OLN

OLN Marketing

ALB Asia Employer of Choice 2021 – For the Third Consecutive Year

by

In the April 2021 edition of Asian Legal Business, OLN has once again been awarded ‘ALB Employer of Choice,’ one of the best law firms to work for in Asia. This is the third consecutive year that OLN has succeeded in achieving this accomplishment, winning the award for a total of four years. The firm would like to thank our staff for the tremendous effort over the last year, disrupted by COVID-19, as well as in previous years, ensuring the firm is consistently ranked as an ALB Employer of Choice. 

The ALB Employer of Choice 2021 survey was open to all employees, from managing partners to paralegals to non-legal staff. There were over 1800 respondents from eight Asian jurisdictions, and the winners were selected based on the number and quality of respondents. For more details, please read the Asian Legal Business report by clicking here.

Recovering in Arbitration Costs of Ancillary Court Proceedings Revisited

by

(This article was published in the April 2021 Issue of Hong Kong Lawyer: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/sites/default/files/e-magazines/HKL-APR-2021/viewer/desktop/index.html?doc=05D3B64F4883E4B7B372AA907090C1D6#page/36)

The Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “Arrangement”) is a major breakthrough for parties to Hong Kong seated arbitration, in the sense that it allows parties to apply to Mainland courts for interim measures in support of arbitration. No similar arrangements have been made between Mainland China and any other jurisdictions. Therefore, the Arrangement, dubbed by some as the game changer, gives unparallel benefit to choose Hong Kong as the neutral seat of arbitration for China-related disputes.

It should be noted that Mainland courts do not practise “loser pays costs” generally. An interesting question therefore arises as to whether the parties to Hong Kong arbitration may recover in arbitration, costs of obtaining interim measures in Mainland courts under the Arrangement. In fact, Mainland China is not the only jurisdiction where parties to court proceedings bear their own costs by default. The wider issue may be whether, generally, parties may recover in arbitration costs of obtaining interim measures in related court proceedings where the default costs rule is “parties to bear their own costs”.

This article will critically examine this costs recovery issue. Whilst arbitration parties from the common law world may welcome such costs recovery, it will be argued that the arbitral tribunal should be slow to exercise any jurisdiction to allow such costs recovery. Any arbitral award allowing such costs recovery may be liable to be set aside or otherwise unenforceable for contravening public policy. It will be respectfully submitted that the simplest solution is to insert an appropriate costs indemnity in the contract.

THE ISSUE

In Costs of the Arbitration and Costs of Obtaining Interim Measures (Hong Kong Lawyer, September 2020), the issue of recovering in arbitration costs of obtaining interim measures in Mainland courts was examined in the context of the Arrangement. Contrasting against the UK Arbitration Act 1996 (the “AA”), where the reference to “other costs” in the “costs of the arbitration” might be interpreted widely to cover costs in ancillary court proceedings, it was argued that the Arbitration Ordinance (the “AO”) is “silent on whether the costs incurred in court proceedings for seeking interim measures are recoverable as part of the costs of the arbitral proceedings”. It was suggested that amendments to the Arrangement should be made to allow such costs recovery in arbitration.

JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

Insofar as Hong Kong arbitration is concerned, the AO is actually not completely silent on the issue of recovering in arbitration costs of ancillary court proceedings. Section 74(3) of the AO provides that “[t]he arbitral tribunal may also, in its discretion, order costs (including the fees and expenses of the tribunal) to be paid by a party in respect of a request made by any of the parties for an order or direction (including an interim measure).” (emphasis added) Whilst section 74(3) does not specifically state to cover costs in respect of court applications related to arbitration, it would be redundant to interpret it otherwise, for the arbitral tribunal’s power to award costs of the arbitral proceedings generally has been dealt with under section 74(1) of the AO. Given its broad language, section 74(3) arguably covers a request for interim measures made to a court.

In the context of the Arrangement, Article 3 envisages the involvement of the arbitration institution in the application to Mainland courts for interim measures. For example, where an application for interim measure is made after the arbitration institution has accepted the arbitration case, the party’s application shall be passed on by the arbitration institution. Hence, coupled with the abovementioned sections 74(1) and 74(3), the arbitral tribunal should have jurisdiction to award costs of the parties’ requests for interim measures (with such costs of the applications to Mainland courts subsumed under the abovementioned Article 3).

In any event, “other costs” are included in the “costs of the arbitration” in the majority of the institutional and ad hoc arbitration rules (e.g. Article 34.1 of the 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules; Article 38 of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2021); Article 40(2) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2013)). To the extent that the term “other costs” in the AA could be interpreted widely to cover costs in ancillary court proceedings, by virtue of the arbitration rules, the arbitral tribunal should have jurisdiction to allow the recovery of such costs.

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Even though a Hong Kong-seated arbitral tribunal may have jurisdiction to allow the recovery of costs in ancillary court proceedings by virtue of section 74 of the AO and/or the arbitration rules, it does not necessarily follow that it should, always or otherwise, exercise such jurisdiction. Indeed, it appears that such jurisdiction should be extremely rarely exercised, especially where the default costs rule in the court proceedings cannot be contracted out.

It should be borne in mind that the arbitral tribunal derives jurisdiction from the arbitration agreement. Where the parties may not contract out the default costs rules, the arbitral tribunal deriving powers from the parties should be slow to exercise such costs jurisdiction to the same effect. Otherwise, any such arbitral award may be liable to be set aside under section 81 of the AO or otherwise unenforceable for contravening public policy (Ralli Brothers v Compañia Naviera Sota Y Aznar [1920] 2 K.B. 287; Ryder Industries Ltd v Chan Shui Woo [2016] 1 HKC 323).

COST INDEMNITY AS THE SOLUTION

In the absence of any legislative change to the default costs rule of the court proceedings, without fettering the exercise of judicial discretion on costs in court proceedings and without contracting out the default costs rule, the simplest way to recover in full legal costs whether incurred in arbitration or court proceedings may be to insert a costs indemnity in the contract to reflect the parties’ bargain on costs position. A costs indemnity, giving a contractual right to costs, stands independently of the curial power to award costs, and parties may still enforce the costs indemnity unless precluded by estoppel or res judicata (Cervo v Kingsleys Pty Ltd [2018] ACTSC 179).

In Abigroup Limited v Sandtara Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 45, the New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld the District Court judgment, and affirmed the plaintiff’s contractual right to claim the difference between “solicitor and client” costs and party and party costs pursuant to a contractual indemnity in a fresh action, even though it was only awarded party and party costs in the main proceedings. The Court of Appeal held that there was no estoppel preventing the subsequent proceeding in the District Court nor any abuse of process.

Generally, any judicial exercise of discretion on costs that does not address a separate costs indemnity does not give rise to a res judicata, or otherwise preclude enforcement of such costs indemnity. A contractual stipulation as to how costs of future litigation are to be borne as between the parties is also not vitiated by an inconsistent order for costs in that litigation (Vertzayias v King & Ors [2011] NSWCA 215).

That said, whether a party is precluded from enforcing a costs indemnity in subsequent proceedings requires careful examination of the circumstances of each case. In particular, it depends on various factors such as the language of the indemnity, whether it was pleaded or considered in the earlier litigation (including the submissions made to the judge), why a party refrained from litigating the issue in the earlier proceedings, and the terms of the orders made in the previous proceedings (Cervo v Kingsleys Pty Ltd [2018] ACTSC 179).

CONCLUSION

It is understandable that the arbitration community from the common law world is used to the “costs follow the event” rule, and prefers a “full recovery” of costs related to the cause of the arbitration, even though such costs are incurred in court proceedings where the default costs rule is for parties to bear their own costs. Whilst an arbitral tribunal may have jurisdiction to award costs of ancillary court proceedings, it should be slow to exercise any costs jurisdiction to allow the parties to contract out the mandatory application of the default costs rule in effect. Without fettering the court’s power to award costs, parties should consider inserting a suitable costs indemnity to fix their costs position bargained at arm’s length.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Alex Dai (Trainee Solicitor of Oldham, Li & Nie).

April 2021

Holding an AGM in Hong Kong During the COVID-19 Era

by

During this age of COVID-19, some standard business practices that used to be easily dealt with have become difficult to execute including the holding of an Annual General Meeting (the “AGM”). In Hong Kong, companies have to make sure the AGM is in compliance not only with the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“CO”) but also the public health regulations.

In light of the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap. 599G of the Laws of Hong Kong) (the “Prevention Regulation”), which became effective on 29 March 2020, group gatherings in any “public place” in Hong Kong are prohibited. However, an exemption applies for “any group gatherings at a meeting of a body that must be held within a specified period in order to comply with any ordinance or other regulatory instrument that governs the operation of the body or its business”. This exemption covers company AGMs. In this article, we discuss how the AGM will be held in both listed companies and private companies in light of the Prevention Regulation and also the CO. 

Private companies

Physical meeting 

For the sake of public health, companies are encouraged to limit the physical attendance of shareholders at their AGMs as much as possible and to implement precautionary measures in order to achieve social distancing.

As stated in paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 of the Prevention Regulation, if there are more than 20 persons attending the AGM, companies must ensure that there are measures in place to separate the shareholders in different rooms or partitioned areas and each accommodating not more than 20 persons.

In order to better manage the number of shareholders who can attend the meeting, companies may consider requesting shareholders to pre-register if they wish to attend in person. Companies may also encourage shareholders to submit their questions to the management in writing before the meeting.

Virtual meeting/Hybrid meeting

With the advancement of technology, the CO has introduced a provision that allows the use of technology in shareholders’ meetings. Section 584(1) of the CO stipulates that “A company may hold a general meeting at two or more places using any technology that enables the shareholders of the company who are not together at the same place to listen, speak and vote at the meeting.” This can enable shareholders who are not at the same place to listen, speak and vote. 

Pursuant to section 576 of the CO, if a meeting is to be held at two or more places, the principal place of the AGM and the other place or places of the meeting must be specified in the notice of the meeting.

Still, a quorum and other such requirements must be followed for the meeting to be properly convened and for the decisions arising out of the meeting to be valid.

In addition, the shareholders must be able to cast their vote in the virtual AGM. The company should set up a mechanism to allow shareholders to cast a vote. It could be something as simple as a show of hands via video conferencing or an oral response via a phone call. These will be sufficient to count as a vote. 

Alternatively, some companies hold the AGM by way of a hybrid meeting i.e. the meeting is held both at a physical location and electronically. Shareholders have the option to attend the meeting either in person or virtually.

Please be aware that if the company intends to hold virtual meeting/hybrid meeting, the company should check with the company’s articles of association or any shareholders’ agreement to see if there are any provisions which require the physical presence of shareholders in the AGM. 

Written resolution 

Furthermore, instead of holding physical meetings, one could consider the use of written resolutions. Subject to the exceptions for removal of auditor or director(s) before the end of their term of office, section 548 of the CO provides that the company can circulate written resolutions for the shareholders. According to section 556 of the CO, the resolution is passed when all shareholders eligible to vote on the resolution have signed to it. The strategy of adopting written resolutions instead of physical meetings would only be possible if there are a limited number of shareholders or directors and it is foreseeable that there are no dissenting views.

Listed companies

Physical Meeting

On 1 April 2020, the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (“HKEX”) issued the “Joint statement in relation to general meetings in light of the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation” (“Joint Statement”) to clarify listed companies’ obligations to hold general meetings in light of the Prevention Regulation. 

Under the Joint Statement, all shareholders’ meetings, including (i) the AGMs as required under the Companies Ordinance and/or the Main Board Listing Rules or the GEM Listing Rules; and (ii) extraordinary general meetings and special general meetings of Hong Kong-listed companies generally fall under the exception of the Prevention Regulation.

Practical tips in holding AGM online 

(1)    Communication with shareholders: The company should remind shareholders to check the arrangement of the AGM on the company’s website. 

(2)    Sufficient time for shareholders to return their proxy forms: If shareholders do not attend in person, the shareholders can vote by proxy forms prior to the meeting.

(3)    Questions from shareholders: The company should provide channels for shareholders to raise questions to the management prior to the meeting, either in writing or electronically, so that shareholders who are not attending still have the opportunity to raise questions. 

(4)    Arrangements for physical meetings: If a company decides to hold a physical AGM, the company should shorten the presentations or publish them on the company website. In the event that an adjournment is required, a company should prepare a script for their meetings and plan in advance the period of their adjournment, as well serving a shareholders notice of adjournment or postponement if needed. In addition, refreshments should not be available. The company should ensure that sanitization and other arrangements are in place at the AGM venues.  

(5)    Prepare guidelines on virtual meetings: In order to facilitate a smooth virtual meeting, the company should prepare guidelines for the shareholders in relation to some practical problems they might face in a virtual meetings such as how shareholders can rejoin the meeting if they have lost connection or how votes can be cast e.g. by clicking a button or a physical show of hand etc. and prepare any contingency plans in case there are any technical difficulties. 

Virtual meetings are predicted to remain in the post-COVID-19 era. It is recommended that companies should plan carefully as to what measures to be undertaken in relation to holding an AGM in order to comply with the Companies Ordinance and the Prevention Regulation.

Enforcing a French Court Judgment in Hong Kong

by

If you have obtained a decision in your favour in an overseas jurisdiction against a Hong Kong company or individual, the key question for you would be whether or not this judgment can be enforced in Hong Kong.

A court decision cannot be enforced overseas without first being recognised by the relevant countries concerned, and Hong Kong is no exception to this principle.

French courts are issuing an increasing number of decisions against non-French companies, including many registered in Hong Kong. According to French law, to enforce a judgment by a French court in an overseas jurisdiction, there is an obligation to comply with the ‘Exequatur procedure,’ and this procedure may vary depending on the overseas jurisdictions involved.

Enforcement in Hong Kong 

The enforcement of French or other foreign judgments can be obtained in two ways: either registering the decision with the Court of First Instance or bringing a new legal action.

As far as France is concerned, the exequatur procedure that must be followed is the former – registering the decision with the Court of First Instance. There is no need to bring new legal action and start the whole process from the beginning again.

When you have obtained a conviction against a Hong Kong company, the core considerations before moving forward are the following:

1.    Is the defendant solvent in Hong Kong?
2.    Is the judgment final?
3.    Does the decision order payment of monetary damages?

If the answers to these three questions are affirmative, you can then consider the next steps to take.

Once the defendant’s solvency in Hong Kong is established, it is possible to proceed with the registration procedure, which is provided for in the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act Cap 319. This text enables the enforcement of foreign judgments by registering decisions from superior courts in designated countries with reciprocal arrangements with Hong Kong. These designated countries include Australia, Bermuda, Brunei, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, and Israel. 

Under these provisions, the beneficiary of a French court’s decision may apply to the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong for registration.

Here are some of the conditions to be met (this list is not exhaustive):

•    the decision must relate to the payment of a sum of money;
•    the decision must be final and not subject to appeal;
•    the decision must be issued by a civil or commercial court; and
•    the application must be filed within six years of the final decision from the foreign jurisdiction.

Once the decision is registered in Hong Kong, a notification will be served to the defendant, and the decision can be enforced in the same way as the decisions by local courts.

Security for Costs

A critical specificity in Hong Kong, is that the local court can ask the plaintiff seeking enforcement for security in the form of a deposit. It is well-established in Hong Kong that a foreign plaintiff may be ordered to deposit a sum in court, known as the ‘Security for costs’ when starting legal proceedings.

The security for costs aims to cover part of the defendant’s estimated litigation costs in defending an action brought by a foreign plaintiff. When the defendant successfully defends the action, the amount of its legal costs that normally would be payable by the foreign plaintiff, would be secured by the security for costs. 

Therefore, depending on the amounts involved, this can act as a deterrent for overseas plaintiffs as they may not want to have a significant financial sum locked up in Hong Kong.

As mentioned above, this procedure of registration at the Court of First Instance is only available for a specific list of countries (including France). Therefore, for other jurisdictions you should always check if the jurisdiction issuing the decision to be enforced in Hong Kong is also on this list. If not, the possibility of bringing a new legal action based on the foreign judgment remains open. 

No Requirement for Reciprocity

This procedure is possible even if the decision does not emanate from a common-law jurisdiction as there is no requirement for reciprocity. A decision rendered by a court in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a judgment made by a Hong Kong court may still be enforced in Hong Kong if all the conditions are met.

Should you wish to enforce a foreign decision in Hong Kong, and more specifically a decision issued by a French judge, it is highly recommended to contact a Hong Kong lawyer to discuss the best way forward.

Trade Mark Reviews in China – Some Encouraging Successes

by

The general principles in determining whether a trade mark can be registered in China are to a large extent the same as in most other countries, considering China is also one of many jurisdictions in the WIPO Madrid International Registration system. Indistinctive or descriptive marks which fail to achieve registration in the European Union will probably have no chance of registration in China. Yet it does not mean that trade marks which are clearly distinctive and registered in most places around the world will naturally be accepted for registration in China because certain technical or special grounds can withhold registration, putting aside the relative ground due to existence of prior similar marks.

For example, a mark will likely have its registration declined in China if it comprises a country name or any foreign geographical name widely known to the public. During the course of substantive examination, the Examiner may not look at every aspect to find out if the relevant name has any other meanings or references in the whole context of the mark. Upon refusal, the Applicant will have to resort to the review process to explain and justify that the mark in its entirety can satisfy the requirements for registration.  

There are 3 scenarios where a mark comprising a geographical name may be registered: –

  1. the name has another meaning
  2. the name forms part of a collective or certification trade mark
  3. the name is not a dominant element of the mark and it only serves to indicate the corresponding place of origin of the applicant    

Marie France Van Damme

Fashion designer Marie France Van Damme uses her own personal name for branding purposes and has been trading under the mark  . However, this was initially declined for registration in Class 25 for “clothing” in China because of the word “FRANCE” within the trade mark. Ms Van Damme succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the word “France” is generally perceived by consumers, in the context of her brand, as the name of a living person instead of referring to the country of France.  

URAL

The mark  was initially declined for registration in Class 9 for “loudspeakers” in China because of the word “URAL” in the mark being associated with the Ural Mountains located along the East European and West Siberian plains. The applicant succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the word “URAL” can also be a surname and a specie of owl. The evidence of pre-application use of the mark by the extensive sales of the goods in China might have supported this case. However, as it is not expressly entered as a condition of registration in China whether or not a mark has been granted based on acquired distinctiveness through use, such unreported precedent gives us a useful hint or guidance that this approach can work in some cases.    

Car And Driver

Suggestive marks are often just categorically seen as descriptive marks in China. The application for   was initially declined registration in Class 4 for ‘fuels’ as the words ‘CAR’ and “DRIVER” seem closely associated with the products of “fuels” for automobiles but if we look at these words more carefully, they are not directly connected to the essential characteristics and functions of the goods. The Applicant succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the mark as a whole is not directly descriptive of the goods sought to be registered and it is capable of functioning as a trade mark to indicate the source of origin of the goods.  

China has a tremendously high number of trade mark applications filed on a daily basis. We just need to bear with a reasonable degree of discrepancy, fluctuation and inconsistency between different examiners in assessing the inherent registrability of a trade mark. The good news is we can always rely on the review mechanism to share our views and analysis with the more senior examiners to reassess whether a mark, which is usually unique on its own, can satisfy the requirements for registration as laid down in the Trade Mark Law. We are seeing good progress as China becomes more aligned with rest of the world in the administration of the trade mark regime.  

短時間でわかる香港法上の遺産管理

by

遺産の処理と管理は複雑な問題であり、どこから手をつけるべきか分からない方々も多いはずです。大切な方の死はとても受け入れがたいことであり、遺産を処理するための書類探しや適切な手続についての情報収集に奔走するような余裕は本来ありません。私たちは日々、このようなストレスに苛まれるクライアントの皆様を目の当たりにします。そこで、本記事では、遺言書を検認し遺産を管理するためのプロベート取得の通常の手続を、段階ごとに要約しました。この記事が、よりスムーズな手続進行の一助になれば幸いです。

ステップ1:死亡の登録

被相続人の死亡後は、まず出生死亡登録官に死亡の旨を登録し、死亡証明書を取得します。死亡証明書を取得するには、死因を記載した診断書を提出する必要があります。

ステップ2:葬儀の手配

死亡証明書を取得した後、葬儀の手配を始めることができます。

遺言書がある場合は、後述のとおり、遺言執行者として遺言書に記載された方が、葬儀を手配する責任を負います。被相続人は、遺言により、埋葬又は火葬を希望する旨の意思を表示することができます。遺言執行者は、葬儀の手配にあたり、このような希望を考慮に入れるべきです。

葬儀の手配および遺体の処理に要する費用は、被相続人の遺産から支払われます。しかし、遺産承弁署から権限が与えられていないため、通常、この早い段階で被相続人の遺産を処理することは認められていません。したがって、実際には、被相続人の家族がそれらの費用を支払い、代理権の付与を得た後、それらの費用が遺産から払い戻されます。

ステップ3:遺言書の捜索と貸金庫の調査 

被相続人の遺言があったかどうか、そして、遺言があった場合は、それが最新の遺言か、後に取り消されたかどうかを慎重に確認する必要があります。(このステップは、被相続人の家族が、葬儀の手配を取りまとめる遺言執行者がいるかどうかを知るために、早めに行うこともあります。)

遺言書を捜すためには、被相続人の個人的書類を確認したり、被相続人の家族に確認したりすることから始めることができます。被相続人の貸金庫もチェックしなければならない場合もあります。

貸金庫を開披するために、下記の方が、民政事務総署長に対し、貸金庫の調査依頼証書の交付を申請することができます。

  1. 遺言執行者又は複数の遺言執行者のうち一名
  2. 遺産を管理する権限を与えられた者
  3. 貸金庫が被相続人と他人と共同で賃借されている場合は、生存する借主

調査依頼証書を取得した後、証書の所持者は、民政事務局長および銀行と、貸金庫の調査のための面談を設定すべきです。

貸金庫の中から遺言書が見つかり、遺言書において調査依頼証書の所持者が遺言執行者に指名されている場合、または所持者が貸金庫の生存する借主の場合、所持者は、遺言書の写しを取り、その写しを貸金庫に返却した後、遺言書を取り出すことができます。所持者は、貸金庫の内容物の目録も作成するべきです。

遺言書がない場合、または、遺言書がある場合でi) 貸金庫の調査依頼証書の所持者が遺言執行者ではない場合、もしくはii) 遺言執行者が遺言書の中で指名されておらず、証書の所持者が貸金庫の生存する借主でない場合には、銀行員は、遺言書(もしあれば)の写しを入手し、その写しを公務員に渡した後に、直ちに貸金庫を閉鎖すべきです。

なお、調査中は、遺言書(もしあれば)を除いて、貸金庫から物品を取り出さないようにご留意ください。

ステップ4:代理権の付与の取得 

その後、被相続人の資産を処理するためには、通常、代理権の付与を受けることが必要です。

被相続人が、遺言執行者を選任する遺言を残して亡くなった場合、遺言執行者は、プロベートの付与を申請すべきです。被相続人が、有効な遺言を残さずに亡くなった場合(例えば、遺言書が発見されなかった、遺言書が取り消された等)、妻や子のような、権利を有する者は、遺産管理状の付与を申請すべきです。

遺産管理状の付与申請は、高等法院遺産承弁署に対して、下記の根拠書類を含む特定の書式で行います。

  1. 遺言執行者/遺産管理人による確約または宣誓供述書;
  2. 資産および負債の一覧表を証明する確約または宣誓供述書、被相続人の死亡日時点の香港における資産および負債の一覧表ならびにその他根拠書類 (例えば、被相続人の死亡証明書、被相続人の遺言書、申請者と被相続人の関係を示す証明書、申請手数料等)

申請を行った後、遺産承弁署は、さらなる情報の入手または明確化のために、申請について追加要請を出すことができます。遺産承弁署がその追加要請に対する回答に満足した場合、遺産管理状が発行されます。

ステップ5:遺産の分配 

遺産管理状の付与を受けた後、遺産の個人代理人(遺言における遺言執行者または遺言がない場合は選任された遺産管理人)は、まず、被相続人の遺産から資産を回収した後、遺産に関連する被相続人の債務の弁済、葬式その他の費用の支払いを行う必要があります。その後、遺産は適宜分配することができます。

有効な遺言がない場合、遺産管理人は、無遺言遺産条例に従って遺産を分配すべきです。相続権の順位は、生存する親族と被相続人との関係によって決まります。無遺言死亡法のもとでは、被相続人と直接血縁関係にある方のみが利益を与え、未婚のパートナー、継子(養子縁組をしない限り)および姻族には利益が与えられないことに留意すべきです。

例えば、被相続人が配偶者のみを残して死亡し、子、父母またはその他の近しい親族がいない場合、生存する配偶者は、被相続人の残りの遺産の全てを取得する権利を有します。別の例として、被相続人が配偶者と子を残して死亡した場合、生存する配偶者は、被相続人の全ての個人的な動産および残りの財産から合計500,000香港ドルを取得する権利を有し、その後、残余財産がある場合は半分に分割され、被相続人の生存する配偶者と子との間で均等に分配されます。

他方で、有効な遺言がある場合、遺言執行者は、遺言における被相続人の希望に従って遺産を分配すべきです。部分的な無遺言(すなわち、被相続人の資産を完全には処分しない旨の遺言がある場合)がある場合、それらの未処分の資産の分配については、無遺言遺産条例により規律されることになります。

おわりに 

上記は、ある方が亡くなった後の問題および被相続人の遺産の処理のプロセスを簡単に要約したものにすぎません。実際には、プロベートを得て遺産を管理するあらゆる段階において、複雑な問題が生じることがあります。上記に関するご不明点がある場合、または当事務所のプロベート・エステートプランニングについてご興味・ご関心がある場合は、当事務所のチームメンバーにご連絡ください。 

本記事は情報提供のみを目的としています。本記事の内容は、法律上の助言を構成するものではなく、本記事をもって個々の事例における詳細な助言に代替されるとみなされることがないことにご留意ください。

2021年3月