(中文) 2021年10月21日，本所合伙人、诉讼及争议解决部门主管徐凯怡律师连续两年受邀担任亚洲法律 (LAWASIA) 模拟仲裁国际大赛的评审。

本所合伙人徐凯怡律师(第一行;中)

亚洲法律模拟仲裁国际大赛旨在促进及融合全世界的法律学院之交流和合作。今年模拟大赛聚焦于争议解决，商业法和合同法。超过十五所来自中国﹑新加坡，马来西亚之大学参与了本次模拟大赛。

关于亚洲法律 (LAWASIA)

亚洲法律是一个由律师协会，律师，法官，法律学者和其他组织组成的国际组织，其工作包括关注亚太地区的法律专业以及促进其成员参与世界上最具活力的经济区域。自1966年成立以来，亚洲法律作为一个富有成效和具有代表性的组织，在该区域内外的律师，商人和政府中享负盛名。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com)。

(中文) 介绍

2021年8月20日，香港司法机构代表香港高等法院规则委员会及区域法院规则委员会发布新闻公报，在宪报刊登《2021年高等法院规则 (修订) 规则》及《2021年区域法院规则 (修订)(第2号) 规则》(统称「修订规则」)。修订规则亦已提交至 2021 年 8 月 25 日举行的立法会会议，进行先订立后审议的程序。待相关立法程序完成后，修订规则将于 2021 年 12 月 1 日生效。

何为简易判决?

根据《高等法院规则》(第 4A 章) 及《区域法院规则》(第336H章) 第14号命令第1条及第5条规则，原告人 (或提起反申索的被告人）可以以另一方无法抗辩为由，在无需进行全面审讯的情况下，于法庭程序的初期申请取得判决。换言之，第14号命令为法庭诉讼各方提供了一个无需进行全面审讯而取得「快速判决」的特快机制。

诈骗例外规则

需要注意的是，简易判决的申请程序并不适用于某些诉讼，其中包括基于诈骗指称而提出的申索 (即「诈骗例外规则」)。

在上诉法庭案件 Zimmer Sweden AB v KPN Hong Kong Limited & Brand Trading Ltd [2016] 1 HKLRD 1016（下称「Zimmer案」）一案中，上诉法庭确立了适用诈骗例外规则的准则。当时为高等法院上诉法庭副庭长的林文瀚法官对诈骗例外规则是否应该继续在香港的现代诉讼环境下存在提出了质疑，并建议探索废除诈骗例外规则的可能性。有鉴于此，司法机构重新审视了诈骗例外规则的适用性及范围，并决定修订法例以废除诈骗例外规则。

废除诈骗例外规则的理据

根据司法机构政务处于 2021 年 8 月发表的立法会参考资料摘要，司法机构提供了以下的理据支持废除诈骗例外规则：

1. 由于诈骗案在香港不存在要求有陪审团参与审讯的权利，香港没有保留诈骗例外规则的实际需要；
2. 香港的现代诉讼环境中没有充分理据支持诈骗例外规则的继续存在(如 Zimmer 案中所述)；
3. 即使被指称诈骗的被告人在审讯中有证明自己清白的机会，但这能否作为剥夺原告人寻求简易判决的权利，甚至在被告人仅提出象征性抗辩的情况下，原告人为取得济助而承担全面审讯的所有费用的理据值得质疑；及
4. 英格兰自 1992 年起已废除诈骗例外规则。

观察及评论

在修订规则提出之前，即便是在非常明确的诈骗案件中，受到损失的原告人也需要避免对另一方提出有关不诚实的申索以规避诈骗例外规则。我们亦在之前的文章中对Zimmer案作出解读 (参见“欺诈例外”在香港简易判决申请的应用链接) 并提醒网络骗案的受害者需要审慎拟定法庭状书以避免作出任何涉及诈骗的指控。为了克服这一例外规则并尽快取得简易判决，原告人通常唯有基于其他案由提出申索，例如財物复还 (restitution) 及不当得利 (unjust enrichment)。

废除诈骗例外规则无疑会帮助优化简易判决的申请机制，以及配合不断演变的法律环境，从而维护诉讼各方的利益。这一修订尤其是会受到网络骗案受害者的支持和欢迎。考虑到香港近年来网络骗案的数量在急速增加，与Zimmer案境况类似的诈骗案受害者现在可以利用简易判决的申请机制向被告人追索赔偿，而无需参与冗长的法律程序和耗费额外的法律费用。

我们相信诈骗例外规则的及时废除将会使更多骗案的受害者受益，而且预计会有更多的原告人会在适当的情况下妥善利用简易判决这一机制通过较为快速且具成本效益的方式取得法庭判决。

本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、黄晊晄律师和陆卓楠实习律师共同撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com)。

于本文中提供的一切资料仅供参考，不构成任何法律意见，资料亦受制于适用规定及法例不时的更新与修改。若需取得相关法律意见，须咨询法律顾问。

We are delighted to announce that our Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department, Ms. Heidi Chui, is on the List of Arbitrators for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC).

Founded in 1985, HKIAC is the third most preferred arbitral institution in the world [1]. To be listed on the HKIAC’s List of Arbitrators, one must have substantial experience in arbitration.

Ms. Chui is one of the few solicitors accredited and listed on the panel of arbitrators for The Law Society of Hong Kong. She is also an arbitrator of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Shanghai International Arbitration Center, Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, Hainan International Arbitration Court (Hainan Arbitration Commission), Nanjing Arbitration Commission, Guangzhou Arbitration Commission, Ningbo Arbitration Commission and Langfang Arbitration Commission.

She is also an accredited mediator of HKAIC, The Law Society of Hong Kong and a Panel Mediator for Buildings Management Cases of the Lands Tribunal, and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (U.K.). She is also a China Appointed Attesting Officer as appointed by the Ministry of Justice PRC.

Please contact Ms. Heidi Chui (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com) for any enquiries or click here to visit Ms. Chui’s profile on HKIAC’s website.

[1] According to the 2021 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, HKIAC is the third most preferred arbitral institution in the world.

In Re HNA Group Co., Limited (in Reorganization in the Mainland of the People’s Republic China) [2021] HKCFI 2897 (“Decision”), the Hong Kong Court has for the first time granted order for recognition of and assistance to the reorganization proceedings in the mainland China (“Mainland”).

This Decision is yet another significant milestone for cross-border restructuring cases spanning Hong Kong and the Mainland. In addition to the earlier judgements in Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited [2020] 1 HKLRD 676 and Re Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd [2020] HKCFI 965, this recent Decision further demonstrates the Hong Kong Court’s readiness to support, recognize and assist cross-border insolvency, liquidation and reorganization proceedings.

Brief Facts

Incorporated in the Mainland and headquartered in Hainan province, HNA Group Co., Limited (the “Company”) is a conglomerate with diverse business and investments but has become debt-laden in recent years. Pursuant to Article 22(i) and Article 24(i) of the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, the Hainan Province Higher People’s Court commenced reorganization proceedings against the Company (“Reorganization”) and appointed a group of administrators (“Administrators”), who was tasked with managing the assets and business affairs of the 64 member companies in Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong under the Company’s group.

Upon the Administrators’ application, the Hainan Province Higher People’s Court (the “Hainan Court”) issued a letter of request addressed to the High Court of Hong Kong (the “Hong Kong Court”) to seek recognition of the Reorganization in the Mainland and assistance to representatives of the Administrators in Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong Court’s Decision

In deciding whether it was a proper case to make an order for recognition and assistance, the Hong Kong Court considered the following three issues:

1. Whether the Reorganization, assessed by Hong Kong legal principles, constitutes a collective insolvency process?

2. Whether the Reorganization takes place in the Company’s country of incorporation or where the Company has its centre of main interests?

3. Whether the fact that the Hainan Court may not recognize Hong Kong insolvency proceedings and liquidators bars the Hong Kong Court from granting recognition and assistance in aid of the Reorganization?

As to the first issue, the Hong Kong Court is satisfied that the Reorganization, being a process specifically prescribed by Chapter 8 of the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, concerns all the Company’s creditors, and its character is considered as a collective insolvency procedure under Hong Kong law.

As to the second question, the Hong Kong Court takes no issue because HNA is incorporated in the Mainland where the Reorganization takes place.

As to the third issue regarding reciprocity, the Hong Kong Court referred to the Cooperation Agreement signed by the Secretary for Justice and the Supreme People’s Court on 14 May 2021 (“Cooperation Agreement”), which provides for a procedure for the recognition of and assistance to insolvency and reorganization proceedings between Hong Kong and three Intermediate People’s Courts in Shenzhen, Shanghai and Xiamen. The Hong Kong Court acknowledges that the Cooperation Agreement does not extend to Hainan.

That said, although the Hainan Court does not fall within the scope of the Cooperation Agreement, and there is a possibility that the Hainan Court may not recognize Hong Kong insolvency and liquidation proceedings, this is not of itself a bar to Hong Kong Court granting an order for recognition, as reciprocity is not a requirement for such recognition under Hong Kong’s common law regime.

For the reasons above, the Hong Kong Court has granted an order for recognition of and assistance to the Reorganization in Mainland at the request of the Hainan Court.

Commentary

This Decision exemplifies the willingness of the Hong Kong Court to recognize the reorganization proceedings in the Mainland and thereby provide recognition and assistance to cross-border insolvency cases.  From a macro perspective, this Decision is an important development, in line with the trend of closer cross-border insolvency cooperation between Hong Kong and the Mainland over the past two years:

With a more open-minded and welcoming attitude of the Courts in the two jurisdictions towards mutual recognition of insolvency, liquidation and reorganization proceedings, Hong Kong cross-border insolvency law is expected to continue to develop and mature, which would reinforce Hong Kong’s position as Asia’s leading financial and debt restructuring hub.

This article is co-authored by our Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department, Ms. Heidi Chui, Senior Associate, Mr. Kyle Lo, and Trainee Solicitor, Mr. Charles Luk. Please contact Ms. Heidi Chui [heidi.chui@sw-hk.com] for any further enquiries or information.

This newsletter is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage.

On 5 October 2021, our firm’s Partner, Mr. Calvin Lo, was invited to speak at a legacy planning sharing seminar held by Manulife Hong Kong. During the sharing session, Mr. Lo introduced and analyzed the pros and cons of various legacy planning tools, including wills, trusts, enduring power of attorney, and insurance policies. He also shared valuable insight on how to prevent potential future challenges against the validity of wills and trusts and explained the importance of early planning by analyzing a legacy dispute case of a famous celebrity.

For more information or enquiries, please contact our partner Mr. Calvin Lo.

Our firm’s Partners, Mr. Willy Cheng, Ms. Heidi Chui, Mr. Rodney Teoh, Mr. Gordon Tsang, and Senior Associate, Mr. Terence Lau have successfully passed the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) Legal Professional Examination.

From the left: Senior Associate Mr. Terence Lau, Partners Ms. Heidi Chui, Mr. Willy Cheng, Mr. Rodney Teoh, and Mr. Gordon Tsang

• Mr. Willy Cheng – Partner | China Practice, Immigration, Litigation & Disputes Resolution, Real Estate
• Ms. Heidi Chui – Partner | Banking & Finance, Arbitration, Litigation & Disputes Resolution, Insolvency and Restructuring, Technology, Media & Telecommunications
• Mr. Rodney Teoh – Partner | Corporate Finance, Corporate Commercial Law, Corporate Services, China Practice, Investment Funds, Technology, Media & Telecommunications
• Mr. Gordon Tsang – Partner | China Practice, Corporate Commercial Law, Corporate Services, Corporate Finance
• Mr. Terence Lau – Senior Associate | Corporate Commercial Law, Corporate Services, Corporate Finance

The Greater Bay Area (GBA) Legal Professional Examination is a liberalisation measure under the Mainland & Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement. Hong Kong legal practitioners with 5 or more years of post-qualification experience, can, after relevant training, passing the examination and assessment, become eligible to practise PRC law in civil and commercial legal matters (including litigation and non-litigation matters) in the 9 cities of the GBA.

Through our association with one of the largest full-service law firms in Mainland China, AllBright Law Offices, together with our team at SW, we will continue to provide our clients in the GBA with premium, efficient, and innovative legal services.

For more information, please contact our Partners Mr. Willy Cheng, Ms. Heidi Chui, Mr. Rodney Teoh, or Mr. Gordon Tsang.