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.
