(English) In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co Ltd v Allen & Overy [2015] 3 HKLRD 247, the Court of Appeal maintained the lower court decision that a litigation funding agreement and assignment of a cause of action were champertous.

Background

The Defendants, a solicitors’ firm and a barrister respectively, were alleged to have provided negligent advice to a company (the Company) in about 2005 or 2006. The Plaintiff and the Company entered into a funding agreement whereby the Plaintiff agreed, inter alia, to lend $3.4 million to the Company at an interest rate of 25% for a term of 2 years for an intended litigation against the Defendants, guaranteed by the proceeds that the Company would recover from the Defendants, and entitling the Plaintiff to 20% of such proceeds. After the Company issued writs against the Defendant, the Company assigned to the Plaintiff the cause of action against the Defendant and, inter alia, the right to the proceeds arising from such action for $100,000 and 10% of the net proceeds of the action. The Defendants challenged that the assignment was champertous. The Plaintiff argued that it was a major creditor of the Company and its controlling shareholder and so had a genuine commercial interest in the enforcement of action.

Ruling

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Plaintiff’s contention and upheld the court of first instance’s finding that both the funding agreement and the assignment were champertous. It was held that the Judge below had examined the totality of the facts in forming the views that the transactions would pose a genuine risk to the integrity of the court’s processes. The vastly disproportionate potential returns for the outlay in the funding agreement and the assignment created a serious doubt into the genuineness of the assertions of the Plaintiff.

General Principles on Maintenance and Champerty (as enunciated in the CFA decision Unruh v Seeberger [2007] HKLRD 414)

The core concepts of maintenance of champerty are as follows:
› Maintenance involves a person’s “officious intermeddling” in litigation in which he has no legitimate interest.
› Champerty is a particular kind of maintenance and involves a person taking a share of the proceeds of the litigation maintained.

There are several categories of exceptions:
› The common interest category which justified certain persons with a legitimate common interest in the outcome of litigation in funding it.
› Case involving access to justice considerations.
› A miscellaneous category of practices accepted as lawful including sale and assignment by a trustee in bankruptcy of an action commenced in the bankruptcy and the doctrine of subrogation as applied to contracts of insurance.

In considering whether a contract will be vitiated on the grounds of maintenance and champerty, public policy considerations shall be evaluated in light that:
› The fact that an arrangement may be caught by the broad definition of maintenance of champerty is not in itself sufficient to impose liability. It is necessary to examine the “totality of the facts” and ask whether they pose a genuine risk to the integrity of the court’s processes.
› Countervailing public policies must be taken into account, especially policies in favour of ensuring access to justice and of recognizing, where appropriate, legitimate common interests of a social or commercial character in the litigation.

医务委员会 (“医委会”) 就一名医生 (“W”) 作出公开的纪律研讯。医委会原本裁定只发给W一封警告信，但其后当医委会透过传媒得知W曾有犯规纪录便复核裁决并判处W在普通科医生名册上被除名一个月。医委会于同日的书面裁决指出于将来的纪律研讯，所有被告人的律师代表理应坦白告知医委会有关被告人的犯规纪录。

一名与本案无关的市民 (“N”) 向医委会查询参与纪律研讯的主审成员、医委会的法律顾问及辩方代表律师的身份。医委会多次询问N查询的目的但N拒绝回答。医委会决定拒绝向N披露有关资料 (“医委会决定”)，N便申请司法复核医委会决定。医委会称《个人资料(私隐)条例》(第486章)( “《条例》”) 附表1第3保障资料原则限制向N披露资料。

原讼法庭批准N的申请并撤销医委会决定。林云浩法官指出医委会作出决定时将无关联的第3保障资料原则列入考虑因素亦没有考虑到有关的因素，即「公开公正」的原则。因为如该原则适用，根据《条例》第60B(a)条，有关资料将被豁免而不受第3保障资料原则的条文所管限。

林云浩法官在附带意见亦指出「公开公正」的原则不只局限于在法庭举行的司法聆讯，亦适用于所有行使司法权的审裁机构。基于司法行政及司法制度的问责性涉及的公众利益，参与公开司法聆讯的主要人员身份通常都应被公开。如审裁机构没有在书面裁决列明该资料，审裁机构亦应在收到与聆讯合理地接近的时间提出的查询后披露有关资料。

2015年8月12日，本所高级法律顾问霍玺律师及黄煦珊律师于娇韵诗有限公司（“娇韵诗”）就商品说明及市场营销进行演讲。

霍律师简介《商品说明条例》(第362章) 及其它有关部门执法的指引后便讲述通讯事务管理局的电台业务守则 – 广告标准并分享有关案例说明以上指引及守则的应用。

如阁下有任何关于此活动的查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所霍律师或黄律师。

2015年8月12日，应上海宜信财富邀请史蒂文生黄律师事务所中国发展区域主管杨颂雅女士参加了宜信财富上海举办的离岸信托架构培训讲座。宜信上海第一财富的全体高端理财师参与了这次培训，从浅显易懂的逻辑理论讲述了家族信托在财富管理的运用，同时以深度的解析与探讨了各家族对家族信托的传承作用。会后杨颂雅女士与宜信高级理财师进行了热烈地问题互动环节。现场反响强烈。

如阁下有任何关于此活动的查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所杨颂雅女士。

我所欣然宣布史蒂文生黄律师事务所被亚州法律杂志(Asia Legal Business)提名竞逐第14届年度亚州法律杂志香港法律大奖，提名包括「最佳仲裁事务所」，「最佳交易事务所」及「最佳诉讼事务所」三大界别。

奖项结果将于2015年9月11日公布。

亚州法律杂志香港法律大奖是针对在香港从事法律业务的律师事务所、公司法务以及其它法律专业机构而进行的较权威的评选，旨在认可和嘉奖他们在过去一年间取得的突出成绩。

如阁下有任何关于此文章的查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所吕律师或徐律师。

英國最高法院於2015年7月29日作出了一個裁決，該裁決推翻了之前海外留學生申請學生貸款遭到拒絕的決定。有關留學生於6歲時到英國，入讀了小學及中學，而最近亦被取錄於英國一間大學，但於根據政府資助計畫申請學生貸款時遭到拒絕；英國最高法院現推翻該拒絕的決定，認為該拒絕會使除英國公民及擁有無限期逗留英國身份以外的任何人不能取得學生貸款，該情況是“不成比例”（ “disproportionate”）及“不合理”(“unjustified”)。

來源: http://www.workpermit.com/news/2015-08-06/court-overturns-refusal-of-student-loan-based-on-uk-immigration-status