Litigation Law Updates

Find out all about our firm’s latest Litigation Law Updates below. To learn more about any individual item, please contact us here.

15 Jul 2015

Impact of Citic Pacific Limited v Secretary for Justice


The Court of Appeal in Citic Pacific Limited v Secretary for Justice (2015 HKEC 1263) disagreed with the narrow approach in Three Rivers (No.5) to the definition of “client”. In the context of corporations where the information may be acquired from employees in different departments or at various levels of the corporate structure, the court considered that the process of gathering information for the purpose of obtaining legal advice needs to be protected. The Court of Appeal also held that the “client” is simply the corporation, and the question is “which of its employees should be regarded as being authorized to act for it in the process of obtaining legal advice.”

28 Jun 2015

Record Fine was imposed for the Abuse of Market Dominance

On 10 February, 2015, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) announced a record fine of 6.088 billion yuan on Qualcomm for its alleged abuse of its dominant position on several specific markets in violation of the Anti-monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Anti-Monopoly Law”).

17 Jun 2015

English Court Decision on the Inconsistency in Arbitration Clauses

In a recent English case, Shagang South-Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co. Ltd v Daewoo Logistics Corp. [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm), the High Court of England and Wales considered the situation where the contract provides for the arbitration to take place in one jurisdiction but to apply the laws of another jurisdiction.

13 Apr 2015

First Imprisonment Penalty under the Hong Kong Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance

On 4 December 2014, an insurance agent was sentenced to jail for 4 weeks for a contravention of section 50B(1)(c)(i) under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, Cap. 486 of the Laws of Hong Kong (“PDPO”). Under the said provision, a person commits an offence if he makes a statement to the Privacy Commissioner (“Commissioner”) which he knows is false or does not believe to be true or knowingly mislead the Commissioner, and is liable for a maximum fine of HK$10,000 and 6 months’ imprisonment.

NEWER OLDER 1 2 7 8 9