In January 2016, the joint venture law firm set up by AllBright Law Offices and Stevenson, Wong & Co. in Qianhai (“ABL&SW”) opened its doors. ABL&SW’s office is located at the heart of the Qianhai modern service industry cooperation zone.

ABL&SW is one of the first batch of joint venture law firms in Qianhai and we aim to provide innovative legal services whilst building on this platform, to enhance the development of Qianhai. ABL&SW are also in a position to give legal advice from the perspective of both Hong Kong and PRC law to satisfy the needs of clients.

Please contact our Mr. Eric Lui for any enquiries or further information.

On 22 January 2016, SW partners, Mr. Hank Lo, Mr. Eric Lui, Ms. Lai Lam, Ms. Heidi Chui, Mr. Stephen Wong, Senior Consultant Mr. Angus Forsyth, Senior Registered Foreign Lawyer Mr. Oliver Ross and other SW staff attended the AllBright Law Offices Annual Dinner 2016 held in Shanghai at the Shanghai Tower. Lawyers and representatives from all 15 AllBright offices in China joined the event. The dinner was a perfect opportunity for all members of AllBright to come together and celebrate another successful year whilst recognizing the efforts made by all staff throughout the year.

Following the speeches and prize presentations, during a sumptuous dinner talented representatives from different offices provided wonderful entertainment. SW trainees also took part and performed their dance routine titled “silver lights”.

It was an evening of good food and good company. Please contact our Mr. Eric Lui for any enquiries or further information about this event.

On 21 January 2016, our partners Mr. Eric Lui, Ms. Heidi Chui, Mr. Stephen Wong, senior registered foreign lawyer Mr. Oliver Ross, senior associate Ms. Katy Lai, trainee solicitor Mr. Jensen Chang and Business Development Manager (China) Ms. Zita Huang attended a Mock Arbitration co-organised with AllBright Law Offices held at Shanghai International Convention Center.

Ms. Chui (on the left), Mr. Wong (in the middle) and Ms. Lai (on the right) as Counsel for the Respondent

The mock arbitral hearing, which revolved around shareholders’ disputes regarding a land development project in Singapore, was divided into three parts: opening submissions, examinations of witnesses and closing submissions. The hearing was administered using the arbitration rules of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), and counsel from both sides, together with the arbitration tribunal chaired by Mr. Ross, delivered a two-hour session which closely simulated how parties resolve disputes by arbitration administered by the HKIAC rules.

Ms. Judy Wang (on the left), Mr. Jeff Yao (second from left) and Mr. John Liu (second from right), partners of AllBright Law Offices and Counsel for the Claimant, and Ms. Lauren Qin (on the right), associate of AllBright Law Offices and witness for the Respondent

The Mock Arbitration was well received by the audience and in the Q&A session that followed, issues relating to the arbitration process under the HKIAC rules and cross-examination under the common law system were discussed.

Please contact our Mr. Eric Lui for any enquiries or further information about this event.

On 21 January 2016, our Senior Consultant Mr. Angus Forsyth, Partner Ms. Lai Lam and Senior Associate Mr. Samson Wong attended the 2015 AllBright Intellectual Property Committee Annual Meeting and Symposium in Shanghai, where Mr. Angus Forsyth delivered an extensive and informative PowerPoint presentation on the operations of Uber HK which was very well received by the attendees, including Yang Jun of the United Assets and Equity Exchange, Rui Wenbiao, the Deputy Director General of Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration and all the legal practitioners who attended the symposium.

At the symposium, the attendees explored and shared their views on the recent developments in the intellectual property field. Mr. Chen Naiwei also took the opoprtunity to introduce the new Committee members as well as reporting on the Committee’s work in 2015 and devising its future plan for 2016.

Please contact our Mr. Forsyth, Ms. Lam or Mr. Wong for any enquiries or further information about this event.

On 15 January 2016, our partners Mr. Eric Lui, Ms. Heidi Chui, associate Ms. Karman Fung and trainee solicitor Mr. Jensen Chang delivered a seminar on the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619) at the Hong Kong branch of China Everbright Bank. Our team explained how the Ordinance, which came into force on 14 December 2015, may impact the banking industry.

In relation to the First Conduct Rule which covers agreements and concerted practices between undertakings, our speakers explained to the participants that common banking practices which were lawful in the past may now violate the law, in particular the exchange of strategic business information with other banks. In light of the suspension by the Hong Kong Association of Banks of certain sections of the Code of Banking Practice, our team analysed why they may potentially be caught by the First Conduct Rule as well as the possible effect of the suspension on the concerned banking services.

The application of the Second Conduct Rule to the banking industry was also addressed. Examples of the enforcement dimension of the Ordinance, including dawn raids, the leniency policy and actions bankers should take in order to avoid violation of competition law were given.

During the seminar, participants raised questions and engaged in enthusiastic discussions regarding exchange of information with competitors and powers of the Competition Commission.

Photograph of Mr. Lui (second from left), Ms. Chui (second from right), Ms. Fung (on the right), Mr. Chang (on the left), and Mr. Zachary Xin (in the middle), Head of Legal and Director, Hong Kong branch of China Everbright Bank

Contact persons: Mr. Eric Lui, Ms. Heidi Chui

In Wu Yim Kwong Kingwind v Manhood Development Ltd [2015] HKEC 1475, the Court imposed an adverse costs order against a party for its unreasonable refusal to attempt mediation.

The plaintiff (“P”), losing the trial, was ordered to pay 80% of the costs of the defendant (“D”). P sought to vary the costs order for the reason that D unreasonably refused to mediate.

D argued that since the subject matter of the dispute was land, it was impossible for them to compromise. Further, it was argued that P was not cooperative in agreeing on costs related to the interlocutory proceedings and had not made any settlement offer.

The Court held in favour of P and made an adverse costs order against D. The Court did not see the nature of the claim being land would keep the parties from compromising. Despite P being uncooperative, it did not mean that D could be the same. Further, even though P did not make any settlement offer, negotiation should be mutual and it was found that D did not make any offer either. Lastly, the Court pointed out that negotiations should not be seen as a replacement for mediation.

This decision indicates what the Court considers to be unreasonable excuses to refuse mediation and the possible consequences of such unreasonable refusals regardless of winning or losing at the trial.