As a Tai Po local who was born, raised, and lived for three decades in Wang Fuk Court, I share the same profound grief felt by all affected residents. This cherished land has nurtured the memories of generations of Wang Fuk Court residents, and has been the backbone supporting me from student days to professional practice. Now, there is no hesitation but to use legal knowledge and service to give back to this community.
Two months after the disaster, while the immediate short-term situation has somewhat stabilized, residents are acutely aware that public attention will inevitably fade. The medium- and long-term challenges ahead remain daunting. Therefore, this article consolidates the short-, medium-, and long-term legal needs of the residents for various stakeholders, ensuring they will not walk this legal path alone. Additionally, this article summarizes the legal concerns and developments observed over the past two months, using history as a guide.
Public Concern After the Disaster: The Legal Community's Rapid Response
November 26, 2025 remains fresh in memory when friends and family were frantic upon hearing news of the fire. As part of those affected, aside from briefly checking in, we faced too many unknowns to process. Neighbors were scattered, each searching for new temporary housing, yet grief remained unhealed, and problems unresolved.
After settling somewhat, residents began considering various legal practicalities, thanks in large part to the legal community's swift response. On November 27, the Law Society of Hong Kong established a legal consultation hotline and recruited volunteers. Starting December 4, the Law Society coordinated lawyers, including myself, to attend transitional housing sites to provide on-site legal consultations for temporarily relocated residents.
On the public front, the police arrested over 10 individuals on suspicion of manslaughter. The ICAC made arrests related to corruption involving construction works and detained both the current and former chairpersons of the Owners' Incorporation. On December 12, the Government established an independent committee to review the incident and prevent future disasters.
On January 6, the Lands Tribunal heard the government's application to invoke Section 31 of the Building Management Ordinance (Chapter 344 of the Laws of Hong Kong) to dissolve the Owners’ Committee of Wang Fuk Court and appoint Hop On Management Company Limited as the manager.
Regarding the legal system, the Hong Kong Bar Association took the lead by forming a task force to study relevant ordinances. On January 15, the Home and Youth Affairs Bureau proposed amendments to the Building Management Ordinance, including raising the threshold for physical attendance and voting on major maintenance projects and large procurement decisions, capping the number of proxy documents, and improving declarations of interest. The public consensus is clear: even one disaster is one too many, and the system must be optimized to eliminate hidden risks.
Integrating Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Legal Needs
It is understandable that public attention has shifted from disaster relief to systemic improvements. However, the legal needs of the affected residents themselves are ongoing and complex.
In legal consultations, victims questioned about insurance claims, property ownership, inheritance matters, civil compensation, tenancy issues, and building management. These issues are interconnected and fraught with significant uncertainty. What lawyers can offer, beyond listening, offering condolences, and providing comfort, is to work together with the victims to anticipate potential future needs and provide corresponding legal principles and guidance applicable.
Short-Term Legal Needs
Identification of Deceased Individuals: One of the most heart-wrenching scenes following the disaster was the inability of affected residents to locate and identify the remains of their loved ones, even after learning of their passing. This prevented the Deaths Registries from issuing death certificates directly, yet death certificates are indispensable for general estate administration. Inquiries have been received from families needing to apply to the Coroner’s Court for a “Certificate of the Fact of Death” under Section 41 of the Coroners Ordinance (Chapter 504 of the Laws of Hong Kong) to support their application for estate administration. If forensic examination cannot be completed, a person with a proper interest must provide reasons to support the issuance of the certificate. On January 15, the Secretary for Security announced that the death toll had reached 168, as all bodies had finally been identified.
Immediate Insurance Claims: In response to the urgent needs of the affected residents, many insurance companies have expedited the approval process for home insurance or fire insurance claims. Some have even simplified the claim steps and disbursed funds directly. Approved disbursements typically require the policyholder to sign documents confirming the “full and final” settlement of claims against the insurance company regarding this incident. For caution, policyholders should review their policy coverage and consult their insurance brokers to confirm that there are no remaining claims under the policy (or to voluntarily waive them) before making an informed decision.
Tenancy Arrangements: Many affected residents were tenants. Some others were landlords renting out their units in Wang Fuk Court. They wondered whether their tenancy obligations are suspended or directly terminated, and how the tenancy deposits should be handled. Some leases include force majeure clauses specifying applicable situations and subsequent actions. A possible legal perspective suggests that, as affected residents cannot return to their units for the short to medium term, the principle of frustration of contract applies, and the lease should be directly terminated. However, the situation may differ for residents of unaffected buildings, such as those in Wang Chi House, and should be determined based on individual leases and actual circumstances.
Medium-Term Legal Needs
Estate Administration: On December 10, the Judiciary announced that it would prioritize estate administration and coroner’s proceedings related to Wang Fuk Court. However, given the overload of cases at the Probate Registry, it is anticipated that the approval process will still take months. Estate-related laws are particularly complex, and family members may not be familiar with the application documents and legal foundations. Furthermore, exercising its duty to protect estates, the Probate Registry may need to issue requisitions, requiring applicants to spend additional time in researching and responding. Once the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration for a property-owning deceased is issued, rights over the property can be exercised in the capacity of the personal representatives, whereas Assents are required to vest the property to the beneficiaries.
Mortgage Arrangements: On November 29, the Hong Kong Housing Authority announced the relaxation of regulations regarding mortgage repayment periods and amounts under its Mortgage Loan Guarantee Deed. Subsequently, major mortgage banks offered a six-month suspension of repayments for mortgages and personal loans, along with a waiver of penalty interest. This means that by late May 2026, affected residents may need to face new mortgage arrangements. If issues such as enforcement actions, receivership, or mortgage modifications arise, residents will not only need to communicate directly with their banks but will also likely need to deal with legal documents.
Building Management: Residents have been discussing whether owners lose their “right to complain” after the Owners' Committee is taken over. In reality, the primary channels for owners to voice concerns have always been through voting at owners’ meetings and gathering a required number of signatures to demand meetings to be convened. These rights are not contingent upon the existence of the Management Committee. However, as the dissolution of a Management Committee is unprecedented in Hong Kong, such misunderstandings are quite understandable. These discussions highlight the importance of clarifying the legal relationship and division of responsibilities between the residents and Hop On Management Company Limited, the appointed manager.
Long-Term Legal Needs
Property Ownership: On January 10, the government distributed questionnaires to residents to gather opinions on long-term resettlement. From the residents’ perspective, this marks a turning point: transitioning from short-term post-disaster resettlement to medium- and long-term adaptation and final decision-making. Unless the original buildings are preserved, all resettlement options will inevitably involve transfers of property ownership. This may include the government purchasing ownership rights with cash, or exchanging unit ownership through a “flat-for-flat” arrangement. Conveyancing is one of the primary legal services required, and given that property values amount to millions, it is advisable to seek professional assistance to handle the process carefully.
Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPOA) for Elderly Residents: Many Wang Fuk Court property owners are in their seventies. The immense stress following the disaster has left many elderly residents in a significantly diminished state, raising concerns. However, whether signing documents with the government for property transfers, applying for public housing (e.g., Home Ownership Scheme or Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme), or voting at owners' meetings, the prerequisite is that the elderly individuals possess the mental capacity to act. Elderly residents may consider preparing an enduring power of attorney in advance, executed in the presence of a solicitor and a doctor. This would ensure that, in the event they lose mental capacity (e.g., due to dementia or cognitive decline), an authorized and trustworthy relative or person can manage their financial affairs, prioritize the use of their assets for their own benefit, and handle property ownership documents related to Wang Fuk Court.
Civil Claims: Some residents have inquired about pursuing civil claims. The limitation period for personal injury or death claims is three years from the date of the incident or the discovery of the injury or death, meaning the deadline would be November 2028. Regarding potential defendants, residents should monitor related criminal cases. A criminal conviction generally serves as conclusive evidence of civil liability, though establishing the causal link between the defendant’s actions and the residents’ losses remains necessary. However, civil litigation can be time-consuming, the calculation of compensation is complex and subject to variables, the defendant’s ability to pay compensation and legal costs may be uncertain, and insurance companies may be unwilling to initiate litigation on behalf of residents. All these factors must be weighed when residents decide whether to pursue legal actions.
Reflections on the Law in the Aftermath of the Disaster
The focus of this article is that the needs of disaster victims are not transient but ongoing. The trajectory of legal services should, therefore, evolve from handling immediate necessities into a long-term, reliable “companionship”.
The law has traditionally been perceived as noble and stable, yet it is also often viewed as relatively detached and rigid. In the aftermath of the Wang Fuk Court fire, the legal community broke away from this conventional image by promptly offering legal advice to victims on-site, demonstrating flexibility in their access.
Another traditional impression of the legal profession is its compartmentalization, with outsiders categorizing lawyers based on their specific fields of law. However, the legal concerns of disaster victims are often interconnected, requiring lawyers to possess the capability to provide advice across multiple legal domains simultaneously.
Like any client, disaster victims are not legal experts. Articulating their own needs clearly and systematically within a limited timeframe is undoubtedly challenging. For victims and other clients, it is crucial that lawyers can quickly sort through facts and applicable laws, then systematically summarize and present them.
Afterword
I still remember the day I accompanied my family to transitional housing to sign occupancy documents. While immensely grateful for the swift and generous support from all sectors, I was also at a loss for words that my family had, one day, become recipients of such services. Till now, like other affected residents, I still yearn to return to our old home every day, hoping to retrieve our precious, dust-covered photographs, and then properly express gratitude and bid farewell.
The beauty of Wang Fuk Court lies not only in its convenient location and pleasant scenery. For its residents, this home is proof of life’s simple, peaceful years: cycling west to Tai Po Market, south to Tolo Harbour, or north to Tai Mei Tuk in leisure time. Housewives tend their plots in designated gardens, sharing the harvest, tomatoes, water spinach, white radishes, all bearing the heartfelt flavor of homegrown produce. The outdoor playground in Wang Fuk Court carries memories of the past, and has even been filmed.
The tragic fire changed everything. Our homes were gone. Life looks really fragile. Yet, let’s not forget the memories and sense of purpose in mind, something we can forever hold onto.
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.
In a recent decision of HD HYUNDAI INFRACORE CHINA CO., LTD v. LI ZHIWEI [2025] HKCFI 5714, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance provided significant clarity on the enforcement of Mainland Chinese judgments, particularly compensation orders arising from criminal proceedings, under the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap.645) (the “Ordinance”).
Background
The dispute arose from a fraud perpetrated against HD Hyundai Infracore China Co., Ltd. (the “Plaintiff”), resulting in a loss of approximately RMB 190 million. Li Zhiwei (the “Respondent”), one of the fraudsters, was convicted in the Mainland in 2017. In 2022, the Higher People’s Court of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region finalised a judgment requiring the joint and several return of the RMB 190 million to the Plaintiff.
The enforcement proceedings initially recovered approximately RMB 24.9 million and were terminated in July 2023. Following the commencement of the Ordinance in Hong Kong in January 2024, the Plaintiff applied to the Intermediate People’s Court of Wuhai City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (the “IPC”) to resume enforcement proceedings. In 2024, an enforcement ruling was issued, ordering the return of the remaining RMB 162,061,811.37 (the “2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling”). The Plaintiff subsequently initiated legal action in Hong Kong against the Respondent in December 2024, seeking to register a part (the “Relevant Part”) of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling as follows: -
“现責令李志伟 [Li]… 向被害单位艾奇蒂现代迪万伦工程机械有限公司 (原名斗山工程机械 (中国 )有限公司 ) [HD Hyundai] 退赔人民币162061811.37 元 。”
Legal Issues
The main legal challenge was determining whether an "enforcement ruling" issued by a Mainland court under the Ordinance was registrable. To address this, the Court examined the following key legal issues: -
The Court’s Analysis
The Honourable DHCJ Mr. Wong outlined the concerns of Master Hui, who had dismissed the ex parte application on 12 March 2025, on the grounds that the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling appeared to be a mere administrative outcome of enforcement and therefore not a registrable judgment under the Ordinance. However, the Plaintiff lodged an appeal and adduced further evidence, including an explanatory note from the IPC and an expert report from Mr Jiang Zhe.
Regarding the nature of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling, Mr. Jiang’s expert evidence clarified that it falls under category 11 (i.e., “other matters to be settled by a ruling”) pursuant to Article 157 of the Civil Procedural Law of the Mainland (the “CPL”), rendering it a legally effective (i.e., enforceable and non-appealable) judgment in the Mainland. Further, the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling involves resumed enforcement and an order for asset transfer, rather than being a mere asset-preservation ruling.
Given that the enforcement procedure is independent of the trial procedure in the Mainland, the Court held that an enforcement ruling is an independent, standalone decision rather than a mere repetition of the underlying criminal judgments. In particular, the validity of a duly issued enforcement ruling remains unaffected even if the underlying legal instrument is revoked or found to be erroneous. An enforcement ruling may also address facts beyond the scope of the underlying judgment and/or that occurred after the judgment.
In adopting textual, purposive and systematic approaches suggested by the PRC legal expert, the Court held that the Relevant Part, despite appearing before the words “裁定如下”, remained an operative part of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling.
The Honourable DHCJ Mr. Wong ordered, inter alia, the registration of the Relevant Part.
Significance
This case demonstrates the Hong Kong courts’ intention to uphold a simple and straightforward registration regime without scrutinising the evidence and documents in Mainland proceedings. It is followed by the Hong Kong courts’ deference to the IPC’s explanatory note and the PRC expert evidence when interpreting the nuances of Mainland laws, whether procedural or substantive.
Another key insight is despite the underlying criminal judgment was handed down in 2022, the Hong Kong Court accepted the IPC’s explanatory note and the PRC expert opinion and recognized that the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling as an independent and standalone judgment. As noted, an enforcement ruling remains valid even if the underlying trial judgment is later revoked. Accordingly, the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling (which was dated after the commencement of the Ordinance) is considered independent and therefore registrable, even where the criminal offence and conviction occurred before the Ordinance’s commencement date.
In a separate proceeding, the interlocutory injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff pursuant to section 21M of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4) in May 2024, 7 months before the filing of the registration application in December 2024. This was intended to aid Mainland enforcement proceedings and the subsequent registration in Hong Kong. Coupled with the new registration regime, ancillary reliefs will hopefully ensure the effective enforcement of Mainland legal interests and assist in preserving assets.
Importantly, this case establishes a notable precedent for the application of the Ordinance, illustrating a nuanced shift from the old registration regime. The broader scope of the new registration regime provides a more effective and convenient route to recovery.
Conclusion
Mainland judgement given in proceedings that are criminal in nature and contains an order for the payment of a sum of money in respect of compensation or damages by a party to the proceedings were not covered in the old registration regime. The present case clarifies significantly on how this part of the new registration regime would actually come into place. This precedent serves as a good guidance to the practitioners for the analysis on the nature of the criminal judgments and their registrability under the new regime. It is most welcome that the Hong Kong Court in this case did demonstrate the determination to adopt a pragmatic and facilitating approach to enforcing compensation orders from Mainland criminal proceedings.
The judgment of the decision can be viewed here.
This article is co-authored by our Partner Jenny Wong and our Trainee Solicitor Jasper See.
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.
The financial landscape of Hong Kong is undergoing a major transformation with the impending launch of the Uncertificated Securities Market (USM) Regime, expected in early 2026. This initiative, driven by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX), represents a pivotal shift from the traditional paper-based system to a modern, electronic framework for holding and transferring listed securities. For listed companies in Hong Kong, understanding the legal and operational implications of this regime is crucial for a smooth transition and compliance. This material highlights the key features of the regime, as well as action points for listed companies and implications for investors.
The USM regime is established through a comprehensive legal framework. The foundation is the Securities and Futures and Companies Legislation (Amendment) Ordinance 2021, which introduced necessary changes to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), the Companies Ordinance (CO), and the Stamp Duty Ordinance (SDO). This primary legislation provides the legal basis for the uncertificated system and the new regulatory regime for approved securities registrars.
Supporting this are two key pieces of subsidiary legislation: the Securities and Futures (Uncertificated Securities Market) Rules (Cap. 571AS) (USM Rules), governing the operational and procedural aspects of the USM environment, and the Securities and Futures (Approved Securities Registrars) Rules (Cap. 571AT) (ASR Rules), which formalize the approval and regulation of persons providing securities registrar services.
For HKEX-issuers, the HKEX has published Listing Rule amendments to facilitate the implementation of the USM regime, which apply to both HKEX-listed issuers and HKEX-listing applicants.
The core objective of the USM is to provide an efficient and secure means for investors to hold legal title to their Hong Kong-listed securities in their own names, electronically, eliminating the need for physical share certificates: Summary of Features of USM.
The introduction of the USI profile is a key change, allowing investors to hold legal title directly. While USI-held securities must still be deposited into CCASS for trading on HKEX, the process will be faster and more convenient than the current paper-based system, encouraging greater investor participation and shareholders’ transparency.
The USM regime applies to "prescribed securities" including listed shares, depositary receipts, SFC-authorised funds where the units are withdrawable from CCASS (e.g. REITs), subscription warrants and rights under a rights issue. The transition is phased, with mandatory participation for Key Jurisdiction Issuers (KJIs)—listed companies incorporated in Hong Kong, Mainland China, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands.
KJIs must set a USM participation date, which cannot be later than a specified deadline falling within a five-year period from the USM implementation date (expected early 2026 to 2031). HKEX will determine the specific deadline for USM participation for each HKEX-listed company considering factors such as the size of the HKEX-listed company, the number of title instruments in circulation, any forthcoming corporate actions and whether amendments are required to its terms of issue or constitutional documents. Issuers incorporated in other jurisdictions may participate voluntarily, provided their local laws permit. The transition for existing prescribed securities will occur in batches between 2026 and early 2031.
The transition requires proactive and timely steps from listed companies, particularly KJIs. See a table outlining the Critical Actions and Expected Timelines for Listed Companies.
The requirement to appoint an ASR by the USM Implementation Date applies to all issuers of prescribed securities, regardless of whether their securities have become participating securities under the USM. This is an immediate and critical step, as any gap in ASR appointment could lead to a suspension of securities trading on HKEX. Issuers shall update internal processes to handle new compliance obligations under the USM regime, and have parallel systems in place to accommodate both certificated and uncertificated securities.
For new applicants seeking a listing after the USM Implementation Date, the requirements are even more immediate. They must appoint an ASR and amend their constitutional documents prior to their date of listing. Furthermore, they must provide information on their USM participation in their listing document.
The USM regime introduces significant changes for investors, primarily offering a new choice in how they hold their securities.
Holding Options:
1 Through Intermediaries (CCASS Nominee): This remains the default and most common option for trading, where securities are held in the name of HKSCC Nominees to facilitate trading on HKEX. This is convenient for trading but means the investor holds a beneficial, not legal, title.
2 Directly in Own Name (USI Facility): Investors can opt to hold legal title in their own name via a digital Uncertificated Securities Investor (USI) profile set up with the ASR, and manage their securities electronically online using the platform operated by the ASR. This is not mandatory and investors can still keep their securities already issued in certificated form. If an investor holds multiple participating securities, and the issuers of such securities have appointed different ASRs, the investor will need to set up multiple USI accounts with these different ASRs.
Key Investor Benefits:
• Enhanced Security: Eliminates the risk of loss, theft, or forgery associated with physical share certificates.
• Faster Processing: The manual and time-consuming process of transferring paper-based shares (which can take around 10 business days) is replaced by electronic transfer, significantly speeding up settlement.
• Direct Shareholder Rights: Holding securities via a USI Facility set up with the ASR allows investors to enjoy full shareholder rights directly, including receiving corporate communications from issuers, initiating or affirming transfer instructions and submitting instructions in respect of certain corporate actions electronically and directly without relying on intermediaries.
Phasing out Existing Paper Certificates: Investors holding physical share certificates are not mandated to dematerialize existing securities (i.e. convert them to uncertificated form) except in certain specific circumstances. However, from its USM participation date, an issuer can only issue new securities in uncertificated form (e.g. on a rights issue or scrip dividend) and cannot issue physical title instruments in respect of existing securities (e.g. upon a transfer). This means request for replacement due to loss or damage of physical title instruments, and transfers and issuances of securities, after the issuer’s participation in USM will result in uncertificated securities. In addition, existing securities held in CCASS in the name of HKSCC Nominees will all be dematerialized, and uncertificated securities cannot be rematerialized except in limited situations such as delistings. If investors want to dematerialize their existing securities, they need to set up a USI Facility, and deposit their physical certificates, with the relevant ASR to convert them into uncertificated form.
A significant benefit of the USM regime is the potential for enhanced ownership transparency. As more investors hold securities in their own names, issuers will gain a clearer picture of their shareholder base, facilitating more direct engagement and communication. This improved transparency is particularly relevant for corporate actions like takeovers and privatisations, as it may reduce the reliance on the complex and time-consuming ownership investigation procedure empowered to a listed issuer under section 329 of the SFO (which involves sending a set of notices tracing ownership from brokers through to the ultimate beneficial owners), leading to more efficient transaction processes.
The Uncertificated Securities Market Regime is a major step in modernising Hong Kong's securities market infrastructure, aligning it with international best practices. While the transition presents legal and operational challenges for listed companies, particularly the KJIs, the long-term benefits of increased efficiency, reduced risk, and enhanced investor engagement are substantial. Legal advisers can guide their clients through the necessary constitutional amendments, ASR appointments, and operational adjustments to ensure full compliance and readiness for the paperless future of Hong Kong's capital markets. The time for listed companies to act is now, engaging with their securities registrars and legal advisors to map out a clear and timely transition plan.
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.
