We are excited to announce that Stevenson, Wong & Co. is launching a new project, “One Belt, One Road Legal Service Centre”.

In light of “One Belt, One Road” initiative introduced by President Xi Jinping, we anticipate that there will be much more cross-border business opportunities and foreign direct investments between OBOR countries in the coming years. To cater for the growing demand for legal consultancy services concerning such business activities, the Legal Service Centre will cooperate with our trusted Interlaw member firms in Southeast Asian countries, including Blumenthal, Richter & Sumet of Thailand, Colin Ng & Partners LLP (CNP) of Singapore, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill of Malaysia, Mochtar Karuwin Komar of Indonesia, Quasha, Ancheta, Peña & Nolasco of The Philippines and Vision & Associates Legal of Vietnam, to create and deliver tailored legal solutions that will comprehensively take care of your needs in each country.

Please refer to our brochure and contact our Mr. Eric Lui for more information.

Our partner Ms. Heidi Chui, our senior associate Ms. Katy Lai, our associate Mr. Kyle Lo, and our trainee solicitor Mr. Benson Cheung participated in “The 6th Cross Strait Four Regions Young Lawyers Forum” organized by the Law Society of Hong Kong on 14 October 2016. Over 200 lawyers from the Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau participated in the event.

The theme for the Forum was “Cross Border Legal Services, Information Technology and Ample Business Opportunities”.

Ms. Chui is a member of the Organising Committee and Ms. Lai and Mr. Lo participated in a mock arbitration as arbitrators. Lawyers from all backgrounds could get a taste of how international arbitrations are conducted. Receiving a very positive response, the mock arbitration also stimulated an interesting and in-depth discussion on the adaptability of international arbitration in different jurisdictions.

Please contact our Ms. Heidi Chui for any enquiries or further information about this event.

Our partner Ms. Heidi Chui attended the “Meet the Mentors Evening” organized by the Hong Kong University Law Alumni Association on 13 October 2016 night. The event was held in the Cheng Yu Tung Tower at the University of Hong Kong.

Meet the Mentors Evening is a miniature version of the traditional HKU Law Mentorship Program. During the tea reception, mentees were free to pair up with mentors from different branches of the profession. Ms. Chui was invited to be one of the Mentors. During the Evening, she has shared valuable insights and experience with law students of the University.

Ms. Chui was also invited to give an inspiring speech to young, prospective lawyers to share not only the secrets of becoming a successful lawyer, but also the principles that lawyers should adhere to.

Please contact our Ms. Heidi Chui for any enquiries or further information about this event.

On 29-30 September 2016, our partners Ms. Wendy Lam and Ms. Janice Chin attended the International Family Law Conference with the theme “The Future of Family Justice – International and Multi-Disciplinary Pathways” held at the Supreme Court Auditorium, Singapore.

The Conference was co-organized by the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the Law Society of Singapore and the Singapore Academy of Law. Eminent speakers from the legal, psychological and social science sectors shared their views on topics in relation to cross-border disputes, mediation, family violence and child abuse, future of family justice, etc. in order to explore how family judicial systems around the globe face these challenges and to facilitate exchange of insights at an international level. Participants include family judges and court administrators, family lawyers, policy makers, mental health professionals, etc. from various jurisdictions.

Please contact our Ms. Wendy Lam or Ms. Janice Chin for any enquiries or further information about this event.

On 26-27 September 2016, our Partner Ms Sherlynn Chan attended the “Symposium on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children – Perspectives on Family Disputes Involving Children in a Globalized Society”, which was held at the Supreme Court Auditorium, Singapore. It was co-organized by the Family Justice Courts of Singapore and the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).

The event was well attended by leading judges in their respective jurisdictions, including Australia, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, etc. The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO, Family Court of Australia, delivered a keynote address on an overview of the present day issues faced by judges in cases involving children in cross-border situations and the related challenges faced by the judiciary in providing for the needs of the child.

The Hon. Madam Justice Bebe Chu, Judge-in-charge of the Family Court List in the High Court of Hong Kong, was also one of the panelists, who shared on the topic of judicial communications and collaboration from the perspective of Hong Kong.

Apart from panelists’ presentation, attendees were also given an opportunity to engage in interactive table discussion on issues, legal frameworks, practices and challenges in their jurisdictions with regard to different case scenarios.

On the second day, there was a lively presentation on recent developments in adopting mediation and cross-disciplinary approaches as a dispute resolution tool for international family disputes, including how judges collaborate internationally to support the role of mediation and expedite mediation in international custody, access and relocation cases.

Filled with fruitful discussion and sharing, the two-day symposium ended by the closing remarks given by Mr Anselmo Reyes, Representative, HCCH, Asia Pacific Regional Office, Hong Kong, followed by an official dinner held at Suntec Singapore Convention & Exhibition Centre in the evening of 27 September 2016.

Please contact our Ms Sherlynn Chan for any enquiries or further information about this event.

Fact

The Plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the Defendant, a PRC resident in China, and obtained leave under O.11 r.1(1) of the Rules of the High Court to serve a concurrent writ out of the jurisdiction on the Defendant at his residential address. The Plaintiff then requested that the writ shall be served through the judicial authorities of China, pursuant to O.11 r.5A. The Plaintiff later made a similar application for service at a commercial address. Both of the attempts failed. The Plaintiff then applied for and the Court ordered substituted service in Hong Kong, but not in China, through delivering by hand the documents marked for the attention of the Defendant care of the Hong Kong office of the solicitors for the Defendant.

The Defendant appealed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to bypass O.11 r.5A by ordering substituted service in Hong Kong; alternatively such an order contravened the Basic Law and was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal

The Court adopted a purposive approach in interpreting O.11, and ruled that “the objective of substituted service was to bring knowledge of the writ to the defendant by such means that would reach him in all reasonable probability.” Therefore, although not expressly stated, substituted service was applicable to the service of process on a mainland Chinese resident.

The Court then categorised substituted service into two types, namely substituted service to be effected on the Mainland, or in Hong Kong.

As for the former kind, pursuant to O.11 r.5(2), such order or direction of the Court in Hong Kong must not contravene PRC law. If a particular mode of service was preferred by the relevant judicial authorities on the Mainland, the applicant must follow the same in his request with the Registry of the High Court. The applicant has to prove to both the Court in Hong Kong and a Higher People’s court on the Mainland that his proposed service method was appropriate.

The Court then justified the latter kind of substituted service. In reality, in most cross-border disputes, the parties would submit to the jurisdiction of the court or there is a substantial connection between the dispute and Hong Kong. Therefore, allowing substituted service is a pragmatic decision in the interests of efficient litigation. As a safeguard, the Court would also ensure the method of substituted service in Hong Kong would not authorise any conduct contrary to PRC law.

Implication

Apparently, the Court is prepared to take a pragmatic approach as far as service out of the jurisdiction is concerned. Acknowledging there being practical difficulties in serving out of the jurisdiction on a Mainland Chinese resident, the Court may go so far as to allow substituted service in Hong Kong, as opposed to that effected in China, when the Plaintiff can prove that such substituted service could make known to the Defendant the existence of the writ in all reasonable probability.