(中文) 最高人民法院和香港特区政府于2019年1月18日签订了《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行民商事案件判决的安排》(下称「《安排》」)，大幅度扩宽可在这两个独立司法管辖区相互认可和执行的民商事案件判决范围。

这是自香港回归祖国以来，香港与内地商签的第六份关于民商事事宜的相互司法协助安排以及第三份相互认可和执行民商事案件判决的安排，也是覆盖面最广、意义最为重大的一项安排。(1) 此《安排》标志着两地民商事领域司法协助已基本上全面覆盖，内地与香港将近九成的民商事判决可在两地法院得到互认及执行，大大减轻两地当事人重复诉讼之累，并进一步巩固香港作为一带一路争议解决中心的地位。

以下是《安排》的九大重点：

1. 生效判决

《安排》只适用于生效判决：在内地，是指依法不允许上诉或超过法定期限未有上诉的第一审判决，以及第二审判决；在香港，是指终审法院、高等法院上诉法庭及原讼法庭、区域法院、劳资审裁处、土地审裁处、小额钱债审裁处，以及竞争事务审裁处作出的已产生法律效力的判决。

2. 判决类型

《安排》将大部分两地生效判决均纳入适用范围：在内地，包括判决、裁定、调解书、支付令，但不包括保全裁定；在香港，包括判决、命令、判令、讼费评定证明书，但不包括禁诉令或临时济助命令。

3. 案件类型

《安排》采用了排除清单，即两地同属民商事纠纷的各类案件判决基本上已全部纳入互认范围，但以下案件类型暂不适用：破产（清盘）案件、部分婚姻家事案件、继承案件、部分专利侵权案件、部分海事海商案件、确定选民资格案件、与仲裁有关案件，以及认可和执行其他司法管辖区裁决的案件。

4. 金钱和非金钱判项

有别于以往安排，在新《安排》下，金钱和非金钱判项均可获得执行。

5. 财产给付范围

在新《安排》下，两地相互认可和执行的财产给付范围将包括判决确定的给付财产和相应利息、讼费、迟延履行金，以及迟延履行利息，但不包括税收或罚款。

6. 保全或强制措施

被请求认可和执行判决的法院在受理申请之前或之后，可依据被请求方法律规定采取保全或强制措施。

7. 原审法院的管辖权

《安排》不再保留以往「当事人协议」的要求，即协议各方无需约定合同争议解决条款中的专属管辖法院，而只需符合《安排》中规定的被请求方法院对原审法院管辖权之审查标准。

8. 拒绝认可和执行判决的理由

《安排》亦规定了在那些有限情况下不予认可和执行原审法院的判决，包括原审法院对有关诉讼的管辖不符规定标准、被申请人未经合法传唤或未获得合理的申辩机会、欺诈，以及明显违反香港或内地法律的基本原则、社会公共政策或社会公共利益。

9. 申请材料

申请认可和执行判决的当事人须向原审法院申请出具一份证明书，证明该判决属于生效判决并在原审法院地具有执行效力。如涉及的判决为缺席判决，申请认可和执行判决的当事人须向原审法院申请出具一份已经合法传唤被执行人的证明文件。

《安排》在香港将透过本地立法实施，并会在两地均完成相关实施程序后才于双方公布的日期起正式生效。《安排》将适用于《安排》生效日或之后所作出的判决。

现时，在香港仲裁的各方已受惠于两地相互执行仲裁裁决的安排。我们相信此项《安排》将进一步巩固香港作为一带一路争议解决中心的地位—就牵涉内地实体的争议，不论是通过诉讼或仲裁，香港必然是自然而合适的争议解决地。

(1) 前五份关于民商事事宜的相互司法协助安排分别为：相互送达司法文书的安排、相互执行仲裁裁决的安排、相互认可和执行当事人协议管辖民商事案件判决的安排、相互委托取证的安排，以及相互认可和执行婚姻家庭民事案件判决的安排。

若阁下想了解更多诉讼或争议解决等详情，请联络本所诉讼及争议排解部主管徐凯怡律师 heidichui.office@sw-hk.com。

As the most recognized international arbitration center in the Asia Pacific region, Hong Kong has long maintained a positive and open attitude towards its development of the arbitration system and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

With the amendment of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”) in Hong Kong in 2017, the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding of Arbitration (hereinafter referred to as the “Code of Practice”) pursuant to Division 4 of Part 10A of the Ordinance has been issued in December 2018. The law that allows third party funding of arbitrations will come into effect on 1 February 2019.

Important amendments brought by the newly amended Ordinance

Previously, with respect to third party funding of litigation or arbitration, the common law principles of maintenance and champerty apply. A party with no legitimate interest in the proceedings may not engage in funding the parties to the proceedings in return for a share in any award or settlement (e.g. no-win-no-fee arrangement). Such third party may be criminally liable.

The newly revised Arbitration Ordinance has lifted restrictions on third party funding of arbitration. Not only may a third party funder provide financial assistance in relation to the cost of the arbitration, claimants and respondents in arbitration may also enter into more flexible agreements with their solicitors. Although the funder bears the risk of receiving a financial benefit only if the arbitration is successful, it is a reduced financial risk to the funded party when pursuing a claim.

The conditions to third party funding of arbitration under the Ordinance are briefly summarized as follows:

(1) funding by a body without an interest recognized by law in the arbitration (other than under the funding agreement);

(2) of a party (or prospective party’s) costs and expenses of an arbitration;

(3) in return for a share of the proceeds from the arbitration if it is successful (as defined in the funding agreement).

Code of Practice

The Code of Practice was issued pursuant to Division 4 of Part 10A of the Ordinance. The Code of Practice sets out a clear and complete set of practices and standards for third party funding of arbitration, governing the funding agreement and the responsibilities of the contracting parties, for example:-

(1) the funding agreement: to be confirmed by the funded party in writing to the third party funder, that the funded party has taken independent legal advice provided by the third party funder;

(2) capital adequacy requirements of third party funders: the third party funder must ensure that it maintains the capacity to cover its funding liabilities for a minimum of 36 months and maintain a minimum of HK$20 million of capital;

(3) conflicts of interest: the third party funder must carefully manage their conflicts of interest under the funding agreement;

(4) control of arbitration: the arbitration shall be controlled by the funded party or the funded party’s legal representative, and the third party funder shall not influence or cause the funded party’s legal representative to act in breach of professional duties;

(5) liability of adverse costs: the funding agreement must clearly state whether the third party funder is liable to the funded party to meet any liability for adverse costs;

(6) termination of the funding agreement: the funding agreement must clearly state the grounds for termination.

The Code of Practice serves as a guide and standard when entering into a funding agreement. Failure to comply with the Code of Practice does not of itself render any person liable to judicial proceedings, but may be taken into account as admissible evidence in future legal proceedings.

Please contact our Head of Litigation and Disputes Resolution Ms. Heidi Chui heidichui.office@sw-hk.com for any enquiries or further information about this update.

(中文) 在2018年7月6日，香港司法机构发出关于提高香港区域法院及小额欠债审裁处司法管辖权限的决议而拟备的生效日期公告，并于二○一八年七月六日刊宪。

此举通过提高当事人的申索限额而提高香港区域法院及小额欠债审裁处司法管辖权限，下列为具体的规定：
（1）区域法院的一般民事申索限额由100万元[1]提高至300万元；
（2）按土地的每年租金、应课差饷租值或年值计算，区域法院涉及土地事宜的申索限额由24万元[2]提高至32万元；
（3）就不涉及或关乎土地的法律程序而言，区域法院的衡平法司法管辖权限由100万元[3]提高至300万元；
（4）就全部涉及或关乎土地的法律程序而言，区域法院的衡平法司法管辖权限由300万元[4]提高至700万元；及
（5）审裁处的权限由5万元[5]提高至7万5千元。
此外，《2018年小额钱债审裁处（费用）（修订）规则》（《修订规则》）亦于二○一八年七月六日刊宪。
司法机构发言人表示﹕「《修订规则》旨在订明在审裁处提交涉及申索款额达7万5千元（即审裁处最新司法管辖权金额上限）的申索书时须缴付的费用，并相应地调整《小额钱债审裁处（费用）规则》（第338B章）内四个收费类别的申索款额度。至于现时每个收费类别的费用水平将维持不变。」

终审法院首席法官已指定二○一八年十二月三日为实施上述司法管辖权限调整的生效日期，此生效日期公告与《修订规则》将于二○一八年七月十一日提交立法会进行先订立后审议的程序。

如阁下想了解更多诉讼或争议解决等详情，请联络本所诉讼及爭议排解部主管徐凯怡律师。

[1]《区域法院条例》(CAP 336)
S 32.在合约、准合约及侵权行为诉讼中的一般司法管辖权
(1)凡在任何基于合约、准合约或侵权行为而提出的诉讼中，原告人申索的款额不超逾$1,000,000，区域法院具有聆讯和裁定该诉讼的司法管辖权。
(3)凡藉互争权利诉讼进行的法律程序所争议的事宜的款额或价值不超逾$1,000,000，区域法院具有聆讯和裁定该法律程序的司法管辖权。

[2]《区域法院条例》(CAP 336)
S 35. ……凡土地的每年租金或按照《差饷条例》(第116章)确定的应课差饷租值，或其年值(以最低者为准)不超逾$240,000，区域法院具有聆讯和裁定收回该土地的诉讼的司法管辖权。
S 36. ……凡在任何本属区域法院司法管辖权范围以内的诉讼中出现土地权益所有权的问题，在以下情况下，区域法院具有聆讯和裁定该诉讼的司法管辖权
(a)就属地役权或特许的问题而言，有人声称对有关土地享有地役权或特许，而该土地的年值或按照《差饷条例》(第116章)确定的应课差饷租值(以较低者为准)不超逾$240,000；或
(b)就任何其他情况而言，该土地的年值或按照《差饷条例》(第116章)确定的应课差饷租值(以较低者为准)不超逾$240,000。

[3]《区域法院条例》(CAP 336)
S 37.衡平法司法管辖权
(i) (凡该法律程序并不涉及或关乎土地者)$1,000,000；
(ii)(凡该法律程序部分涉及或部分关乎土地而并非涉及或关乎土地的部分的款额或价值超逾$1,000,000者)$1,000,000；

[4]《区域法院条例》(CAP 336)
S 37.衡平法司法管辖权
(iii)(凡该法律程序全部涉及或全部关乎土地者)$3,000,000；
(iv) (凡該法律程序部分涉及或部分關乎土地而並非涉及或關乎土地的部分的款額或價值不超逾$1,000,000者)$3,000,000。

[5]《小額錢債審裁處(費用)規則》(CAP 338)
附表
……
申索款額超過$33,000但不超過$50,000

In Re Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd [2016] 4 HKLRD 301, the petitioner presented a winding-up petition against Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd (“the Company”) on the ground of insolvency. On 5 February 2016, a final arbitration award was issued in favour of the petitioner. Based on the arbitration award, the petitioner issued a statutory demand on 24 February 2016 and a month later, issued the winding-up petition.

The Company opposed the petition on the ground that the petition had been improperly presented because the petitioner had not made an application pursuant to s.84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) to enforce the award. No dispute over the debt has been advanced by the Company.

The Court made the winding-up order, holding that the presentation of a winding up petition did not constitute enforcement of the award. Harris J said that it is clear from the authorities that Hong Kong courts and courts in other jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) have determined that the presentation of a petition to wind up a company on the grounds of insolvency was the exercise of a class right and did not constitute enforcement of either a judgment or an arbitration award. Therefore, s.84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) was irrelevant.

The decision has made the point clear that the presentation of a petition to wind up a company on the grounds of insolvency was the exercise of a class right. In fact, given that the Company did not dispute the debt, the court is likely to make a winding-up order even in the absence of a binding arbitration award (See Re Quiksilver Glorious Sun JV Ltd [2014] 4 HKLRD 759).

(中文) 继香港国际仲裁中心（“HKIAC”）于2017年8月29日发表关于第三方资助条款拟作出的相应修订（“HKIAC草案”）后，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会香港仲裁中心（“贸仲香港”）也推出了《第三方资助仲裁指引》（“指引”），鼓励涉及第三方资助的仲裁当事人和仲裁员遵循指引进行仲裁程序。第三方资助将允许提供资助的自然人或法人（“资方”）向仲裁当事人（“受资方”）直接或间接提供资金或其他实质性的支持，以期获得仲裁裁决带来的经济利益。自2017年6月14日第三方资助在香港的立法突破以来，第三方资助在香港仲裁中的地位越发重要。

值得注意的是，与纳入商事仲裁规则条款的HKIAC草案不同，贸仲香港的指引并非强制性规范。因此，如果仲裁案件含有第三方资助，仲裁双方及仲裁员并不会被视为当然地适用指引的全部或部分内容。

指引除引言外，由三个部分构成，分别针对寻求资助的仲裁当事人（“求资方”）、受资方和仲裁庭的角色提供相应的建议。

寻求资助的仲裁当事人
指引开篇的条款便是建议求资方以正式的资助仲裁协议形式确立与资助安排有关的条款和条件（第2.1条）。而在订立资助协议之前，指引提出求资方应考虑寻求独立的法律意见（第2.2条），确保法人形式的资方资金系合法设立（第2.3条）且可以满足资助协议的预期需求（第2.4条）。

同时，指引提出求资方应注意按照相应协议的仲裁规则等产生的保密义务与披露义务（第2.5-2.7条）。由于资方可能会要求披露案情资料以决定是否资助，指引提醒求资方在寻求资金时应注意与仲裁案件有关协议或者适用法律中所涉及的保密义务。值得注意的是，贸仲仲裁规则2015年版的保密条款（第38条）现时并未解除第三方资助下仲裁案件的保密义务。这与HKIAC有关第三方资助参与仲裁的保密性修改草案形成对比：草案拟在2013版机构仲裁规则第42条（现调整为45条）保密性（Confidentiality）下的第45.3项中加入(e)项，将向资方寻求第三方资助的披露作为豁免情况。指引还提醒求资方，应考虑与资方达成保密协议，并在必要情况下，咨询相关法律以寻求保护资料的保密性。

指引亦提醒求资人注意败诉时的责任划分（第2.8条）、资方对于仲裁程序的介入和干预意向（第2.9条）以及资助撤回的后果（第2.10条）。

受资方
关于对受资方的规定，指引与HKIAC草案如出一辙地提出了受资方对于资助协议的披露义务。指引中规定，无论是达成了资助协议（第3.1条）还是终止了资助协议（第3.2条），受资方应“毫不延迟”通知贸仲香港仲裁员、仲裁庭和其他各方当事人。然而，指引中并未规定“毫不延迟”的具体内容，甚至在英文版本中对于披露期限未有提及。相较于HKIAC草案中根据香港仲裁条例（第609章）所采纳的15天内书面通知的披露要求，指引对披露义务的规定仍留有诠释的空间。

仲裁庭
不同于HKIAC草案，指引在仲裁庭的权力和义务上给予了一定的篇幅。指引赋予仲裁庭根据案情，邀请或要求受资方披露资助，包括受资方受资助的事实、资方的名称及地址、以及其他相关法律或规则所要求的、或者仲裁庭认为必要的其他资料（第4.1条）。新加坡国际仲裁中心投资仲裁规则（第24（l）条）也有类似条款，但是该规则下的权力仅限于对资助事实、资方身份、资方获得仲裁裁决带来利益的细节以及资方是否承担败诉费用的披露。相比之下，指引下的条款赋予仲裁庭要求披露的权力范围更广，对受资方以外的人员给予保护更多。

除此之外，指引要求仲裁庭知悉第三方资助后主动考虑对其独立性和公正性的影响，并采取相关措施（第4.2条）。同时，指引迎合国际仲裁的发展，明确允许仲裁庭在审核仲裁费用的保证金申请时考虑第三方资助的存在和程度（第4.3条）。

展望
贸仲香港与HKIAC对第三方资助的关注无疑证明了第三方资助在国际仲裁发展中将会越来越重要。两家国际仲裁机构先后作出的尝试，说明在第三方资助的规管上已经达成了一定的标准，然而，具体的规定管理仍存在一定的差异。贸仲香港本次出台的指引详细地从求资方、受资方和仲裁庭的角度出发，提供建议，是对第三方资助规管的一次良好的尝试。对于求资方的多重提醒也是希望仲裁当事人在第三方资助日渐发展的背景下仍能慎重思考。与此同时，HKIAC草案的公众咨询也广受关注，相信会引发关于第三方资助更多的讨论，帮助实现第三方资助行业的专业化和规范化。

如阁下对指引、HKIAC草案或第三方资助有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所诉讼及争议排解部门主管徐凯怡律师 。

On 13 July 2017, the Hong Kong Legislative Council passed the Apology Bill, with the object of “promoting and encouraging the making of apologies with a view to preventing the escalation of disputes and facilitating amicable resolution.”

The Apology Bill is the first of its kind in Asian jurisdictions, consisting of 13 clauses and a schedule, and will be applicable to apologies made by a person (or those made on behalf of the person) on or after the commencement date of the Ordinance.

The Definition of an Apology and the Applicable Proceedings

Under the new law, evidence of an apology will not generally be admissible for determination of issues in any Applicable Proceedings, subject to certain exceptions. In practical terms, an apology will not be treated as admission of any fault or liability, or used against him in determining other issues (such as appropriate remedies or issues of credibility) in a defined set of Applicable Proceedings, i.e. judicial, arbitral, administrative, disciplinary, regulatory proceedings or any other proceedings conducted under an enactment.

An apology is defined as “an expression of the person’s regret, sympathy or benevolence in connection with the matter” made orally, in writing or by conduct, and typically includes an expression that “the person is sorry about the matter”. Significantly, the apology also includes any part of the expression that is an express or implied admission of the person’s fault or liability or a statement of fact in connection with the matter.

Exception

The new law would not apply to criminal proceedings, proceedings of the Legislative Council and other proceedings conducted under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance and the Coroners Ordinance.

An apology would also be admissible with the apology maker’s consent. The Court is also vested with the discretion to admit a statement of fact contained in an apology in an exceptional case, and only if it is just and equitable to do so, having regard to the public interest or the interests of the administration of justice.

Implications in other areas

An apology is precluded from constituting an acknowledgment of rights and hence would not extend the relevant limitation period of certain rights of action relating to land, personal property, debts and other claims.

Finally, in order to alleviate the concern of any adverse effect on insurance covers by apologies where some insurance contracts may contain provisions that prohibit the admission of fault by the insured without the insurer’s consent, the new law also provides that a person’s apology would not affect any insurance cover, compensation or other form of benefit under a contract of insurance or indemnity.

We anticipate that with the introduction of the Apology Ordinance, the concerns of making apologies can be alleviated and hence this would prevent escalation of disputes and encourage reaching an amicable resolution.

Should you have any enquiries to the bill, please contact our partner Ms. Heidi Chui for more details.