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.
In the landscape of Hong Kong matrimonial law, most marriages end through divorce. However, a recent judgment in the District Court, DC v. AS [2026] HKFC 7 (FCMC 807/2022), provides a rare look into the law of nullity (annulment). While the case centred on the “wilful refusal to consummate” a marriage, the learned Judge’s remarks offer a stern warning to both litigants and solicitors regarding procedural discipline, the purpose of pleadings, and the responsible use of public funds.
The Case: A Short-Lived Union
The Petitioner (the Husband) sought to annul his 14-day marriage on the grounds of non-consummation. Despite a five-year pre-marital relationship, the Husband claimed that post-wedding intoxication and a subsequent breakdown in the relationship prevented the marriage from ever being legally consummated. The Wife argued that sexual intercourse had occurred on the morning after the wedding, but the Court ultimately found her testimony lacked the necessary particulars and credibility. However, the Husband’s legal victory was overshadowed by the Court’s scathing critique of how the case was conducted by both legal teams.
The Legal Ground: Wilful Refusal to Consummate
Under Section 20(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap. 179), a marriage is voidable if it has not been consummated due to the wilful refusal of the respondent. To succeed in such a petition, the court must be satisfied of three elements: -
The case hinged on a factual dispute regarding the morning of 7 March 2021, i.e. the day after the wedding. The Wife asserted that they had consummated the marriage that morning, but she provided these details only during oral testimony at trial. The Husband maintained that no sexual intercourse took place because he was suffering from a severe hangover, including stomach cramps and exhaustion from the wedding festivities.
His Honour Judge I. Wong found in favour of the Husband. The learned Judge noted that the Wife’s pleadings were “fatally brief” and lacked particulars. Furthermore, the Husband’s version – that he was physically unfit for intimacy due his condition – was deemed more credible. The Court also noted that pre-marital sex, which the parties did not dispute, does not legally constitute “consummation”.
A significant aspect of this case was the proposal to consummate. The Court held that a husband does not necessarily need to make a formal, verbal request for sex. By providing a matrimonial home and begging the Wife not to leave during their arguments, the Husband had made an implied proposal to live as a married couple, which inherently includes the intention to consummate.
Conversely, the Wife’s decision to move out after only 14-days marriage and her refusal to return was classified as a “wilful refusal” without just excuse. The Court noted that even in oral testimony, the Wife admitted that once she moved out, she had no intention of returning.
Pleadings: A Map, Not a Memoir
A critical takeaway from this judgment is the Court’s reminder that pleadings are intended to define the issues, not to blur them. His Honour Judge I. Wong described the parties’ pleadings as being in “hopeless shape” and “out of focus”. Instead of stating material facts, the legal representatives pleaded unnecessary evidence, lengthy submissions, and irrelevant history.
The Court emphasised the following expectations:
The judgment highlights that a solicitor’s role extends beyond acting as a mouthpiece for the client; they must also assist the court and act as professional gatekeepers. Solicitors have an essential duty to provide clear advice on: -
Legal Aid and the Responsibility to Public Funds
The Judge raised a significant point regarding Legal Aid. The Respondent contested the nullity petition using public funds. However, since the outcome would not change her financial rights, the learned Judge questioned the merit of the defense. The Court directed the judgment to the Director of Legal Aid, noting that solicitors assigned by the Legal Aid Department have a continuing duty to evaluate the merits of a case as it progresses to ensure public funds are used responsibly.
Conclusion: The Need for Litigation Discipline
This judgment serves as a reminder that family law proceedings require more than just a factual grievance; they require professional discipline. For litigants, the lesson is clear: the court expects a focused presentation of the legal issues. For solicitors, the duty is to manage client expectations, provide realistic advice on costs, and ensure that the court’s time – and public funds – are used with respect for procedural rules.
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.
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.
