香港特别行政区原讼法庭最近在TE v LSY [2024] HKCFI 3652一案中作出判决，阐明根据《掳拐和管养儿童条例》（第512章）(“该条例”) 和1980年海牙《国际掳拐儿童民事方面公约》（“《公约》” ）掳拐和管养儿童的复杂性。该判决于 2024 年 12 月 23 日作出，探讨了在儿童被诱拐及/或扣留后，以父母对子女迁移的同意作为反对送回儿童的理由的问题。

史蒂文生黄律师事务所的合伙人罗启峰律师在该诉讼中代表作为父亲的原告（“父亲”）。

案件摘要

该案涉及一名婚生儿童GT （“该儿童” ）。作为母亲的被告（“母亲” ）于 2024 年夏天带著该儿童从意大利搬迁至香港。无可争议的是，意大利是该儿童的惯常住所，而作为父亲的原告和作为母亲的被告双方在意大利均拥有该儿童的监护权。 唯一的争论点是双方是否同意和/或默许该儿童迁移到香港。

母亲辩称，双方在2024年6月的一次谈话中达成协议，同意她与该儿童永久迁移到香港。父亲辩称，他只同意母亲带该儿童进行暑期旅行，因此母亲拒绝将孩子带回意大利的行为是不当地将该儿童扣留在香港。

法律原则

香港法院对掳拐儿童案件的司法管辖权主要受该条例和《公约》规管。该案之主要争论点是，父亲是否同意该儿童的迁移，或在母亲在迁移孩子后是否默许了该行为。

对子女迁移的同意必须根据相对可能性的衡量原则，以明确和有说服力的证据来确立：EW v LP [2013] HKCFI 1405; HCMP1605/2011 第37段。证明同意的举证责任在于主张同意存在的一方。法院的审理重点將置于案件的特定事实，而不同案件的事实和情况也各不相同。儘管受众多事实影响，决定原则仍然是直接的：另一方父母是否清楚明确地同意迁移：Re P-J  (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 588 第48段。

关键问题

1. 同意与默认：该案的核心在于双方对 2024年6月2日对话内容的诠释存在衝突。母亲声称父亲同意该儿童的永久迁移；相反，父亲则主张他的同意仅限于暑期的临时探访。法院需要通过该关键讨论的证据来判断父亲的迁移同意是否存在。
2. 行为证据：母亲以双方其后的行为为依据，如她就双方谈话作出的记录笔记和购买前往香港的单程机票，来证明父亲同意该儿童的永久迁移。而法院亦仔细审查双方信息沟通的语气和情感反应以确定双方是否同意。

法院裁决

法院最终裁定父亲胜诉，认为证据不足以证明父亲同意该儿童的永久迁移，而同意必须是明确无误的。该判决详细列出了以下理由：

• 证据不足：法院认为，母亲所依据的证据不够明确或有力，不足以证明父亲表示同意。有些证据，如购买单程机票和父亲协助母亲收拾物品，对任何一方所主张的情况而言都是合适的解释。有些证据，如母亲自己记录的 2024 年 6 月 2 日的谈话内容以及她朋友的证词，都是自圆其说，不宜给予过份考虑。因此，法院认为母亲无法证明父亲以明示或行为方式表示同意。
• 拒绝默认主张：基于同样的证据，母亲提出父亲后来默许该儿童定居香港的另一主张也不成立。法院强调了双方之间的一些信息往来，其中显示父亲反对该儿童在香港逗留和学习。

结论

该案例说明《公约》在香港法院的适用情况，以及在有关迁移和掳拐儿童的争议中有取得明确无误的同意的重要性。随著跨境和国际婚姻和家庭安排变得越来越普遍，法律界必须对掳拐儿童案件中父母同意的影响保持警惕。此判决也提醒人们注意规范此类事宜的法律原则，《公约》背后的法律原则，特别是在掳拐案件中需要有全面的证据来证明同意或默许的主张。

如有任何疑问或需要进一步的信息，请联系本所合伙人林颖诗律师或罗启峰律师。

 本新闻简讯更新仅供参考。其内容不构成亦不应视为法律咨询意见。史蒂文生黄律师事务所不会就任何因倚赖本处所载资料而作出的决定丶采取的行动或不采取的行动所引致的或与之有关的任何特别丶间接或相应而生的损失或损害向阁下承担法律责任。

此次网络研讨会的主题为“探索如何改善仲裁环境以满足商业需求”。徐律师与来自世界各地的嘉宾深入探讨了仲裁作为满足企业不断变化需求的有效争议解决机制，以及争议解决的可持续发展等热点议题。徐律师结合实际案例，为与会者提供了宝贵的经验和见解。

研讨会在热烈的氛围中圆满结束，参会者对讨论内容积极提问，并给予了高度评价。此次研讨会不仅提供了前瞻性和实用性的建议，还为未来仲裁如何更好地服务于商业需求的探索之路提供了重要启示。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师。

A-List榜单旨在表彰在各自领域和法律界做出重大贡献的法律专业人士。经过数月的广泛市场调研，《商法》评选出律所发展的中流砥柱和业务精英，这些律师以丰富的执业经验和深厚的法律素养为特征，活跃于市场前沿，享有卓越声誉和强劲的创收能力。

本所借此机会感谢CBLJ的认可，并向我们的客户表达诚挚的感谢，感谢他们的持续信任和支持。

如阁下有查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师和张源辉律师，或按此查看《商法》之官网报道。

“2024 ALB年度亚洲争议解决律师”评选，旨在对在争议解决领域表现出色的法律专家予以表彰。他们凭借深厚的法律知识和敏锐的洞察能力，帮助企业和个人化解复杂的法律问题，在市场经济发展、个人和机构权益保护以及法治推进进程中，发挥着至关重要的作用。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师，或按此查看《亚洲法律杂志》12月刊。

为培养具备国际法律专业知识和普通法视野的人才，香港律师会与大中华地区的顶尖大学展开合作开设法律课程。该课程以英语授课，并授予学分。徐律师围绕“国际商事争议解决”为主题，通过多个案例分析，向学生传授执行和撤销仲裁裁决、风险管理、专业行为与诚信、跨境及知识产权纠纷等多个重要课题。

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。

Panellists and Discussion Highlights

The session featured panellists from firms across Asia and North America, including Elizabeth Chan of Stevenson, Wong & Co., Grant Kim of LimNexus LLP, Sunyoung Kim of Baker McKenzie, David McArthur of Yulchon, and Lexi Takamatsu of Mori Hamada & Matsumoto.

They engaged the audience on some of the most pressing issues involving AI-assisted work product in arbitration, examining AI’s potential to assist in the arbitration process while highlighting the essential safeguards needed to maintain fairness, transparency, and procedural integrity. The panel also discussed the practical application of the SVAMC Guidelines on Using AI in Arbitration (SVAMC Guidelines), which are the only comprehensive set of guidelines on using AI in arbitration generally as at the time of this article.

AI Assistance in Drafting Arbitral Awards

Opening with a discussion on AI’s role in assisting with arbitral awards, the panel emphasised that while AI can enhance efficiency, human tribunal members should not delegate decision-making authority to AI tools. Under the SVAMC Guidelines, arbitrators should ensure that AI complements rather than replaces their independent judgement.

The panellists debated the merits of transparency, noting that although the guidelines do not mandate a universal duty to disclose AI use to participants in an arbitration proceeding, arbitrators might consider proactive disclosure in certain cases to maintain trust in the arbitration process.

A parallel was drawn between controversial issues surrounding human tribunal secretaries’ assistance in drafting awards and similar concerns raised by generative AI tools. For example, panellists explored whether it could constitute improper delegation if an arbitrator used an AI tool to identify the top three pieces of evidence from a hearing transcript on a particular issue, even while maintaining overall authorship of the award.

AI Assistance in Expert Work Product

The panel then addressed the use of AI in preparing expert reports. Discussion centred on the role of cross-examination as an additional safeguard, with panellists noting that if an expert disclosed AI assistance in their report, it could prompt tactical questioning about the AI’s specific use and the extent of human verification of the work product.

AI in Document Production

The conversation moved to AI’s application in document production, with panellists noting that several existing tools, such as Relativity and Sightline, are widely used in e-discovery, and newer tools like Lawdify or Co-Counsel are being developed specifically for legal use.

The panel explored potential challenges if a party questions the completeness or sufficiency of a document production where AI tools were used.

While complete accuracy in document production is rarely achievable, panellists noted the risk of guerrilla tactics, where parties might make tactical challenges based on allegations of algorithmic bias and other issues.

The panel emphasised the need for arbitrators to have the technical competence to manage these situations effectively, ensuring both efficiency and the legitimacy of the process.

Confidentiality and Data Security

Confidentiality and data security emerged as central concerns, especially given AI’s potential use to handle vast amounts of sensitive information in arbitration. The SVAMC Guidelines underscore that all participants must ensure AI tools meet appropriate confidentiality requirements, favouring privacy-appropriate solutions whenever possible.

The panellists discussed practical actions to secure confidential information, including anonymising data, using AI tools with robust security protocols, and avoiding tools that cannot guarantee confidentiality.

This approach aligns with the SVAMC Guidelines’ broader emphasis on data protection, offering parties a framework for addressing security concerns in the event of a data breach. Where confidentiality lapses occur, steps such as audits or remedial assessments of AI tools may be warranted.

Conclusion

In closing, the panel reinforced the SVAMC Guidelines as a progressive framework for addressing the complex and evolving risks associated with AI in arbitration. These Guidelines represent a vital resource for the arbitration community, enabling practitioners to harness AI’s benefits responsibly while preserving core principles of fairness and procedural integrity.

Stevenson, Wong & Co. was delighted to be part of the 2024 Seoul ADR Festival, especially given the close trading ties between Korea and Hong Kong.

If you have any questions about this event or our firm’s arbitration practice, please contact Partner Heidi Chui.