人協會新聞

faculty by the Archbishop. The examination system commenced in 1993 考試通過者仍需 30 名擁有良好聲譽的業內人 and required that solicitors with at least seven years post-admission 士的支持才可最終獲得公證人的資格。 experience as a Hong Kong solicitor could apply to sit the examination. As before, successful examination candidates needed the support of 30 從那時起，獲得公證人資格的人必須在香港高 persons of good standing. 等法院的公證人註冊紀錄冊上登記姓名，之後才能在香港從事公證人的專業。公證人的簽名 Then and now, a person who has been issued with a notarial faculty 樣本和印章樣本由香港高等法院保存，並由高 must also register their names in the Register of Notaries Public of the High Court of Hong Kong before they can practice in Hong Kong as a 等法院的司法常務官核證。 notary public. A notary public’s specimen signature and seal are kept by the High Court of Hong Kong and can be verified by the Registrar of 在香港主權從英國交還給中國之前，坎特伯 the High Court. 雷大主教負責頒發香港的公證資格證書。1990 年，我在這一歷史制度下成為香港的公證人。 Before the resumption of sovereignty of Hong Kong from the United 因此，我擁有坎特伯雷大主教從他倫敦的教堂 Kingdom to China, the Archbishop of Canterbury was responsible for 裡簽發的精美絕倫的羊皮紙證書。在這張採用 granting notarial licences in Hong Kong. I became a notary public in 中世紀工藝處理的羊皮紙上，書寫著最美麗的 Hong Kong in 1990 under the old system. A consequence of this is that I 文字，還蓋有坎特伯雷大主教的大印章。這份 have the most wonderful parchment document issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury from his palace in London. It is written out in hand in the 證書值得珍藏。 most beautiful writing on vellum which is a form of treated cowhide used for paper in the Middle Ages. It has attached to it the Great Seal 在 1997 年香港回歸後，之前的制度顯然不能 of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a magnificent document and one 延續。根據《香港回歸條例》第 14 條，所有 which I treasure. 在 1997 年 7 月 1 日前委任的公證人都已在香港高等法院的司法常務官所備存的公證人註 Obviously, the system in force before reunification in 1997 could not 冊紀錄冊上登記。他們將繼續擔任公證人， continue. By section 14 of the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance, 擁有在 1997 年 7 月 1 日之前香港法律賦予公 every notary public appointed before 1 July 1997 was recorded on the 證人的所有權利。香港的《法律執業者條例》 Register of Notaries Public kept by the Registrar of the High Court. They 依舊是公證人委任、註冊及監管的法律依據。 continued to be a notary public with all the powers which immediately before that date were exercised by a notary public under the laws of 現在，公證人由香港高等法院首席法官任命。 Hong Kong. The Legal Practitioners Ordinance continues to regulate 香港公證人的任期沒有屆滿日，無需在任何特 the appointment, registration and regulation of notaries public. Notaries 定期限內“委任”執業。但公證人須每年更新 public are now appointed by the Chief Judge of the High Court of Hong 其執業狀態。 Kong. The term of office of a notary public in Hong Kong has no expiry date and he or she is not “commissioned” to practice for any particular 在下個月的雜誌中，我們將帶您一探香港國際 period of time. However, a notary public is required to renew his or her 公證人的職責。 practising status annually.

In next month’s issue, we will look at the functions of a Hong Kong Notary Public.

www.hk-lawyer.org 29 • July 2021

Limiting Disclosure of Personal Data in the Companies Register Will Help Curb Doxxing

By Ada Chung Lai-ling, Barrister, Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data

Companies Register’s New Inspection Ordinance (Cap. 622) (“CO”), namely, inter According to the proposed schedule Regime alia, sections 47, 49 to 59 thereof, have of the Government, and subject to the The proposal of the Government to bring already provided for the new inspection enactment of the relevant subsidiary Companies Register’s new inspection regime when the re-written company law legislation, the new inspection regime regime into operation by phases from this was enacted. Nonetheless, on account of will be implemented as follows by phases: year to 2023 has been broadly discussed the diverse views expressed by relevant and publicised since March. Back in 2012, stakeholders at the time, these provisions (i) Starting from 23 August 2021, the relevant provisions of the Companies were not brought into operation in 2014. companies may withhold the usual residential addresses (“URA”) of

30 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • DATA PRIVACY 個人資料私隱

directors and full identification The proposed changes were indeed addresses instead of full residential numbers (“IDN”) of directors and discussed and considered by the relevant addresses. company secretaries that are Advisory Group formed for the rewrite contained in their own registers from exercise and the Standing Committee on I am pleased to see that the above- public inspection; Company Law Reform in 2007/08 and mentioned recommendations have been then in 2012/13, with substantial positive taken into account in the proposed new (ii) From 24 October 2022 onwards, feedback from their members. regime. the Companies Registry (“CR”) will withhold from public inspection Consequently, provisions that reflected Quite contrary to the views expressed in the URA and full IDN of directors, the new inspection regime were included some quarters, in my view the move is company secretaries and liquidators, in the Companies Bill for the scrutiny by of particular importance in the present etc. which are contained in all the the legislature, and the new CO, which situation of Hong Kong as there have documents filed for registration; and contained the aforesaid provisions, was been a significant increase in the number enacted in July 2012. of doxxing cases since mid-2019, coupled (iii) Starting from 27 December 2023, the with a worsening trend of cybercrimes individuals concerned may apply to Nevertheless, given the lack of consensus and telephone scams that involved the the CR for withholding their respective by relevant stakeholders at the time, after unlawful use of personal data unveiled URA and full IDN contained in the the enactment of the primary legislation, for the past two years. This situation is documents already registered with the draft Companies (Residential exacerbated by the rapid development of the CR prior to 24 October 2022 from Addresses and Identification Numbers) digitalisation and the ease of collecting public inspection. Regulation was not introduced into the different kinds of personal data from the legislature in 2013. public domain nowadays, whether from The significance of the new inspection online platforms, internet searches, public regime lies primarily in the removal of the Aiming to elevating its efforts to registers, or the like. It is worth noting that unrestrained public access to obtain the strengthen the protection of the personal if the personal data available in the public URA and full IDN of individual company data contained in the Companies domain are disclosed without appropriate officers contained in the Companies Register, the Government revived the safeguards, or used without regard to the Register. Under the new regime, for proposals earlier this year. original purpose of collecting the data, all the documents which are newly it could pose significant risks to privacy, registered, only (i) the correspondence PCPD in Support of the New Regime thus jeopardising the interests of the data addresses of directors and (ii) the partial From the perspective of protecting privacy subjects. This is so especially in the case IDN of directors, company secretaries in relation to personal data, I welcome, of sensitive personal data such as full and other relevant individuals will be and have no hesitation to support, IDN and URA, which practically anyone made available for public inspection. the proposed new inspection regime may obtain from any public register with Upon application made to the CR, the which, undoubtedly, will strengthen the relative ease nowadays. URA and full IDN of those individuals protection of the personal data contained will only be made accessible to different in the Companies Register. In this regard, I have grave concern that groups of authorities or persons as personal data has been weaponised by specified in the subsidiary legislation As a matter of fact, the current some in Hong Kong, and utilised in ways (“specified persons”), except for certain proposal reflects the recommendations to intimidate, silence or harm others for circumstances where such disclosure by made by my Office, the Office of the whatever reasons. the CR is permissible with an order of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Court or under the CO. Data (“PCPD”), in our report on the The wave of doxxing that has swelled in “Survey of Public Registers Maintained Hong Kong since mid-2019 has tested the The Legislative History by Government and Public Bodies” limits of morality and the law, and should The proposed new inspection regime can published in July 2015. be stopped. Between June 2019 and May be traced back to 2009 when, as part of 2021, my Office has handled over 5,700 the rewrite exercise, the Government Among others, we recommended doxxing-related complaints and cases consulted the public on the draft clauses operators of public registers to explore, discovered proactively by us through our of the Companies Bill. In December when providing personal data of a online patrols. Among these cases, 905 2009, public views were sought in the sensitive nature (such as identification of them involved wrongful disclosure of “First Phase Consultation of the draft document numbers and residential the victims’ identification numbers and/ Companies Bill” as to whether company addresses) for public access, less privacy- or residential addresses. The figures cry officers’ URA and full IDN on the intrusive means of disclosing the same. for immediate and effective actions to call Companies Register should continue to For example, by providing partial instead the matter to a halt. be made available for public inspection. of full identification document numbers, and by providing correspondence In the words of the Honourable Mr Justice

www.hk-lawyer.org 31 • July 2021

Jeremy Poon, the Chief Judge of the High new regime proposed by the Government to realise that personal data that is Court, “doxxing should not and cannot in Hong Kong. While company officers’ available in public domain is still subject be tolerated in Hong Kong if we still take personal identification numbers are not to the same protection under the PDPO pride in our city as a civilized society where made available for public inspection on as personal data obtained from any the rule of law reigns… The damage of the companies register in the UK, for other source. Notwithstanding that widespread doxxing goes well beyond the over a decade only their correspondence some personal data can be accessed victims. It seriously endangers our society addresses (or better known as service and obtained from a public register, the as a whole… If doxxing practices are not addresses) are made available to use of the data is still confined to the curtailed, the fire of distrust, fear and the public. Information on directors’ very purpose of allowing access to and hatred ignited by them will soon consume residential addresses is kept on a inspection of the relevant register. the public confidence in the law and order separate register with restricted access. of the community, leading to disintegration Data Protection Principle (“DPP”) 3 (the of our society.” Similarly, in Singapore, an alternate limitation of use principle) under Schedule address instead of the URA may be 1 of the PDPO provides that personal data While legislative amendments to the provided for disclosure on the companies shall not, without the prescribed consent Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (“the register by company officers, though of the data subject, be used for a new PDPO”, Cap. 486) will be proposed by the full numbers of their Singpass are purpose. It follows that any subsequent the Government shortly to introduce a disclosed. On the other hand, in Australia, use of the personal data obtained from a new offence for doxxing and broaden my while identification document numbers public register, which is not the same as or enforcement powers under the PDPO to are not on the register, under specified directly related to the original purpose(s) deal with doxxing cases more effectively, circumstances, alternate addresses of making available the data for public I do believe that strengthening the may be included, for example, when the access, will contravene DPP3 without protection of the personal data contained Australian Securities and Investments the data subject’s prescribed consent (or, in public registers will assist in addressing Commission considers that the inclusion exceptionally, when an exemption applies the root of the problem, and Hong Kong of the URA in public records would put under the PDPO). is not alone in taking measures to accord the personal safety of the relevant officer more protection to sensitive personal and/or his/her family members at risk. Under the PDPO, personal data obtained data that appear on the Companies from a public register should not be used Register. Thus, it is not unorthodox for measures for illegal purposes, including doxxing. to be taken by regulatory authorities Similar Arrangements in Overseas to strengthen the protection given to Striking A Reasonable Balance Jurisdictions sensitive personal data in a public register While advocating the importance of Making reference to similar arrangements if circumstances warrant. the protection of privacy in relation to in other jurisdictions would be helpful personal data, I reckon the importance for us when we deliberate about the Equal Legal Protection for Personal of allowing access to the Companies new inspection regime, for example, Data Available in the Public Domain Register for legitimate purposes of the those adopted by the Companies House It is of paramount importance for us Register, which are fully set out under in the United Kingdom (“UK”), which is section 45 of the CO. comparable to the Not surprisingly, various stakeholders have raised different concerns on the proposed new inspection regime. Most of the concerns, as I see it, are related to the possible confusion, however slight, that may arise when the full IDN and URA are not available to readily identify the individual concerned, whether for forensic investigation, due diligence checks or other legitimate purposes.

At the time of writing, some refinements to the original proposal have been proposed by the Government in response. These include, for example, expanding the scope of specified persons to cover solicitors and foreign lawyers, certified public accountants (practising),

32 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • DATA PRIVACY 個人資料私隱

trust or company service provider Undoubtedly, the Government proposed Register for the legitimate purposes licensees, etc.; providing particulars the refinements or additional measures of the Register on the other. I would, of cross-directorships and introducing to address the concerns over the possible however, caution against any further administrative measures (such as confusion that might arise from the new broadening of the scope of unrestricted providing more digits in the IDN) to inspection regime, and I believe that access, as that may likely defeat the very remove confusion when the disclosure they are genuine attempts to strike a purpose of strengthening the protection of partial IDN leads to confusing search reasonable balance between protecting of the personal data contained in the results. personal data privacy on the one hand Register. and allowing access to the Companies

限制公司登記冊披露個人資料將有助遏止「起底」

作者：個人資料私隱專員鍾麗玲大律師

公司登記冊新查冊安排根據政府建議的時間表，在相關附屬文件中的董事、公司秘書和清盤政府建議由今年起至 2023 年，分階法例通過後，新查冊安排將分階段實人等的通常住址及完整身分識別段實施公司登記冊新查冊安排，該項施：號碼予公眾查閱；及建議自 3 月起已獲廣泛討論和宣傳。早於 2012 年重寫《公司條例》（第 (i) 由 2021 年 8 月 23 日起，公司可 (iii) 由 2023 年 12 月 27 日起，有關人 622 章）時，當中的相關條文，包括不提供其登記冊中董事的通常住士可向公司註冊處申請，不提供第 47、第 49 至第 59 條，已訂明了址及董事和公司秘書的完整身分在 2022 年 10 月 24 日之前已向公新的查冊安排。然而，由於當時持份識別號碼予公眾查閱；司註冊處登記的文件內的通常住者有不同意見，這些條文在 2014 年址及完整身分識別號碼予公眾查並沒有實施。 (ii) 由 2022 年 10 月 24 日起，公司註閱。冊處將不提供所有提交作註冊的

www.hk-lawyer.org 33 • July 2021

新查冊安排主要旨在避免公眾不受資料的保障，政府在今年較早時候數量大幅增加，以及過去兩年涉及限制地獲取公司登記冊中個別公司重提有關建議。非法使用個人資料進行網絡犯罪和高級人員的通常住址及完整身分識電話詐騙的趨勢有所惡化，我認為別號碼。在新安排下，公衆只能查閱個人資料私隱專員支持新安排政府的建議在香港現時的情況下尤新註冊的所有文件中 (i) 董事的通訊從保障個人資料私隱的角度來看，為重要。加上數碼化迅速發展，現地址及 (ii) 董事、公司秘書和其他相我歡迎和支持建議的新查冊安排，時可輕易從公共領域，如網上平台、關人士的部分身分識別號碼。除非在新查冊安排無疑會加強對公司登記互聯網搜索、公共登記冊等收集不某些情況下，根據《公司條例》或法冊所載的個人資料的保障。同類型的個人資料，令情況更加惡院的命令，公司註冊處可以披露此類化。值得注意的是，若從公共領域信息。否則只有附屬法例中所指明的事實上，現行的建議反映了個人資可取得的個人資料可以在沒有適當不同類別的機構或人士（「指明人料私隱專員公署於 2015 年 7 月就政保護措施的情況下披露，或在違反士」）在向公司註冊處提出申請後，府部門及公營機構管理的公共登記收集資料的原本目的的情況下使用才可查閱這些個人的通常住址及完冊進行調查的報告中所作的建議。該等資料，均可能對私隱構成重大整身分識別號碼。風險，因而令資料當事人的利益受損，尤其當現時任何人士均可相對立法歷史容易地從公共登記冊獲取一些敏感建議實施的公司登記冊新查冊安的個人資料（例如完整的身分識別排可追溯至 2009 年，當時作號碼和住址）。為重寫《公司條例》工作的一部分，政府就《公司條就這方面，我極度關注個人例草案》草擬條文徵詢資料已被香港某些人士武公眾意見。在 2009 年器化，以各種各樣的理由 12 月，政府於《公司用於恐嚇、傷害他人，條例草案》擬稿第一或令他人噤聲。期諮詢當中就應否繼續提供公司登記冊中 2019 年年中以來，香的公司高級人員的通港出現了一股「起底」常住址及完整身分識別風氣，挑戰着道德和法號碼供公眾查閱，徵詢律底線，令人髮指。由公眾意見。 2019 年 6 月至2021 年 5 月期間，公署處理了超過事實上，為重寫《公司條 5,700 宗與「起底」相關的投例》而成立的諮詢小組和公司訴和經我們網上主動巡查所發現法改革常務委員會於 2007/08 年的個案。在這些個案中，905 宗涉和 2012/13 年討論和審議了擬議的變及不當披露受害者的身份識別號碼更，委員普遍反應正面。及／或住址。這些數字充分說明，我們應該立即採取有效行動，終止因此，反映新查冊安排的條文被納其中，我們建議公共登記冊的營運這個情況。入《公司條例草案》供立法機關審者在向公眾提供敏感性質的個人資議，而載有上述條文的新《公司條料（例如身分識別號碼和住址）時，正如高等法院首席法官潘兆初法官例》已於 2012 年 7 月獲通過成為法應考慮以較不侵犯私隱的方式公開所言，「若我們仍然以香港是一個例。披露資料，例如提供部分而不是完法治的文明社會而自豪，那麼在香整的身分識別號碼，以及提供通訊港就不應該也不能容忍『起底』…… 儘管如此，由於相關持份者缺乏共地址而不是完整的住址。大規模的『起底』所造成的損害不識，在主體法例制定後，政府於只限於受害者，它嚴重危害我們整 2013 年並沒有把草擬的《公司（住我很高興見到，上述建議已被納入個社會……若不限制『起底』行為，址及身分識別號碼）規例》提交立擬議的新安排。它點燃的不信任、恐懼和仇恨之火法機關。將會很快消耗公眾對法律和社會治與某些界別人士的觀點相反，考慮安的信心，導致我們的社會崩潰。」為進一步加強對公司登記冊內個人到自 2019 年中以來「起底」案件的就此，政府即將就修訂《個人資料

34 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • DATA PRIVACY 個人資料私隱

（私隱）條例》（第 486 章）提出因此，監管機構在有需要時採取措 45 條所臚列的合法目的查閱公司登建議，以引入「起底」罪行及增加我施，加強對公共登記冊中敏感個人資記冊的重要性。在條例下的執法權力，以更有效地處料的保障，並不罕見。理「起底」案件。但我認為，加強對不同持份者對擬議的新查冊安排提公共登記冊所載的個人資料的保障，可在公共領域取得的個人資料享有出了不同的關注並不令人感到意外。將有助於從根源解決問題。而採取措相同法律保障我認為，大多數關注都與可能出現的施為公司登記冊上的敏感個人資料我們必須明白，可在公共領域獲取的混淆（即使是輕微的混淆）有關，即提供更多保障的，並不只香港。個人資料，與從任何其他來源獲取的為作法證調查、盡職審查或其他合法個人資料一樣，受到《個人資料（私目的而進行查冊時，可能因為缺乏完海外司法管轄區的類似安排隱）條例》保障。儘管有些個人資料整的身分識別號碼和住址而無法準在討論香港的新查冊安排時，參考其可從公共登記冊查閱和獲取，但資料確地識別有關人士。他司法管轄區的類似安排，對我們考的使用僅限於查閱相關登記冊的目慮新安排有所幫助。例如英國公司註的。在撰寫本文時，政府已作出回應，改冊處實行的制度，當中跟政府提出的善了原本建議。例如，擴大指明人士新查冊安排相似。英國公司登記冊《個人資料（私隱）條例》附表一的的範圍以涵蓋律師和外地律師、執業中並無載有公司高級人員的個人身保障資料第 3 原則（限制使用原則）會計師、信託或公司服務持牌人等；份號碼供公眾查閱，且近十多年來，規定，如無有關的資料當事人的訂明提供個別人士出任不同公司董事的只有他們的通訊地址（或稱為送達地同意，個人資料不得用於新目的。因資料；以及當披露部分身分識別號碼址）獲公開。而董事的住址則保存在此，使用從公共登記冊獲取的個人資導致搜索結果出現混淆時，引入行政另外一查閱受到限制的登記冊中。料，若與資料提供予公眾的原本目的措施（例如提供身分識別號碼中更多不同或並不直接相關，而未經資料當數字），以消除混淆。同樣地，在新加坡，雖然公司高級人事人的訂明同意（或在例外情況下，員的完整新加坡身分證（Singpass）根據《個人資料（私隱）條例》獲豁毋庸置疑，政府提出這些改善或額外號碼會被披露，他們可提供替代地免），即違反保障資料第 3 原則。措施，是為了釋除對新查冊安排可能址，而非住址，以作在公司登記冊中引起混淆的疑慮，嘗試在保障個人資披露之用。在澳洲，雖然登記冊上沒根據《個人資料（私隱）條例》，從料私隱與為合法目的查閱公司登記有身分證件號碼，但在特定情況下登公共登記冊獲取的個人資料，不應用冊之間，取得合理平衡。然而，我認記冊可以包括替代地址：例如，當澳於非法目的，包括「起底」。為新安排應避免進一步擴大當中不洲證券和投資委員會認為把住址納受限制查閱的範圍，因為這做法可能入公共紀錄，會令有關人士及／或其取得合理的平衡與原本加強保障登記冊中個人資料家人的人身安全受損。在提倡保障個人資料私隱的重要性的目的，背道而馳。的同時，我認同就《公司條例》第

www.hk-lawyer.org 35 • July 2021

Analysis of The Exchange’s Reform of the Main Board Profit Requirement

Reasons for Increasing the Profit Requirement – Right Time for On 27 November 2020, The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Exchange”) published a consultation paper on the Main Board Profit Hong Kong To Requirement. The consultation paper proposes to increase the profit requirement of Main Board listing and improve the overall quality of listed Move On? companies on the Exchange. Since 1994, the minimum profit requirement By JI Hui, Partner, Jeffrey Mak Law Firm under Rule 8.05(1)(a) of the Main Board Listing Rules has never been adjusted. In 2018, the minimum market capitalisation requirement under Rule 8.09(2) of the published consultation conclusion options. (1) The profit requirement will Main Board Listing Rules was increased relating to the profit requirement for increase by 150% based on the increase from HK$200 million to HK$500 million. Main Board listing (the “Conclusion”). in market capitalisation requirement Currently, the profit requirement for Main The Conclusion confirmed the new profit in 2018. Under this option, the three Board listing, which has been remained requirement for Main Board listing. years net profit in aggregate of a Main unchanged for 26 years, is unable to Board listing applicant must reach be aligned with the revised market Adjusted Profit Requirement HK$125 million, and the net profit of the capitalisation requirement, nor can it According to the initial proposal, in most recent financial year must not be meet the current economic development order to adapt the profit requirement less than HK$50 million. (2) The profit requirements. Therefore, it is not only of Main Board listing to the current requirement will increase by 200% necessary but also feasible to adjust the market capitalisation requirement and based on the approximate increase in the current profit requirement of Main Board market development, the Exchange has average closing price of the Hang Seng listing. On 20 May 2021, the Exchange introduced two profit requirement reform Index. Under this option, the three years

36 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • SECURITIES LAW 證券法

net profit in aggregate of a Main Board listing applicant must reach HK$150 Profit Profit Profit million, and the net profit of the most attributable to attributable to attributable to recent financial year must not be less than shareholders shareholders shareholders HK$60 million. From the comparison in the most in aggregate in aggregate in the table below, it can be found that recent in the two in the three there is a huge difference between the financial year preceding preceding aforementioned two profit requirement financial years financial years amendment options and the current profit requirement of Main Board listing Current requirement HK$20 million HK$30 million HK$50 million adopted by the Exchange. The market expects that this major adjustment of Option 1 – 150% HK$50 million HK$75 million HK$125 million the profit requirement will have a material impact on the overall Hong Kong equity Option 2 – 200% HK$60 million HK$90 million HK$150 million capital market.

have a small market capitalisation and their market capitalisation is below HK$700 million. Therefore, in the future, the market capitalisation of eligible Hong Kong Main Board listing applicant will be substantially increased and the average market capitalisation of the Main Board listing applicants will be more than HK$700 million, which is compatible with the current market capitalisation requirement and will also assist in combating the manufacture of shell companies for sale after listing.

Second, the increase in the profit requirement will further distinguish the functional difference between Main Board After the promulgation of the proposed profit requirement is much lower than and GEM in Hong Kong. The companies new profit requirement, many the proposed profit requirement in that do not meet the listing criteria under professional institutions in the market the previous consultation document, the new profit requirement may consider put forward their own suggestions. and it provides more opportunities for applying for listing on GEM in Hong Kong. Although most professionals believe that companies to be listed in Hong Kong. maintaining a high level of market quality On 15 December 2017, the Exchange published the consultation conclusions on and ensuring that the Main Board can Positive Effect of the New Profit amending GEM Listing Rules to reposition attract high-quality companies to list in Requirement Hong Kong is very important, considering GEM as an independent market designed The author believes that the adjustment the current economic situation affected for small or mid-sized companies. At the of the profit requirement will bring four by the epidemic, it is recommended to same time, the cash flow requirement positive effects. First, the increase in lower the proposed threshold of the new for GEM listing applicants will increase the profit requirement will substantially profit requirement. Therefore, as stated from a minimum of HK$20 million to improve the quality of the listed in the final consultation conclusions, a minimum of HK$30 million, and the companies on the Main Board in the Exchange will increase the profit minimum expected market capitalisation Hong Kong. According to the relevant requirement by only 60%, i.e. the at the time of listing will increase from information revealed in the consultation aggregated profit requirement for the HK$100 million to HK$150 million. Since paper of the Exchange, based on the three financial years will be changed to there is no profit requirement for listing statistics obtained from Hong Kong listed HK$80 million, the minimum aggregated on GEM, it is a suitable choice for small companies during the period from 2016 profit requirement for the first two or mid-sized companies. This will further to 2019, under both option 1 and option financial years of the track record period distinguish the different service functions 2, it is expected that the number of listing will be HK$45 million and the minimum between Main Board and GEM and hence applicants will reduce by 60%. However, profit requirement for the last financial allow companies of different size to more than half of the listing applicants year will be HK$35 million. The final choose an appropriate listing platform.

www.hk-lawyer.org 37 • July 2021

Third, the increase in the profit requirement will further enhance Market Three years profit in Final year profit Hong Kong’s status as a leading aggregate (HK$ million) (HK$ million) international financial centre. According Main Board in Hong Kong 80 35 to the information in the consultation conclusions of the Exchange, the Australian Securities Exchange 6 3 increased profit requirement bridges the gap between the profit requirement NASDAQ Global Select Market 85 17 for Hong Kong Main Board companies New York Stock Exchange 93 16 and that in other major overseas capital Singapore Exchange Limited markets. As shown in the table below, No requirement 170 after the adoption of the new profit (Main Board) requirement, the Hong Kong Main Board capital market will undoubtedly raise the threshold for companies to enter into the Hong Kong capital market. It will therefore enhance the status of Hong Kong as a world-class financial centre.

Fourth, the consultation conclusions adjust the profit requirement to a level that is compatible with the world’s major capital markets (such as the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq market) and also help to ensure that Hong Kong’s listing profit requirement are compatible with the profit requirements in other international capital markets. For some companies that have been listed overseas wish to return to Hong Kong Main Board for listing, similar listing profit requirement will also help the companies fulfil the requirements under the listing requirement for Main Board listing by the new reform measures will help to improve rules of both places and encourage Exchange has its historical inevitability, the quality of listed companies on the Chinese companies that have already and it can also promote the alignment Hong Kong Main Board and promote the listed overseas to return to Hong Kong of the profit requirement and the market sustainable development of Hong Kong for listing. capitalisation standard for Main Board capital market in the future. listing in Hong Kong. Despite the fact Meanwhile, the author is of the view that the increased profit requirement will that the increased profit requirement result in the reduction in the number of will definitely reduce the number of Main Board listing applicants in the companies seeking to list in Hong Kong short term and will have and affect the trading volume in Hong a negative impact on Kong’s equity capital market in the short the Hong Kong term. Due to the significant adverse capital market, economic effect of the current pandemic, the author the income and profitability of many believes private companies have been severely that it is impacted. Although the Exchange stated the right that it would implement the new profit time for requirement after 1 January 2022, there is Hong Kong uncertainty about whether the economies to increase of Hong Kong and mainland China can the profit recover in the next six months. requirement at this moment and the In any event, the reform of the profit

38 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • SECURITIES LAW 證券法

港交所改革主板盈利規定之分析 —— 香港改革是否正當其時 ?

麥振興律師事務所合夥人季輝

提高盈利規定的原因公司盈利規定已經無法匹配修改後市值規定以及市場發展相適應，港交 2020 年 11 月 27 日，香港聯合交易的市值規定，也不符合目前經濟發展所推出了兩個盈利規定改革方案。(1) 所有限公司（「港交所」）刊發了有的要求。因此，修改目前香港主板上盈利規定將按照市值規定根據 2018 關主板盈利規定的諮詢文件。該諮詢市的盈利規定不僅是必須的，也是可年的增幅百分比調高 150%。在此方文件建議調高主板上市的盈利規定，行的。2021 年 5 月 20 日，港交所發案下，主板上市申請人的三年纍計淨從而提升港交所上市公司的整體質佈了有關上市盈利標準的諮詢總結利潤需要達到 1.25 億港幣，最近一素。自 1994 年以來，《主板上市規 (「諮詢總結」)。該諮詢總結確認了個財政年度的淨利潤須不低於 5,000 則》第 8.05(1)(a) 條的最低盈利規定主板上市的新盈利規定。萬港幣。(2) 盈利規定將按照恆生從未作出調整。2018 年，《主板上指數平均收報點數的概約增幅調高市規則》第 8.09(2) 條規定的最低市修改後的盈利規定 200%。在此方案下，主板上市申請值由 2 億港幣增至 5 億港幣。時至根據最初的修改方案，為了使得香港人的三年纍計淨利潤需要達到 1.5 億今日，維持了 26 年之久的主板上市主板上市公司的盈利規定與目前的港幣，最近一個財政年度的淨利潤須

www.hk-lawyer.org 39 • July 2021

不低於 6,000 萬港幣。從下圖的比較可以發現，上述兩個盈利規定的修改最近一個財年的前二個財年的最近三個財年的方案與目前港交所採用的主板上市股東應占盈利股東應占盈利股東應占盈利申請人的盈利標準有很大的差異。市場預期，這次盈利規定的重大調整將現行規定 2,000 萬港幣 3,000 萬港幣 5,000 萬港幣對整個香港股權資本市場帶來巨大的影響。方案 1-150% 5,000 萬港幣 7,500 萬港幣 1.25 億港幣擬定的新盈利規定出臺後，市場上不少專業機構都提出了各自的建議。方案 2-200% 6,000 萬港幣 9,000 萬港幣 1.50 億港幣雖然大部分專業人士都認為維持高水準的市場質素及確保主板能吸引高質素的公司來港上市非常重要，但規定由最少 2,000 萬港幣提高至最市的企業希望回歸香港主板上市，相是考慮到目前經濟受到疫情影響的少 3,000 萬港幣，將上市時的預期最似的上市盈利標準也有助於企業符實際情況，因此建議降低擬定調高的低市值由 1 億港幣增至 1.5 億港幣。合兩地的上市規則要求，鼓勵已經在盈利規定幅度。因此，在最終的諮 GEM 板沒有上市的盈利規定，對於海外上市的中資企業回流香港上市。詢總結中，港交所將盈利規定僅調暫時無法符合主板上市盈利要求的高 60%，即三個財政年度的盈利總中小企業是一個合適的選擇。這也將與此同時，筆者感到盈利規定的提和要求達到 8,000 萬港幣，並將盈利進一步明確主板和 GEM 板的不同服高勢必會減少赴港上市的企業數量，分佈改為營業紀錄期首兩個財政年務功能，讓不同規模的企業可以選擇並且在短期內影響香港股權資本市度所須的最低盈利總和為 4,500 萬港適合自身的上市平臺。場的交易量。由於目前疫情帶來的巨幣，最後一個財政年度為 3,500 萬港大經濟負面影響，不少民營企業的收幣。這個最終的結果和之前的諮詢文第三，提高盈利規定將進一步提升香入和盈利情況都受到嚴重的衝擊。雖件相比降低了不少，也給更多企業赴港作為一流國際金融中心的地位。根然港交所表示將在 2022 年 1 月 1 日港上市的機會。據港交所諮詢總結的資料顯示，提升之後實行新的盈利規定，但是在未來後的盈利要求縮短了香港主板公司 6 個月的時間內香港乃至中國內地的新盈利規定帶來的積極作用和其他海外主要資本市場盈利規定經濟是否可以復蘇還存在不確定性。筆者認為，這次修改盈利規定將帶來的差距。如下圖所示，采納新盈利規無論如何，港交所本次改革主板上市四方面的積極作用。首先，這將大幅定後的香港主板資本市場無疑將進盈利規定有其歷史的必然性，也可以提高香港主板上市公司的質素。根據一步提升企業進入香港資本市場的促進香港主板上市公司的盈利規定港交所諮詢報告中公佈的有關資料，門檻，香港也將因此進一步加強其作為國際一流金融中心的地位。和市值標準相匹配。儘管短期內提高基於 2016 年到 2019 年期間香港上市後的盈利規定會使得主板上市公司公司的統計數據，無論採用方案 1 或第四，諮詢總結中將盈利水準調整到的申請數量減少，給資本市場帶來負者方案 2 都預計會減少 60% 的上市面影響，筆者仍然認為港交所改革主申請人。然而，過半均為市值比較小一個和世界上主要資本市場（比如紐約交易所和納斯達克市場）相適應的板盈利規定正當其時，且從長遠來的上市申請人，且它們的市值低於 7 看，新的改革措施將有助於提升香港億港幣。因此，今後可以符合條件申一個水準，也有助於保障香港的上市標準與國際其他資本市場盈利標準主板上市公司的質素，促進香港資本請香港主板上市申請人的市值將在 7 市場未來的可持續發展。億港幣以上，與目前上市公司的市值保持一致。如果有一些已經在海外上標準相適應，也有助於打擊造殼上市的情況發生。市場三年合計盈利最後一個年度盈利（百萬港幣）（百萬港幣）其次，提高盈利規定將進一步明確香港主板和板的功能區別。對於 GEM 香港主板 80 35 新盈利規定下不再符合上市標準的企業，可以考慮在香港 GEM 板申請澳洲交易所 6 3 上市。港交所在 2017 年 12 月 15 日納斯達克全球精選市場 85 17 刊發了有關修改《創業板上市規則》的諮詢總結，將 GEM 板重新定位成紐約交易所 93 16 專為中小企業而設的獨立市場。同新交所（主板）無規定 170 時，將 GEM 板上市申請人的現金流

40 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CIVIL PROCEDURE 民事訴訟程序

Submitting to the Jurisdiction

By Henry Wong, Partner, WMC Partners Tanya Parmanand, Paralegal, WMC Partners

Chan Hon v. Bayer Healthcare Limited, the administrator of the Deceased’s The learned Justice of Appeal went on Bayer Diagnostics Limited and Bayer estate, was/is suing the Defendants for to find that “the conduct was equivocal Weimar GMBH Und Co. Kg [2020] damages for committing tortious acts having regard to what the 2nd and 3rd HKCA 1090 in manufacturing, distributing and/or defendants had actually agreed in respect On 31 December 2020, the Court of causing to be distributed those pills in of the procedural directions that were Appeal in this case allowed the appeal of Hong Kong, which in turn caused the given by Master Yu” (see also para 4.45 the 2nd & 3rd Defendants and found that death of the Deceased. of Chan Hon). they had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court of Hong Kong SAR (“Hong In determining the question of whether For those reasons, the Court of Appeal Kong”). the 2nd & 3rd Defendants submitted to held that the Judge, hearing the 2nd & jurisdiction, the Hon. Peter Cheung JA 3rd Defendant’s application de novo, In this case, the Deceased had consumed (giving judgment of the Court) stated that “was wrong on the issue of submission to pills distributed and manufactured by “the crux of the matter was whether the jurisdiction” (see para 4.46 of Chan Hon). the 1st & 2nd Defendants respectively. conduct of [solicitors] at the hearing was Ingredients of the pills were provided by ‘wholly unequivocal’ that the disinterested With the abundance of local judgments the 3rd Defendant. The 1st Defendant third party would conclude that the 2nd involving the challenges of jurisdiction was a Hong Kong incorporated company. & 3rd Defendants were submitting to in the last decade or two, it is apparent Both the 2nd & 3rd Defendants were jurisdiction” (see para. 4.45 of Chan Hon). that foreign litigants still face real risks German companies. The Plaintiff, being of submitting to jurisdiction, often times

www.hk-lawyer.org 41 • July 2021

almost unnoticeably, when involved (see, example, publications on “Greater An application to the Court could be an in local litigations. Aspects such as Bay Area” published by the Constitutional easy trap. Conducts that could amount the complexity of the factual matrix and Mainland Affair Bureau of the to submission include an application of individual cases, the acute time Government of Hong Kong). At the for security for costs (Shenzhen CTS constraints stipulated by Order 12 rule 8 same time, the Greater Bay Area would International Logistics Co Ltd v Dajiang of the Rules of the High/District Court and continue to grow as an ideal place for International Investment Co Ltd [2017] the rigid perimeters embedded in those living, working, and travelling, alongside HKEC 858), the service of a defence (Chau rules could well be the non-exhaustive with “the rule of law being a hallmark of Oi Fung [2014] HKEC 1828), accepting reasons prompting those unnoticeable civilization’s progress in China”, according service of proceedings in Hong Kong (PT submissions. to the CPC Central Committee’s Issuance Krakatau Steel (Persero) v Mount Kerinci of the Implementation Plan under the LLC [2009] 1 HKLRD 264), an application Hong Kong in the Greater Bay Area, Rule of Law of China (2020-2025), to strike out (B. Chainrai v Kushnir Family 2021 & Beyond published by the Central Government of (Holdings) & Others [2019] HKCFI 2866 Ranked as the world’s freest economy as China. and Winnitex Investment Co Ltd v Oxford mentioned in the Hong Kong Trade and Products (International) Ltd [2005] HKEC Industry Department’s Fact Sheet of It would be apparent that civil and 44), among others. To prevent such June 2021 and being one of the leading commercial disputes touching on submission, as commented by Judges at international financial centres in the world provisions of O.12, r.8 would continue to different levels of Courts, the Defendant as per the Global Financial Centres Index be an inevitable, if not a growing, feature must provide a clear reservation of right, Report published on 17 March 2021, Hong in the Courts of Hong Kong. for instance, through a cover letter or in Kong would likely to remain a growing city the preamble to the defence (Miruvor Ltd for international trade and commerce. Conduct Amounting to Submission v Panama-Globe Steamer Lines SA & Ors To help preventing falling for the inherent [2007] HKCA 49). Being a key trading partner of mainland pitfalls of submitting to the jurisdiction China, Hong Kong certainly would of Hong Kong, often time unnoticeably, There are circumstances that arise, continue to have a proactive role in foreign litigants (or indeed their solicitors) however, whereby a litigant could the development of the Greater Bay should be very alert of the conducts have waived his/her right to challenge Area through enhancing its economic that could amount to an acceptance/ jurisdiction by filing a procedural functions and facilitating the expansion submission as such. application, such as one for an Unless of several industries within the region Order. In B. Chainrai v Kushnir Family

42 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CIVIL PROCEDURE 民事訴訟程序

(Holdings) & Others, [2019] HKCFI Recorder’s wisdom as expressed in the a core feature in our legal system, foreign 234, Master Eliza Chang held that the Chainrai case, foreign litigants and their litigants and local legal practitioners alike 3rd Defendant had submitted to the solicitors must be very careful of not should pay necessary attention to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Hong Kong taking any action in the proceedings that mechanics of O.12, r. 8. in his application for an unless order would amount to an acceptance of the requiring the Plaintiff to file and serve jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Courts, be Implications and Conclusion a Statement of Claim within 7 days or those applications being ones for “Unless An express reservation allows the otherwise have their claim dismissed. Orders” or for other relief which could Defendant to dispute jurisdiction later on At the hearing before the learned trigger the threshold of acceptance/ (e.g. New Link Consultants Ltd v Air China Master, she contended that the 3rd submission. [2005] 2 HKC 260). Additionally, the Defendant, by complying or taking out Court of Appeal in Chan Hon specifically applications regarding to the procedure The observation of Mr. Recorder Charles requests Judges and Masters responsible of the pleadings, it connotes that the 3rd Manzoni SC also coincides with the in the Personal Injuries List to ask foreign Defendant did indeed want the action position of the Hon. Robert Goff LJ in Astro parties to indicate in interlocutory to be tried in Hong Kong. Mr. Recorder, Exito Navegacion SA v Hsu [1984] 1 Lloyds questionnaires whether the challenge to Charles Manzoni SC, hearing the 3rd Rep 266 in that voluntary submission to jurisdiction is being contemplated. Defendant’s application de novo, ruled jurisdiction arises “if [a party] takes a that “the application for an unless step in the proceedings which in all the One distinct impression reading the order, or the consequential consent circumstances amounts to a recognition various judgments mentioned in this summons…..are sufficient to demonstrate of the court’s jurisdiction in respect of the article was that as for foreign litigants an acceptance of the jurisdiction of the claim which is the subject matter of those (at times local litigants as well) could Hong Kong Courts” (see paragraph 64 of proceedings”. Similarly, the Third Case of well have the opportunities to escape B. Chainrai, the ‘2866’ judgment). Dicey (described as Rule 43 of Dicey & being caught in litigating in the Courts Morris in The Conflict of Laws) stated that of Hong Kong, but for their own conducts An Unless Order indeed has the effect of “where [a party] does indeed contest the inadvertently submitted to or otherwise being granted as a last attempt following jurisdiction but nevertheless proceeds accepted the jurisdiction. the inability for an opposite party to further to plead to the merits, or agrees to comply with specific directions. Arguably, a consent order dismissing the claims and The authors, have both been involved in a party by issuing an application for Unless crossclaims, or where he fails to appear in litigating the point (and luckily won for Order would be the party to gain relief proceedings at first instance but appeals the clients involved) and/or also having from the said potential Consequences on the merits”. Whilst these are examples studied the number of judgments as from the failure of that opposite party to from United Kingdom judgments, one can cited or referred to in this article, would comply with said Unless Order. appreciate the similarities of the Courts’ certainly wish to share the judicial wisdom approach when it comes to the waivers as shown in those judgments to alert For those readers who are more familiar of a party’s right to challenge the Court’s fellow practitioners and litigants in similar with civil procedures would readily know jurisdiction. position to avoid the painful experience that among the many, or indeed to many, being caught by the provisions of O. 12, types of applications any litigants could When Hong Kong will continue to be a r. 8 and thereby stuck having to litigate make in a civil/commercial action, an pivoting trading and commercial port in the Courts of Hong Kong when the application for “Unless Order” is only of the world and that for as long as the jurisdiction could otherwise be avoided. just one of them. So, taking the learned submission to jurisdiction would remain

www.hk-lawyer.org 43 • July 2021

接受司法管轄

作者：黃麥朱律師行合夥人黃浩翔黃麥朱律師行律師助理 Tanya Parmanand

Chan Hon v. Bayer Healthcare Limited, 管轄時，張澤祐法官（在判詞中）表訴訟人在涉及本地訴訟時，仍然面對 Bayer Diagnostics Limited and Bayer 示，「問題的關鍵是 [ 律師 ] 在聆訊受司法管轄的風險，而且往往幾乎是 Weimar GMBH Und Co. Kg [2020] 中的行為是否『完全明確』顯示無利不被注意的。個別案件案情的複雜 HKCA 1090 害關係的第三方會得出第二及第三性、《高等法院規則》及《區域法院 2020 年 12 月 31 日，上訴法院准許被告受司法管轄的結論」（見 Chan 規則》第 12 號命令第 8 條規定的嚴本案第二及第三被告的上訴，認定他 Hon 第 4.45 段）。格時間限制，以及規則的嚴格界限，們未受香港特別行政區法院的司法均可能是司法管轄權不明顯的原因。管轄。上訴庭法官裁定，「考慮到第二及第三被告實際上同意聆案官余敏奇給 2021 年及往後香港在大灣區在本案中，死者食用了分別由第一及出的程序指示，該行為是不明確的」香港工業貿易署在 2021 年 6 月發表第二被告分發和製造的藥丸。藥丸的（另見 Chan Hon 第 4.45 段）。的貿易便覽顯示，香港被評為全球最原料由第三被告提供。第一被告為一自由的經濟體，而 2021 年 3 月 17 日間香港註冊公司。第二及第三被告均基於這些理由，上訴法庭裁定法官在發布的全球金融中心指數報告亦指為德國公司。原告作為死者的遺產管重新審理第二及第三被告的申請時，出，香港是全球領先的國際金融中心理人，控告被告製造、分銷及／或導「在服從管轄權的問題上錯誤」（見之一，香港有望維持不斷發展的國際致在香港分銷這些藥丸的侵權行為 Chan Hon 第 4.46 段）。貿易和商業城市的地位。造成損害，因而導致死者死亡。在過去十多二十年，涉及司法管轄權作為中國內地的主要貿易夥伴，香港在決定第二及第三被告是否受司法挑戰的本地判決數量眾多，顯然外國肯定會繼續通過增強其經濟作用和

44 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CIVIL PROCEDURE 民事訴訟程序

促進區內多個產業的擴展，對大灣區司法管轄。在聆案官的聆訊中，她稱「若 [ 一方 ] 確實對管轄權提出質疑，的發展發揮積極作用（如見香港政府第三被告遵守或提出有關答辯程序的但仍繼續為案情辯護，或同意駁回申政制及內地事務局出版的大灣區刊申請，即表示第三被告確實希望訴訟索及和交叉申索的命令，或缺席原訟物）。與此同時，根據中共中央印發在香港審理。特委法官萬崇理資深大庭程序但根據案情提出上訴」。雖然的《法治社會建設實施綱要（2020 －律師在聽取第三被告的重新申請後裁這些是英國判例，但可以看到，法院 2025 年）》，「法治是中國文明進定，「限時履行的命令的申請，隨之在豁免一方挑戰法院管轄權的權利步的重要標誌」，大灣區將繼續發展而來的同意傳票……足以證明接受香時，方向的相似之處。成為宜居、宜業、宜遊的理想地方。港法院的司法管轄」（見 B. Chainrai 第 64 段的“2866”判決）。香港將繼續成為世界貿易樞紐和商顯然，香港法院將無可避免繼續審理業港口，而受司法管轄仍然是我們法涉及第 12 號命令第 8 條的民、商事在對方無法遵守特定指示後，「限時律制度的核心特徵，故外國訴訟人和爭議，數量甚至越來越多。履行的命令」確實具有授予最後嘗試本地法律從業者均應注意第 12 號命的效果。可以說，申請「限時履行的令第 8 條的運作方式。相當於接受管轄的行為命令」的一方，可從該對方未能遵守為避免落入受香港司法管轄的固有「限時履行的命令」潛在後果中獲得影響及結論陷阱，外國訴訟人（或他們的律師）救助。明確保留讓被告可稍後對管轄權提應非常警惕可能構成受香港司法管出異議（例如New Link Consultants 轄的行為。熟悉民事訴訟程序的讀者應該知道， Ltd v Air China [2005] 2 HKC 260）。任何訴訟人在民事／商業訴訟中可此外，在 Chan Hon 案中，上訴法庭向法院提出申請可能是一個容易掉提出許多類型的申請，「限時履行的特別要求負責人身傷害案的法官和入的陷阱。可能構成受管的行為命令」的申請只是其中之一。因此，聆案官，要求外國當事人在中期問卷包括申請訟費擔保(Shenzhen CTS 根據 Chainrai 案中特委法官的意見，調查中表明，是否正考慮對管轄權提 International Logistics Co Ltd v Dajiang 外國訴訟人及其律師必須非常小心，出質疑。 International Investment Co Ltd [2017] 不要在訴訟中採取任何何相當於接 HKEC 858)、抗辯書的送達(Chau 受香港法院司法管轄的行動，不論是閱讀本文中提到的各個判決得出的 Oi Fung [2014] HKEC 1828)、在香「限時履行的命令」申請，還是其他明顯印象是，外國訴訟人（有時也包港接受法律程序送達(PT Krakatau 可能觸發接受司法管轄的救助。括本地訴訟人），很有機會避開在香 Steel (Persero) v Mount Kerinci LLC 港法院的訴訟，但他們往往因為自己 [2009] 1 HKLRD 264)、申請剔除(B. 特委法官萬崇理資深大律師的觀察的行為，不經意間地接受了管轄。 Chainrai v Kushnir Family (Holdings) & 與 Robert Goff LJ 法官在Astro Exito Others [2019] HKCFI 2866 及 Winnitex Navegacion SA v Hsu [1984] 1 Lloyds 本文兩位作者均曾參與這個論點的 Investment Co Ltd v Oxford Products Rep 266 一案的立場不謀而合，他認訴訟（並幸運地為當事人勝訴）及／ (International) Ltd [2005] HKEC 44) 為自願受司法管轄的情況出現於：或研究了本文引用或提及的判決，希等。為避免受司法管轄，正如各級「若 [ 一方 ] 在訴訟程序中採取一個望分享這些判決中的司法智慧，提醒法院法官所述，被告必須通過附信步驟，而在所有情況下都等同於承認面對相同情況的同業和訴訟當事人，或在抗辯書的序言等，提供明確的法院對程序議題的申索有司法管轄以免被第 12 號命令第 8 條規管，在權利保留 (Miruvor Ltd v Panama-Globe 權」。類似地，Third Case of Dicey 案本來可以避免受管轄的情況下，不得 Steamer Lines SA & Ors [2007] HKCA 例（在《The Conflict of Laws》中稱不在香港法院進行訴訟。 49)。為 Dicey & Morris 第 43 條規則）指出，

但是，在某些情況下，訴訟人本可以通過提交程序申請（例如申請「限時履行的命令」），放棄挑戰司法管轄權的權利。在 B. Chainrai v Kushnir Family (Holdings) & Others, [2019] HKCFI 234 一案中，聆案官 Eliza Chang 認為，第三被告申請「限時履行的命令」，要求原告在 7 天內存檔及送達申索陳述書，否則申索將不予考慮，這個行為已受香港法院的

www.hk-lawyer.org 45 • July 2021

INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

CORPORATE There are no signs of slowing down, power to create change. ESG gives as the Stock Exchange has launched investors another channel to engage with 5 Reasons Why ESG is another consultation in April 2021 with a companies on climate change and other Important For Hong Kong view to potentially enhancing corporate issues. A recent high profile example is Businesses governance rules and strengthening the hedge fund Engine No. 1 getting three linkage between corporate governance directors onto the 12-member board It is clear that we are at a tipping and ESG. Proposals include amendment of NYSE listed Exxon Mobile Corp, point. As the world grapples with of the Corporate Governance Code in response to recent poor financial Covid-19, investors, corporations, and to clarify that the board should have performance by Exxon. Although the stakeholders are increasingly focusing governance and oversight of ESG matters fund only holds a 0.02% stake, it gained on environmental, social and governance and risks, and pushing up the publication backing from large institutional investors (ESG) issues, and their legal and timeframe for ESG reporting to be including BlackRock. Shareholder reputational implications. This has been simultaneous with annual reports. If this activism remains rare in Hong Kong, reinforced in recent months with multiple proposal passes, listed companies must with one local example being Elliott significant developments, including the plan time and resources well in advance Management’s reported battle with US re-joining the Paris Agreement, a if they are to satisfy the Corporate the Bank of East Asia; nonetheless, Dutch court ordering Shell to accelerate Governance Code and maintain reporting companies should proactively manage carbon emission cuts to comply with the quality. risks by reviewing their ESG standards Paris Agreement, and New York City’s and practices and identifying any lawsuit against major oil companies 2. New requirements proposed for weaknesses open to challenge. over their climate change claims. In Asia, fund managers 4. Growing trend of ESG due diligence pledges by Hong Kong, Japan and South In January 2021, the Securities and in M&As Korea to become carbon neutral by 2050 Futures Commission (“SFC”) wrapped and by China to do the same by 2060 up a consultation regarding the We note that potential acquirers are have also driven ESG into the limelight. management and disclosure of climate- increasingly integrating ESG elements related risks by fund managers. The into their due diligence and decision- Here are five selected reasons why ESG SFC has proposed to amend the Fund making, including in areas such as should be top of mind for Hong Kong Manager Code of Conduct to enhance ethics and anti-bribery, environmental businesses, investors and their legal requirements in the four key areas of: compliance, health and safety, and advisors: governance, investment management, data privacy. Private equity firms, asset risk management and disclosure, with managers and corporations each have 1. Tightening reporting requirements additional requirements for large fund their own considerations for doing so, for Hong Kong listed companies managers with over HK$4 billion in but in any case, business owners should Following a 2019 market consultation on assets under management. Although prepare for related questions if they are the board’s role and accountability in ESG the consultation conclusions are still contemplating a sale, and should take matters, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange pending as of the date of writing, Hong stock of their own ESG readiness with has implemented new proposals which Kong fund managers should start to the aim of a smoother and quicker sale include upgraded reporting requirements consider potential implications on their process overall. for listed issuers, encouragement to operations and the industry expertise seek independent assurance on ESG required to comply. 5. Rising investor appetite for green/ disclosures, and shortened timeframes sustainable finance 3. Increasing shareholder pressure for ESG reporting. The Stock Exchange There are multiple studies suggesting a has also developed guidance material to Shareholder activism is not a new positive relationship between stronger help directors develop ESG awareness phenomenon, with fund managers and ESG standards and better financial and expertise. other investors using their shareholding performance. As a result, ESG has

46 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

captured investor attention and Hong 者及其法律顧問頭等關注之事？本文公布，但是香港的基金經理應當開始 Kong has enjoyed strong growth in green 列舉五個原因加以說明：考量證監會的建議對基金運作的潛在 bonds and loans, with names such as 影響，以及他們須遵守的專業知識規 Wheelock, Langham Hospitality, Link 1. 港上市公司的匯報規定正在收緊定。 REIT and Swire Properties announcing 2019 年就董事會在 ESG 事宜的角色 3. 來至於股東的壓力在增加 billions of HKD in sustainability-linked 和問責性諮詢市場意見之後，香港聯 loans. Such demand will continue to 交所落實新建議，包括加強向上市發股東積極行動主義（shareholder drive borrowers to perform against 行人施加匯報規定、鼓勵就 ESG 披 activism）不是新現象，基金經理及 sustainability metrics. On the other hand, 露資料尋求獨立驗證，以及縮短 ESG 其他投資者以往都有利用股權力量帶 companies with poor ESG performance 匯報的時限。聯交所亦已制定指南資來改變。ESG 給投資者另一渠道與公 may risk being screened out by concerned 料，幫助董事培養 ESG 意識和專業司共同處理氣候轉變及其他問題。最 investors. 知識。近有一個非常矚目的例子：埃克森美孚（Exxon Mobile Corp）是紐約證券 The Way Ahead 聯交所的工作接二連三，未見放緩跡交易所上市公司，董事會由 12 名成 Given the broad range of issues that 象，更於 2021 年 4 月展開另一輪諮員組成，對沖基金 Engine No. 1 鑒於 ESG entails, the above is merely a brief 詢，期望在可能情況下優化企業管埃克森美孚近期財務表現差勁，成功 overview of where things stand. ESG will 治的規定，加強企業管治與 ESG 兩獲得自己提名的三名董事被委任加入 be a long-term fixture in the business 者之間的關係。提出的建議包括修董事會。基金雖然只持有 0.02%股 world. Finding the right expertise and 訂《企業管治守則》，釐清董事會份，但贏得大型機構投資者支持，其 complying with increased regulatory, 對 ESG 事宜和 ESG 風險應該具有管中包括貝萊德（BlackRock）在內。 investor and public expectations will 治權和監管權，也包括縮短刊發 ESG 股東積極行動主義在香港一直很少 no doubt be both a challenge and an 報告的時限，使該報告與年報在同一見，一個罕有的本地例子是 Elliott opportunity for businesses today, but for 時間刊發。如果建議通過，上市公司 Management 的一場與東亞銀行的鬥 those that are able to stay on top of the 要符合《企業管治守則》的規定及保爭；然而，公司應當主動管理風險， rapidly changing ESG landscape, they 持報告質量，就必須事先計劃好時間檢視公司的 ESG 標準及常規，找出 may well find that this has become a 和資源上的安排。任何可以被外界攻擊的弱點。 lasting competitive advantage. 2. 建議修訂適用於基金經理的規定 4. ESG 盡職調查在併購之中漸成趨 – Shirley Fu, Partner, SF Lawyers 勢 in association with KPMG Law 2021 年 1 月，證券及期貨事務監察委 – Sherman Wong, Senior Associate, 員會（「證監會」）結束有關基金經我們注意到，潛在的收購者漸多把 SF Lawyers in association with KPMG Law 理管理及披露氣候相關風險的諮詢。 ESG 元素融入盡職調查和決策之中，證監會建議修訂《基金經理操守準包括在倫理及反賄賂、環境監察、健則》，加強四個範疇的要求：管治、康安全以及數據私穩等範疇。對於這企業投資管理、風險管理及披露，而管理個做法，私募股權投資公司、資產經資產達 40 億港元或以上的大型基金理及大小企業各有本身的考慮，但不五個原因說明為甚麼 ESG 是經理，須遵守額外的規定。雖然在本管怎樣，企業家如果考慮出售業務的香港公司的頭等大問題文撰寫當日，諮詢意見總結仍然有待話，就應當以整體上暢順並加快出售

我們顯然現正處於臨界點。全球正努力遏制 2019 冠狀病毒病蔓延之際，投資者、大小企業及持份者逐漸把焦點放在環境、社會及管治（ESG）問題之上，並且越來越關注 ESG 隱含的法律問題和對聲譽的影響。這個勢頭在最近幾個月進一步加強，好幾次取得長足發展，包括美國重新加入《巴黎協定》、荷蘭法院下令 Shell 大幅削減碳排放量至《巴黎協定》的水平、紐約市政府控告大型石油公司在氣候變化的問題上誤導公眾。在亞洲，香港、日本和南韓承諾在 2050 年實現碳中和，中國亦承諾在 2060 年達致同一目標，這些承諾亦使 ESG 成為矚目焦點。

為甚麼 ESG 應該是香港公司、投資

www.hk-lawyer.org 47 • July 2021

過程為目的，準備好應對相關問題， sought admission. any) in this context and, assuming there 並且估量自己預先為 ESG 所做的工 is such a distinction, is it relevant when 夫。 The Law Society of Hong Kong (as an considering an application for ad hoc intervening party in the appeal) and the admission pursuant to s. 27(4) (“Power 5. 投資者對綠色∕可持續融資的興 applicant applied to the Court of Appeal of the Court to admit barristers”) of the 趣一直增加 for permission to appeal to Court of Final Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159). Appeal but that was rejected on 31 March 有好幾項研究認為，ESG 標準和財務表現間存在正向關係，標準越高，表 2021 ([2021] HKCA 450). Both appellants There is also the point that, while have applied to the Appeal Committee of applications for ad hoc admission turn 現越好。因此，ESG 攫住了投資者的目光，綠色債券和貸款在香港增長強 the Court of Final Appeal for permission on their facts, the Court of Final Appeal 勁，會德豐、朗廷酒店、領展、太古 to appeal and, at the time of writing, rarely (if ever) gets a chance to review 地產，等等，先後宣布港幣十億元計 those applications are due to be heard what is meant by the “public interest” 的可持續發展表現掛鈎貸款。此等需 on 14 July 2021. in the context of such applications – the 求會繼續推動借款人以可持續性為計 relevant legal principles having been set In the meantime, the applicant’s ad hoc out in the landmark case of Re Flesch 量表現的尺度。另一方面，ESG 表現 admission is for the purpose of appearing QC [1999] 1 HKLRD 506 (known as the 差勁的公司有被關注 ESG 的投資者篩掉之虞。 at the trial of proceedings that are due “Re Flesch QC guidelines”). The public to commence on 28 June 2021 (HCCL interest is paramount, which includes 前瞻 9/2019) with an estimated duration of having a strong and independent local approximately fifty days – therefore, Bar. As things stand, the judgments of 基於 ESG 引出的問題五花八門，上 the applicant will have to appear with a the Court of First Instance and the Court 文只是按目前情況略作概述。ESG 會 local barrister irrespective of whether he of Appeal in Re Simpson QC operate 是商業世界中長期持續的問題。無 also appears with a solicitor advocate. (in practice) as a prohibition against an 疑，對於現今的大小企業來說，尋找 However, the fact that the application to overseas barrister appearing only with a 合用的專業知識，迎合監管機構、投 the Appeal Committee has not been able solicitor advocate – however, the public 資者和公眾與日俱增的期望，既是挑 to be heard before the commencement interest also involves the development of 戰，也是機會，那些有本事在瞬息萬 of the trial should not detract from the a strong pool of “local advocates”, which 變的 ESG 領域中保持出色表現的公 importance of the issues raised in Re includes solicitor advocates. 司，很可能發現這個本事已成為一種 Simpson QC. 持久的競爭優勢。 A final appeal inRe Simpson QC would Based on the judgments in Re Simpson give the Court of Final Appeal an – 符莎莉律師事務所合夥人符莎莉 QC to date, the application to the Appeal opportunity to review the development – 符莎莉律師事務所資深律師王世文 Committee is likely to focus on some of the legal principles relevant to an interesting points of public importance – application for ad hoc admission in the including, what is the distinction between current circumstances of Hong Kong – PROFESSION a barrister and a solicitor advocate (if a generation on from Re Flesch QC and Update on Overseas Barrister and Solicitor Advocate “Mixed-Doubles”

As previously reported (Industry Insights, February 2021, “Update on Ad Hoc Admission of Overseas Barristers 2020- 21”), in Re Simpson QC the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal allowed an application for ad hoc admission to the Hong Kong Bar but, in doing so, they refused to remove the usual condition that the applicant appear with a local barrister. In the first such application of its kind, the applicant’s legal representatives had sought to remove the condition in order that the applicant could appear only with one or more solicitor advocates in the proceedings for which the applicant

48 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

almost a decade on from the introduction 分別又是否相關的考慮因素？ by a judge – notably, pursuant to a of solicitor advocates in Hong Kong. consent order agreed by the Solicitors 還有一個論點：專案認許的申請成功 Regulation Authority (SRA) with the case – Charles Allen, Solicitor Advocate, 與否，取決於其本身的事實，但是終 due to be remitted back to the tribunal. Partner, RPC 審法院極少（如果是曾經試過）有機 Aspects of the case appear troubling and 會檢視「公眾利益」在此等申請中 contain some lessons for the regulation 所包含的意思──相關法律原則已在 of lawyers irrespective of jurisdiction. The 專業導論 Re Flesch QC [1999] 1 HKLRD 506 這宗 case and some of its unusual background 具有里程碑意義的案件中列明（稱 circumstances have also received much 關於海外大律師和訟辯律師為「Re Flesch QC 案指南」）。公眾 comment and social media attention. 「混合雙打」的最新情況利益是最重要的，其中包括建立了穩健獨立的本地大律師行列。以現時情 Some Background 早前報導過（2021 年 2 月份〈業界況來看，原訟法庭和上訴法庭在 Re The respondent is a young solicitor who 透視〉的「專案認許海外大律師的 Simpson QC 案作出的判決，（實際 had been qualified for less than a year 最新情況（2020-21 年）」），在 Re 上）是禁止海外大律師只與一名訟辯 at the time and had recently joined the Simpson QC 一案，原訟法庭和上訴法律師出庭──然而，公眾利益亦關係 law firm. It so happens that the law 庭批准申請人的申請，申請人在香港到在本地形成一批人強勢壯的訟辯人 firm had acted for the SRA in a matter 獲專案認許為大律師，不過，法庭同（local advocates），其中包括訟辯 involving a complainant who had been 時亦拒絕免除慣有的條件，申請人因律師。 in dispute with the SRA concerning 而得與本地大律師一起出庭。在這一 (among other things) their personal 次在同類之中屬首次的申請，申請人 Re Simpson QC 案的終極上訴給終審 data. The respondent, together with 的法律代表要求免除該條件，好使申法院機會去審視法律原則的發展， another solicitor, had been involved in the 請人在法律程序中（申請人為這法律即是在香港目前情況下──打從 Re SRA’s defence (under the supervision of 程序而要求獲認許為大律師）可以只 Flesch QC 案之後的一代，也是香港 a partner). With the knowledge of one or 與一名或以上訟辯律師一起出庭。引入訟辯律師幾近十年之後──那些 more of her colleagues the respondent 與專案認許申請相關的法律原則的發 borrowed a locked briefcase from a 香港律師會（作為上訴案中的介入者展。 colleague (which contained confidential 一方）和申請人向上訴法庭提出申 documents relating to the complainant) 請，要求獲准上訴至終審法院，可是 – RPC 合夥人兼訟辯律師艾倫 with the intention of working on the case 是項申請在 2021 年 3 月 31 日被駁回 over a “public holiday” weekend in May （[2021] HKCA 450）。兩名上訴人已 2018. 向終審法院上訴委員會提出申請，要 PROFESSION 求獲准上訴，本文撰寫時，那些申請 A series of events followed that proved 預定於年月日進行聆訊。 2021 7 14 The Case of a “Lost Briefcase”, catastrophic for the respondent, beginning with the loss of the briefcase 與此同時，申請人是為了在某案法律 Some “Common Sense” and “Context” on the train on her way home. In what 程序的審訊中出庭而申請專案認許， appears to have been a state of panic, the 該審訊預定於 2021 年 6 月 28 日展開 Snapshot respondent failed to inform her employer （HCCL 9/2019），估計需時五十天 of the lost briefcase and papers for about In a judgment of the Solicitors Disciplinary 左右──因此，不管申請人是否與訟 one week, until matters came to a head Tribunal (England) in the matter of Re 辯律師一起出庭，到時他必須與一名 in the office on or about 1 June 2018 – Claire, Case No. 12005-2019, dated 本地大律師一起出庭。向上訴委員會 indeed, before then the respondent 25 March 2020, a junior solicitor (the 提出的申請未能在審訊展開前進行聆 appears to have given an untrue account respondent) was found to have misled her 訊，不過在 Re Simpson QC 案提出的 to her employer concerning when the employer law firm over the course of about 爭議點，其重要性不應因此而有所減 briefcase went missing. During the week a week regarding the circumstances in 損。 in question the respondent’s life appears which a briefcase containing confidential to have fallen apart. 觀乎 Re Simpson QC 案到目前為止的 client documents had been lost on a train while she was travelling home. In 判決，向上訴委員會提出的申請，相 The seriousness of the matter cannot be a fully reasoned judgment, arising out 當可能把重點放在某些有意思並且關 disputed and the respondent appears to of a disciplinary hearing lasting some 乎公衆的重要性的論點之上──包括 have been dismissed about two weeks four days, the tribunal ordered that the 在這背景中，大律師和訟辯律師有甚 later. 麼分別（如果兩者是有分別的話）， respondent be struck off. 假定是有分別的，當以《法律執業者 Inevitably the complainant learnt of the Following the respondent’s appeal to 條例》（第 159 章）第 27(4) 條（「法 incident and complained to the SRA. the English High Court, the tribunal’s 院認許大律師的權力」）為依據，考 Disciplinary proceedings against the decision has (in the main) been quashed 慮專案認許申請的時候，這樣的一個 respondent followed.

www.hk-lawyer.org 49 • July 2021

In brief, it was alleged that the (if not more) important issues that arise worth noting that the best law of respondent’s explanation to her employer for the legal profession. For example: regulation (for regulators and those as to when she had lost the briefcase that they regulate) is itself “common showed a lack of integrity or amounted • Once an allegation of dishonesty sense”. to a failure to uphold the trust that the had been included in the complaint public expects of a solicitor. Dishonesty and determined by the tribunal, the • Had the tribunal’s decision been was not an essential ingredient to respondent faced the real prospect of allowed to stand it is difficult to see prove these allegations, but it was also being struck off (the ultimate sanction) how it would have encouraged lawyers alleged that the respondent had acted – irrespective of her mitigation. In the to self-report innocent data breaches “dishonestly”. The respondent could apparent absence of credible expert to their employers. This concern not afford legal representation, so she evidence as to the respondent’s is only heightened in a COVID-19 represented herself at the hearing. mental well-being at the material environment, with more lawyers and time the tribunal appears to have staff working from home and many of The tribunal determined that four of the considered that the ultimate sanction the longer-term serious consequences five allegations against the respondent should follow, based (in part) on of the pandemic yet to be seen. had been proven to the requisite standard previous precedents arising out of of proof (including, the allegation of other cases involving dishonesty – as • Going forwards, regulators will dishonesty). opposed to (for example) a fine and/ need to prioritize which matters to or suspension. This is (on the face of take to a disciplinary tribunal and Sanction it) a rather troubling conclusion and, which charges to lay. Resources are The tribunal considered that the if correct, the relevant legal principles limited (particularly, in a COVID-19 seriousness of the respondent’s deserve appellate court clarification environment) and should be targeted misconduct was “high” and that, in light in order to assist future tribunal at the more serious misconduct of its finding of dishonesty, it had little proceedings. referred to above (by way of example). alternative but to order that she be struck off and pay the SRA’s costs (as assessed • While dishonesty in the workplace • Following on from Re Beckwith by the tribunal). can never be condoned, it will have (Industry Insights, March 2021 – different contexts. For example, “Boundaries of Professional Conduct Appeal the respondent did not act for any and Private Life”) concerns have As a result of the media attention that the financial gain and the complainant’s already been expressed about case attracted, the respondent secured loss (as to their personal data) could, “regulatory overreach” or whether some formidable legal representation presumably, have been compensated. some prosecutors may be conditioned and, apparently, “crowdfunding” for If the respondent’s behaviour is to see certain alleged misconduct in a her potential costs exposure. Tellingly, considered to have amounted to less than detached manner. the respondent’s appeal was allowed allegedly serious or “very serious” by consent without any written decision misconduct at the “high” end (paras – David Smyth, Senior Consultant, RPC by the court. It appears that the 40 and 66 of the tribunal’s judgment) – Antony Sassi, Managing Partner (Asia), respondent’s lawyers prepared new what say (for example) of a law firm RPC evidence concerning the state of the partner who misappropriates client respondent’s mental well-being and/or money or deals in the proceeds of lack of legal representation such that the crime or commits flagrant and serious 專業導論 SRA had little choice but to concede the breaches of the account rules? The appeal. context is important. 「遺失公事包」案、一些「常識」和「涉案情況」 The tribunal’s judgment is publicly • At one point, the tribunal’s judgment available – indorsed with a stark notice observes that “common sense” 內文簡介 at the top of the front page regarding the suggests that a solicitor of “any level 在 Re Claire 一案（案件編號：12005- consent order approved by the court. of experience” would know to report 2019，日期：2020 年 3 月 25 日）， a loss of client documents promptly 一名初級律師（答辯人）在回家途中 Some Reflection (For Now) to their employer (para. 38 of the 把公事包遺留在列車上，公事包裏面 There has been much comment and judgment). That ought to be true and 放有保密的客戶文件。英國律師紀律 social media attention concerning the emphasizes the need for employers 審裁組（「審裁組」）就此案作出判 case of Re Claire – much has focused to have the right policies and ongoing 決，裁定答辯人在遺失公事包後大約 on the issue of the respondent’s lack training in place (including, for new 一星期之內，一直誤導僱主（一間律 of legal representation and/or state of recruits) – as the respondent’s former 師事務所），不告知相關的情況。紀 mind during the fateful week in question. employer clearly did – backed by an 律聆訊為時四天左右，在理由完全充 However, there are arguably other equally appropriate work culture. It is also

50 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

約一星期依然訟費風險，據說她是透過「眾籌」應沒有告知僱主付的。顯然，答辯人是在訴訟各方同她遺失了公事意下上訴得直，法庭不用作出任何書包和文件，一面裁決。答辯人的律師似乎準備了新直到2018 年 6 證據，證明答辯人的精神健康狀況及月 1 日或前後 ∕或她沒有法律代表，使得律師監管日子，辦公室局別無選擇，只得讓步同意答辯人上內一名高層才訴得直。得知此事── 事實上，在此審裁組的判決書是公開資料──首頁之前，答辯人上方印上有關法院批准同意令的醒目似乎一直向僱批註。主說謊，沒有如實交代她甚（目前的）一些反思麼時候不見了 Re Claire 案引起不少議論，亦吸引社公事包。在那交媒體注意──大多聚焦於一個爭議個相關的一星點，那就是答辯人沒有法律代表及∕ 期時間裏，答或是她在那個災難連連的一星期裏的辯人是痛不欲精神狀況。然而，還有其他是法律專生。業可作辯證而且同樣地（如果不是更加的）重要的爭議點。例如：事件的嚴重性不容爭議，似 • 一旦投訴內容包括一項針對答辯份的判決中，審裁組下令將答辯人的乎答辯人在大約兩個星期之後就被解人不誠實的指控，而審裁組裁定指姓名從律師名冊上剔除。僱了。控成立，答辯人的確得面對被除名的可能（終極處罰）──不管她提答辯人向英國高等法院上訴，獲法官申訴人得悉事件後，當然是向律師監出甚麼減刑理由。答辯一方明顯缺（基本上）撤銷審裁組的裁決──特管局投訴。針對答辯人的紀律研訊程乏可信的專家證據，無從證明答辯別是，根據一份在英國律師監管局序隨之展開。人在事發時的精神健康狀況，在此（Solicitors Regulation Authority）同情況下，審裁組似乎是（一部份）意底下作出的同意令，案件將發還審扼要地說，控方指答辯人向僱主解釋基於過往其他涉及「不誠實」的案裁組審理。此案似乎在各個方面都令遺失公事包一事時，沒有如實交代自件先例，認為應當施以終極處罰人感到不安，在規管律師方面，包含己何時遺失公事包，可見她欠缺誠 ──而不是判處（例如）罰款及∕ 任何司法管轄區都可借鑒的教訓。案信，又或者說，市民大眾對律師抱有或暫時吊銷執業資格。（從表面看件和案件一些不尋常的背景亦引起不期望，但答辯人未能維持他們對律師來）這個決定相當令人不安，如果少議論，亦吸引社交媒體注意。的信任。「不誠實」不是證明此等指決定正確，為了將來協助進行審裁控屬實的主要元素，可是答辯人亦被組的法律程序，原訴法庭值得闡明一些背景資料指控「不誠實地」行事。答辯人無力一遍相關的法律原則。答辯人是年輕律師，事發時取得律師聘請法律代表，因此，在有關聆訊資格不足一年，才剛加入上述律師事中，她是親自應訊的。 • 工作場所之內絕不容忍有人「不誠務所工作。事有湊巧，該律師事務所實」，可是發生於工作場所的「不當時正就某宗案件代表律師監管局行審裁組裁定，在五項針對答辯人的指誠實」，情況各有不同。例如，答事，該案涉及一名申訴人與律師監管控中，四項指控已證實達到必要的辯人不是為了經濟利益而行事，而局之間關於（其中包括）個人資料的舉證標準（包括指控答辯人「不誠且申訴人（想必）本來可以獲得賠爭議。答辯人與另一名律師（在一名實」）。償。如果答辯人的行為被認為構成合夥人的指導下）參與為律師監管局所指控的嚴重或「非常嚴重」的失抗辯的工作。在 2018 年 5 月，答辯處罰當行為，程度已達「高」（high）人在一名或多於一名同事知情的情況由於認為答辯人的失當行為達到級數（審裁組判決書第 40 及 66 下，向某名同事借用一個可以上鎖的「高」（high）級數的嚴重程度，加段），那麼，如果是律師事務所公事包（裏面放有與該申訴人有關的上已認定答辯人不誠實，審裁組別無合夥人（譬如說）挪用客戶款項、保密文件），打算在周末的「公眾假選擇，只可下令將答辯人的姓名從律處理犯罪得益，又或者明目張膽地期」處理該案。師名冊上剔除，並且由她支付律師監嚴重違反帳目規定，情況又怎麼說管局的訟費（金額由審裁組評定）。呢？涉案情況很重要。隨後發生一連串給答辯人造成災難性後果的事，首先是她在回家途中上訴 • 審裁組在判決書某處指出，依照把公事包遺留在列車上。似乎答辯案件引起媒體注意，答辯人因而得到「常識」的意思，任何律師，人是驚慌得不知所措，所以過了大一些法律代表仗義幫忙，至於潛在的「不論經驗多少」（any level of

www.hk-lawyer.org 51 • July 2021

experience），都會知道自己得馬 beliefs, political or otherwise” the information that the parties bring 上向僱主報告客戶文件不見了（判 before a Court. - The Honourable Chief Justice Andrew 決書第 38 段）。報告內容應當真 Cheung 實不假，這強調僱主需要制定合適 It is noteworthy that not all decisions 的政策及持續地（包括為了招募新 which require the exercise of judicial Introduction 人）提供適切訓練──正如答辯 powers are complex. Default judgments The use of artificial intelligence (“A.I.”) 人的前僱主當時明顯已做的── requiring the declaration of the Court in Courts to render justice has been 這是合適的工作文化所支持的。有 (e.g. Order 19 rule 7 applications) and theorized in science fiction since the 一點同樣值得指出，那就是，最好 summary judgment and summary dawn of the digital age. In an age where 的法律法規（適用於監管機構及監 judgments are all matters which can be impartiality of judges is often challenged, 管機構的監管對象）本身就是一種 dealt with without the need of an actual it is easy to understand why humanity 「常識」。 hearing. Where the matter is overly might opt to surrender difficult decisions complex, such applications will have over to A.I. which are devoid of emotion. • 倘若審裁組的判決一直維持有效， deemed inappropriate and dismissed in 便很難見得到它會怎樣鼓勵律師 any event (a process which can of course As with any application of technology 向僱主報告自己洩露了資料，但不 be undertaken by logic engine). to a specific task, there are of course 是惡意的。只有在 2019 冠狀病毒 advantages and disadvantages. 病肆虐的環境裏，有更多律師及人 Conversely, A.I.’s application in simple 員在家工作的時候，這個問題才廣 criminal cases (e.g. traffic violation, etc.) What is A.I.? 受關注，疫情很多更為長遠的嚴重 where fixed penalty are the norm can 後果仍然有待觀察。 According to John McCarthy, the famed similarly be handled by A.I. (subject to computer and cognitive scientist whom human review if the situation so warrants). • 展望張來，監管機構需要給呈交 had been credited with coining the term 紀律審裁組的案件排列優先次序， “artificial intelligence”, A.I. is defined as: It cannot be stressed enough that 以及決定提出甚麼指控。資源有限 technology have much potential to ease （尤其是在 2019 冠狀病毒病肆虐 “allowing a machine to behave in such a the backlog of cases in our judiciary as 的環境裏），因此應當針對（舉例 way that it would be called intelligent if a well as achieving judicial economy with 說）上述較為嚴重的失當行為善用 human being behaved in such a way…” cases. 資源。 - John McCarthy Existing Technology • 自從Re Beckwith 案（2021 年 3 月 Integral to operation of A.I. is therefore It should be noted that the application of 份〈業界透視〉–「專業操守及 the availability of big data (e.g. collated A.I. in judicial practice has already taken 私生活的界限」）以來，有人關 judgments, etc.) and the ability of shape in various parts of the world. For 注到「監管過嚴」（regulatory processing such raw big data into example, in a recent research done in the overreach）的問題，又或者說，關 actionable knowledge. In short, A.I. is: European Union, A.I. prediction of verdicts 注到一些檢控員在查看某些被指 of cases heard at the European Court of 稱的失當行為時，是否可以多講一 Collection of Big Data Processed Human Rights had been able to achieve 點情理。 into Knowledge Action through an accuracy range of 79%. The technology Logic Engine therefore already exists! – RPC 高級顧問施德偉 – RPC 亞洲區執行合夥人石俊禮 As we enter into the new decade, Hong Kong’s Lag in Legal Technology access to big data is very much a reality. Adaptation Quantum computing that will enable As mentioned above, in order for A.I. to actionability of knowledge gleaned from work properly, big data is a condition TECHNOLOGY such collected big data is also very much precedent. One of the hurdles that Hong a reality. Kong will undoubtedly encounter is the The Evolution of the Judiciary fact that much of our legal professional in the Age of Technology | Application of A.I., Big Data & are still paper based. The digitization of Artificial Intelligence and the Knowledge in Computer Assisted our judicial process is therefore essential Delivery of Justice Courts if we are to have an environment that will It is trite that the administration of justice be accommodating to A.I. adaptation. “Judges are human. It is only natural that, means the delivery of justice on a case like others in society, judges may have and by case basis. Each matter brought The Need of a Human Heart are indeed entitled to their own personal before a Judge must be decided on its ““Worlds governed by artificial intelligence views and beliefs. However, a judge must individual facts and merits. Regardless often learned a hard lesson: Logic Doesn’t decide cases objectively and professionally, of the subject matter in question, the care.” – Yin-Man Wi” independent of his own personal views or work of a presiding justice is to process

52 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • INDUSTRY INSIGHTS 業界透視

- Quote from the Sic-Fi Series 1. Organizing information: solicitors to re-think their own course of action Andromeda across the ages have often been before taking it. criticized by presiding justices for their Whilst an A.I. assisted judiciary will failure to properly collate evidence. – Joshua Chu, Consultant, ONC Lawyers undoubtedly have much value to assist Solicitors (and barristers) are supposed – Anna Lau, Partner, in the way justice is rendered, it should to be assisting judges in their delivery Ravenscroft & Schmierer be noted that the beauty of Common of justice. A.I. will have great potential Law lies in the emphasis on equity and when it comes to matters such as conscionability. eDiscovery, collating of evidence. That 科技 said, the first step will be to implement Whilst the outsourcing of justice to A.I. greater levels of e-filing and e-service 司法機構在科技年代的演變 | may have its attractiveness on hind sight, (legal practitioners must get used to 人工智能和公義的施行 overly stringent application of the law is having things digitally rather than on also known to have caused injustice. The paper!) 「法官是人。法官與社會其他人一 acquittal of O.J. Simpsons for example 樣，自然而然，或許有自己的觀點和 have often times been criticized that 2. A.I. assisted advice/analytics: if there 信念，而他們亦有權享有個人的觀點 whilst procedural justice was achieved, is one thing A.I. is good with it is the 和信念。然而，法官斷案必須客觀專 the same cannot be so certain in respect digesting of great amounts of data and 業，不為個人在政治或其他方面的觀 to moral justice. The fact remains, the turning them into knowledge. Whilst 點或信念所左右。」 human heart will always remain as the it should be up to the end users (e.g. - 終審法院首席法官張舉能 last bulwark for justice. Many judges will the lawyers) to decide what to do with often agree: each set of collated analysis, the age of 引言 slow digesting of papers should, where “sentencing is the most difficult part of possible, come to an end. A.I. have, 始自數碼年代降臨之初，科幻小說已 the job” after all, been used for data mining for 從理論上說明可以怎樣在法院利用人 a long time. Further, the ability to use 工智能（artificial intelligence，簡稱 Further, given the fact that A.I. is still, as an A.I. to tell a client of their prospect 「A.I.」）施行公義。在如今法官常 of this moment of writing at least, a novel of success (predictive A.I. is already in 被質疑是否公正不偏的年代，我們不 technology which remains to be proven, existence as mentioned above), may 難理解為甚麼人類可以放手不做艱難 caution dictates that it is better to have facilitate better settlement of disputes. 的決定，選擇交由冷面無情的 A.I.去 an A.I. assisted judiciary (which we should 做。 be encouraged to do everything to strive 3. Predictions: solicitors (and counsels), for) rather than a A.I. presided judiciary. whilst their position entails them to 把科技應用到某項特定的工作是有利 come up with arguments for their 也有弊，應用到法院工作當然也一 Conclusion client’s case, will often find themselves 樣。 To take things to the next step, we must falling victim to tunnel vision and 甚麼是 . .？ therefore be mindful of what A.I. can do buying too much in their own Kool-Aid. A I for us in the decade of 2021: A.I. predictions will enable all parties John McCarthy，著名的電腦及認知科學家，A.I. 這個流行用語就是由他發明的，按照他賦予的定義，A.I. 是指：

「機器可以做出來的事，是會被認為具有由人類做出來之時所表現的才智……」 - John McCarthy

因此，A.I.的操作靠賴大數據（例如經校勘的判決）的輸入及其本身把此等原始大數據轉為可行動知識（actionable knowledge）的能力，兩者不可或缺。簡單而言，A.I. 是：

收集大數據把大數據轉為知識通過邏輯引擎化為行動

在我們進入新一個十年之際，取用大數據是非常明確的事實。量子計算使

www.hk-lawyer.org 53 • July 2021

收集得來的大數據能夠轉為可行動知香港在科技應用方面落後於人 A.I.在2021 以後的十年內，能夠為我識，這同樣是非常明確的事實。如上文所述，輸入大數據是 A.I. 運作們做些甚麼事：暢順的先決條件。事實上，我們的法法庭透過電腦應用 A.I.、大數據及知律專業人員大多仍舊使用實體文書， 1. 梳理資料：各個年代的事務律師識這無疑是香港得面對的障礙之一。因往往因為沒有好好整理證據而被執行公義，按照老生常談的說法，是此，如果我們想要一個兼容 A.I. 的環主審法官指責。事務律師（和大指根據個別情況秉行公義。每一個提境，司法程序數碼化勢在必行。律師）理應協助法官施行公義。呈法官席前的問題，必須根據其個別在電子蒐證、整理證據等事宜上，事實和理據去定奪。不管相關的標的人情之常 A.I. 潛質很高。不過，第一步是加事宜是甚麼，主審法官的工作是處理「『由 A.I. 支配的世界通常得了一強推行電子存檔和電子服務（法訴訟各方提呈法庭的資料。個慘痛的教訓：邏輯不講人情。』律執業人員必須習慣電子化而不 ── Yin-Man Wi」是紙張化！）值得一提的是，必須行使司法權才可 - 摘錄自 - 作出的決定，可不是全部都錯綜複 Sic Fi Series Andromeda 2. A.I. 協助提供意見∕進行分析：如雜。因欠缺行動而作出的判決需要法果 A.I. 有一技之長，把大量數據 A.I. 協助司法機構完成工作無疑對公庭作出宣告（例如應用第 19 號命令消化後轉為知識就是它之所長。義的施行大有助益，但是我們應當留第 7 條規則）及作出簡易判決，循簡雖然應該由終端用戶（例如律師）意，普通法的優點在於講究公平和合易程序判決的問題全部是不需要實際決定如何利用每一套經過整理的乎情理。聆訊就可處理的問題。如果事情極為分析資料，但是慢慢消化紙本資繁複，此等應用會被視為不恰當，法料的年代（如果可以的話）應當雖然事後看來，「外包」司法工作給庭無論如何都不作考慮（這個過程當終結。畢竟，人類很久以前已經 . . 一事可以有其本身的吸引力，但然可由邏輯引擎進行）。 A I 利用 A.I. 挖掘數據。再者，能夠利是眾所周知，執法過嚴亦會造成不公用 A.I. 預告當事人他們的勝算（如不義。例如 O.J. Simpsons 案的無罪判反過來說，A.I. 可應用於簡單的刑事上文所述，具備預測能力的 A.I.已決經常被批評程序符合公義，但道德案（例如違反交通條例），這類案件經面世），也就有可能利便以較上是否公義卻並不全然肯定。事實不通常判處定額罰款，A.I. 同樣處理得滿意的方法解決爭議。變，人情之常一直是維持公義的最後來（如有正當理由，可交由人類覆防線。法官通常同意以下的說法：核）。 3. 預測：事務律師（和大律師）在職務上必須為當事人的案件據理除了實現訴訟經濟外，科技大有潛質「判刑是最艱難的工作」力爭，但是他們很多時會發現自減輕我們司法機構堆積如山的案件；己視野狹窄，太過相信自己手中此外，基於 . . 現在依然（至少是在這一點再三強調也不為過。 A I 的 Kool-Aid（即溶粉末飲料）美筆者撰文的一刻）是新穎技術，成效味可口。聽取 A.I. 的預測之後，有待驗證，為安全計，司法機構最好現有科技訴訟各方就能夠審時度勢，三思利用 A.I. 協助工作（我們應當在各方應該注意的是，A.I. 應用到司法實務而後行。鼓勵下竭力爭取），而不是交由 A.I.主的模式在全球各地早已成形。例如持工作。最近在歐盟完成了一項研究，發現 – 柯伍陳律師事務所顧問律師朱喬華 A.I. 預測歐洲人權法庭所審理案件的 – Ravenscroft & Schmierer 合夥人劉敏廷結論裁決，準確度達到 79%。因此技術已因此，為了多走一步，我們必須留意經存在！

54 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

CIVIL PROCEDURE for solicitors to pay disbursements, including counsel’s fees and expert’s Editorial Note: This judgment is reported for the principles stated and applied by the charges. That did not amount to Judge in deciding to direct the plaintiff’s So Kam (蘇金) v Guildford Ltd champerty or maintenance. Taking solicitors to show cause why a wasted on cases pro bono was laudable. But [2021] 2 HKLRD 319 [2021] HKDC 340 costs order should not be made against the burden was on the solicitors acting [2021] HKEC 1037 them. In fairness to them, the judgment on such a basis to make careful inquiry should of course read on the basis that it Judge Andrew Li and satisfy themselves that an honest is not yet known what cause they may or case existed or that there was at least a may not show. 21–23 December 2020, 22 March 2021 reasonable cause of action or defence. And they could not bargain with the client for an interest in the subject- Facts matter of litigation or for remuneration 民事訴訟程序 A motorcycle ridden by P came into proportionate to the amount that may collision with a taxi owned by D1 and recovered by the client. The foregoing So Kam (蘇金) v Guildford Ltd driven by D2 who had hired the taxi from principles were established by the D1. P brought a personal injuries action cases. It was to be observed that [2021] 2 HKLRD 319 [2021] HKDC 340 against Ds. failure to follow these principles had [2021] HKEC 1037 particularly adverse effects in personal Held, dismissing the action with costs in injuries actions (Ladd v London Road 區域法院法官李樹旭 Car Co [1900] LT 80, Clyne v New South favour of Ds and directing P’s solicitors 2020 年 12 月 21–23 日、2021 年 Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR to show cause as to why a wasted costs 3 月 22 日 order should not be made against them, 186, Winnie Lo v HKSAR (2012) 15 that: HKCFAR 16 applied). (See paras.98– 99.) 案情 1) On the evidence, the collision was 原告人駕駛電單車，與由第一被告人 caused entirely by P’s negligence; D2 4) This action was hopeless and should 擁有及第二被告人駕駛之的士相撞 was not to blame; and D1 would not be never have been brought. (See （該的士由第二被告人向第一被告人 vicariously liable even if D2 had been para.100.) 租用），原告人向第一及第二被告人 to blame. (See paras.54–55.) 提起人身傷害訴訟。 5) There was power under O.62 r.8 of the 2) There was insufficient evidence to Rules of the District Court (Cap.336H, 裁定：駁回訴訟，第一及第二被告人 commence this action. P was not on Sub.Leg.) to make solicitors who 兼可獲得訟費，並指示原告人的代表 legal aid. He only paid the negligible decide to pursue a hopeless case on a 律師提出為何不應向其頒發虛耗訟費 amount it took to provide photocopies litigant’s behalf to pay the other side’s 命令的因由，理由如下： of several documents and print a few costs when it was apparent that their colour photographs. Otherwise it was client was in no position to do so (Re 1) 根據證供，該意外完全是因為原 with the financial assistance of his Labour Buildings Ltd (CACV 37/2010, 告人的疏忽而引起，第二被告人 solicitors that he went through the [2010] HKEC 624) applied). (See 不應受責難，而即使第二被告人 whole trial. It was obvious that Ds paras.106–109.) 應受責難，第一被告人亦不須承 would never be able to recover costs 擔轉承法律責任。（參看第 54-55 ordered against P. (See paras.84, 89– Action 段） 91, 93.) This was a personal injuries action brought by the plaintiff against the first 2) 原告人並無充分證據提起本訴 3) In principle it was not objectionable and second defendants. 訟，亦沒有取得法律援助，而是

www.hk-lawyer.org 55 • July 2021

liquidators (JPLs) who were appointed as soft-touch provisional liquidators in Bermuda applied for recognition and assistance in Hong Kong, and sought an adjournment of two months to progress a restructuring of C. Y argued that: (i) the recent decisions in which a soft-touch provisional liquidation was recognised and assisted in Hong Kong was an impermissible use of the court’s common law power of recognition and assistance; (ii) the soft-touch provisional liquidation should not be recognised because it was not a collective insolvency process which was necessary before the court’s powers of recognition and assistance could be deployed; (iii) to adjourn the petition to 僅支付了微量金額，作為影印數顯地沒有能力如此履行的話） allow C the opportunity to progress a 份文件及列印一些彩色照片之（Re Labour Buildings Ltd (CACV restructuring was inconsistent with the 用。即或不然，他是獲得其代表 37/2010, [2010] HKEC 624) 一案適 Rule in Gibbs, which provided that a debt 律師的經濟援助來完成整個審訊用）。（參看第 106–109 段） could only be compromised in accordance 程序。很明顯，各被告人將無法 with the law that governed it; (iv) the soft- 向原告人追討法庭頒令他們可獲訴訟 touch provisional liquidation was an 得的訟費。（參看第 84, 89–91, 本案是原告人向第一及第二被告人提 improper attempt to stifle enforcement of 93 段）起的人身傷害訴訟。 the debt; and (v) if the Court took the view that the proceedings in Bermuda should 3) 原則上，法庭並不反對代表律師 be recognised, they should be treated as 支付代墊付費用，包括大律師和編者按：本判決旨在報導法官於決定 an ancillary process rather than the main 專家費用，而此舉並不構成包攬指示原告人的代表律師提出為何不應 one. 訴訟或助訟。以公益形式接辦案向其頒發虛耗訟費命令的因由方面所件是值得讚揚的，但在行事之陳述及運用之原則。為對其公平起 Held, adjourning the petition and making 前，代表律師須作出仔細調查，見，在閱讀本判決時，應以現時還未 an order for recognition and assistance, 信納該宗案件是誠實地提起，又知悉他們可能會或不會提出甚麼因由 that: 或是至少存在合理訴訟因由或抗作基礎。 1) There was nothing objectionable in 辯理據。然而，他們不可和當事 principle to the court recognising 人商議，要求在訴訟的主體事項 and assisting a foreign soft-touch 中獲得利益，又或是要求獲得與 provisional liquidator. Whilst it was 當事人所追討金額相稱的報酬。 COMPANY LAW not necessary to determine what the 上述原則已確立在各案例中，因 necessary characteristics of a collective 此倘沒有遵守此等原則，將會為 insolvency process was and whether 人身傷害訴訟帶來一定的不利影 Re Ping An Securities Group (Holdings) Ltd (平安證券集團（控股）有限公司) they were present in the present case, 響。（Ladd v London Road Car Co a central feature would be a process [1900] LT 80、Clyne v New South [2021] 2 HKLRD 204, [2021] HKCFI intended to regulate the rights of Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 651, [2021] HKEC 864 creditors or a class of creditors of CLR 186、Winnie Lo v HKSAR (2012) Harris J a company, which was insolvent or 15 HKCFAR 16 等案件適用）。（參 seriously financially distressed, and 看第 98–99 段） 5, 12 March 2021 was not limited to a conventional liquidation (Joint Administrators of 4) 本訴訟完全沒有勝訴可能，亦完 African Minerals Ltd v Madison Pacific 全不應提起。（參看第 100 段） Facts Trust Ltd [2015] 4 HKC 215, Re China Solar Energy Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2018] 5) 根據《區域法院規則》（第 336H Y, a holder of a bond issued by C, petitioned 2 HKLRD 338, Re Joint Provisional 章，附屬法例）第 62 令第 8 條， in Hong Kong to wind up C, a Bermuda- Liquidators of Hsin Chong Group 法庭有權命令決定代表訴訟人進 incorporated company listed on the Main Holdings Ltd (HCMP 313/2019, [2019] 行沒有勝訴可能案件的律師支付 Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong HKEC 945), Re Moody Technology 另一方的訟費（倘若其當事人明 Kong Ltd, on the grounds of insolvency. Subsequently, the joint provisional Holdings Ltd [2020] 2 HKLRD 187,

56 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

Re FDG Electric Vehicles Ltd [2020] 5 petition adjourned for approximately 可和協助低度干預的臨時清盤裁決， HKLRD 701, Re Lamtex Holdings Ltd two months rather than C immediately 並不允許使用與認可和協助有關的法 applied; Re Legend International Resorts wound up (Re China Huiyuan Juice 院普通法權力；(ii) 不應認可低度干 Ltd [2006] 2 HKLRD 192, Singularis Group Ltd [2021] 1 HKLRD 255 預的臨時清盤程序，因其並非法院在 Holdings Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers applied). 可行使認可和協助權力之前必須運用 [2015] AC 1675 distinguished). 的集體清償程序；(iii) 押後呈請以允 Applications 許 C 有機會進行重組，與 Gibbs 案的 2) C’s attempts to have the JPLs’ This was the petitioner’s application 規則並不一致（該規則規定債務只能 appointment in Bermuda recognised to wind up the subject company and 根據管轄它的法律進行妥協）；(iv) and the petition adjourned was the foreign joint provisional liquidators’ 低度干預的臨時清盤乃不適當地妨礙 consistent with the Rule in Gibbs. The application for an order for recognition 債務執行之舉措；及 (v) 法院倘認為 proposal was a process that would and assistance. 應當認可百慕達的法律程序，法院應 lead to all unsecured debts being 將該等程序視作附屬程序而非主要程 compromised by a Hong Kong scheme 序。 of arrangement, which was no different 公司法 from what was commonly proposed 裁決：押後呈請及頒發認可和協助命 by Hong Kong companies seeking 令，理由如下： time to restructure. As Y’s debt was Re Ping An Securities Group (Holdings) governed by Hong Kong law, a Hong Ltd (平安證券集團（控股）有限公司) 1) 法院認可和協助外國低度干預的 Kong scheme would be effective to [2021] 2 HKLRD 204, [2021] HKCFI 臨時清盤人，原則上並無可予反 compromise it (Antony Gibbs & Sons 651, [2021] HKEC 864 對之處。雖然並非必須確定集體 v Société Industrielle et Commerciale 清償程序的必要特徵是甚麼以及 des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399 原訟法庭法官夏利士其於本案是否存在，但一個重要 considered). 特質是，它是一項擬規管一家公司（其為無償債能力或面對嚴重 3) Y was seeking to invoke a class remedy. 2021 年 3 月 5 日、12 日財政困難）的債權人或某債權人 The relevant issue was what order the 類別之權利的程序，而且並不限 Court should make to best achieve a 於傳統清盤（Joint Administrators result that was likely to be beneficial 案情 of African Minerals Ltd v Madison to the class. If the Court was satisfied Y 是 C（一間在百慕達成立，於香港 Pacific Trust Ltd [2015] 4 HKC 215、 that the best course was to adjourn 聯合交易所有限公司主板上市的公 Re China Solar Energy Holdings Ltd the petition to allow a scheme of 司）所發行的債券的持有人。它以 C (No 2) [2018] 2 HKLRD 338、Re arrangement to be introduced, which 無力償債為由，在香港提出呈請，要 Joint Provisional Liquidators of Hsin would compromise all unsecured 求將 C 清盤。其後，在百慕達被委任 Chong Group Holdings Ltd (HCMP debt, it was entirely consistent with 的共同臨時清盤人（作為低度干預的 313/2019, [2019] HKEC 945)、 the character and purpose of the 臨時清盤人）於香港提出認可和協助 Re Moody Technology Holdings insolvency process to do so. 申請，並要求押後兩個月，以便為 C Ltd [2020] 2 HKLRD 187、Re 進行重組。Y 稱：(i) 香港近期有關認 4) Primacy was not automatically to FDG Electric Vehicles Ltd [2020] 5 be given to soft-touch provisional liquidation in the place of incorporation. If a petition had already been issued in Hong Kong, and the petitioner and such other creditors as supported it did not agree to an adjournment, the company was still required to satisfy the criteria by reference to which the Hong Kong court assessed applications on similar grounds by companies incorporated in Hong Kong. If the company could not do so, it would be wound up and an application for recognition of the soft- touch provisional liquidation would not be granted

5) C had in the circumstances satisfied the relevant criteria for having the

www.hk-lawyer.org 57 • July 2021

HKLRD 701、Re Lamtex Holdings The prosecution was granted leave to Ltd 等案件適用；Re Legend appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on International Resorts Ltd [2006] 2 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW the question of the correct interpretation HKLRD 192、Singularis Holdings of art.42(2) of the NSL (NSL 42(2)), which Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2015] provides that “[n]o bail shall be granted AC 1675 等案件被區別）。 HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying (黎智英) to a criminal suspect or defendant unless the judge has sufficient grounds 2) C 要求該在百慕達被委任的共同 [2021] HKCFA 3 for believing that the criminal suspect or 臨時清盤人獲得認可以及有關 Cheung CJ, Ribeiro and Fok PJJ, Chan defendant will not continue to commit 呈請獲得押後，這與 Gibbs 案的 and Stock NPJJ acts endangering national security”. 規則一致。該提議是一項會導致所有無抵押債務藉一項香港債務 Final Appeal No 1 of 2021 (Criminal) Held, unanimously allowing the 償還安排而被妥協的程序，它與 prosecution’s appeal, setting aside the 香港的公司在尋求時間進行重組 1, 9 February 2021 decision to grant bail to X, that: 時所經常提出的並無分別。由於 Y 的債務受香港法律管轄，一 1) Given the special status of the NSL as 項香港債務償還安排將可有效地 Facts a national law applied under BL 18, as 將其妥協（Antony Gibbs & Sons v On 30 June 2020, the National People’s well as the express reference in art.1 of Société Industrielle et Commerciale Congress Standing Committee (the the NSL to that process, Explanations des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399 一 NPCSC) added the “Law of the People’s and Decisions made in proceedings 案被考慮）。 Republic of China on Safeguarding of the NPC and NPCSC regarding the National Security in the Hong Kong promulgation of the NSL were relevant 3) Y 尋求提出集體補救。相關問題 Special Administrative Region” (the to the consideration of its context and 是，法庭應作出什麼命令以取得 NSL) to the list of laws in Annex III of the purpose (Director of Immigration v 對該群體有利的最佳結果。法庭 Basic Law (the BL) to be applied locally Chong Fung Yuen (2001) 4 HKCFAR 若信納最適當的做法是將呈請押 by way of promulgation by the Hong 211 considered). (See para.11.) 後，以便進行債務償還安排（其 Kong Special Administrative Region 2) Having regard to the foregoing 會使所有無抵押債務妥協），這 (the HKSAR) pursuant to art.18(2) and extrinsic materials, promulgation 與為此進行的清償程序之特性和 (3) of the BL (BL 18). The NSL was duly of the NSL, being the product of a 目的完全一致。 promulgated by the Chief Executive of the Decision of the NPC, and the NPCSC’s HKSAR on the same date. formulation and listing of the NSL 4) 優先權並沒有自動給予在成立地 in Annex III of the BL, was done in 方的低度干預的臨時清盤。若呈 The NSL was the product of a series of accordance with BL 18 on the basis 請已在香港提出，而呈請人及其 Explanations and Decisions given in or that national security was outside 他支持的債權人不同意將呈請押 made by the National People’s Congress the limits of the HKSAR’s autonomy 後，該公司仍須符合有關規定， (the NPC) and the NPCSC, which variously and within the purview of the Central 香港法院則據此，按類似理由評 noted concerns with respect to prolonged Authorities, the Central People’s 估在香港成立的公司所提出的申 public order disturbances and challenges Government having an overarching 請。若該公司不能如此實行，它 to the authority of the Central People’s responsibility for national security 將會被清盤，而要求認可低度干 Government and the HKSAR in 2019, affairs relating to the HKSAR. There 預的臨時清盤之申請將不會獲 and that the HKSAR had failed to enact was no jurisdiction in the courts of 批。 legislation in accordance with art.23 Hong Kong to review the legislative of the BL, and in consideration thereof acts of the NPC and NPCSC leading 5) C 已在該等情況下符合了將呈請 proposed steps to be taken at the national to the promulgation of the NSL on 押後大約兩個月的相關規定， level to inter alia “safeguard national the basis of any alleged constitutional C 不須進行即時清盤（Re China security”, identifying certain principles incompatibility and, accordingly, Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd [2021] 1 said to underlie those proposals. the court had no power to hold any HKLRD 255 一案適用）。 provision of the NSL unconstitutional On 12 December 2020, X was charged or invalid as incompatible with the BL 申請 with one count of “collusion with a foreign or the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Ng country or with external elements to 此乃呈請人要求將標的公司清盤之申 Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (No endanger national security”, contrary to 請，以及外國共同臨時清盤人要求法 2) (1999) 2 HKCFAR 141 applied). (See art.29(4) of the NSL. X was refused bail 院作出認可及協助命令之申請。 paras.32, 37, 42, 70(a).) in the Magistrates’ Court, but granted bail on review, subject to a number of 3) However, that was not to say that conditions and undertakings. human rights, freedoms and rule of law values were inapplicable.

58 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

On the contrary, arts.4 and 5 of the NSL, reflecting presentations to the NPC and NPCSC, which emphasise protection and respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law values while safeguarding national security, are centrally important to the interpretation of the NSL. NSL 42(2) was intended to operate in tandem with constitutional rights, freedoms and other applicable statutory norms, including the rules governing bail in general, as part of a coherent whole, subject to any specific changes effected by NSL 42(2) (Comilang Milagros Tecson v Director of Immigration (2019) 22 HKCFAR 59 applied). (See paras.40–42, 45–47, 51, 70(c).) [2007] 1 AC 249 applied). (See by NSL 42(2). (See paras.71, 78–80.) 4) NSL 42(2), drawing on the rules and paras.67–68, 70(d)(iii).) principles of the existing bail regime (iv) when answering the “sufficient insofar as they may be relevant, Editorial Note: See also [2021] HKCFI grounds” question, given the carves out a specific exception from 448, [2021] HKEC 554 for a subsequent applicability of the general the bail regime and introduces a Reasons for Decision concerning the bail regime to the NSL, the respondent’s application to the Court new and more stringent threshold judge should consider matters of First Instance to review the Chief requirement for the grant of bail, which might have a bearing on Magistrate’s refusal to grant bail. that no bail shall be granted “unless the accused’s likely conduct the judge has sufficient grounds for pending trial, such as possible believing that the accused will not bail conditions fashioned with continue to commit acts endangering 憲制性法律 a view to securing that the national security” (Tong Ying Kit v accused would not commit acts HKSAR [2020] 4 HKLRD 382, HKSAR endangering national security v Tong Ying Kit [2020] 4 HKLRD 416 HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying (黎智英) if granted bail and the nature overruled): (See paras.53–54, 70(b), and seriousness of the national [ ] 70(e), 74–75.) 2021 HKCFA 3 security offence charged. (See (i) “continue” was not to be read as paras.57–63, 70(d)(i).) 終審法院首席法官張舉能；常任法官 implying the guilt of the accused. 李義、霍兆剛；非常任法官陳兆愷、 (See para.53(c)(i).) 5) If, having taken into account all relevant 司徒敬 material, including the possible (ii) “acts endangering national 終院刑事上訴 2021 年第 1 號 security” referred to acts of that imposition of bail conditions, the judge had sufficient grounds to believe that nature capable of constituting 2021 年 2 月 1 日、9 日 an offence under the NSL or the the accused would not continue to laws of the HKSAR safeguarding commit offences endangering national national security. (See paras.53(c) security, the court should proceed to 案情 consider all other matters relevant to (ii), 70(d)(ii).) 2020 年 6 月 30 日，全國人民代表大 the grant or refusal of bail, applying (iii) there was no burden of proof 會常務委員會（全國人大常委會）根 the presumption in favour of bail. (See on the prosecution in relation 據《基本法》第 18(2)及(3) 條（《基 para.70(f).) to the “sufficient grounds” 本法》第 18 條）的規定，將《中華 requirement; the question, as 人民共和國香港特別行政區維護國家 6) In granting bail to X, the Judge with bail generally, was a matter 安全法》（《國安法》）加入《基本 elided the NSL 42(2) question for the court’s evaluation and 法》附件三的法律清單，並透過由香 with discretionary considerations judgment (R (McCann) v Crown 港特別行政區（香港特區）頒佈而於 under s.9G of the Criminal Court at Manchester [2003] 1 AC 本地實施。香港特區行政長官於同一 Procedure Ordinance (Cap.221). This 787, R v Lichniak [2003] 1 AC 903, 日正式頒佈《國安法》。 misapprehended the nature and effect R (O) v Crown Court at Harrow of the threshold requirement created

www.hk-lawyer.org 59 • July 2021

《國安法》是全國人民代表大會（全憲或無效（Ng Ka Ling v Director 時，基於一般保釋機制對《國國人大）及全國人大常委會於作出連 of Immigration (No 2) (1999) 2 安法》的適用性，原審法官應串解釋及決定後產生，當中關注到香 HKCFAR 141 一案適用）。（參看考慮與被告人在等待審訊期間港特區於 2019 年出現長時間社會動第 32, 37, 42, 70(a) 段）的可能行為有關的事宜，例如亂，以及對中央人民政府及香港特區訂立確保被告人在獲得批准保的管治權威作出挑戰，而香港特區並 3) 然而，這並非說人權、自由及法釋時不會實施危害國家安全行未能根據《基本法》第 23 條立法。治等價值不適用。相反，《國安為的可能保釋條件，以及所提有鑑於此，乃在全國性層面提出採取法》第 4 及第 5 條（反映向全國控的國家安全罪行之性質和嚴 “維護國家安全”的步驟，並列舉若人大及全國人大常委會所作的陳重性。（參看第57–63, 70(d)(i) 干實行該等提議的原則。述）強調在維護國家安全的同時，段）亦保障及尊重人權和遵守法治等 2020 年 12 月 12 日，X 被控一項“勾價值，而它對於《國安法》的解 5) 在考慮所有相關資料後（包括可結外國或者境外勢力危害國家安全” 釋至關重要。《國安法》第 42(2) 能施加的保釋條件），原審法官罪，違反《國安法》第 29(4) 條。X 條是旨在與憲法權利、自由及其若有充足理由相信被告人不會繼被裁判法院拒絕保釋，但在覆核過程他適用法律規範等一起實施（包續干犯危害國家安全的罪行，接中獲批准在符合若干條件及保證的情括保釋規定），以作為一個連貫下來便應運用有利於批准保釋的況下予以保釋。整體的一部分，並受《國安法》推定，考慮所有其他與批准或拒第 42(2) 條所產生的任何特定變更絕保釋有關的事宜。（參看第控方獲批予許可就《國安法》第所規限（Comilang Milagros Tecson 70(f) 段） 42(2) 條的正確解釋向終審法院提出 v Director of Immigration (2019) 22 6) 原審法官在批准給予 X 保釋時，上訴，該條規定“對犯罪嫌疑人、被 HKCFAR 59 一案適用）。（參看略去了《國安法》第 42(2) 條中與告人，除非法官有充足理由相信其不第 40–42, 45–47, 51, 70(c) 段）《刑事訴訟程序條例》（第 221 章）會繼續實施危害國家安全行為的，不 4) 《國安法》第 42(2) 條（在相關範第 9G 條下的酌情考慮因素有關的得准予保釋”。圍內引用現行保釋機制之規定和問題。這是錯誤理解《國安法》原則）引發了與保釋制度不同的第 42(2) 條所訂立的門檻要求之裁決：一致裁定控方上訴得直，撤銷特殊例外情況，並訂立了新的及性質和作用。（參看第 71, 78–80 給予 X 保釋的決定，理由如下：更為嚴格的保釋門檻要求，規定段） 1) 鑒於《國安法》作為根據《基本 “除非法官有充足理由相信被告法》第 18 條實施的全國性法律人不會繼續實施危害國家安全的編者按：另見 [2021] HKCFI 448、所享有的特殊地位，以及《國行為”，否則不得准予保釋（Tong [2021] HKEC 554 等案，關於答辯人安法》第 1 條對該程序的明確提 Ying Kit v HKSAR [2020] 4 HKLRD 向原訟法庭申請覆核總裁判官拒絕批述，在考慮其情況及目的時，在 382；HKSAR v Tong Ying Kit [2020] 准保釋的其後裁決理由。] 全國人大及全國人大常委會的程 4 HKLRD 416 等案被推翻）：（參序中就《國安法》的頒佈所作的看第53–54, 70(b), 70(e), 74–75 解釋及決定乃屬相關（Director 段） of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (i) “繼續”不得被解讀為隱含被 (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211 一案被考 FAMILY LAW 告人有罪。（參看第 53(c)(i) 慮）。（參看第 11 段）段） H v W 2) 在審視上述外部資料後，《國安 (ii) “危害國家安全行為”指性質法》的頒佈（它是經由全國人大屬於可以構成在《國安法》或 [2021] HKCA 733 決定而產生，經由全國人大常委香港特區的維護國家安全法例會制定，並列入《基本法》第三下構成罪行的行為。（參看第 Hon Lam VP, Yuen JA and B Chu J 附件中）是依據《基本法》第 18 53(c)(ii), 70(d)(ii) 段）條進行，它的根據是國家安全不 Date of Hearing: 18 May 2021 屬香港特區的自治範圍，是屬於 (iii) 控方不須承擔與“充足理由” Date of Judgment: 24 May 2021 中央的權限，中央人民政府對於要求有關的舉證責任；該問題與香港特區有關的國家安全事務（有如在保釋方面）有賴法院負有根本責任。香港法院並無司作出評估和判斷（R (McCann) Background 法管轄權以任何與憲法不符的聲 v Crown Court at Manchester The Petitioner Father appealed against a 稱作為理由，覆核全國人大及及 [2003] 1 AC 787；R v Lichniak judgment handed down on 10 November 全國人大常委會促致《國安法》 [2003] 1 AC 903；R (O) v Crown 2020 granting leave to the Respondent 頒佈的立法行為，亦因此，法院 Court at Harrow [2007] 1 AC 249 Mother to relocate with their 5-year-old 並沒有權力以不符《基本法》或等案適用）。（參看第 67– daughter (A) to Singapore with effect 《香港人權法案》作為理由， 68, 70(d)(iii) 段） from the uplifting of the travel ban 裁定《國安法》的任何條文違 (iv) 在回答“充足理由”的問題 between Hong Kong and Singapore (“the Relocation Order”).

60 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

The Relocation Order was stayed for the Mother and Mr. N to focus on The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal pending the appeal. Furthermore, the their relationship and the Mother re- on Grounds 1, 3 and 4 and held that the “travel bubble” between Hong Kong and establishing her career, before removing trial judge erred in the exercise of her Singapore which was scheduled to begin A from Hong Kong for this reason. Two discretion to allow relocation. on 26 May 2021 was suspended again on options were suggested by the SJE: (1) the 17 May 2021, the day before the appeal. Father also relocate to Singapore or (2) Under the Guardianship of Minors Therefore, the terms provided in the Mr. N to come to Hong Kong one week per Ordinance (Cap. 13), the judge had to Relocation Order, such as the generous month, the Mother to work and stay with give due consideration to all material staying access to the Father, which was Mr. N two weeks per month in Singapore, information contained in the SIR. This predicated upon frequent travel between and during her absence, the Father could included the reasons/concerns which Singapore and Hong Kong would not be care for A and take A to visit her maternal led the social welfare officer to make her possible. grandparents twice per week. recommendation. The trial judge did not appear to have given due consideration to The Relocation Trial It was accepted that the Judge could not all of the social welfare officer’s reasons/ The Mother first informed the Father make orders along the recommendations concerns, or if she had, she ought to have of her intention to move to Singapore of the SJE, unless the parties agreed. given fuller explanations and reasons as with A in January 2020. No agreement The SJE’s reasons for coming up with to why she had taken a different view and was reached and the Mother issued her the different proposals was because departed from the recommendation. Relocation Summons. In the Mother’s she thought A should stay in Hong supporting affirmation, she explained Kong unless the Father could also go to Furthermore, the trial judge did not that she had previously worked in Singapore to support her and the Mother appear to have sufficiently considered the Hong Kong office of a Singapore to develop the relationship with Mr. N. The the SJE’s primary recommendation that recruitment company owned by a Mr. N. SJE reported that contrary to the Mother’s priority should be for the Mother and Mr. The Hong Kong office was later closed, evidence, A was not close to Mr. N and N to focus on their relationship and the and Mr. N continued to run the company she had not met Mr. N’s children from his Mother to re-establish her career before in Singapore. The Mother’s evidence was previous marriage in person. removing A from Hong Kong. The SJE’s that: report highlighted that the relocation The trial judge departed from the could be sometime in the future, after 1) She and Mr. N were very good friends recommendations in the SIR and of the Mother had re-established her and began a romantic relationship in the SJE and granted relocation to take career. In departing from the SJE’s 2019. effect from the uplifting of the travel ban recommendation, the trial judge did not between Hong Kong and Singapore. seem to have considered or given due 2) Mr. N offered her a post in his company consideration to the information in the in Singapore and the post would offer The Appeal SJE’s report and her concerns. flexibility for her to care for A. The Father’s appeal was based on four 3) It was agreed by Mr. N that the Mother main grounds, namely the trial judge The Court of Appeal found that the would become a shareholder in his erred in: Mother’s application for relocation was business and that as a co-owner, she rushed and pre-mature. It was made 1) Departing from the recommendations would have better job security. during a period with the pandemic having in the SIR against relocation; no end in sight and normal frequent travel was not possible. The Court of Appeal did It was later revealed that the Mother had 2) Failing to consider adequately the not find the Mother’s application to be a former relationship with Mr. N which possible signs of parental alienation realistic or well researched. lasted for around 3 years from around on the part of the Mother against the 2008. A had never met Mr. N in person Father; and had only connected on WhatsApp in The Mother provided very little information March 2020. 3) Departing from the recommendation in respect of where she proposed to live of the SJE that the priority should and it was unclear whether the Mother The social investigation report (SIR) be for the Mother and Mr. N to would be able to rent an apartment recommended care and control be focus on their relationship and the without first obtaining a work visa. There granted to the Mother with defined access Mother re-establishing her career was also no information on the type of to the Father. Importantly, the Mother’s before removing A from Hong Kong accommodation or facilities available, relocation with A to Singapore was not permanently; and or how the rental deposit would be paid. recommended. The Court of Appeal was concerned that 4) Failing to address A’s welfare in a there were no safeguards or protective A single joint expert (SJE) was also holistic way by conducting a balancing measures for A in the Relocation Order, appointed in the proceedings. The SJE’s exercise by reference to each parent’s in the event the Mother’s plan did not opinion was that the priority should be options and plans. work out.

www.hk-lawyer.org 61 • July 2021

The Court of Appeal concluded that “it is wrong in principle for [the Mother] to proceed with an immature and uncertain relocation option involving the child simply because she needs to procure her immigration status through the child’s student visa as a springboard”.

Furthermore, whilst the Relocation Order stated that it would take effect from the “uplifting of the travel ban” between Hong Kong and Singapore, the trial judge had anticipated “either the Hong Kong red outbound travel alert has been uplifted and/or a travel corridor has been established with Singapore, which will allow the parties and A to travel frequently between the two jurisdictions”.

However, even with the “travel bubble”, quarantine requirements were still in place albeit for a shortened period. When considering whether to agree to 該遷移命令被擱置以等待上訴。此 Moreover, there was no information as relocation, parents should be mindful 外，香港與新加坡之間的 “旅遊氣 to whether A could travel frequently that it is no longer possible to easily 泡”原定於 2021 年 5 月 26 日開始實 between the Hong Kong and Singapore shuttle between countries as was the 施，但於 2021 年 5 月 17 日（上訴前 under the “travel bubble” arrangement case in pre-pandemic times and there is 一日）再度延緩執行。因此，遷移命 without being vaccinated. It was uncertain a real possibility they may be separated 令的條款（例如：在頻繁往返於新加 as to whether and/or when the parties from their children for prolonged periods 坡與香港之間的前提下，父親享有帶 and A would be able to travel frequently of time. 子女回自己居所留宿的寬大留宿權） between the Hong Kong and Singapore. 無法落實執行。 – Caroline McNally, The Court of Appeal held that by failing Executive Partner, Gall 遷移審訊 to include safeguards and protective – Catherine Tso, Associate, Gall 母親於 2020 年 1 月將她與 A 一同遷 measures in the Relocation Order, the 居新加坡的意圖首度告知父親。由於 trial judge had failed to sufficiently 雙方未能達成協議，母親乃發出遷移 address A’s welfare and best interests 傳票。母親在其支持誓章中解釋，她 in a holistic way. However, the Court of 家事法過去在一間由 N 先生開設的新加坡人 Appeal made it clear that the Mother 事顧問公司香港辦事處工作，該香港 would not be debarred from making 辦事處其後結束營業，而 N 先生繼續 a new application for relocation in the H v W 在新加坡經營其公司。母親的證供如 future when she is able to provide realistic 下： and practical proposals. [2021] HKCA 733 上訴法庭副庭長林文瀚、上訴法庭法 1) 她與 N 先生是非常要好的朋友， Points to note 官袁家寧、原訟法庭法官朱珮瑩兩人於 2019 年發展情侶關係。 In relocation cases, the paramount consideration is whether the relocation 聆訊日期：2021 年 5 月 18 日 2) N 先生聘用她在其新加坡公司工判決日期：年月日 is in the best interests of the child. With 2021 5 24 作，而該份工作為她提供彈性安 numerous uncertainties arising from 排，以便她能抽時間照顧 A。 the global pandemic, and unfortunately 背景 3) N 先生答應母親會讓她成為公司 with no end in sight, there is a real 作為本案呈請人的父親，就法庭在的股東，而成為該公司的共同擁 possibility that children will not be able 2020 年 11 月 10 日所作的，批准作為有人後，她將可享有較佳職業保 to see a parent if they do not live in 本案答辯人的母親在香港與新加坡之障。 the same jurisdiction. Policies on entry 間的旅遊禁令解除後，與其五歲女兒 requirements and quarantine measures (A) 遷居新加坡的判決提出上訴（“遷其後顯示，母親之前已經與 N 先生有 may change, and the added expense of 移命令”）。一段關係，該段關係由大概 2008 年 quarantine may cause financial strain on 開始，維持了大約三年。A 從來沒有 families.

62 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CASES IN BRIEF 案例撮要

私下與 N 先生見過面，只曾在 2020 上訴法庭裁定第 1、3 及 4 項理由的然而，即使已訂立“旅遊氣泡”安排，年 3 月透過 WhatsApp 與他聯絡過。上訴得直，並裁定原審法官在行使酌但仍須遵守檢疫規定（儘管時間得到情決定權批准遷移方面犯錯。縮短）。此外，A 是否可在並無注射社會調查報告建議將照顧及管束權授新冠疫苗的情況下，根據“旅遊氣與母親，而父親可享有規定探視權。根據《未成年人監護條例》（第 13 泡”安排時常往返於香港與新加坡之重要的是，該份報告並沒有建議母親章），法官必須妥為考慮社會調查報間，本案亦沒有獲得提供任何資料，與 A 一同遷居新加坡。告所載的一切重要資料，當中包括導而各當事人及 A 是否及／或何時可經致社會福利主任作出其建議的理由／常往返於香港與新加坡之間，這情況該項法律程序亦委任了一名雙方聯聘關注點。原審法官看來並沒有妥為考亦並不明確。專家（聯聘專家），而該專家的意見慮社會福利主任提出的所有理由／關是，在讓 A 遷離香港之前，首先要做注點，又或是假如她已經妥為考慮，上訴法庭裁定，由於遷移命令之中並的應該是：讓母親及 N 先生將重點放她應當就為何她持有不同觀點，及沒沒有包含保障及防範措施，原審法官在他們之間的關係及讓母親重新建立有接納相關意見，提出較為充分的解事實上並未充分全面性地考慮 A 的福其事業上。該聯聘專家提出了兩個選釋和理由。祉和最佳利益。然而，上訴法庭明確項：(1) 父親自己也遷往新加坡；或 (2) 表示，當母親在將來提供了可行及實 N 先生每月來港一星期，而母親與 N 此外，原審法官看來並沒有充分考慮際建議後，她不會被禁止提出新的遷先生一起，每月在新加坡工作及逗留聯聘專家的主要意見，即是首先應該移申請。兩星期，而在她離港期間，A 可由父讓母親及 N 先生將重點放在其關係親照顧，以及每星期兩次帶 A 去探望上，以及在將 A 遷離香港之前，讓母要點其外祖父母。親重新建立其事業。聯聘專家指出有在遷移案件中，法庭首先需要考慮關遷移可在母親已重新建立其事業後的，是該遷移是否符合子女的最佳利接納的做法是，除非得到雙方同意，的未來某段時間進行。在沒有接納聯益。全球疫情所帶來的許多不確定否則法官不能根據聯聘專家的意見作聘專家意見的情況下，原審法官似乎性，以及現時仍未看到疫情告終的曙出命令。聯聘專家提出不同建議，是並未考慮或妥為考慮聯聘專家所提交光，子女倘非與父母居於同一司法管基於她認為除非父親也可以前往新加的報告中的資料及其關注點。轄區，他們並沒有相聚的真正可能。坡照顧 A，否則 A 應該留在香港，以入境政策與檢疫措施或有可能改變，及基於母親與 N 先生發展的關係。聯上訴法庭裁定母親的遷移申請過於匆而檢疫的額外開支可能會給家庭帶來聘專家指出，有別於母親所提出的證忙及未臻成熟。申請是在疫情未看到財政負擔。供，A 與 N 先生並不熟悉，她亦從來有終結曙光及正常旅遊還未有實現可沒有與 N 先生在前一段婚姻所生的子能的期間提出。上訴法庭並不認為母父母在考慮遷居問題時，必須留意目女親身見過面。親所提出的申請可行或經過深思熟前情況與疫情發生之前不一樣，他們慮。現時再不能隨意往返於兩地之間，而原審法官沒有接納社會調查報告及聯他們亦真正有可能會與子女長時間分聘專家的意見，並批准有關遷移可於母親所提供的有關其擬居住地方的資隔。香港與新加坡之間的旅遊禁令解除後料是少之又少，若未取得工作簽證，進行。她是否能在當地租到房子，這實令人 – 高嘉力律師行執行合夥人懷疑。此外，其可獲提供的住宿或設 Caroline McNally 施類別，或是如何支付租賃按金，這上訴 – 高嘉力律師行律師曹泳詩父親根據四項主要理由提出上訴，亦些資料也付闕如。上訴法庭關注的即原審法官於以下各點犯錯：是，母親的計劃倘無法實行，遷移命令並沒有為 A 提供任何保障或防範措 1) 不接納社會調查報告就反對遷移施。提出的建議；上訴法庭的結論是：“僅因為母親須 For full summaries and judgments, please 沒有充分考慮母親可能針對父親 2) 以子女的學生簽證作為跳板以取得移 refer to Westlaw and Hong Kong Law Reports 而出現的父母疏離現象；民資格，而批准她進行牽涉子女在內 & Digest at www.westlaw.com.hk. 3) 沒有接納聯聘專家的意見，即是的不成熟及不確定遷居計劃，這是在就完整的摘要和判決書，請到 www. 首先要做的應該是讓母親及 N 先原則上犯錯”。 westlaw.com.hk 參閱 Westlaw 及《香港生將重點放在其關係上，以及將法律彙報與摘錄》。 A 永久遷離香港之前，讓母親重此外，儘管遷移命令載明它是在香港新建立其事業；及與新加坡之間的“旅遊禁令解除”時生效，但原審法官卻預計“香港的外 4) 沒有參考父母二人各自的選項和遊紅色警示已得到解除，及／或已經計劃以從中作出權衡，全面照顧與新加坡建立旅行通道，而此舉將可 A 的福祉。讓各當事人及 A 經常往返於兩個司法管轄區之間”。

www.hk-lawyer.org 63 • July 2021

PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向 Newly-Admitted Members 新會員

CHAN HO YAN HUI KIN WING LAW HIU FUNG JULIANNE 許見榮 MARK 陳皓欣 SLAUGHTER AND 羅曉峰 SIMMONS & MAY SIMPSON THACHER SIMMONS 司力達律師樓 & BARTLETT 西盟斯律師行盛信律師事務所

CHAN LOK CHING KONG MOSES DICK LEE YUEN YING TWINKIE CHI EUNICE 陳樂晴江迪智李苑瑩 LEE ROBERT LAW LINKLATERS OFFICES 年利達律師事務所李慕白律師事務所

CHEUNG PUI YING LAI HEI TING HAYDN LEUNG REX LOK TO CHARMAINE 賴晞霆梁樂韜張旆凝 ASIA INSURANCE ONC LAWYERS CHIU & PARTNERS CO., LTD. 柯伍陳律師事務所趙不渝馬國強律師事務所

CHIN KA KIT LAI YING HUNG LO SHUK IN 錢家傑黎映虹盧淑姸 JINGTIAN & MIAO & CO. GONGCHENG LLP 繆氏律師事務所競天公誠律師事務所有限法律責任合夥

CHING YUE CIN LAM OI YEE MAK PUI KIU STEPHANIE 林靄儀 KARINA 程與善 SLAUGHTER AND 麥佩翹 MAY LINKLATERS 司力達律師樓年利達律師事務所

64 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

NG CHO YAN EMMA CHAN SIN YEE LIU YOUMING 吳祖恩陳倩怡劉又銘 LIPMAN KARAS DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL

立祁律師事務所 CHEUNG HO YEUNG BRYAN 張皓陽 LO MING LAI 盧明麗 HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS 史密夫斐爾律師事務所 LO VANESSA MUN-KA 勞敏嘉 CHIK CHUN MING 戚晉明 NGO YAT MUI SIMMONS & SIMMONS LO WAI SEE CARMEN 敖日梅西盟斯律師行盧慧詩 CHIU & PARTNERS 趙不渝馬國強律師 CHIU TSZ LOK LO WING-TING PRISTINE 事務所趙芷樂盧穎婷 CHIU & PARTNERS FONG & CO., DAVID 趙不渝馬國強律師事務所方良佳律師事務所

CHOW HOI KI MENG LLOYD FAN-YI 周凱琪孟繁嶧 YEE LI CHENG WONG & TANG LOUIS 王鄧律師事務所 POON HEI YING 余立澄潘喜盈 CLIFFORD CHANCE FAN & CO., WILLIAM W.L. 高偉紳律師行 CHOW WING SHING 周永城范偉廉律師事務所

GARDNER VICTORIA ANN QI ZIQI GOODMAN ASIA LIMITED 漆子琪

YU HOI KI HO SAU WAI TANG HING YEUNG 余海琪何秀慧鄧慶洋

LINKLATERS IP & CO., SAMMY SOLICITORS 年利達律師事務所葉澤深律師事務所 TSE KA YIN LAWRENCE 謝嘉賢 HO TSZ YAU SIMMONS & SIMMONS 何芷柔西盟斯律師行

JANG YUNYOUNG WONG SZE YUNG 張允榮黃思榕 YUNG SZE HIN HONG KONG EXPRESS AIRWAYS LIMITED

容詩軒 LAU CHI TAK PETER FONG & CO., DAVID 劉智德 WONG WAI YING SANDRA 方良佳律師事務所黃慧盈 LEE PAK HO HO TSE WAI & PARTNERS 李柏濠何謝韋律師事務所

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS 史密夫斐爾律師事務所 WU YUESHUO 吳越朔 LIM LI FANG SARAH LO DAVID & PARTNERS CHAN CHUN HIN 林麗芳羅國貴律師事務所陳震軒 DALY & ASSOCIATES YIM CHOI WAI BRIDGET 帝理律師行 LIU JUNYU 劉俊宇嚴彩瑋

CHAN HOK YEE CONSTANCE LIU YAZHE ZHANG WEIJIA 陳學怡劉雅哲張瑋嘉 NIXON PEABODY CWL 尼克松‧鄭林胡律師行 ZHONG XIAOMING 鍾小明

www.hk-lawyer.org 65 • July 2021

Partnerships and Firms 合夥人及律師行變動 Changes received as from 1 May 2021 取自2021年5月1日起香港律師會所提供之最新資料

• BOREHAM KIM 鍾翠珊 ceased to be a partner of Tanner De Witt as from 01/06/2021 and 自2021年5月1日不再出任俞李律師行有限法律責任合夥合夥 remains as a consultant of the firm. 人一職。 BOREHAM KIM 自2021年6月1日不再出任泰德威律師事務所合夥人一職，而轉任為該行顧問。 • FUNG KIN WAH became a partner of Sun Lawyers LLP as from 01/06/2021. 馮健華 • CHAN EDWIN JEH SHIAN 自2021年6月1日成為司徒維新律師行有限法律責任合夥合 joined Goodwin Procter (Hong Kong) LLP as a partner as from 夥人。 07/06/2021. 陳哲賢自2021年6月7日加入高贏(香港)有限法律責任合夥律師事務 • HALLATT WILLIAM RICHARD 所為合夥人。 ceased to be a partner of Herbert Smith Freehills as from 19/05/2021 and joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher as a partner on the same day. • CHAN LAP HON HALLATT WILLIAM RICHARD became a partner of Li & Lai as from 03/05/2021. 自2021年5月19日不再出任史密夫斐爾律師事務所合夥人一陳立瀚職，並於同日加入吉布森律師事務所為合夥人。自2021年5月3日成為李賴律師事務所合夥人。 • HAN LI • CHAN TAK YI ceased to be a partner of O’Melveny & Myers as from 15/05/2021. became a partner of H.M. Chan & Co as from 28/05/2021. 韓麗陳德宜自2021年5月15日不再出任美邁斯律師事務所合夥人一職。自2021年5月28日成為陳浩銘律師事務所合夥人。 • HAU CHI KIT • CHEUK HOI CHEUNG DEREK ceased to be a partner of Yuen & Partners as from 24/05/2021. became a partner of Bowers as from 11/05/2021. 侯志傑卓凱祥自2021年5月24日不再出任袁家樂律師行合夥人一職。自2021年5月11日成為Bowers合夥人。 • LAM SZE YUEN SYDNEY • CHEUNG BO MAN ceased to be a partner of Ford, Kwan & Company as from commenced practice as a partner of Ronald Tong & Co as from 04/06/2021. 01/06/2021 and remains as a partner of Cheung Tong & Rosa 林思源 Solicitors. 自2021年6月4日不再出任梁錦濤, 關學林律師行合夥人一張寶文職。自2021年6月1日成為新開業唐滙棟律師行合夥人，並仍繼續擔任張秀儀唐滙棟羅凱栢律師行合夥人一職。 • LEE WUN CHEE commenced practice as a partner of Ronald Tong & Co as from • CHOY FUNG YEE 01/06/2021 and remains as a partner of Cheung Tong & Rosa commenced practice as a partner of Ronald Tong & Co as from Solicitors. 01/06/2021 and remains as a partner of Cheung Tong & Rosa 李煥姿 Solicitors. 自2021年6月1日成為新開業唐滙棟律師行合夥人，並仍繼續蔡鳳儀擔任張秀儀唐滙棟羅凱栢律師行合夥人一職。自2021年6月1日成為新開業唐滙棟律師行合夥人，並仍繼續擔任張秀儀唐滙棟羅凱栢律師行合夥人一職。 • LI KWONG TO ceased to be a partner of Cheung Tong & Rosa Solicitors as • CHUNG TSUI SHAN from 26/05/2021 and joined Jisp Cheung & Co., Solicitors as a ceased to be a partner of C.O. Yu & Co., Solicitors LLP as from consultant on the same day. 01/05/2021.

66 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • PROFESSIONAL MOVES 會員動向

李光濤 • WANG ALLEN CHIA-HSIN 自2021年5月26日不再出任張秀儀唐滙棟羅凱栢律師行合夥 became a partner of Latham & Watkins LLP as from 01/05/2021. 人一職，並於同日加入張沛彬律師行為顧問。王嘉忻自2021年5月1日成為瑞生國際律師事務所有限法律責任合夥合夥人。 • MCWHIRTER RHYS PATRICK JOHN became a partner of Eversheds Sutherland as from 28/05/2021. MCWHIRTER RHYS PATRICK JOHN • WANG LUK CHLOE 自2021年5月28日成為安睿順德倫國際律師事務所合夥人。 ceased to be a partner of F. Zimmern & Co. as from 15/05/2021 and joined Jingtian & Gongcheng LLP as an assistant solicitor as from 17/5/2021. • MORRIS HELEN ALEXANDRA 王露 ceased to be a partner of de Bedin & Lee LLP as from 自2021年5月15日不再出任施文律師行合夥人一職，並於 04/06/2021. 2021年5月17日加入競天公誠律師事務所有限法律責任合夥 MORRIS HELEN ALEXANDRA 為助理律師。自2021年6月4日不再出任de Bedin & Lee LLP合夥人一職。

• WILMOT RICHARD JOHN • NG KWOK WING ceased to be a partner of Stephenson Harwood as from became a partner of C.O. Yu & Co., Solicitors LLP as from 14/05/2021 and joined Tanner De Witt as a consultant as from 01/05/2021. 17/05/2021. 吳國榮韋望自2021年5月1日成為俞李律師行有限法律責任合夥合夥人。自2021年5月14日不再出任羅夏信律師事務所合夥人一職，並於2021年5月17日加入泰德威律師事務所為顧問。 • NG YEUK LUNG JENNIFER ceased to be a partner of H.M. Chan & Co as from 29/05/2021 • WONG PUI YAN CECILIA and joined Davis Polk & Wardwell as an assistant solicitor as from became a partner of Li & Lai as from 18/05/2021. 01/06/2021. 黃佩恩吳若儂自2021年5月18日成為李賴律師事務所合夥人。自2021年5月29日不再出任陳浩銘律師事務所合夥人一職，並於2021年6月1日加入Davis Polk & Wardwell為助理律師。 • WONG YEE KA ERICA joined Deacons as a partner as from 31/05/2021. • NORMAN DAVID ANDREW 黃綺珈 became a partner of Allen & Overy as from 01/06/2021. 自2021年5月31日加入的近律師行為合夥人。 NORMAN DAVID ANDREW 自2021年6月1日成為安理國際律師事務所合夥人。 • WORTH MATTHEW WILLIAM ceased to be a partner of DLA Piper Hong Kong as from • TAN KHOON JIN 08/05/2021 and remains as a consultant of the firm. ceased to be a partner of Winston & Strawn as from 01/06/2021. WORTH MATTHEW WILLIAM 陳勤仁自2021年5月8日不再出任歐華律師事務所合夥人一職，而自2021年6月1日不再出任溫斯頓律師事務所合夥人一職。轉任為該行顧問。

• TONG WUI TUNG • XU JIA commenced practice as a partner of Ronald Tong & Co as from joined Davis Polk & Wardwell as a partner as from 10/05/2021. 01/06/2021 and remains as a partner of Cheung Tong & Rosa 許嘉 Solicitors. 自2021年5月10日加入Davis Polk & Wardwell為合夥人。唐滙棟自2021年6月1日成為新開業唐滙棟律師行合夥人，並仍繼續擔任張秀儀唐滙棟羅凱栢律師行合夥人一職。 • YEUNG YUI CHI EUGENE joined K&L Gates as a partner as from 24/05/2021. 楊睿知 • WAN MEI ZIN 自2021年5月24日加入高蓋茨律師事務所為合夥人。 joined Chungs Lawyers as a partner as from 10/05/2021. 温美倩自2021年5月10日加入鍾氏律師事務所為合夥人。

www.hk-lawyer.org 67 • July 2021

Mochi at present 現在的 Mochi Furry Wedding photo with Mochi Friends 包括 Mochi 的結婚照 Who Become Family By Sonali Khemka

Everyone believes in second chances, whether in a Adopting and Adapting Chan’s first exposure to adoption was professional or personal context. A renewed opportunity when her family adopted a 3-month old tabby from The Society for the Prevention is something we have all been thankful for at some point of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) while she but what if you could provide a being with a renewed life? was studying overseas. Upon returning to Hong Kong, she met “Artemis” for Irina Chan shares her experiences with animal adoption the first time and learned that the feline had become her parents’ favourite. “I and how beyond its day-to-day joys and challenges, it is still remember that when I came home ultimately about giving our furry friends a second chance. to spend the summer break the next year, Artemis thought that I was new to the family because she never met me before. Naturally, she considered me her “junior” and started to boss me around! There was definitely a lot of adjustment needed, but it was more than worth it,” Chan recalls. This experience

68 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情

of figuring out the nuances and quirks be his foster owners, which means of the tabby’s personality was the origin that he would stay at the HKRS and of Chan’s continued interest in animal we would provide financial support adoption and since then, her parents have for his medical expenses, but we adopted another tabby while some years would have opportunities to visit and later, Chan and her husband adopted two closely interact with him. After a few bunnies – Mochi and Doughy. months, we thought that it was time for us to take him home. Doughy and Chan’s own experience of adopting her Mochi bonded very well and are now first bunny is something she remembers inseparable,” she shares. vividly. “I remember that it was a quiet afternoon when we first went to the Hong Chan finds her experience with animal Kong Rabbit Society (HKRS). Rabbits adoption extremely rewarding. It has are nocturnal and spend most of the day provided her with the opportunity to sleeping, so most of the rabbits were give a second chance to an abandoned taking their afternoon naps, but Mochi or homeless animal as well as witness was wide awake and very excited to have their recovery and healing first-hand. visitors. He literally stood up inside his “You can see marked changes: their cage to say hello. After spending some mood and health improve, and they time with Mochi, we just thought that we will eventually open up and be able to Doughy back when he was still at the HKRS. really “clicked” with Mochi and that he rebuild their trust with humans. It is a We visited him as foster owners. was really keen for a home! So we went wonderful experience,” she explains. Doughy 還在香港兔友協會時，我們作為寄養 ahead to apply for his adoption,” she Chan assisted both her bunnies in 主人去看望了牠。 recalls. Four years later, understanding overcoming mental and physical that rabbits prefer the companionship trauma. “Both of my bunnies had been Animal Adoption in Hong Kong of their fellows, Chan and her husband abandoned before they were taken into As a firm advocate and proponent for decided to adopt another one. “Again, the HKRS. Mochi was aggressive after animal welfare, Chan has her own share we made an appointment with the HKRS, he first came home with us and would of thoughts on existing laws in the city – and were delighted to see Doughy, who not let anyone go near him. He was finding them dated and too lenient. “For was a very different size and breed than cautious and defensive to strangers. example, the penalties for animal abuse Mochi. Doughy was abandoned by his Doughy suffered from physical illnesses are widely felt to be overly light and having former owner at the door of the HKRS, and had to have a major operation. Now, insufficient connection to the standard of with a serious liver disease that required they have both recovered and love a good animal care that is generally expected in a major operation. To have more time to massage by anyone! To see their recovery present-day society. Abandoning animals observe his health, we first signed up to and transformation is one of the biggest in streets, parks and other unsuitable rewards to me,” she shares. places should be considered to be a form of abuse, as that can often lead to serious Today, both Mochi and Doughy are very injuries and death, but abandonment is much a part of Chan’s family and the rarely punished under existing laws. former was even a part of her wedding Updating the laws is the first thing that photoshoot. “When my husband and I would benefit animals in Hong Kong,” she got married, we included Mochi in our explains. wedding photoshoot. His fur colour made him look like he was all suited up Having said that, given the difficulties for the occasion!” she recalls. “Another in enforcement, Chan also believes that fond memory would be when we took animal welfare is a broad subject and Mochi to a “bunny open day” organised legal tools alone cannot tackle every by the HKRS. Mochi was reunited with angle of it. “For example, while animal his biological son, who was adopted by breeding is somewhat regulated in Hong another kind family, at that event,” she Kong by a licensing regime, there are still adds. Chan believes that having them existing unethical practices with breeding in her life has made her a more patient and selling pets that not only harm the and attentive person. “Because rabbits pets being bought and sold, but more do not make sounds and cannot vocalize importantly, those animals that are used discomfort, I have to observe their health to breed. I have personally seen cats that closely and act swiftly if there are unusual Every adopted bunny gets a certificate! have been used to breed all their life, 每隻被收養的兔子都會得到一張證書 ! signs,” she explains.

www.hk-lawyer.org 69 • July 2021

suffering lasting physical and mental a short time after their adoption,” she and being able to maintain the level of injuries as a result – these damages explains. “Another benefit of going to commitment that adopting an animal are often so deep that they cannot be an animal shelter is that they tend to be entails is also crucial. “I would say that rectified even if those animals eventually more transparent about existing health a sense of commitment is the most get adopted,” she shares. Instead of issues of their animals, so you would also important thing when keeping pets, relying solely on law and enforcement, know what you are getting,” she adds. bought or adopted. Domesticised Chan believes the welfare of animals animals are not well-equipped to survive should be a concerted personal effort by Adopting the Lifestyle of Adopting in an urban environment without care society as a whole. “Ultimately, it comes For those looking to adopt animals, and for some animals, such as rabbits, down to raising public awareness about spending time with and familiarising they almost always die if abandoned,” the potential downsides of supporting yourself with such animals would be she explains. “Pets do require a lot of pet shops and animal breeding, and a good starting point. Chan attention, time and money. For busy popularising the idea of adoption. believes that adoption lawyers, time commitment may be the After all, animals for is very much most important consideration to think adoption are not “second- a mutual about. I set aside time every day, before hand goods” but are process and after work, to care for my bunnies. just as good, if not where the This actually helped me manage my time better, than bought cute looks and achieve a better balance between animals,” she adds. of the work and my personal life,” she adds. In this regard, Chan is quite optimistic In fact, Chan believes lawyers to be as more and more particularly suited for animal people are choosing adoption, given their to adopt rather than propensity for details buy pets. “There is and ability to apply even a hashtag for it - rules. “This is handy #adoptdontshop. when it comes to The number of caring for pets Young Doughy at home animal shelters (he was about two years old) methodologically in Hong Kong is 小 Doughy 在家裏 and observing also increasing. I （牠當時大約兩歲） their health certainly hope that conditions,” she this trend will continue explains. She to grow,” she shares. believes the legal community Part of the deal is also clearing common can get further misconceptions about adopting animals. involved in animal A brand new infant pet bought at a pet adoption by “holding store is believed to be healthier and easier information sessions to bond with – both of which are not true with animal shelters according to Chan. “When you adopt, animal to educate members on you are more likely to find a healthier are merely a Artemis, my family’s first pet. the ins-and-outs of animal pet as most animal shelters do not allow starting Artemis，我家裏的第一隻寵物。 adoption, informal gatherings where adoption until an animal is old enough. point. Ultimately, members can bring their pets and Some pet shops tend to sell animals at a both the pet and the share their experience with each other, very young age because they would look pet owner’s personalities must and by providing legal support to those cuter, and younger pets are sometimes be compatible. “There are many NGOs charities that need it.” preferred by buyers on the assumption and charities in Hong Kong which that they can bond with humans more provide opportunities for adoption. Looking back at her experience so far, easily. But weaning too young can My recommendation would be to Chan is certain of one thing - when you cause health problems, which may not start volunteering at these NGOs and adopt a pet, you are actually the one surface until sometime after the pet is charities – for example, the Lifelong getting selected and adopted by your taken home. Animals that are adopted Animal Protection Charity (LAP) and the pet. While we can choose which pet to at an older age are equally capable of Hong Kong Paws Foundation,” shares adopt, the pet itself is very much choosing bonding well with humans – my bunnies Chan. Besides getting accustomed to the person they will trust in their journey were adults when we adopted them and abandoned animals, understanding towards a better life. they successfully bonded with us within

70 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • LAWYERS AT LEISURE 律師閒情成為家人的毛孩子

文：Sonali Khemka

無論是在職業還是個人方面，每個人都相信第二次機會是寶貴的。我們都曾經因再次獲得一個新的機會而感恩，但如果你能賦予一個生命重生的機會呢？陳伊琳律師分享了她在領養動物方面的經驗，以及除了日常的快樂和挑戰之外，領養動物的最終意義是給予毛孩子第二次機會。 Mochi reunited with his son at a “bunny open day” event. Mochi 在「兔子開放日」活動中與兒子重聚。

領養與適應所以那時大多數兔子都在午後打盹，給被遺棄或無家可歸的動物第二次陳律師第一次接觸領養動物是在她但 Mochi 卻很清醒，對有訪客非常興機會，並親眼目睹它們的康復過程和在海外學習時，她的家人從「愛護奮。牠真的在籠子裏站起來打招呼。痊癒。她解釋說：「你可以看到明顯動物協會」領養了一隻 3 個月大的在與 Mochi 相處了一段時間後，我們的變化：牠們的情緒和健康得到改家貓。回到香港後，她第一次見到認為我們與 Mochi 很合得來，而且牠善，而且牠們最終會敞開心扉，能够了 Artemis，並得知這貓兒已經成為真的很想有個家！所以我們就去申重新建立對人類的信任。這是一個美她父母的最愛。陳律師回憶說：「我請收養牠。」約四年後，由於知到兔妙的經歷。」陳律師幫助她的兩隻兔仍然記得，當我第二年回家過暑假子更喜歡有同伴陪伴，陳律師和她子克服了精神和身體的創傷。她說：的時候，Artemis 以為我是家裡新來的丈夫決定再領養一隻。她分享道：「我的兩隻兔子在被帶入「香港兔友的，因為她以前從未見過我。很自然「我們再次與「香港兔友協會」進協會」之前都曾被遺棄。Mochi 在剛地，她認為我是她的「後輩」，並開行了預約，並很高興認識 Doughy，和我們回家後具有攻擊性，不願意讓始對我發號施令！我當然需要適應牠的體型和品種與 Mochi 完全不同。任何人接近它。牠對陌生人很謹慎，家裡有新的寵物，但這是非常值得 Doughy 是被牠的前主人遺棄在「香也很防備。Doughy 患有身體疾病，的。」因這個經歷，陳律師得以發掘港兔友協會」門口的，牠有嚴重的肝不得不做了一次大手術。現在，牠們貓兒的性格特點，這使她對動物領養病，需要做一個大手術。為了有更多都已經康復了，並且喜歡任何人給牠產生了持續的興趣。之後，她的父母的時間觀察牠的健康狀況，我們首先們做按摩！能看到牠們的康復和轉又領養了另一隻家貓，而多年後，陳報名成為牠的寄養主人，這意味著牠變，對我來說是最大的恩賜。」律師和她的丈夫則領養了兩隻小兔子將留在「香港兔友協會」，我們將為 – Mochi（糯米糍）和 Doughy（奶醬牠的醫療費用提供資金支持，但我們今天，Mochi 和 Doughy 都是陳律師多）。將有機會探望牠並與牠有密切互動。的家庭的一部分，而前者甚至是她婚幾個月後，我們認為是時候帶牠回家禮照片拍攝的一員。她回憶道：「我陳律師自己收養第一隻兔子的經歷了。Doughy 和 Mochi 的關係非常好，丈夫和我結婚時，我們讓 Mochi 也參讓她記憶猶新。她回憶說：「我記得，現在是形影不離的。」與我們婚禮照片的拍攝。牠的毛色我們第一次去「香港兔友協會」時，使牠看起來像是為這個場合穿上了是一個安靜的下午。兔子是夜行性陳律師覺得她在領養動物方面的經禮服！」。她補充說：「另一個美動物，一天中大部分時間都在睡覺，驗對她來說非常有意義。這讓她可以好的回憶是，我們帶著 Mochi 參加了

www.hk-lawyer.org 71 • July 2021

「香港兔友協會」舉辦的「兔子開放 (#adoptdontshop)。香港的動物領養沒有很好的能力在失去照顧的情況日」。在那次活動中，Mochi 與牠的機構的數量也在增加。我當然希望下在城市環境中生存；而對於一些親生兒子團聚，後者當時已經被另一越來越多人選擇領養的趨勢將繼續動物來說，如兔子，如果被遺棄，個善良的家庭領養。」陳律師認為，維持。」牠們的結局幾乎總是死亡。」她補在她的生活中擁有牠們，使她成為一充說：「寵物確實需要大量的關注、個更有耐心和細心的人。她解釋說：清除關於領養動物的常見誤解，也時間和金錢。對於忙碌的律師來說，「由於兔子不會發聲，也不能表達不是普及動物領養的重要一環。在寵能保證投入的時間可能是需要考慮適，我必須密切觀察牠們的健康狀物店購買的幼年寵物常被認為更健的最重要因素。我每天都留出時間，況，如果有不尋常的迹象，就要迅速康，更容易與人類建立關係 – 但陳在工作之前和之後，照顧我的兔子。採取行動。」律師認為，這兩點都不是真實的。這實際上幫助我管理我的時間，在她解釋說：「當你領養動物，你更工作和個人生活之間取得更好的平香港的動物領養有可能找到一個更健康的寵物，因衡。」作為動物福利的堅定宣導者與支持為大多數的動物領養機構在動物的者，陳律師對本港現有的法律的看法年紀够大之前都不允許領養。一些事實上，陳律師認為律師特別適合是 -- 它們過時了，而且太寬鬆了。寵物店傾向於出售年齡很小的動物，收養動物，因為他們傾向於注重細她解釋說：「例如，社會普遍認為對因為牠們看起來更可愛，而且年輕節和具有應用規則的能力。她解釋虐待動物的處罰過輕，與現今社會普的寵物有時會受到買家的青睞，認說：「當涉及到照顧寵物的方法和遍期望的動物關愛的標準涵接不夠。為牠們更容易與人類融合。但是，觀察它們的健康狀況時，這些能力將動物遺棄在街道、公園和其他不合動物在太小的時候斷奶，可能會導是很有用的。」她認為，法律界可適的地方應被視為一種虐待行為，因致健康問題，這些問題可能在寵物以通過以下方式來進一步參與到動為這往往會導致動物遭受嚴重的傷被帶回家後的一段時間後才會顯現物領養中：「與動物福利機構一起害甚或死亡，但在現行法律下，遺棄出來。在年齡較大時被收養的動物舉辦資訊發佈會，讓成員瞭解領養行為很少受到懲罰。更新法律是造福同樣能够與人類很好地建立關係 -- 動物的來龍去脈；舉行非正式聚會，香港動物的第一件事。」我的兩隻兔子在被收養時都已經是讓成員帶著他們的寵物，互相交流成年，而牠們在被領養後很短的時經驗；以及為那些有需要的慈善機話雖如此，鑒於執法上的困難，陳律間內也成功地與我們建立很好的關構提供法律支援。」師也認為，動物福利是一個廣泛的係。」她補充說：「去動物領養機議題，單靠法律工具是無法解決問構的另一個好處是，他們傾向對動陳律師回顧迄今為止的經歷，她確題的每一方面。她分享道：「例如，物已有的健康問題持有更加透明的信一件事 -- 當你收養一隻寵物時，在香港，雖然動物繁殖在一定程度上態度，所以你也會知道你得到的是你實際上是被你的寵物選中並收養受到牌照制度的監管，但在繁殖和什麼。」的人。我們可以選擇收養哪隻寵物，銷售寵物方面仍然存在著不道德的而寵物同樣也選擇了相信能帶牠走做法，被傷害的不僅是被買賣的寵讓領養成為生活態度向美好生活的人。物，更重要的是那些被用來繁殖的動對於那些希望領養動物的人來說，物。我曾親眼見過那些一生都被用來花時間接觸和熟悉這些動物將是一繁殖的貓，牠們的身體和精神都因此個好的開始。陳律師認為，領養在受到了持久的傷害 -- 這些傷害往往很大程度上是一個雙向的過程，是如此之深，以至於即使這些動物最動物的可愛外表只是一個起點。最終被領養，也無法修補過來。」陳律重要的是，寵物和寵物主人的性格師認為，動物福利不應僅僅依靠法律都必須合拍。陳律師分享道：「香和執法，而應是靠整個社會協調一港有許多非政府組織和慈善機構提致的努力。她補充說：「歸根結底，供領養的機會。我的建議是開始在要提高公眾對支持寵物店和動物繁這些非政府組織和慈善機構做義殖的潛在弊端的認識，並普及領養工 -- 例如 Lifelong Animal Protection 的理念。畢竟，領養的動物不是「二 Charity 和香港動物基金。」除了習手貨」，而是和買來的動物一樣好，慣與被遺棄的動物相處，瞭解並能甚至更好。」在這方面，陳律師相當够持守對被領養動物的承諾也是至樂觀，因為越來越多的人選擇領養而關重要的。她解釋說：「我認為，

不是購買寵物。她分享道：「甚至對於寵物 -- 無論是買來的還是領養 Mochi and Doughy bonded very well and are now 還有一個網絡標籤 -- # 領養不購買的 -- 承諾是最重要的。家養的動物 inseparable. Mochi 和 Doughy 的關係非常好，現在是形影不離的。

72 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

Results of the Research 教資會公布「2020 年研究 Assessment Exercise 2020 評審工作」結果

The results of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2020 港大法律學院在教資會於 5 月 24 日公布的「2020 年研 were announced on 24 May. The Faculty is pleased to share 究評審工作」結果中取得重大進步。學院合資格參與評 that there are significant improvements in its research outputs 審的教研人員 ( 為本港法律學院中人數最多 ) 所提交的 – 82% of the overall submission done by eligible staff (the 研究成果中，百分之八十二被評為「世界領先」 (四星) largest number among local law schools) obtained 4* or 3* 或「國際卓越」 (三星)水平。各間參與「年研究 (as world-leading or internationally excellent). Amongst all the 2020 institutions in the RAE 2020 Law Panel, HKU Law obtained 評審工作」法律評審的院校之中，港大法律學院在所有 the highest 4* scores in all categories. In particular, we had the 評審環節中均取得四星水平最高百分比，並且是唯一在 highest overall 4* performance and was the only institution to 「研究環境」一項達全四星水平 (100%) 的院校。 achieve a 4* (100%) for research environment. 在十三個專門領域 ( 評審小組 ) 中，港大在六個領域獲 Out of a total of 13 broad panel areas assessed, HKU is rated 院校中最高比例的「世界領先」水平，法律領域為其 the best in 6 areas, and we are proud to be one of them. Details 中之一。「2020 年研究評審工作」結果詳情，請瀏 of the RAE 2020 results can be found here: https://www.ugc. 覽︰ https://www.ugc.edu.hk/big5/ugc/activity/research/ edu.hk/eng/ugc/activity/research/rae/2020/results.html rae/2020/results.html The Faculty would like to take this opportunity to thank our RAE advisers on the mock panel who guided us through the 學院為結果感到欣喜之餘，要特別感謝模擬評審小組各 lengthy process, and all colleagues for their hard work and 顧問對學院的指導，以及所有同事的辛勞和貢獻。 contributions.

www.hk-lawyer.org 73 • July 2021

Long Service Awards 2021 長期服務獎 2021 The success of the Faculty was made possible through the 法律學院的成就有賴所有教職員的服務和貢獻。學院很 service and contribution of all academic and professional 高興今年有 12 位同事獲得長期服務獎，另有 4 位同事 services colleagues. This year, the Faculty is pleased and proud 在多年的貢獻後，已經或將於 2021 年榮休。他們多年 to congratulate 12 colleagues on receiving the Long Service 來為學院盡心盡力服務，學院感激之餘亦為他們感到自 Awards and 4 colleagues who will retire or has retired in 2021. 豪。 We are so proud of these loyal and valuable team members.

Long Service Awards recipients (from left): Mr Murphy Wong, Professor Say Retirees and Professor Hualing Fu, Dean of Law, (from left): Mr Leslie Wong, Goo, Ms Coria Cheng, Ms Jacqueline Wong, Ms Pian Yip, Dr Keith Hotten Ms Ngan Poon and Mr Raymond Lam (right) and Mr Wilson Chow 榮休同事與法律學院院長傅華伶教授，( 左起 ): 王錦良先生、潘燕顏長期服務獎得獎者 ( 左起 ): 黃顯安先生、吳世學教授、鄭寶琼女士、女士和林少秋先生 ( 右 ) 黃潔清女士、賀傑峰博士、葉穎琴女士和周偉信先生

Professor Yun Zhao, Head of Department Ms Rebecca Lee, 15-year of Law, and Ms Victoria Long Service Award Kwok, 15-year Long recipient, and Professor Service Award recipient Johannes Chan 法律學系系主任趙雲 15 年長期服務獎得獎者李頴芝女士與陳文教授與 15 年長期服務獎得獎者郭榮妮女士敏教授

Nurturing Local Academic Talent Through Academic Talent Fellowship Scheme The Faculty is pleased to appoint Ms Elaine Yim and Miss Phoebe Woo as the first two Pre-Doctoral Fellows of its Academic Talent Fellowship Scheme. The Fellowship is supported by a generous donation by Ms Zue Lo, aiming to nurture local academic legal talents who can receive doctoral training in the best law schools around the world. Both fellows are law graduates of our own. While Elaine’s research focused on immigration ethics; Phoebe will look at the regulation of use of artificial intelligence through international intellectual property and data protection law. 法律學院透過學術人才獎助金計劃培養本地學術法律人才

法律學院新設學術人才獎助金計劃，首兩位的博士前研究員為嚴樂林和胡楚翹。該獎助金由 Zue Lo 女士捐贈，旨在培養本地學術法律人才，讓他們有機會在世界各地的著名法學院就讀博士課程。兩位研究員均是本院畢業生，嚴樂林的研究重點是移民倫理﹔胡楚翹則專注於通過國際知識產權和數據保護法，對人工智能的運用進行規管。 Ms Elaine Yim Miss Phoebe Woo 嚴樂林胡楚翹

74 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

Congratulations to Our Alumni 恭賀港大校友 The Faculty congratulates alumnus Johnson Lam on his 港大法律學院恭賀校友林文瀚獲薦任為香港特別行 appointment as Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, 政區終審法院常任法官。 HKSAR. 林法官分別在 1983 年和 1984 年畢業於香港大學法 After obtaining LL.B. and P.C.LL. from The University of Hong 學士學位課程和法學專業證書課程，並於 1984 年獲 Kong in 1983 and 1984 respectively, Mr Justice Lam was called 委任為香港大律師，自翌年起開始私人執業。他於 to the Bar in Hong Kong in 1984 and was in private practice 年獲司法機構委任為區域法院法官，現為高等 since 1985. In 2001, he was appointed by the Judiciary as District 2001 Judge and is currently Vice-President and Justice of Appeal of the 法院上訴法庭副庭長。有關推薦獲立法會同意後， Court of Appeal, High Court. Subject to the Legislative Council’s 便會根據《基本法》任命。 endorsement, official appointment will be made. 學院亦在此恭賀兩位校友於 2021 年 5 月 29 日獲 Congratulations also go to the following alumni who have been 委任為資深大律師，兩位分別為 ( 根據英文姓氏排 appointed Senior Counsel on 29 May 2021 (in alphabetical order): 列 )：

Ms Vinci Lam Wing-sai (LLB 1996, PCLL 1997) 林穎茜 (LLB 1996, PCLL 1997) Mr Law Man-chung (PCLL 1997) 羅敏聰 (PCLL 1997) The Faculty is very proud of its graduates and wishes them all 學院為校友的成就感到自豪，亦在此祝願他們錦繡 the best. 前程！

Book Launch of Clive Grossman SC’s Autobiography Clive Grossman SC launched his autobiography “From Hackney to Hong Kong—The Story of a Lucky Man” on 11 June 2021 at Parkside Chambers.

Published by HKU Faculty of Law, the book is the anecdotal story of Clive Grossman SC and his travels from his birthplace in Hackney in London during the Second World War to what was then Southern Rhodesia. He describes his life in Rhodesia and what later became Zimbabwe, growing up there, schooling, working as a clerk then university in Cape Town, practice at the Bar, his time in the military, and eventually his trip to Hong Kong which resulted in an invitation to work in the Attorney General’s Office and a life thereafter at the Hong Kong Bar.

Book details and online order: https://forms.gle/YmXG3ehcNFsBySoY9

資深大律師郭兆銘回憶錄舉行新書發佈會

資深大律師郭兆銘於 2021 年 6 月 11 日在柏承大律師事務所舉行新書發佈會，發表其回憶錄《From Hackney to Hong Kong—The Story of a Lucky Man》。

該書由港大法律學院出版，講述了郭兆銘的生平軼事。他在二次世界大戰期間，從出生地倫敦哈克尼區遷移到當時的南羅德西亞。郭兆銘在書中描述了在羅德西亞 ( 現今的津巴布韋 ) 的生活，他在那裡長大、上學、工作。之後，他入讀開普敦大學，並在律師事務所實習，更加入了軍隊。最終他的香港之行令他受邀在律政司工作，並展開在香港擔任大律師的生涯。

書籍詳情及網上訂購 : https://forms.gle/YmXG3ehcNFsBySoY9

www.hk-lawyer.org 75 • July 2021

Hong Kong Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2020: CUHK LAW’s World-Leading Research Recognised The University Grants Council has announced the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2020 results on 24 May 2021. CUHK LAW is overall leading in Hong Kong in the law domain with 83% of its research activity being rated as 4* (“world leading”) and 3* (“internationally excellent”). CUHK LAW is particularly proud that the Law Panel has awarded the highest ratings to its research outputs (combining 4* and 3* publications). 2020 年香港研究評審工作：中大法律學院世界領先的研究成果獲認可

大學教育資助委員會於 2021 年 5 月 24 日公佈 2020 年研究評審工作結果。香港中文大學法律學院在香港法律領域整體領先，其 83% 的研究活動獲評為 4*（「世界領先」）和 3*（「國際優秀」）。學院對法律評審小組將其研究成果（結合 4* 和 3* 出版物）給 Details of the RAE results are available at https://bit.ly/3gpZzfQ 予最高評級尤其感到自豪。有關 2020 年研究評審工作結果的詳情，請瀏覽：https://bit.ly/3gpZzfQ

Success of CUHK LAW Students 中大法律學院學生成就

Grant & Scholarship 助學金及獎學金

Congratulations to the following CUHK LAW PhD 恭喜下列中大法學哲學博士生的近期成就： students on their recent success: Sumit SONKAR 獲得2020-2021 年度 Sumit SONKAR received the Eurasia-Pacific Uninet 「Eurasia-Pacific Uninet Ernst Mach Grant for Ernst Mach Grant for PhD Students (2020-2021). The PhD Students」。該助學金將允許他在奧 grant will allow him to pursue part of his research 地利維也納大學跨學科研究中心「Religion studies at the interdisciplinary Research Centre and Transformation in Contemporary Society」 “Religion and Transformation in Contemporary 進行部分他的研究。 Society” of the University of Vienna, Austria. Sumit SONKAR Sumit 的論文研究題目為「Progressive Sumit is working on his thesis entitled “Progressive Constitutionalism in India: Examining Women’s Constitutionalism in India: Examining Women’s Right to Access Hindu Temples and its Societal Right to Access Hindu Temples and its Societal Harmonization” under the supervision of Professors Harmonization」，他的導師是Surabhi Surabhi Chopra and Rehan Abeyratne. Chopra 教授和 Rehan Abeyratne 教授。

Can EKEN received the Max Planck Luxembourg PhD Can EKEN 獲得2021 年度「 Max Planck Scholarships 2021. The scholarship will allow him to Luxembourg PhD Scholarships」。該獎學金 spend two months as an in-resident scholar at the 將允許他於 2021 年 11 月至 12 月在盧森堡 Can EKEN

76 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law in 研究所「Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law」 November and December 2021. 擔任兩個月的駐站學者。

Can is working on his thesis entitled “Rethinking Third- Can 的論文研究題目為「Rethinking Third-Party Funding in Party Funding in Investment Arbitration: Towards a New Investment Arbitration: Towards a New Procedural Paradigm」， Procedural Paradigm” under the supervision of Professors 他的導師是 Bryan Druzin 教授和 Fernando Dias Simoes 教授。 Bryan Druzin and Fernando Dias Simoes.

The 12th International Air Law Moot Court Competition

The CUHK LAW team took second place at the 12th International Air Law Moot Court Competition held on 19-21 May 2021. The team was also awarded the best team of the Respondent based on the quality of the written memorial and the pleading performance. Members of the CUHK Air Law Moot team included LLB student Evelyn Shun Wai CHAN and JD students Leann Long Yi AU and Amanda Long Yi HUI. The team’s coach was Professor Jae Woon LEE and the student coach was PCLL student Colbert Tsung Yi HUNG.

第十二屆國際航空法模擬法庭比賽

中大法律學院隊伍在 2021 年 5 月 19 至 21 日舉行的第十二屆國 Professor Jae Woon Lee (left) with the CUHK Air Law Moot team. 際航空法模擬法庭比賽中榮獲第二名。隊伍因傑出的書面和口頭李載雲教授（左）與中大航空法模擬法庭隊伍成員合照。答辯技巧，同時奪得最佳辯方陳述獎。中大航空法模擬法庭隊員包括法律學士學生陳淳蔚、法律博士學生區朗兒及許朗怡。團隊由李載雲教授帶領、法學專業證書學生洪從譯協助指導。

Past Events 活動回顧

Seminar on “DataFlow 2 Go” 「DataFlow 2 Go」研討會

Data Flow 2 Go, organised by the Transnational Economic Law and 中大法律學院比較法與跨國法研究中心的跨 Dispute Settlement Group at CUHK LAW’s Centre for Comparative 國經濟法和糾紛調解專責組於 2021 年 5 月 20 and Transnational Law (CCTL) on 20 May 2021, gathered academic 日舉行「DataFlow 2 Go」網上研討會。研討 and industry specialists both in government and business to address 會匯集來自政府和商界的學術和業界專家， pivotal issues in the governance of data flows. Some of the revelations 就數據流通管理的關鍵問題發表意見，部分 and insights provided during the session included the importance of data flows to Hong Kong’s attractiveness as a place to do business and 啟示及見解包括：數據流通對香港作為營商 for the competitiveness of local businesses; considerations of access to 場所和本地企業競爭吸引力的重要性；美國 personal data by American national security agencies in the Schrems I and 國家安全機構在 Schrems I 和 II 決定中獲取個 II decisions; the extraterritorial effect of legal initiatives on Hong Kong’s 人數據的考慮因素；各種法律措施對香港商 business and legal environment, such as the effect of Europe’s GDPR; 業和法律環境的域外影響，例如歐洲一般資 Hong Kong’s unique advantage in allowing local users the ability access 料保護法規的影響；香港允許本地用戶獲得 to free data flows from China and the rest of the world; the design and 來自中國和世界其他地方自由數據流通的獨 nature of various policies such as those governing privacy; and why data 特優勢；各種政策的設計和性質，例如管理 flows are critical to future innovations. 私隱的政策；以及為何數據流通對未來創新 The ubiquity of data and the global interconnection of systems renders 至關重要。 cross-border data governance more complex, and the continuous and fast-moving technological transformation more difficult to address. Data 數據的無處不在和系統的全球互聯，使跨境 Flow 2 Go provided important new awareness but could only superficially 數據的管理變得更加複雜，亦令持續快速發

www.hk-lawyer.org 77 • July 2021

deconstruct such complexity and highlight the need for more research 展的技術轉型更加難以應對。「DataFlow 2 Go 」 in this area where fast moving technological transformation challenges 帶來了重要的新認知，然而，快速發展的技術轉 existing legal structures and requires proactive policies. 型挑戰了現有的法律結構並需要採取積極主動的政策，研討會只能從表面上解構這種複雜性及指出需要在此領域進行更多研究。

Learn more and watch the video recap: https://bit.ly/3v95oDu 詳情及重溫研討會影片，請瀏覽：https://bit.ly/3v95oDu

Seminar on “Family & Wealth Disputes and the Lawyers’ Toolkit in Planning and Litigation”

This online Property Law Seminar was delivered by Professor TANG Hang Wu, Professor at the School of Law, Singapore Management University on 26 May 2021. With over 400 registrations, the seminar examined the various factors that may cause dysfunction within the dynamics of wealthy families and several factors which are drivers of litigation, particularly in Asian families. It ended with a discussion of the lawyer’s Professor Tang Hang Wu from Singapore Management toolkit, both from a planning and litigation perspective, for managing University. 新加坡管理大學教授。 family assets and preserving them from being eroded by family conflicts. Tang Hang Wu

「家庭與財富糾紛及律師規劃與訴訟的工具」研討會

此財產法網上研討會於 2021 年 5 月 26 日舉行，由新加坡管理大學法學院 TANG Hang Wu 教授主講。研討會吸引逾 400 人報名，會上探討了可能引致富裕家庭出現糾紛的各種原因及引發訴訟的若干因素，尤其是在亞洲家庭。研討會結尾從規劃和訴訟的角度，探討了律師管理家庭資產及保護它們免受家庭衝突侵蝕的方法。

Seminar on “Compliance – Basics and Latest Developments”

On 2 June 2021, CUHK LAW oragnised an alumni online seminar by Professor Thomas Maria Kruessmann, Senior Expert Counsel at Lansky Ganzger + partner GmbH on the basics of and latest developments in compliance. The seminar introduced the topic of compliance and the standard features of compliance management systems such as the ISO. It also discussed mechanisms such as whistleblowing and internal investigations. Looking to the future, the seminar touched on, among other things, the calls for a Professor Thomas Maria Kruessmann from Lansky consolidated Governance, Risk management and Compliance (GRC) perspective. Ganzger + partner GmbH. Lansky Ganzger + partners GmbH 律師事務所 Thomas Maria Kruessmann 教授。

78 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

「合規 —— 基本原則及最新發展」研討會

中大法律學院於 2021 年 6 月 2 日舉行校友網上研討會，由 Lansky Ganzger + partners GmbH 律師事務所高級專家顧問 Thomas Maria Kruessmann 教授主講有關合規的基本原則和最新發展。研討會介紹了合規這個主題及以 ISO 為例等合規管理系統的標準特徵。會上還討論了舉報和內部調查等機制。談到未來，研討會提及對統一治理、風險管理和合規（GRC）方面的呼籲等。

Upcoming Events

Seminar on “Protecting Your IP in China: More Tools Than You Ever Know” (5 July 2021)

This CUHK LAW Alumni Online Seminar to be delivered by two experienced intellectual property attorneys, Mr. Alex Liang and Ms. Wency Yu from Broad & Bright, will discuss how IP right holders may protect their rights in mainland China. The first part of the seminar focuses on trademarks and introduces brand protection strategies, while the second part focuses on patent litigation and introduces various types of injunctions available. The seminar combines discussion of overall strategies with reviews of several recent cases. Details and registration: www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/app/ events/protecting-your-ip-in-china 詳情及報名： www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/app/events/ 活動預告 protecting-your-ip-in-china

「保護你在中國的知識產權：多於你所知的方法」研討會（2021 年 7 月 5 日）

此中大法律學院校友網上研討會將由兩位經驗豐富的知識產權律師、來自 Broad & Bright 律師事務所的梁帆先生和于雯竹女士主講，會上將討論知識產權持有人如何保護他們在中國大陸的權益。研討會的第一部分將以商標為重點，介紹品牌保護策略；第二部分將以專利訴訟為重點，介紹各種類型的強制令。研討會將綜合討論整體戰略及審視最近的幾宗個案。

Conference on “Asian Legal History” (24-25 July 2021) 「亞洲法律史」學術會議（2021 年 7 月 24 至 25 日） The Transnational Legal History Group of the CUHK LAW’s Centre for Comparative and Transnational Law (CCTL) and the University of Law – 中大法律學院比較法與跨國法研究中心的跨 Hue University will be jointly organising an online conference on the theme 國法律歷史專責組將於 2021 年 7 月 24 至 25 of Asian Legal History from 24-25 July 2021. The conference aims to bring 日與 – 合辦一 together a diverse and interdisciplinary group of scholars, researchers, University of Law Hue University and graduate students to share their research findings on topics relating 場以亞洲法律史為主題的網上會議。會議旨 to legal history in Asia. 在集合不同領域和學科的學者、研究員和研究生，分享他們在亞洲法律史方面的研究成 The conference features keynote presentations on “Legal History and 果。 Comparative Law – Friends or Foes?” by CUHK LAW Dean Professor Lutz-Christian WOLFF, “Trans-national Penology and Vistas of Post-War 是次會議的主題演講包括：由中大法律學院 Reconstruction, India 1919-21” by Professor Radhika SINGHA, Professor of 院長鄔楓教授主講的「法律史與比較法—— Modern Indian History, Jawaharlal Nehru University, “Asian Legal History 是友還是敵？」、印度尼赫魯大學現代印 as a Sub-Discipline: Why ‘Asian’? Why ‘Legal’? And Why ‘History’?” by 度史教授教授主講的「跨 Professor Andrew HARDING, Visiting Research Professor, Faculty of Law, Radhika SINGHA

www.hk-lawyer.org 79 • July 2021

National University of Singapore, and “Vietnamese Lawyers: From 國刑罰學與戰後重建前景，印度 1919-21」、新 Legal Cadre to Professional Lawyering in a Socialist State” by Professor 加坡國立大學法學院客座教授〔研究〕Andrew Pip NICHOLSON, William Hearn Professor of Law and Dean, Melbourne HARDING 教授主講的「作為一門分支學科的亞 Law School. 洲法律史：為什麼是『亞洲』？為什麼是『法律』？為什麼是『歷史』？」，以及墨爾本大學法學院 William Hearn Professor of Law 兼院長 Pip NICHOLSON 教授主講的「越南律師：從社會主義國家的法律幹部到專業律師」。

Details and registration: www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/conf/2021/ asian_legal_history 詳情及報名：www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/conf/2021/asian_ legal_history

Recent Publications 最新出版

• “Saving Competition in Hong Kong’s Aviation • “Clandestine Awards, Information Market” in Air & Space Law (Wolters Kluwer) by Asymmetries, and Equality of Arms in Professor Jae Woon LEE. Full article: https://bit. Investment Arbitration” in Journal of ly/3va5Ktx Dispute Resolution (2021) Issue 2 by Professor Fernando DIAS SIMÕES. Full article: https://bit.ly/3v9H5Fu • “Analysis of Third-Party Funding within the Islamic Framework” in Transnational Dispute Management by CUHK LAW PhD student Can EKEN. Abstract: • “Temperature Targets and State https://bit.ly/352Xilg Obligations on the Mitigation of Climate Change” in Journal of Environmental Law by Professor Benoit MAYER. Full • “Are U.S.-Listed Chinese Firms a Minefield? A Board article: https://bit.ly/3v85OtW Perspective” in The International Lawyer (2021) by Professor Chao XI and CUHK LAW PhD student Yurong HUANG. Full article: https://bit.ly/3v7yNhy • “Cooperative Compliance for Individuals and Trusts: A Proposal for a Compliance Passport” in Journal of • “The wrong vaccine: custody time limits and loss of Tax Administration co-authored by liberty during Covid-19” in Legal Studies (Cambridge Professor Noam NOKED. Full article: University Press) by Professor Luke MARSH. Full https://bit.ly/3zAKhNK article: https://bit.ly/3wc39Rl

80 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

Asian Law Schools Association (ALSA) Symposium on New Challenges and New Opportunities in Legal Education 亞洲法學院協會（ALSA）舉辦「法律教育的新挑戰和新機遇」學術研討會

In order to encourage scholars to share their experiences in developing innovative practices and to bring legal education forward into the new millennium, the first Asian Law Schools Association (ALSA) Symposium entitled, “New Challenges and New Opportunities in Legal Education” was co-hosted by two ALSA member institutions, the School of Law of Jilin University (JilinU) and the School of Law of City University of Hong Kong (CityU SLW) on 27 and 28 April 2021.

The Symposium formally kicked off with Welcoming Remarks by Prof He Zhipeng (Dean, JilinU School of Law) who expressed his honour on behalf of JilinU School of Law for having the opportunity to co-organise the symposium with CityU SLW. Mr Jack Burke (left) and Ms Anna Lui (right) He believed that JilinU School of Law shared the same understanding with CityU Jack Burke 先生 (左) 與呂凱恩女士 ( 右 ) SLW that Asian law schools should have more opportunities to exchange ideas and to communicate with each other on how to promote legal education. He also 為鼓勵學者分享有關研發及運用創新教學 emphasized that law schools all over the world share the same aims of educating 法的經驗，以及讓法律教育邁進新里程， more and more students in law, enhancing our education curriculum, improving 亞洲法學院協會（以下簡稱「」） our teaching methodology and learning from other law schools and international ALSA legal education organisations. Prof He pointed out that in this new era, three 的兩個成員單位，吉林大學法學院及香港 elements played an important role in legal education: the etiquette of internet 城市大學法律學院（以下簡稱「城大法律 communication, establishment of closer linkage between legal issues, globalization 學院」），於 2021 年 4 月 27 日至 28 日 and deglobalization, and cultural diversity. He invited all legal scholars to think 合辦了首個 ALSA 學術研討會，名為「法 about ways to improve legal education in the political context, and that this 律教育的新挑戰和新機遇」。 symposium is a very good start to promote communication among law schools. 學術研討會以何志鵬教授（吉林大學法學院院長）的歡迎辭展開序幕。對於能夠與城大法律學院合辦是次研討會，何院長表示榮幸。他認為吉林大學法學院與城大法律學院理念一致，亞洲法學院應更多交流意見，並共同探討如何推廣法律教育。他還強調全球所有法學院都有著共同目標， Welcome speeches by Prof He Zhipeng (left) and Prof Tan Cheng-Han (right) 旨在培育更多法學學生，並提升課程質何志鵬教授 ( 左）和陳清漢教授（右）致歡迎辭素，改進教學方法，以及向其他法學院和 Following the welcoming remarks of Prof He, Prof Tan Cheng-Han, SC (Dean and 國際法律教育組織學習。何教授指出，在 Chair Professor of Commercial Law, CityU SLW) also welcomed all participants 這新時代，有三個元素在法律教育中擔當 to the first academic symposium hosted by ALSA and expressed his pleasure 重要角色，即網路通訊禮儀、法律議題及 to be able to co-organise this Symposium with JilinU School of Law. As a new （去）全球化之間的緊密聯繫，和文化多 association, he considered that this first scholarly event was an important start for 樣性。他邀請所有法律學者思考如何在現 ALSA. Being made up of 22 leading Asian law schools, ALSA intends to expand 今政治環境下優化法律教育，而是次研討 its membership over time to all Asian law schools, with the goal of becoming the 會正是促進法學院交流的良好開端。

www.hk-lawyer.org 81 • July 2021

voice for all law schools in Asia. Turning to the theme of 何教授致辭後，陳清漢教授（資深大律師、城大法律學院院長 the Symposium, Prof Tan said that the last 15 months of 及商業法首席教授）歡迎所有與會者出席由 ALSA 舉辦的首個 the pandemic have forced universities and all of us out 學術研討會，並為能夠與吉林大學法學院合辦是次活動感到十 of our comfort zone, and pushed us to find a solution 分高興。作為新成立的協會，他認為是次活動標誌著 ALSA 的 to the restrictions caused by COVID-19. CityU SLW is 重要開首。 ALSA 由 22 個著名亞洲法學院組成，並期望邀請 committed to improving the use of technology and has 更多成員加入，最終包涵所有亞洲區內法學院，旨在為所有亞 recently won a grant from the Hong Kong University Grant’s Council to support a research project on ‘Global 洲法學院發聲，與美國法學院協會（Association of America Law Classrooms’ which will help the school to usher in Schools）的角色相似。陳教授其後談及學術研討會的主題，認 Online Learning 2.0. He also expressed grateful thanks 為在過去 15 個月，疫情迫使大學及教職員步出安舒區，並試 to all presenters for being part of the Symposium, and 著為新型冠狀病毒帶來的限制提供解決方案。以城大法律學院 in particular to Mr Jack Burke (Senior Teaching Fellow, 為例，學院致力於改善科技應用，最近更獲得香港大學資助委 CityU SLW) and Ms Anna Lui (Teaching Fellow, CityU 員會的撥款，以支持「全球課堂」的研究項目，幫助城大法律 SLW), Prof He Zhipeng and his colleagues for making 學院迎接線上學習 2.0。他感謝所有參與研討會的講者，並特 this symposium a reality, and to all participants for their 別向 Jack Burke 先生（城大法律學院高級特任講師）、呂凱恩 confidence in ALSA. 女士（城大法律學院特任講師）、何志鵬教授及其同事致謝， Twenty-one guest speakers conducted presentations 也感謝所有與會者對 ALSA 的信賴。得到大家的支持，學術研 addressing a wide range of topics relating to the theme 討會才能順利舉行。 of the Symposium. The Symposium consisted of five sessions, each followed by a Q&A session. The topics 是次學術研討會共有 21 位主講嘉賓發表演講，討論與研討會 of the presentations were as follows (according to the 主題相關的各個議題。研討會分為五個環節，每節均設問答環 order of presentation). 節。演講主題如下（按演講順序排列）：

Session 1 (Moderator: Prof He Zhipeng): 第一節（主持人：何志鵬教授）： • Keynote speaker: Dr Kate Galloway (Associate Professor, Griffith • 主講人：Kate Galloway 博士（格里菲斯大學法律 Law School), “Publishing Legal Education Research: Influencing 學院副教授），「出版法律教育研究：未來之影響」 The Future.” • Kelley Burton 博士（陽光海岸大學法律與社會學 • Dr Kelley Burton (LEAD Co-convenor, School of Law and 院 LEAD 共同召集人）、Julian Laurens 先生（LEAD Society, University of the Sunshine Coast), Mr Julian Laurens 高級項目主任）、女士（墨爾 (LEAD Senior Project Officer), Ms Judith Marychurch (LEAD Judith Marychurch Co-convenor Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne), 本大學法律學院 LEAD 共同召集人）及 Michael and Dr Michael Nancarrow (LEAD Co-convenor until July 2020, Nancarrow 博士（LEAD 共同召集人（任期至 2020 Consultant and sessional academic, Macquarie Law School, 年 7 月）、麥覺理大學法律學院顧問和特約學 Macquarie University), “Student Evaluations of Teaching During 者），「新型冠狀病毒大流行期間學生對教學的 the Covid-19 Pandemic: Law Academics Advocating for Alternate 評估：提升教學質量的替代措施」 Measures of Teaching Quality.” • Helena Whalen-Bridge 博士（新加坡國立大學法律 • Dr Helena Whalen-Bridge (Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, 學院副教授），「法律學院的法律倫理：挑戰與 National University of Singapore), “Legal Ethics in Law School: 機遇」 Challenges and Opportunities.”

第一節的主持人及講者：第一行（左至右）：何志鵬教授；Kate Galloway 博士；Kelley Burton 博士；Julian Laurens 先生第二行（左至右）：Judith Marychurch 女士； Michael Nancarrow 博士；Helena Whalen- Bridge 博士 Moderator & Speakers of Session 1: First row from left: Prof He Zhipeng; Dr Kate Galloway; Dr Kelley Burton; Mr Julian Laurens Second row from left: Ms Judith Marychurch; Dr Michael Nancarrow; Dr Helena Whalen-Bridge

82 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

Session 2 (Moderator: Mr Jack Burke) 第二節（主持人：Jack Burke 先生） • Prof Joel Lee Tye Beng (Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore), • Joel Lee Tye Beng 教授（新加坡 “Teaching Practical Legal Skills: Principles, Pedagogy and Pitfalls.” 國立大學法律學院教授），「教 • Dr Elena Sychenko (Associate Professor, Saint Petersburg State University), “Digital 授法律實踐技能之教學：原則、 Tools for Students’ Engagement in Law Classes.” 教學法和陷阱」 • Dr Elena Sherstoboeva (Assistant Professor, School of Creative Media, School of Law, • Elena Sychenko 博士（聖彼得堡 CityU) and Ms Maria Dubrovina (Student, School of Communication, Media and Design, 國立大學副教授），「學生參與 Higher School of Economics), “New Approach to Teaching Law to Creative Media and 法律課程的數碼工具」 Art Students in the Digital Era.” • Elena Sherstoboeva 博士（城大法律學院及創意媒體學院助理教授）及 Maria Dubrovina 女士（俄羅斯高等經濟學院傳播、媒體及設計學院學生），「針對創意媒體和藝術專業學生的法律教學新方法」

Moderator & Speakers of Session 2: First row from left: Mr Jack Burke; Prof Joel Lee Tye Beng; Dr Elena Sychenko Second row from left: Dr Elena Sherstoboeva; Ms Maria Dubrovina 第二節的主持人及講者：第一行（左至右）：Jack Burke 先生；Joel Lee Tye Beng 教授；Elena Sychenko 博士第二行（左至右）：Elena Sherstoboeva 博士；Maria Dubrovina 女士

Session 3 (Moderator: Dr He Tianxiang, Assistant Professor, CityU 第三節（主持人：城大法律學院助理教授何天翔博士） SLW) • Robert Chalmers 先生（福林德斯大學講師），「創 • Mr Robert Chalmers (Lecturer, Flinders University), “Innovating 新法律」 the Law.” • Mark L Shope 先生（國立陽明交通大學法律學院助 • Mr Mark L Shope (Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, 理教授），「用戶界面：虛擬教室中各種技術的素 National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), “The User Interface: 質分析」 An Analysis of Various Qualities of Technology in the Virtual Classroom.” • Aleksei Dolzhikov 博士（聖彼得堡國立大學憲法副 • Dr Aleksei Dolzhikov (Associate Professor of Constitutional 教授），「俄羅斯法律教育中的案例方法與批判性 Law, St. Petersburg State University), “Case-method in Legal 法律研究」 Education vs. Critical Legal Studies in Russia.” • Anna Rozentsvaig 教授（薩馬拉國立研究大學內部 • Prof Anna Rozentsvaig (Head of the Internal Control Department, 控制部主管），「俄羅斯的法律教育：新前景、新 Samara National Research University), “Legal Education in Russia: 挑戰」 New Prospects and New Challenges.”

Moderator & Speakers of Session 3: First row from left: Dr He Tianxiang; Mr Robert Chalmers Second row from left: Mr Mark L Shope; Dr Aleksei Dolzhikov; Prof Anna Rozentsvaig 第三節的主持人及講者：第一行（左至右）：何天翔博士；Robert Chalmers 先生第二行（左至右）： Mark L Shope 先生；Aleksei Dolzhikov 博士； Anna Rozentsvaig 教授

www.hk-lawyer.org 83 • July 2021

Session 4 (Moderator: Dr Chow Pok Yin Stephenson, Assistant Professor, CityU SLW): 第四節（主持人：城大法律學院助理教授周博研博士） • Dr Daniel Pascoe (Associate Professor, CityU SLW), “Criminal Law Syllabus and the Realities of Legal Practice in Hong Kong.” • Daniel Pascoe 博士（城大法律 • Mr Shaun McCarthy (Director of the University of Newcastle Legal Centre and Program 學院副教授），「刑法課程綱 Convenor of the Practical Legal Training Program, The University of Newcastle Law 要與香港法律實務現況」 School) and Dr Bin Li (Lecturer, The University of Newcastle Law School), “Supporting • Shaun McCarthy 先生（紐卡斯 Future Legal Professionals for the Digital Era: The Role of Technology in Legal Education.” 爾大學法律學院法律中心主管 • Mr Jack Burke, “Show and Tell: Use of Innovative Teaching Methodologies in a Law School 及法律培訓計劃召集人 ) 及李 Practical Legal Training Programme.” 斌博士（紐卡斯爾大學法律學院講師），「在數碼時代為未來的法律專才提供支援：法律教育中科技的重要性」

• Jack Burke 先生，「展示與講述：於法學院實踐法律培訓課程創新教學法之應用」

Moderator & Speakers of Session 4: First row from left: Dr Chow Pok Yin Stephenson; Dr Daniel Pascoe; Mr Shaun McCarthy Second row from left: Dr Bin Li; Mr Jack Burke. 第四節的主持人及講者：第一行（左至右）：周博研博士；Daniel Pascoe 博士；Shaun McCarthy 先生第二行（左至右）：李斌博士；Jack Burke 先生

Session 5 (Moderator: Dr Daniel Pascoe): 第五節（主持人：Daniel Pascoe 博士）： • Ms Carolina Fabara (Lawyer of the Courts of Justice of the Republic • Carolina Fabara 女士（美洲大學厄瓜多爾共和國 of Ecuador by the University of the Americas), “New Challenges and 法院律師），「全球律師於法學教育（線上） New Opportunities in Legal Education (Online) Global Lawyers.” 面對的新挑戰和新機遇」 • Dr Lim Lei Theng (Partner at Allen & Gledhill LLP), “Learning to • Lim Lei Theng 博士（艾倫格禧律師事務所合夥 Serve and Serving While Learning: Clinical Legal Education at the 人），「學習與服務：年至年星加 NUS Faculty of Law 2008 to 2020.” 2008 2020 坡國立大學法學院的臨床法律教育」 • Dr Christoph Hafner (Associate Professor, Department of English, CityU), “Mooting Interactions: What Is Going On Here and What • Christoph Hafner 博士（香港城市大學英語系副 Could Possibly Go Wrong?” 教授），「模擬法庭互動：現況及可預視的錯誤」

Moderator & Speakers of Session 5: 第五節的主持人及講者： From left: Dr Daniel Pascoe; Ms Carolina Fabara; Dr Lim Lei Theng; （左至右）：Daniel Pascoe 博士；Carolina Fabara 女士； Lim Lei Theng 博士； Dr Christoph Hafner Christoph Hafner 博士

The Symposium ended with the closing remarks of Prof He Zhipeng 研討會在何志鵬教授和 Jack Burke 先生的致辭中結 and Mr Jack Burke. Prof He Zhipeng found the two-day symposium 束。何志鵬教授表示為期兩天的研討會成果豐盛， fruitful and thought-provoking, as many topics showed that it is 許多議題都為法律教育工作者提供啟示，亦說明經 necessary for legal educators to communicate and to share their 驗分享及意見交流的重要性。他亦感謝吉林大學法 experiences. He also thanked CityU and JilinU for organising this 學院和城大法律學院合辦此次研討會，並感謝與會 event and thanked participants for sharing their thoughts. In 人士分享他們的想法及理念。各位發言者都是法學 particular, the insightful views of all the speakers who are experts in the field of legal education served as an important foundation for 教育領域的專家，他們的精闢見解為進一步討論法 further discussions on legal education. 學教育問題奠定了重要基礎。

84 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

Mr Burke announced that ALSA is planning to create a chapter in legal Jack Burke 先生其後宣佈，ALSA 計劃在法律教育 education and he expects that ALSA will make an announcement in this 領域開創一個新的分會，並會就此發表公告。分 regard in the near future. The Chapter will seek to promote academic 會將通過設立討論委員會，並希望在不久將來能 exchanges through the creation of a Discussion Board and future 夠舉辦面對面的會議，促進學術交流。Jack Burke conferences, hopefully, in person, in the not too far distant future. Mr 先生還特別感謝 Kate Galloway 博士的主題演講， Burke also thanked Dr Kate Galloway for her keynote address which set 為推動環球法律教育的高水平學術研究奠定了重 an important tone in stimulating high level scholarship in global legal education. Finally, he noted the excellent quality of the presentations 要的基石。本次研討會中演講報告水平相當高， and encouraged presenters to submit articles to the Legal Education Jack Burke 先生更鼓勵講者們向《法律教育評論》 Review which would like to publish a special edition of that journal to （Legal Education Review）投稿，該期刊將出版一 memorialise the best papers from this ALSA Symposium. 期特別版，發表本次 ALSA 研討會上的優秀文章。

EUPLANT Lecture: EU-China Relations: 中歐法律與司法合作 A Coherence Perspective 專案（EUPLANT）講 CityU School of Law, in cooperation with EU-China Legal and Judicial Cooperation 座 : 「歐中關係：以歐 (EUPLANT) Project, have jointly held a lecture via Zoom on 27 May 2021. We are 盟一致性原則為視角」 honoured to have Dr. Kolja Raube, Assistant Professor of European Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences at KU Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) in 香港城市大學法律學院與中歐法律與司法 Belgium, to give a lecture titled “EU-China Relations: A Coherence Perspective”. 合作專案（EUPLANT）在 2021 年 5 月 27 The lecture was kicked off with welcome remarks by Dr. He Tianxiang (Assistant 日合作，通過 Zoom 平台舉辦了一個專題 Professor, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong). Dr. He explained the 講座。學院很榮幸能邀請到比利時魯汶大 background and the aims of EUPLANT Lecture, the background of the speaker 學（KU Leuven）社會科學學院的歐洲研 and thanked all the participants for their support for the lecture. 究助理教授 Kolja Raube 博士主講「歐中關係：以歐盟一致性原則為視角」。

講座由城大法律學院助理教授何天翔博士（Dr. He Tianxiang）致歡迎辭揭開序幕。何博士解釋了講座的背景和目的，亦介紹了 Raube 博士的學術背景，並感謝所有參與者的出席及支持。

Dr. He Tianxiang Dr. Kolja Raube 何天翔博士 Kolja Raube 博士

Dr. Raube’s lecture focused on the coherence of the EU-China relations. He first Raube 博士在講座中以歐盟一致性原則為 explained the coherence and strategic pragmatism of the EU foreign policy and 視角，探討了目前的歐中關係。他首先解 explored if coherence and strategy apply to the foreign policy of the European 釋了歐盟的一致性原則和戰略實用主義， Union. Furthermore, Dr. Raube examined the EU-China relations from a coherence 並探討了兩者是否適用於歐盟的外交政 perspective in the global and EU foreign policy context. According to Dr. Raube, 策。之後，Raube 博士從全球和歐盟外交 the signing of The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) between EU 政策背景下，以一致性的角度審視了歐中 and China and the introduction of sanctions from European Union signify the 關係。Raube 博士認為，歐中之間簽署的 incoherent EU-China relationship. He concluded that with the dividing Europe, it is unlikely to have one pragmatic and one principled approach towards the 《中歐全面投資協定》（CIA）以及歐盟 EU-China relations. 實施的制裁標誌著歐中關係的不一致性。於總結時，他分析在面臨一個分化的歐洲 After the lecture, questions were raised by some participants, including 時，不太可能期待一個一體化的務實和原 Professor Lin Feng (Associate Dean, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, 則的歐中關係處置方式出現。 Coordinator of the EUPLANT project in Hong Kong) and Dr. Matthieu Burnay (Associate Professor, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London). They 講座的問答環節，席間包括香港城市大學 interacted with Dr. Raube in the Q & A session. The lecture was concluded with 法律學院副院長兼中歐法律與司法合作專 the closing remarks by Dr. He Tianxiang, who thanked Dr. Raube for his valuable 案的香港區項目主任林峰教授（Professor contributions and all the audience for their attendance which made this lecture a great success and fruitful. Lin Feng）和英國倫敦大學瑪麗王后學院

www.hk-lawyer.org 85 • July 2021

副教授 Matthieu Burnay 博士向講者提問，與講者積極互動。最後，何天翔博士向講者致謝，感謝他為大家帶來一場富有啟發性而精彩的講座。

Professor Lin Feng Dr. Matthieu Burnay 林峰教授 Matthieu Burnay 博士

CityU School of Law Held Online Admission Talks for Postgraduate Programmes 2021 Entry To help prospective applicants learn more about our School and receive the latest information about entrance requirements of our postgraduate programmes, CityU School of Law held two online admission talks via GTER (寄託天下) on 19 March and 28 April 2021 respectively. Dr Ding Chunyan (Associate Dean of School of Law), Dr Lauren Yu-Hsin Lin (Master of Laws Programme Director), Dr To Wing Christopher (Master of Laws in Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Programme Director) and Dr Sara Tsui Fung Ling (Juris Doctor Programme Associate Director) attended. The talks attracted close to 1,400 participants in total.

Dr Ding Chunyan started the talk by introducing the most up-to-date rankings of CityU School of Law. According to the latest Times Higher Education (THE) Law Rankings, CityU School of Law ranked 31st in the world, 2nd in Hong Kong and 3rd in Asia. Then Dr Lauren Yu-Hsin Lin, Dr To Wing Christopher and Dr Sara Tsui Fung Ling introduced the Master of Laws, Master of Laws in Arbitration and Dispute Resolution and Juris Doctor programmes respectively in detail regarding aspects of the curricula, scholarships, entrance requirements, etc.

Six graduates were also invited to join the talk to share their study experience.

During the final Q & A sessions, participants enthusiastically joined the discussion by posting questions to presenters who answered them in real time. Questions covered English language requirements, overseas exchange programmes and career development, etc. Attached is a summary of questions posted by participants during the two admission talks. 香港城市大學法律學院舉辦 2021 年研究生課程招生線上宣講會

為了使有志報讀香港城市大學（城大）法律學院的同學詳細瞭解學院的教學特色以及 2021 年的研究生招生要求，我院於 3 月 19 日及 4 月 28 日在寄託天下（GTER）通過線上直播方式，分別舉行了兩場研究生課程招生宣講會。法律學院副院長丁春艷博士、法學碩士課程主任林郁馨博士、法學碩士（仲裁及爭議解決學）課程主任陶榮博士、法律博士課程副主任徐鳳翎博士出席此次宣講會。兩次會議共吸引了近 1,400 人參與。

會上，丁春艷博士首先介紹了城大法律學院的最新排名。據最新公佈的 2021 年泰晤士高等教育（Times Higher Education）世界大學學科排名，城大法律學院位列全球第 31 位，香港第 2 位，亞洲第 3 位。隨後，林郁馨博士、陶榮博士和徐鳳翎博士分別就學院的法學碩士、法學碩士（仲裁及爭議解決學）及法律博士專業的課程設置、獎學金計劃、入學要求等作了詳細介紹。

宣講會也邀請了六位畢業生分享自己的讀研經驗和學習心得。

在最後的互動問答環節，與會者踴躍提問，老師們線上解答了有關入學英語水準要求、海外交流專案、就業方向等問題。附件為兩場研究生課程招生宣講會與會者問題的總結。

86 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • CAMPUS VOICES 法學院新聞

The University of Law Launches 英國法律大學推出全新的就業 New Employability Workshops 工作坊 In April 2021, The University of Law (ULaw) launched an exciting 2021 年 4 月，英國法律大學（The University of Law – new suite of employability workshops and competitions. ULaw）推出了一系列多姿多彩的全新就業工作坊和比賽活動。 The University has a reputation for being the professional university of choice for students of law and business delivering 對於選修法律和商業科目的學生來說，ULaw 一直是一 an outstanding academic and employment-focussed student 所享負盛名的專業大學。大學不僅擁有卓越的學術水 experience. 平，亦提供以就業為中心的各種學生體驗。 The Hong Kong culture is one which trusts and respects the history and tradition of the UK. ULaw, with its longstanding reputation as 在香港人心目中，英國的歷史和傳統一向受到信任和尊 the institution which has supported the development of solicitors 崇。同樣地，一直世代相傳地支持律師和大律師發展的 and barristers for generations, is respected for its history. ULaw，亦憑著在法律界中的源遠歷史而成為一間備受推崇的學院。 Aruna Verma, Associate Professor and Programme Director says ‘We are excited to launch some new workshops in Hong Kong, as ULaw 副教授及課程總監 Aruna Verma 表示：「我們很 well as having guests speakers and workshops on a range of topics 高興能在香港推出全新的工作坊，以及因應一系列例如 such as CV building and how to prepare for an interview. We are 撰寫個人履歷及如何準備面試等課題，邀請客席講者演 taking our support to the next stage by introducing workshops to 講和舉辦工作坊。同時，我們正引進多個除了有關法律 prepare students to be excited not only about law and business but also gain essential skills such as writing and debating...’ 和商業，亦有關寫作和辯論等基礎技能的工作坊，不僅為學生提供多姿多彩的學習機會，亦將 ULaw 對學生的 ULaw is committed to developing the 2020s professional. During 支援服務推上另一個層次。」 2021, there will be a monthly opportunity to engage with experts from Hong Kong and London on a programme which is open 此外，ULaw 亦致力培養 2020 年代的各界專業人員。 to all those with ambitions to work in law, business or other 2021 年，大學將會為有意投身法律界、商界或其他專 professions. 業界別的人士每月舉辦一項可公開參與的計劃，以讓參 All sessions will be online. There will be a variety of different 加者能與來自香港和倫敦的各界專家交流。 themed events to share top tips and advice. There will also be 所有活動將會在網上舉行，並包括各種不同的主題以讓 competitions to test and develop a range of communication skills, with current professional practitioners acting as judges and local 參加者分享心得和建議。另外，大學亦將舉辦各項比賽 employers offering prizes. 以考驗和培養參加者的溝通技巧。比賽評審將由現任的專業從業人員擔任，而獎項則由本地僱主贊助。 One of the students who attended the pre programme session earlier this year and won a place on our Leadership Experience, 其中一位在今年較早時參加過前置計劃，並獲得參與領 Clara Ng, said the following about the programme so far: Having 導能力體驗資格的學生 Clara Ng，對於這項計劃到目前 joined and experienced the tasks, I learnt that leadership is not 為止她認為：「我參與和體驗過當中的各種任務，從中 only a skill about how to lead people, but also how to bring people 了解到領導能力不只是一種帶領其他人的技巧，亦講求 together and involve them in the tasks. I learnt that working as a 如何令其他人團結一致，從而一起參與以完成任務。我 team is important as everyone has their own strengths”. 明白到每個人都有自己的優點，因此要發揮更大的潛 Please stay tuned for our upcoming events by visiting our website 力，團隊合作相當重要。」 and feel free to contact us should you wish to find out more information. 歡迎瀏覽本校網頁或聯繫我們，了解更多有關即將舉辦的活動詳情。

www.hk-lawyer.org 87 • July 2021

PRACTICE SKILLS 實踐技能

Innovative Approaches to Compliance Training

By Annie Tsoi, Co-head of Intellectual Property Department, Professional Standards & Development Partner, Deacons

ompliance training is like an in-flight safety demonstration; it gives very important messages “Cbut often gets ignored!”

As our society is becoming more regulated, compliance and compliance training have become a part of our lives, not just for those in professional services but in all industries including the more obvious ones such as financial, medical and pharmaceutical and even manufacturing and retailing of consumer goods. There is no way to escape them.

Many, hopefully not all, of us attend compliance training because it is compulsory in order to maintain our licences to practice or to keep our jobs. These are not really the right incentives Managing Director of Centrium Advisory Theory” is still the most common way to at all for attending a training session, let Services Limited, and Stanley Lui, Legal convey how costly the consequences of alone following such compliance rules or Director of Asia TI Fluid Systems shared non-compliance can be, both personally policies. It is therefore necessary to find their insights on ways to re-imagine and for the company. innovative approaches to encourage compliance training as marketing and and establish a culture in learning and engagement tools. A more interesting method to ensure implementing compliance. compliance is to argue that compliance Compliance as a marketing tool can and should be a useful marketing This commentary is based on a panel According to Erika Evasdottir, the answer tool! By “marketing tool”, the theory discussion at the Deacons’ In-house to the age-old question of “why you is simply that sales and marketing Corporate Counsel Forum 2021 where should care about compliance” is simply personnel are more convincing when expert panellists Erika Evasdottir, to avoid problems in the future. This “Fear they can fluently and confidently explain

88 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • PRACTICE SKILLS 實踐技能

industry risks and the company’s compliance can be useful and to retain Stanley is also the founder of the White compliance response to prospective that information going forward. Hats Guys, a sharing platform where legal investors, clients and customers, and compliance trainers congregate. Its thereby building trust. In this case, the Compliance training as an mission is to cultivate compliance culture company’s compliance programmes and engagement tool and awareness via innovative training policies become a way to demonstrate Stanley Lui agrees that activity-based materials and engaging narratives. The how experienced the company and its training sessions are more effective “Think! So you won’t Sink” floatie concept personnel are in the industry. As a result, and often uses role-playing and role- was successfully shared through this companies whose staff members are switching activities to increase the level platform. able to describe its own approach rather of audience engagement. than simply referring to “industry best As lawyers, we are used to reading lengthy practices” will stand out from the crowd. “The worst thing is to just talk about documents but not every audience the don’ts!” remarked Stanley. “This is receptive to the often rhetorical Erika strongly believes in a two-way, would only perpetuate the compliance compliance rules. The idea is to reduce interactive training approach. She helps department is a no-go land.” those complicated rules or policies into her clients to develop their compliance more palatable messages going along handbooks by getting different Stanley is very creative in terms of side with pictorial aids. If we can achieve departments involved, giving them using different props to inject ideas. He that, we will soon find ourselves “putting ownership over their own compliance believes an engaging training session the COOL in COOmpLiance”, as the White policies and procedures, and asking each fosters maximum message stickiness. Hat Guys’ mission. department to teach other teams how to In one “sticky” session, he gave the explain the risks and issues involved. By participants a plain white tumbler and Effective compliance training should doing this, what normally would be a some illustrative stickers that visualise be about building trust one-way passing on of knowledge by the compliance concepts such as “conflict While there is no competency matrix compliance officer becomes a collective of interest” and “appropriate hospitality or KPI that can be used to measure knowledge-building activity among the practices”. The audience would peel off compliance training, its success is realised stakeholders. a sticker whenever its corresponding when the compliance department is busy compliance topic is being covered during answering calls from colleagues seeking Practical tips to facilitate this creation the training, and affix it onto the tumbler assistance and guidance when or even process include using infographics, that serves as a blank canvas. The session before a red flag is raised. This requires a organising materials in a consistent way, was an overall light and fun activity that very high level of engagement and trust. explaining the positive results from the generated sticky messages in the end. changes and, most importantly, creating Ultimately, instead of a mundane routine talking points aimed at existing and Another creative session involved the of ticking the boxes, compliance training potential investors, clients and customers. handing out of cheer horns to promote should be used to build trust the “Speak Up” initiative and not within an organisation Training is not about a lecture, but rather turning a blind eye to non- and capitalise the gate- showing each team how to use the rules compliant behaviour. Such keeping efforts of all or requirements to make their daily activity-based training seeks staff members. tasks easier. As people are often better to engage front line at picking up others’ mistakes, inviting the colleagues with audience to identify mistakes in a scenario the ultimate and explain what should have been done objective of would be a good exercise to show how the building trust compliance rules affect different tasks. within and amongst the teams. Examples should also be tailored to the audience. The trick with examples, says Erika, is to ensure the takeaways capture the imagination – not just the old “and then our competitor was fined a LOT of money” or “then he went to jail!” but also the more interesting takeaways of “and that saved our company many millions” and “that is why this major customer/ investor decided to go with us.” Stories like these help people to understand how

www.hk-lawyer.org 89 • July 2021

合規培訓的創新方法

作者：的近律師行知識產權部聯席主管，專業規格及培訓負責合夥人蔡小婷

規培訓就像飛行中的安參加合規培訓的原因僅僅是因為這 Fluid Systems 的法律總監 Stanley Lui 全演示，它傳遞了非常是強制性的，參加培訓才可以維持我就如何將合規培訓重新想像為營銷「合重要的資訊，但往往被們的專業執照或工作。這些其實根本及參與的工具分享了他們的見解。忽視！」不是參加培訓的正確動機，更不用說遵守這些合規規則或政策了。因此，合規作為一種行銷工具隨著我們的社會變得更加規範，合規我們有必要找到創新的方法來鼓勵根據Erika Evasdottir的說法，對於「你性和合規性培訓已經成為我們生活和建立一種學習與執行合規的文化。為什麼要關心合規性」這個久遠的問的一部分，不僅僅是那些專業服務行題，答案只是為了避免未來出現問業，更是包括如金融、醫療和製藥，本評論是基於 2021 年「的近律師行題。這種「恐懼理論」，無論是對個甚至消費品的製造和零售等注重合企業內部法律顧問論壇」(Deacon’s 人還是對公司而言，仍然是傳達違規規性的行業。我們沒有辦法逃避該等 In-house Corporate Counsel Forum)的可造成高昂代價最常見的方式。規範。一場小組討論，其中專家小組成員 Centrium Advisory Services Limited 的一個更有趣以確保合規性的方法，是我們中的許多人（但願不是所有人）董事總經理 Erika Evasdottir 及 Asia TI 論證合規性可以並應該成為一個可

90 www.hk-lawyer.org July 2021 • PRACTICE SKILLS 實踐技能

用的行銷工具！所謂「行銷工具」，理論上只是說，當銷售和行銷人員能够流暢而自信地向潛在的投資者、客戶及顧客解釋行業風險和公司的合規應對措施時，他們會更有說服力，從而建立信任。在這種情況下，公司的合規方案和政策就成了證明公司及其人員在行業內有多大經驗的一種方法。因此，如果公司的員工能够描述自己的方法，而不是簡單地提述「行業最佳做法」，那麼公司就可以從同業中脫穎而出。

Erika 堅信雙向、互動的培訓方法。她幫助她的客戶製訂合規手冊，讓不同的部門一起參與，讓他們對自己的合規政策和程序擁有所有權，並要求每個部門教授其他團隊如何解釋所涉及的風險與問題。這樣，通常由合規事務主管單向地傳遞的知識便變成了利益相關者之間的集體知識建設活動。更有效，並經常使用角色扮演和角色規培訓師聚集的共享平臺。其使命是轉換活動來提高聽眾的參與程度。通過創新的培訓資料和引人入勝的促進這一創建過程的實用技巧包括敘述來培養合規文化及意識。這個使用資訊圖表，以一致的方法組織資「最糟糕的是只談論不要做的事！」「動動腦筋！你就不會沉沒」的泳圈料，解釋變化帶來的積極結果。最重 Stanley 說。「這只會令人覺得合規概念是通過這個平臺成功分享的例要的是，設計針對現有和潛在投資部門永遠是一塊禁地。」子。者、客戶和顧客的談話要點。 Stanley 在使用不同的道具來注入想作為律師，我們習慣於閱讀冗長的檔培訓不是講課，而是向每個團隊展示法方面非常有創意。他認為，一個引案，但並不是每個聽眾都能接受那些如何利用規則或要求以便利他們的人入勝的培訓課程能促進資訊的最經常是誇誇其談的合規規則。我們的日常的工作。由於人們往往更善於發大粘性。在一次「粘性」的培訓中，想法是將這些複雜的規則或政策簡現別人的錯誤，所以邀請聽眾在一個他給參加者們提供了一個普通的白化為更容易接受的資訊，並輔以圖片場景中找出錯誤，並解釋本來應該怎色保溫杯和一些附有說明性的信息說明。如果我們能做到這一點，我們麼做，是一個很好的練習，以顯示合貼紙，這些貼紙將「利益衝突」和很快就會發現自己把「合規變成時尚規規則如何影響不同的工作範疇。「適當的款待」等合規概念視覺化。有趣的事情」，就像「白帽子」們的在培訓期間，每當涉及到相應的合規使命一樣。使用的例子也應該為聽眾量身訂做。主題時，聽眾就會撕下一張貼紙，然 Erika 說，舉例的訣竅是要引發聽眾後貼在作為空白畫布的保溫杯上。這有效的合規培訓應該是建立信任的想像力 -- 不僅僅是老生常談的「然個環節總體上是一個輕鬆而有趣的雖然沒有可以用來衡量合規培訓的後我們的競爭對手被罰了很多錢」或活動，最後產生了粘性資訊。「能力矩陣」或「關鍵績效指標」，「然後他進了監獄！」。更能被聽眾但當合規部門在風險出現時甚至在吸收的可能是：「這為我們公司節另一個有創意的環節是發放歡呼喇潛在風險出現之前就忙著接聽同事省了數百萬美元」和「這就是為什叭，以推廣「大聲說出來」的倡議，的電話尋求幫助和指導時，其成功就麼這個大客戶 / 投資者決定和我們合以及不要對不合規的行為視而不見。會獲得認同。這需要非常高水準的參作」。像這樣的故事可以幫助同事理這種基於活動的培訓旨在讓前線同與及信任。解合規的作用，並在今後緊記這些訊事參與其中，最終目的是在團隊內部息。和團隊之間建立信任。歸根結底，合規培訓不應該是在空格打勾的平凡例行公事，而應該用來在將合規培訓作為一種參與工具 Stanley 也是「白帽子」(White Hats 組織內建立信任，並充分發揮所有員 Stanley Lui 同意活動形式的培訓課程 Guys) 的創始人，這是一個法律與合工的把關作用。

www.hk-lawyer.org 91 • July 2021

92 www.hk-lawyer.org