Background
Section 81(4) of the Ordinance states that “[t]he leave of the Court is required for any appeal from a decision of the Court under article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, given effect to by subsection (1).” The “Court” refers to the Court of First Instance (hereinafter, “CFI”).
Robotunits Pty Ltd v Juergen Karl Mennel (2015) VSC 268 is a case from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning disputes arising from shareholders agreements.
On August 22 2015, SW Head of Business Development (China), Ms. Connie Yeung, was invited to speak about overseas allocation and asset protection, which was organized by the FWD Hong Kong. Ms. Yeung shared techniques in overseas asset allocation and asset protection with more than 30 senior insurance financial planners and their clients. Participants found the sharing useful, practical and in particular, on how a family trust with different insurance policies can help to secure cash flows.
On August 21 2015, Head of Business Development (China), Ms. Connie Yeung, was invited to train more than 40 private bankers from the Bank of China, Harbin on asset protection and succession planning. Ms. Yeung has been invited to the same training for two consecutive years, which was held in Wu Yi Mountain and previously in Nanjing. The participants came from different provinces and included private bankers and branch managers. Ms. Yeung shared her views on the difficulties of succession and the advantages and disadvantages of different tools including the use of wills, trusts and power of attorneys.
In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co Ltd v Allen & Overy [2015] 3 HKLRD 247, the Court of Appeal maintained the lower court decision that a litigation funding agreement and assignment of a cause of action were champertous.
The disciplinary inquiry in question was held in relation to a medical practitioner (“W”) in public. The initial sentence for a warning letter to be served on W was substituted by an order that W’s name be removed from the General Register for a period of 1 month after the Council was alerted by the media that W did not have a clear record. In the written decision given by the Council on the same day, the Council stated that they would expect legal representatives of a defendant to be frank with the Council in respect of the defendant’s disciplinary record in the future.
