We have recently acted for a Mainland client in an arbitration at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and successfully won an award against various BVI and PRC respondents. The arbitration was to determine a pre-IPO investment dispute involving an investment amount of US$10,000,000. The arbitral tribunal was invited to rule on the broad questions as to whether the redemption right under an investment agreement had been properly exercised and whether the guarantors are liable for the principal debtor’s non-compliance with the redemption request. Parties were engaged in extensive arguments over various technical legal issues including applicability of court pleading rules in arbitration proceedings, estoppel, legal construction on “delivery”, “completion” and “listing”, applicability of the common law principles of reasonable time and nature of guarantee and indemnity obligations. With great pleasure, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of our client on liability, and found that the redemption right was exercised properly and in time. The principal debtor shall be responsible for its failure to redeem the subject shares and a guarantor is jointly liable for such default.
The case was handled by our litigation partner Mr. Roy Leung and our litigation associate Mr. Alan So. The arbitration was conducted in Chinese and Putonghua.
We are glad to announce that Dr Michael West has finished his training with us on 27 July this year. In the past few months of his training, Dr Michael West has shown his great ability and been of a great assistance to us. After completion of the training and pending admission as a Solicitor, he will be going to Taiwan to further his studies as well as to take up a teaching position in a university in Taipei. We hereby sincerely wish him a bright and promising future.
Our Consultant Ms. Sylvia Siu JP successfully hosted the Facilitative and Evaluative Mediation for International and PRC Disputes Training Programme, organized by the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators.
Our Litigation Associates Mr. Mathew Liu, Mr. Ricky Cheung, Mr. Alan So and our Trainee Solicitor Ms. Koey Wong completed this 4-day training programme, and received valuable guidance from former Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, practitioners and academians from the PRC (especially the Greater Bay Region), Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong.
In parallel with our established litigation practice, we engage in versatile and professional alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) with cross-border exposure. Our dispute resolution team is experienced, energetic and equipped to excel.
Following the signing of the “Record of Meeting on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” on 14 May 2021 (the “Record of Meeting”), the field of mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong and the Mainland has officially reached a new milestone. The Record of Meeting has mainly laid down the following :-
The signing of the Record of Meeting has further confirmed the status of HKSAR as an international legal hub. Under the mechanism laid down by the Record of Meeting, it is the Hong Kong insolvency proceedings and the liquidators appointed in Hong Kong being recognized by the Mainland courts. There is no strict requirement that the company concerned must be a company registered in Hong Kong. This not only accommodates the practical reality that many listed companies in Hong Kong are offshore companies, but also meets the international standard.
Meanwhile, the signing of the Record of Meeting has strengthened the preservation of assets of the debtors and also the protection of creditors’ rights in both HKSAR and the Mainland. The Record of Meeting provides a clearer mechanism to allow the courts of HKSAR and the Mainland to implement orderly and efficient insolvency administration and debt restructuring schemes, which will provide further confidence to the creditors and also investors. In particular, where a Mainland company’s major assets locate in Hong Kong, the Mainland administrators can preserve the company’s assets and proceed with liquidation more effectively through the mechanism under the Record of Meeting. This also reduces the risk of being unable to execute the liquidation of the company in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Mainland creditors.
In fact in early 2020, our firm managed to contribute to some groundbreaking development in assisting the Mainland administrators to seek the Hong Kong court’s recognition of the Mainland insolvency proceedings and assistance. The two landmark cases in this area were both handled by our firm, namely Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] 1 HKLRD 67 (the “CEFC Shanghai Case”) and Re The Liquidator of Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd [2020] HKCFI 965, which were the first two precedents in this area of law. The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris reiterated the principles that the Hong Kong Court would consider before granting recognition and assistance to liquidators/administrators appointed in other jurisdictions, and such recognition and assistance were eventually so granted to our clients who were bankruptcy administrators appointed by the Mainland courts.
His Lordship particularly mentioned in the CEFC Shanghai Case that “The extent to which greater assistance should be provided to Mainland [insolvencies] in the future will have to be decided on a case by case basis and the development of recognition is likely to be influenced by the extent to which the [Hong Kong] court is satisfied that the Mainland, like Hong Kong, promotes a unitary approach to transnational insolvencies.” As the pioneer in this area, our firm believes that following the signing of the Record of Meeting and the implementation of the details, the work to assist the Mainland administrators to seek recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings from Hong Kong court in the future can be carried out more effectively and expeditiously.
The aforesaid cases are all handled by our partner Mr. Roy Leung with the assistance of our litigation associates. Our firm is experienced in handling a wide variety of insolvency matters, and will offer assistance to other stakeholders to insolvency proceedings under the framework of the Record of Meeting in the future.
The written decisions of the aforesaid cases can be found at the following websites :-
Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] 1 HKLRD 676
Re The Liquidator of Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd [2020] HKCFI 965
We act for 803 Funds Limited in an application for judicial review against the Secretary for Education (the “Secretary”) challenging his decision in refusing to disclose to our client the names of teachers and schools, the findings and results of the investigation in substantiated misconduct cases (the “Withheld Information”). Our client submitted to the Court that the Secretary’s decision should be quashed based on the following reasons:
This case is led by our Litigation Partner, Mr. Alex Chan, and assisted by our Associate, Mr. Alan So.
This case has been reported extensively by the media after the court hearing on 20 May 2021. Below is a link to a media report published by Speakout Hong Kong: https://www.speakout.hk/港人點播/71637/-
We act for 803 Funds Limited in an application for leave for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Education Bureau refusing to disclose the names of the schools and teachers involved and the findings and results of the investigations in certain substantiated professional misconduct cases. On 20 April 2021, we attended a hearing at the High Court to oppose an application taken out by Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (the “HKPTU”) for leave to join in the legal proceeding as a party. Upon considering the evidence submitted by the HKPTU and also the submissions of the respective parties, the court agreed with our client’s opposition and rejected the HKPTU’s application on the ground that it will not be able to provide additional, material assistance on the law, fact or the consequences of the judgment and awarded costs in our client’s favour. This case is led by our Litigation Partner, Mr. Alex Chan, and assisted by our Associate, Mr. Alan So.
We act for 803 Funds Limited in an application for leave for judicial review and attended a hearing before the High Court on 31 March 2021. The said application is to challenge the decision of the Director of Buildings (“the Director”) in failing to take enforcement action against unauthorized building works and change in use at Two Spaces on Basement at No. 98 Repulse Bay. Issues before the High Court include whether the Director made an erroneous interpretation of section 41(3) of the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) in relation to the Buildings Department’s own policy, whether 803 Funds Limited can make the application and has standing to challenge the decision. Having heard the submissions, the court has reserved its decision. This case is led by our Senior Partner, Mr. Peter Sit, assisted by our Litigation Partner, Mr. Alex Chan, and our Associate, Mr. Alan So.
We act for Speakout HK and issued letters of demands to various local and overseas media requesting for removal of articles and/or videos in which those media wrongfully alleged that our client has been mentioned in a report published by Graphika to have participated and/or assisted in the dissemination of false and incorrect information.
After receiving our demands, the said articles and/or videos had been removed and various media platforms also published public apologies to our client.
Our client's public statement on this matter can be found through the link below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvgRhDM7DTQ&ab_channel=Speakout%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%BA%E8%AC%9B%E5%9C%B0
This matter is handled by our associate Alan So under the supervision of Alex Chan, our litigation partner.
We have successfully assisted our clients in defending two separate summonses at the Magistrates’ Court under which the each of them was prosecuted for providing information which he or she knew to be false or misleading as to a material particular, contrary to Section 26(2)(a) of the Housing Ordinance, Cap 283, (the “Ordinance”) when one of them, being a family member of the co-defendant, made an application under the “Sale of Home Ownership Scheme” to the Hong Kong Housing Authority. Even though it is a Summons by its nature, the maximum sentence is up to HK$500,000 fine and 1-year imprisonment. Worse still, once convicted, the Court shall order the property purchased by the offender be transferred to the Housing Authority pursuant to Section 26A of the Ordinance. With the seamless support of our firm, the Senior Counsel successfully fought for acquittal of these two summonses for our clients after trial and they are now free from any threat of being ordered to transfer the unit they have successfully purchased under the Home Ownership Scheme to the Housing Authority.
This case is led by our Associate Ms Jenny Wong as well as our Trainee Solicitors Ms Jennifer Choi and Ms Koey Wong.
We have successfully assisted our clients in obtaining and continuing various ex-parte orders for asset preservation and Mareva injunction involving assets in the total sum of over US$27 million and in resisting the defendants’ applications for discharge of the said orders and a stay of the ancillary disclosure order.
The matter involves a dispute of two camps of shareholders over a substantial shipping business worth over US$100 million and claims of unlawful and substantial misappropriation of assets and diversion of business from numerous companies.
This urgent and important application is led by our Partner Mr. Roy Leung, who is assisted by our Senior Associate Mr. Sidney Ho, our Litigation Associates Mr. Mathew Liu, Miss Theresa Law, Ms. Jenny Wong, our Trainee Solicitor Miss Winnie Hui, as well as other members from our Litigation Department.
Our Litigation Department has abundant experience in assisting clients and working with experienced counsel team in dealing with shareholders’ disputes and urgent applications for injunctions and other interim reliefs in order to provide timely protection of our clients’ interest.
We are glad to share our recent experience in conducting a trial using video-conference facilities (“VCF”) in the High Court of Hong Kong.
In Mega Honour Holdings Limited v 李森田 and Others[2021] HKCFI 149, we successfully defended a Taiwanese energy group against claims by a local company representing Mainland investors. One of the highlights is the exceptional use of VCF throughout all factual and expert evidence given outside Hong Kong.
The use of VCF is discretionary and upon careful considerations. The starting point is always for proceedings to be conducted in court, where the credibility of witnesses can be examined under the solemn atmosphere of court rooms. That said, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to practical difficulties for foreign witnesses to attend the trial physically, in terms of border control, quarantine requirements and other hygiene concerns. Weighing all the factors, the court shall exercise its case management powers to secure the just resolution of disputes.
According to our experience, the following help the smooth and effective use of VCF: (i) check the availability of the Technology Court as soon as practicable, and adjust the trial timetable accordingly; (ii) coordinate with the Technology Court’s staff to test the compatibility of equipment in advance; and (iii) arrange for a neutral place (e.g. a room in a conference centre) for the giving of evidence in the presence of an observer (e.g. a foreign lawyer) to ensure fairness. Further guidance can be found in Practice Direction 29: Use of the Technology Court.
As technology advances, legal practitioners are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the use of VCF and remote hearings, which will become a permanent feature of our legal system very soon.
Another highlight of this trial is our counsel Mr. Samuel Wong’s cross-examinations of Mainland factual witnesses in Putonghua. This proved to be effective not just in saving the court’s time for interpretation, but also maintaining the momentum flow along direct cross-examinations without breaking off, in order to test the witnesses to the fullest.
In the growth of Asia dispute resolution services, trilingual proficiency has become integral for advocates and all lawyers.
This case is led by our consultant Ms. Sylvia Siu JP, assisted by litigation associate Mr. Mathew Liu and trainee solicitor Ms. Koey Wong.
