SFKS takes pleasure to announce the entering of a strategic alliance with Chainova Technology Limited (“Chainova”), a platform with strong expertise and experience in the technical aspects of Web 3.0 and blockchain technologies, Real-World Asset (“RWA”) tokenization, security token offering (“STO”) and the related technologies.
A signing ceremony for the Memorandum of Understanding of the aforesaid strategic alliance was hosted on 20 March 2026.
The strategic alliance will leverage the respective strengths and expertise of SFKS and Chainova to provide comprehensive solutions to clients seeking guidance and execution in the areas of Web 3.0, blockchain, stablecoin, digital identity, RWA, STO, tracing and freezing in digital fraud.
SFKS has the history of pioneering technology related market changes. Today, SFKS is dedicated to transforming clients’ valuable innovations into enforceable rights, with structuring licenses, custody, disclosures, data protection and dispute pathways.
Our Senior Associate Cindy Fong spoke at a seminar cum dinner organized by Hong Kong Real Property Federation (HKRPF).
HKRPF provides a wide spectrum of services of company and individual members including property developers, construction companies and senior practitioners of related disciplines such as surveyors, engineers, architects, valuators, lawyers, property managers, bankers and accountants etc., providing professional services to the real estate industry.
In the event, Cindy shared on a High Court adverse possession case where Counsel for the case, Derek Hu, was also a co-speaker for the session.
SFKS echoes the dedication of HKRPF in supporting Hong Kong’s economic development and to assist its members to develop business in the Mainland and across the Strait.
Photo from left to right:
Dr. Wai-Man Woo, SBS, BBS, Permanent Honorary President, HKRPF
Mr. Anthony Chan, BBS, MH, JP, Permanent Honorary President, HKRPF
Mr. Kuok Hoi Sang, MH, President, HKRPF
Cindy Fong
Derek Hu, Counsel
Mr. Victor Sung, Chairman of Professional Affairs Committee, HKRPF
We wish you had a Happy International Women's Day! Our partner, Ms. Jenny Wong, was honored to be a guest speaker at the “Celebrating Women in Law: Blossoming Together in the Legal Profession” event, organized by the Guangzhou Lawyers Association. Jenny shared her journey on how female lawyers can thrive professionally by embracing their unique strengths—a story of professionalism, growth, and mission.
Our firm are committed to empowering our female lawyers to excel in the legal profession while maintaining a harmonious and fulfilling family life. To all the incredible women —may you continue to excel and reach new heights in your careers!
Probate Case Study: Rescuing a Non-Compliant Homemade Will during Pandemic
Background
Losing a beloved one is sorrowful, yet, after undergoing an emotional healing process, one may deal with the lost one’s assets and liabilities by way of application for the grant.
For application for grant of probate, usually, it will be the most straightforward case if a testator has duly executed a will which is most ideally prepared and witnessed by a solicitor to a law firm strictly in accordance with section 5(1), Wills Ordinance (“WO”) during his/her lifetime with sound mental and testamentary capacity, although it is still the prevailing practice of the Probate Registry that time will be taken to carefully review the applications.
Yet, even if a testator had left a will, the application for grant of probate can still be complicated if certain circumstances exist, and additional time for the Probate Registry’s processing and requisitions will be incurred. Here is a case with peculiar elements handled by SFKS, which is of referential value.
The Rule: How shall a Will be Legally Executed?
There is no stringent requirement as to where the testator executes his/her will as long as section 5(1), WO is complied with, in other words, it is not strictly required for a testator to execute a will in a law firm’s office. In fact, for a terminally ill testator who intends to executes his/her final will, most of the law firms’ solicitors (depending on circumstances, together with registered psychiatrists) offer to attend the hospital where the testator is hospitalized to execute the will.
Section 5(1), WO provides that:-
“(1) Subject to section 6, no will shall be valid unless— (Amended 21 of 2024 s. 78)
(a) it is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction;
(b) it appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will;
(c) the signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of 2 or more witnesses present at the same time; and
(d) each witness either—
(i) attests and signs the will; or
(ii) acknowledges his signature,
in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness),
but no form of attestation shall be necessary”
Case Study: Execution of a Will by a Hospitalized Testator during Pandemic
However, during the outbreak of Covid-19, stringent visiting restrictions were imposed by the Hospital Authority on public hospitals to combat the pandemic. Hence, it was difficult for even relatives to visit their loved one in the hospital, let alone solicitors or psychiatrists for the purpose of execution of a will, whereas nurses and doctors in public hospitals were generally reluctant to become witness and sign a will in view of the potential responsibilities that might arise therefrom.
Having no other alternatives, the patient concerned had to execute the will alone in the hospital, i.e. without two witnesses, and this was clearly in non- compliance with section 5(1), WO.
The patient passed away. The remaining challenge for the family members and the solicitors was to uphold the non-compliant homemade will and make the best attempt to prove the testamentary intentions therein. We chose the latter.
Alternative Route for Grant of Probate of a Non-Compliant Will
Upon lodging an application of grant of probate of such will, the Probate Registry will review such application with extra care and scrutiny, in particular, the Probate Registry will ask whether the applicant/executor intends to invoke section 5(2), WO, which provides that “A document purporting to embody the testamentary intentions of a deceased person shall, notwithstanding that it has not been executed in accordance with the requirements under subsection (1), be deemed to be duly executed if, upon application, the court is satisfied that there can be no reasonable doubt that the document embodies the testamentary intentions of the deceased person” (emphasis added).
In short, the applicant/executor is required to show and satisfy the court by way of an affidavit/affirmation that the will signed by the testator alone embodied his/her testamentary intentions without any reasonable doubt. Proof of the embodiment of the testator’s “testamentary intentions” is rather fact-sensitive and may differ from case to case. While, generally speaking, in non-contentious probate application, an affidavit/affirmation shall be in the prescribed form, and any document to be used in conjunction with an affidavit/affirmation need not be exhibited to the affidavit/affirmation if the original document is filed in the Probate Registry (rule 65, Non-Contentious Probate Rules), the applicant/executor’s affidavit/affirmation showing the testator’s testamentary intention is not in any prescribed form and it also needs to account for the factual details leading to the execution of the subject will, all documents surrounding the execution of the subject shall be exhibited to explain that the subject will did embody the testator’s “testamentary intentions” and the reason why the testator was unable to duly execute the subject will as per section 5(1), WO.
In this case handled by SFKS, we have prepared on behalf of the applicant an affirmation together with exhibits showing that the subject Will was prepared by our firm and embodied the testamentary intentions of the testator at the material times, in particular given the peculiar circumstances at the time of pandemic, it was not feasible for the subject will to be executed by the testator pursuant to section 5(1), WO.
Nevertheless, as the Probate Registry was cautious about any applications for grant of probate pursuant to section 5(2), WO, in the said affirmation, the applicant was also required to show who would be entitled to share in the estate if the testator had died intestate, and also needed to file consent(s) of those other persons to the ex-parte application under section 5(2), WO.
Gladly, the Probate Registry has eventually been satisfied by the affirmation and the consent(s) prepared by us and allowed the applicant/executor’s application under section 5(2), WO with the probate of the subject will granted to the applicant/executor. This was after almost 1.5 years since the death of the testator, whose last wishes were finally fulfilled.
Conclusion
To conclude, application of grant of probate of a will is supposedly simple and straightforward. However, due to certain circumstances which are out of human control, such application can still be complex. In any event, if a will is prepared by a law firm, coupled with certain peculiar circumstances that the applicant/executor can properly explain, even if it is subsequently not executed in compliance with section 5(1), WO, the applicant still has grounds to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the subject will embodies the testamentary intentions of the testator and have the grant of probate of the subject will to be granted to him under section 5(2), WO.
The following are key takeaways:-
First, it is always better to plan for the making of wills in advance, and not to wait until being hospitalized where you run the risks of making a non-compliant will or making no will.
Second, although a will can be prepared and executed without involving solicitors, it is highly advisable that wherever possible, solicitors should be engaged for drafting a will or document(s) embodying testamentary intentions and ensuring legal compliance, eliminating all risks of the preparation of a homemade will.
Third, family members who found an apparently non-compliant homemade will of a deceased should not just give up, but they should consult solicitors to consider the alternate route under section 5(2), WO though it would take time.
Hong Kong’s new 417/468 Continuous Contract Test
1. Introduction
As Hong Kong’s workforce returns from the Lunar New Year break, it is worth noting a key change to Hong Kong’s employment regime that came into force on 18 January 2026. The Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) (EO) has adopted a new 417/468 continuous contract test (417/468 Rule), which makes it easier for more part-time and irregular-hours workers to qualify for EO benefits.
In substance, “continuous contract” remains the threshold for key statutory entitlements such as sickness allowance, maternity and paternity leave, severance payments, and statutory holiday pay. What has changed is the hours test used to establish that status.
From 18 January 2026, a contract is treated as “continuous” if an employee has been employed by the same employer for four or more consecutive weeks and each of those weeks meets the prescribed hours test (Qualifying Week). A week is a Qualifying Week if the employee either:
(i) works at least 17 hours in that week; or
(ii) works at least 68 hours in total across that week and the immediately preceding three weeks (a rolling four-week total), provided the employment spans the entire period (Second Limb).
It should be noted that the amendment is not retrospective. For an employment period before 18 January 2026, the old requirement continues to apply. Other EO qualifying periods (for example, three months for statutory holiday pay and 12 months for paid annual leave) are not altered by this amendment.
2. Work patterns matter more under 417/468 Rule
Under the old 418 rule, the analysis was linear: four consecutive weeks, each requiring at least 18 hours of work. If the hours in any week fell below 18, continuity was broken and the clock reset.
The updated test makes the distribution of hours across weeks more significant because it looks at a rolling four-week window, and a shorter week will not necessarily break continuity if the preceding weeks bring the total up to the statutory threshold.
The Second Limb of the 417/468 Rule does not apply during the first three weeks of employment, as there is no preceding three-week period of employment for any of those weeks, and such a period is required for any of them to qualify as a Qualifying Week. This means that during the first three weeks of a new employment, the employee must work for at least 17 hours each week to establish a continuous contract.
To illustrate:
Example 1
Week 1: 20 hours
Week 2: 18 hours
Week 3: 17 hours
Week 4: 13 hours
Total (Weeks 1–4): 68 hours
Continuous contract
In example 1, only Week 4 is under 17 hours, but the four-week total reaches 68. Under the 417/468 Rule, each week is a Qualifying Week and therefore the employee is under a continuous contract. Under the old 418 Rule, Week 4 would have broken continuity.
Example 2
Week 1: 17 hours
Week 2: 17 hours
Week 3: 17 hours
Week 4: 13 hours
Total (Weeks 1–4): 64 hours
No continuous contract
By way of contrast, in example 2, Week 4 is under 17 hours and the four-week total is below 68. Under the 417/468 Rule, Week 4 is not a Qualifying Week and therefore the employee is not under a continuous contract.
Example 3
Week 1: 13 hours
Week 2: 19 hours
Week 3: 17 hours
Week 4: 16 hours
Week 5: 16 hours
Total (Weeks 2–5): 68 hours
No continuous contract
In example 3, both Weeks 4 and 5 fall below 17 hours. Although the four-week total for Weeks 2 to 5 reaches 68, the Second Limb of the 417/468 Rule operates only to make Week 5 (but not each week within that four-week period) a Qualifying Week. Since the four-week total for Weeks 1 to 4 is under 68, Week 4 is not a Qualifying Week and continuity is broken.
Example 4 (new employment)
Week 1: 35 hours
Week 2: 17 hours
Week 3: 16 hours
Week 4: 16 hours
Total (Weeks 1–4): 84 hours
No continuous contract
In example 4, both Weeks 3 and 4 are under 17 hours. Week 4 is a Qualifying Week as the four-week total reaches 68. However, the Second Limb of the 417/468 Rule does not apply to the first 3 weeks of new employment. Consequently, even though the total working hours for the first 3 weeks already reach 68, Week 3 cannot be “saved” by this rolling total provision. Therefore, Week 3 is not a Qualifying Week and has broken continuity.
Nothing in the EO prohibits flexible rostering. Adjusting hours to reflect genuine operational needs remains permissible. From a compliance and administration perspective, the key is that timekeeping and rostering records should be sufficiently clear to support accurate calculation of hours under the 417/468 Rule so that continuous contract status can be assessed consistently.
3. Legal context
Although the 417/468 Rule is new, it operates within existing EO framework and the established principles in case law on continuous contracts and work arrangements. The following points remain important under the new rule.
Statutory onus
Once the hours requirement in the First Schedule of the EO is satisfied, the contract is treated as continuous for EO purposes and the statutory benefits follow. S.3(2) of the EO expressly provides that, in any dispute as to whether a contract is a “continuous contract”, the onus of proving that it is not continuous rests on the employer. This makes clear and contemporaneous records of hours worked especially important, particularly where weekly hours and rolling four-week totals may need to be verified.
Labels are not determinative
Consistent with the statutory framework, the courts give limited weight to labels such as “casual”, “contract worker” or “self-employed”, and instead focus on substance of the relationship, including mutual obligations, control, integration, economic dependence, regularity of work and whether the individual is in business on his or her own account (see Poon Chau Nam v Yim Siu Cheung (2005) and Wong Man Kwan and Others v Chun Shing Holdings Ltd (2003))
Gaps and fixed term arrangements
Where engagement is structured through successive fixed-term contracts, short gaps in between fixed term contracts can interrupt continuity, even if the work appears continuous (see Wong Man Sum v Wonderland Sea Food Restaurant (2007)).
Taken together, possible disputes under the new 417/468 Rule remain familiar:
4. Practical points for employers
To maintain compliance under the new test, employers are recommended to regularly:
(a) Review standard employment contracts, staff handbooks and HR policies to ensure that references to “continuous contract” and qualifying hours reflect the 417/468 thresholds.
(b) Identify part-time, casual and irregular-hours roles, particularly those averaging around 15–19 hours per week or 60–72 hours per four-week period, and recognize that many of these workers may now fall within continuous contract protection. This is particularly relevant in sectors such as retail, construction and creative industries, where irregular hours are common.
(c) Ensure timekeeping practices and payroll records are maintained in a way that reliably reflect accurate calculation of hours worked and reduce reliance on informal or ad hoc tracking outside the timekeeping system.
(d) Brief line managers responsible for scheduling rosters to be informed about the new 417/468 Rule and ensure they understand schedules should be driven by operational needs.
5. Conclusion
The 417/468 Rule does not rewrite the law on continuous contracts but changes who is more likely to qualify and recognizes fluctuating patterns over a rolling four-week window.
For employers, the priority is consistency between operational needs, work patterns and documentation. For employees, the new test makes it easier for variable schedules to still amount to continuous employment. As case law develops under the new test, the focus is likely to be less on the formula itself and more on how the work relationship operate in practice.
This article is co-authored by our Partner Joseph Wong and our Trainee Solicitor Christy Hui.
Disclaimer : This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
Revisiting Service of Notice of Appeal in Hong Kong: From FNG v BCJ to RHC Order 65
In their article “Can Notices of Appeal be Served on Solicitors Acting in the Court Below?” published in the August 2021 issue of Hong Kong Lawyer¸ Henry Cheng and Jasper Wong of Denis Chang’s Chambers (“the learned authors”) have helpfully summarized the reasoning and implications of the decision of Court of Appeal in FNG v BCJ [2021] HKCA 160 which seems to have the effect that the solicitors on record for the respondent in the court below are not automatically be regarded as solicitors for the respondent in the appeal and hence an appellant would have to effect service of the Notice of Appeal on a respondent by another means if that respondent withholds instructions to his solicitors in the court below to accept service of the Notice of Appeal on his behalf.
In this article, we try to explore and analyze further whether it is indeed correct to say that service of a Notice of Appeal on the solicitors on record for the respondent in the court below could not be valid and good service.
Effect of RHC Order 65 Rule 5 overlooked?
It appears that from the judgment of FNG v BCJ [2021] HKCA 160 both the parties and the Court of Appeal have focused their consideration and analysis on the interpretation of Rules of the High Court (RHC) Order 67 Rule 1 but no mention was made in respect of RHC Order 65 Rule 5.
As pointed out by the learned authors, the provisions of RHC Order 65 Rule 5 regarding ordinary service applied to service of Notice of Appeal and the Court of Appeal’s decision in FNG v BCJ does not appear to have altered this position.
RHC Order 65 Rule 5(1)(a) stipulates that ordinary service “may be effected by leaving the document at the proper address of the person to be served”. RHC Order 65 Rule 5(2)(a) further states that “… the proper address of any person on whom a document is to be served in accordance with this rule shall be the address for service of that person, but if at the time when service is effected that person has no address for service his proper address for the purposes aforesaid shall be in any case, the business address of the solicitor (if any) who is acting for him in the proceedings in connection with which service of the document in question is to be effected.” (emphasis added)
Interpretation of “In Connection with”
It is interesting to note that the wordings of RHC Order 65 Rule 5(2)(a) treats that the business address of a solicitor acting for a party in the proceedings “in connection with” with the documents to be served is valid address for the purpose of ordinary address.
While the rule does not explain the meaning of “in connection with” and there appears to be no local authority expressly ruling on the phrase of this rule, the phrase “in connection with” has been interpreted with a wide meaning in Hong Kong legal practice in a number of cases such as paragraphs 35-36 in Xu Yi Hong (許毅紅) v Chen Ming Han (陳明翰) & Ors [2006] 4 HKC 633 and paragraphs 23-25 in Yingde Gases Investment Ltd (盈德氣體投資有限公司) v Shihlien China Holdings Co Ltd (實聯中國控股有限公司) [2014] HKCU 138.
The above authorities suggest that the phrase “in connection with” is inclusive of all matters that are not entirely unrelated to the underlying transaction or legal proceedings. Hence, the application of this phrase extends to a wide range of scenarios that maintain a factual or legal connection with the main proceedings or the transaction at hand.
Applying the above as well as the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and common sense, a Notice of Appeal is inevitably a document “in connection with” the proceedings of the court below. This is especially true regarding service of the Notice of Appeal when no new case number is yet to be assigned to the Notice of Appeal at the time of its service and the case number of the proceedings below will be the key reference is showing the connection of the matter to be appealed against.
Conclusion
Based on the above logic, it seems at least strongly arguable that Notices of Appeal can therefore be lawfully and effectively served on the solicitors acting for the respondent as long as the solicitors remain on the record for the respondent in the proceedings below.
With respect, the Court of Appeal seemed to understand that the practice of serving Notices of Appeal on the solicitors acting for the other party in the court below as a mere “common practice” but did not further consider whether such practice may actually have legal effect under RHC Order 65 Rule 5. The Court of Appeal also appeared to put much of the focus and emphasis on the fact that the same solicitors firm does not necessarily have instructions to act in the appeal and accept service. However, the absence of a solicitor’s authority to act does not necessarily render any service on the solicitors invalid. A common example is that service on a solicitor who has cease to act for a party remains good service unless and until the solicitors has withdrawn from the record by complying with the requirements under RHC Order 67 Rule 6(1).
In any case, it is clear that more time, costs, delay and uncertainties may incur and arise if Notices of Appeal cannot be conveniently served on the solicitors acting for the respondent in the proceedings. We share the learned authors’ concern that further guidance or clarification (be it by way of case authority, practice direction or guidance note) from the Court will be invaluable and hope that they will be forthcoming.
This article is co-authored by our Partner Sidney Ho and our Trainee Solicitor Viola Lee.
Disclaimer : This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
