Important Changes under the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 - Part 1 : Increased Creditor Protection
The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance), gazetted on 3 June 2016, will come into effect on a date to be appointed by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury. It amends the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32. This article is the first in a series, highlighting the major changes to be introduced. Full article »
Court of Final Appeal Confirms the Elements of Money Laundering Offence
Peter So, Rita Li
In the recent case of HKSAR v. Yeung Ka Sing, Carson, FACC No. 5 of 2015, 11 July 2016, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) dismissed the appeal by the Defendant, the former Birmingham City Football Club Chairman, against his conviction on five counts of money laundering offences. The CFA has also clarified and confirmed the elements required for the offence. Full article »
Lessons to be learnt from FCPA investigations into hiring practices
Peter So, Karen Dicks
There have been a number of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions and investigations arising out of companies hiring family members of Chinese government officials. Such hires can fall foul of the FCPA, if made to obtain or retain business. Although the cases involve violations of the U.S. FCPA, the valuable lessons to be learnt from them apply equally to Hong Kong entities, where a hire made in order to obtain or retain business (whether from a government official or anyone else) would violate the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201). Full article »
Court of Appeal affirms Court of First Instance decision setting aside part of arbitration award for breach of due process
KK Cheung
In a previous article, we reported on the Court of First Instance (CFI) decision in China Property Development (Holdings) Ltd v Mandecly Ltd & Ors, CACV 92 and 93/2015, in which the Court set aside part of an arbitral award on the basis of serious breach of due process, namely that the Applicant had not been able to present his case. The Court of Appeal has recently affirmed that decision, finding not only that the Applicant had been unable to present its case, but more importantly, that the arbitral award had dealt with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration. Full article »
Can Default Judgment be obtained against a Defendant when a Mareva Injunction is already in place?
Cathy Wu
In a recent judgment made by Deputy High Court Judge Saunders on 24 May 2016 in Båsløkka Invest AS v Lambert and Sons Incorporated & Ors [2016] HKCU 1261, it was decided that in circumstances where a plaintiff, who has obtained a Mareva injunction over the assets of a defendant, and who now wants to apply under Order 13 Rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) (RHC) for default judgment against the defendant, the Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to grant default judgment, despite the wording in Order 13 Rule 6 of the RHC, which appears to suggest that the plaintiff needs to abandon its claim for injunctive relief before default judgment can be entered against the defendant. Full article »
High Court confirms that offer containing an express term in relation to costs of the action does not qualify as a Sanctioned Offer
Jean Lau
In the recent High Court decision of Wong Yim Man Anthea v. Wong Ho Ming Felix, HCA 352/2011 (22 April 2016), the Court ruled that a purported sanctioned offer did not in fact qualify as a sanctioned offer because it contained an express term in respect of the parties’ costs of the action. The judgment has clarified the position on this issue. Full article »
Court indicates general undesirability for litigants to fragment cases and litigate parts
Christy Yu
Whilst there is no express provision in the Rules of High Court (RHC) prohibiting a second application for summary judgment under Order 14 (O.14) against the same defendant after the defendant has been granted unconditional leave to defend the proceedings, the Court has indicated in a recent decision that it is generally undesirable for litigants to fragment their cases and litigate in parts as they please. Full article »