• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
location iconSuite 503, 5/F, St. George's Building, 2 Ice House Street, Central, Hong Kongphone-icon +852 2868 0696 linkedintwitterfacebook
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 日本語
    • ENG
    • 简
    • 繁
    • FR
Oldham, Li & Nie
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • について
        • 受賞歴・ランキング
        • 企業の社会的責任
  • 業務内容
        • Canadian Notarization Services
        • チャイナ法務
        • 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法
        • 破産法
        • 人身傷害に関する法
        • 税務
        • 企業法務
        • 家族法
        • 保険法
        • プライベートクライアント
        • 商取引上の不正・資産回復
        • フランス法務
        • 知的財産法
        • 金融サービス・許認可
        • 紛争解決
        • ファンドプラクティス
        • 公証業務
        • ジャパニーズ・プラクティス
        • スタートアップ
        • Canadian Notarization Services
        • チャイナ法務
        • 家族法
        • 金融サービス・許認可
        • 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法
        • 保険法
        • 紛争解決
        • 破産法
        • プライベートクライアント
        • ファンドプラクティス
        • 人身傷害に関する法
        • 商取引上の不正・資産回復
        • 公証業務
        • 税務
        • フランス法務
        • ジャパニーズ・プラクティス
        • 企業法務
        • 知的財産法
        • スタートアップ
  • 弁護士紹介
  • インサイト
  • 事業拠点

Suite 503, St. George's Building,
2 Ice House Street, Central, Hong Kong

Tel. +852 2868 0696 | Send Email
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN Blue

OLN

  • Block Content Examples
  • Client Information & Registration
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy (EU)
  • Globalaw
  • Oldham, Li & Nie
  • OLNと地域社会
  • OLNポッドキャスト
  • Our People
  • Privacy Policy
  • Review
  • Reviews
  • Standard Terms of Engagement
  • 事業拠点
  • 受賞歴・ランキング
  • 当事務所について
  • 当事務所の歴史
    • OLN | おける企業としての社会的責任
    • 受賞歴・ランキング
  • 採用を希望する方へ
  • 業務内容
  • 評判
  • について
        • 受賞歴・ランキング
        • 企業の社会的責任
  • 業務内容
        • Canadian Notarization Services
        • チャイナ法務
        • 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法
        • 破産法
        • 人身傷害に関する法
        • 税務
        • 企業法務
        • 家族法
        • 保険法
        • プライベートクライアント
        • 商取引上の不正・資産回復
        • フランス法務
        • 知的財産法
        • 金融サービス・許認可
        • 紛争解決
        • ファンドプラクティス
        • 公証業務
        • ジャパニーズ・プラクティス
        • スタートアップ
        • Canadian Notarization Services
        • チャイナ法務
        • 家族法
        • 金融サービス・許認可
        • 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法
        • 保険法
        • 紛争解決
        • 破産法
        • プライベートクライアント
        • ファンドプラクティス
        • 人身傷害に関する法
        • 商取引上の不正・資産回復
        • 公証業務
        • 税務
        • フランス法務
        • ジャパニーズ・プラクティス
        • 企業法務
        • 知的財産法
        • スタートアップ
  • 弁護士紹介
  • インサイト
  • 事業拠点
Estate Planning in Hong Kong

Estate Planning in Hong Kong

Featured Home

Estate Planning in Hong Kong

1月 30, 2026 by OLN Marketing

Have you made preparations to ensure your loved ones will receive the assets you worked hard to acquire? Or is this something you keep postponing? Thinking about the topic of death can feel overwhelming. However, without a Will, your assets will be distributed in accordance with Hong Kong legislation which may not reflect your wishes.

Let’s explore some critical considerations before drafting a Will.

First, you should identify the persons who will inherit. Those are the beneficiaries. It’s also vital to have a contingency plan in case one of your beneficiaries predecease you.

Secondly, select an executive will be responsible for applying to the court for probate and upon the granting of a court order, engaging in the actual distribution of your assets. For example, dealing with the banks to access items stored in safety deposit boxes and handing over cash to beneficiaries.

Additionally, you should carefully consider how and where you will store your Will.

In addition to drafting a Will, if you wish to ensure that your finances are well taken care of in the event you become mentally incapacitated, you should think about establishing an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA). This document is effective only during your lifetime and enables you to designate a trusted individual to manage financial matters on your behalf, such as paying hospital bills, engaging in real estate transactions, and handling other financial matters.

The reason an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA) is needed in the event you become mentally unable is because financial institutions and other authorities will not accept your instructions once they learn of your mental incapacity.

Ultimately, effective estate planning protects both you and your loved ones. Even with a Will in place, disputes can arise, potentially leading to lawsuits, which can drag on for years and become expensive. Often, death is an emotionally charged event and can cause people to become different from their usual selves.

If you would like to discuss how to effectively plan your Will, please feel free to reach out to us anytime.

Filed Under: カテゴリーなし, Elder Law Practice Group Tagged With: Estate planning, Will, Enduring Power of Attorney

Issues to Consider Before Signing a Service Agreement with a Critical Infrastructure Operator

1月 15, 2026 by OLN Marketing

Imagine receiving an unexpected request from the Commissioner’s Office for your firm’s network diagrams and system details. This is a pre-designation inquiry under Hong Kong’s Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance (Cap. 653). The OCCICS FAQs make clear that authorities use this power to assess whether your organisation should be designated as a Critical Infrastructure Operator (CIO).

Designated CIOs must fulfil obligations under three categories: organisational, preventive, and reporting. While CIOs cannot delegate ultimate accountability (OCCICS FAQ 6), they typically work with service suppliers — cloud providers, IT vendors, managed security firms — to meet these requirements. This creates “flow-down” obligations for suppliers through detailed compliance clauses in service agreements.

Below is a comprehensive guide to eight key issues, explaining the CIO’s legal duties under the Ordinance, the supplier’s perspective, and practical negotiation points to achieve balanced terms.

1. Basic Definitions

CIOs have a legal obligation to identify and designate Critical Computer Systems (CCSs) under section 13, focusing on those where disruption would seriously affect society or the economy. They cannot delegate core accountability (OCCICS FAQ 6 stresses that outsourcing does not relieve them of responsibility).

From a supplier’s viewpoint, overly broad or ambiguous definitions can unexpectedly widen liability and compliance burdens. The Ordinance defines a”computer system” broadly as any device or group of interconnected devices that processes, stores, or transmits data electronically (s.2). A “security incident” covers any unauthorized or adverse event affecting a CCS, including breaches, malware, ransomware, or integrity compromise (s.2 and Code of Practice v1.0).

Key negotiation points: Insist on precise definitions that limit the agreement’s scope to the specific services you provide. Explicitly exclude non-relevant systems and agree on clear triggers for what constitutes a reportable incident (e.g., excluding routine hardware failures or non-cyber events). This prevents overreach and protects against unintended regulatory exposure.

2. Incident Reporting Obligations

CIOs bear the ultimate duty to report serious incidents within 12 hours and others within 48 hours (initial notification) plus a 14-day written report (Code of Practice v1.0, Category 3). They must ensure supply chain partners support this process without shifting the primary reporting burden.

Suppliers should restrict their role to prompt internal notification to the CIO, avoiding direct regulatory reporting obligations that could complicate liability.

Key negotiation points: Require the supplier to alert the CIO within a tight window (e.g., 2–4 hours) of detecting any potential incident affecting the CIO’s systems. Include detailed joint response protocols for containment, eradication, and recovery. Negotiate clear cost allocation for investigations, external forensics, or regulatory assistance, and establish mutual timelines that align with the CIO’s reporting deadlines to avoid cascading delays.

3. Limitation of Liability

CIOs face significant fines up to HK$5 million for non-compliance (s.58), so they seek strong contractual protections against supplier-related risks. Suppliers must avoid unlimited or disproportionate exposure, especially since CIOs cannot fully transfer their regulatory liability.

Key negotiation points: Aim for a reasonable overall cap, such as 1–3 times the fees paid in the preceding 12 months. Explicitly exclude indirect, consequential, or punitive losses. Carve out exceptions only for gross negligence, willful misconduct, or breach of confidentiality. Negotiate balanced clauses that reflect the CIO’s primary duty while protecting the supplier from disproportionate fallout from regulatory fines or third-party claim

4. Indemnity

CIOs must ensure preventive measures extend to the supply chain (Category 2 obligations), and they remain fully liable for overall compliance. They often demand broad indemnity covering losses, regulatory fines, or third-party claims arising from supplier breaches.
Suppliers should push for mutual indemnity and limit it to direct, proven faults to avoid one-sided exposure.

Key negotiation points: Require the CIO to indemnify the supplier for issues caused by inaccurate information, CIO-provided data errors, or CIO faults. Include coverage for defense costs and a requirement for prompt notice of claims. Negotiate evidence thresholds for indemnity triggers and reasonable caps on indemnity amounts to keep exposure proportionate and fair.

5. Data Access & Processing

CIOs must conduct annual risk assessments that include data sensitivity and interdependencies (Category 2), and comply with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO) if personal data is processed.

Suppliers should restrict access to only necessary data and ensure the CIO provides accurate, complete information for processing.

Key negotiation points: Clearly define data ownership — the CIO retains title to its data. Include strict terms for purpose limitation, data minimization, security safeguards, and secure deletion or return upon termination. Negotiate provisions for supplier assistance with data subject rights requests and regulatory data access demands, while protecting the supplier’s own proprietary processes and algorithms.

6. Confidentiality

CIOs face strict secrecy obligations on designation-related information (s.57, with fines up to HK$1 million for unauthorized disclosure). They must protect sensitive data in security plans, assessments, and incident reports.

Suppliers should allow necessary regulatory disclosures while safeguarding their own intellectual property and trade secrets.

Key negotiation points: Require non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) at the Ordinance’s level of protection. Ensure confidentiality obligations survive termination for a reasonable period. Negotiate clear exceptions for legal or regulatory requirements, with prior notice to the CIO where feasible, and reciprocal protections for supplier confidential information.

7. Termination Rights

CIOs must notify material changes, such as operator cessation or significant system alterations (Category 1), and maintain operational continuity during transitions.

Suppliers should secure payment for work already performed and avoid abrupt or punitive terminations.

Key negotiation points: The CIO shall maintain the right to immediately terminate a supply contract in case of serious incident but make sure the operation of the computer system won’t be affected. Include reasonable cure periods (e.g., 30 days) for non-serious breaches before termination can take effect. Negotiate detailed transition support provisions, including data handover, continued service during wind-down, and handling of retained data to ensure a smooth and orderly exit.

8. Audits and Inspections

CIOs are required to conduct biennial independent audits (Category 2) and must permit Commissioner inspections and investigations (Part 5 powers).

Suppliers should limit the frequency, scope, and cost burden of audits while maintaining reasonable cooperation.

Key negotiation points: Grant the CIO and regulators reasonable audit rights over relevant services. Include provisions for periodic reviews and cooperation with external auditors. Negotiate clear scope restrictions (e.g., limited to services provided), advance notice requirements, and cost reimbursement or sharing mechanisms. Include reciprocal audit rights for fairness.

Final Tip

Treat the agreement as a strategic partnership rather than a defensive document. Thoroughly document all negotiations and compliance commitments — this record can support due diligence defenses under sections 65–66 if disputes arise. As of January 13, 2026, no designations have been announced, giving suppliers valuable time to negotiate balanced, protective terms.

Ready to review your draft agreement or prepare for upcoming negotiations with a CIO? Contact Oldham Li & Nie for expert, practical guidance tailored to your business.

Summary

Service suppliers contracting with Critical Infrastructure Operators (CIOs) under Cap. 653 face significant “flow-down” compliance burdens because CIOs cannot delegate ultimate regulatory accountability. The article outlines eight critical negotiation points:

  1. Definitions
    – Insist on precise scope limitations to avoid unintended regulatory exposure for systems you don’t control.
  2. Incident Reporting
    – Commit to fast internal alerts (2-4 hours) while avoiding direct regulatory reporting duties; establish clear cost allocation for investigations.
  3. Liability Caps
    – Negotiate reasonable limits (e.g., 1-3× annual fees) excluding indirect/consequential losses, with carve-outs only for gross negligence or willful misconduct.
  4. Indemnity
    – Push for mutual indemnity with evidence thresholds and caps, ensuring the CIO indemnifies you for its own faults or bad data.
  5. Data Terms
    – Confirm CIO data ownership; require purpose limitation, security safeguards, and assistance provisions for regulatory access requests.
  6. Confidentiality
    – Align NDAs with the Ordinance’s strict secrecy rules (s.57, HK$1M fines), with carve-outs for legal/ regulatory disclosures.
  7. Termination
    – Ensure mutual rights, cure periods (e.g., 30 days), and detailed transition/data handover provisions.
  8. Audits
    – Limit audit frequency/scope; negotiate advance notice, cost sharing, and reciprocal audit rights.

With no designations yet announced as of January 13, 2026, suppliers have a narrow window to negotiate balanced terms before CIO obligations take full effect.

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

Filed Under: カテゴリーなし, スタートアップ, 企業法務 Tagged With: Corporate and Commercial Law

Oldham, Li & Nie Wins Hong Kong Law Firm of the Year for the Second Consecutive Year at the Asialaw Awards 2025

11月 12, 2025 by OLN Marketing

Oldham, Li & Nie has once again been recognised as Hong Kong SAR Law Firm of the Year at the eighth annual asialaw Awards 2025, reaffirming its position as the leading firm in the region. The awards ceremony took place on 6 November 2025, in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, where our Partner Anna Chan and Senior Associate Kacy Lam accepted the accolade on behalf of the firm.

This marks the second consecutive year that OLN has received this top jurisdictional honour, reflecting our continued commitment to excellence, innovation, and client service across all our practice areas.

Asialaw Awards 2025 Winner badge, Oldham, Li & Nie, Hong Kong SAR law firm of the year

About asialaw Awards

The asialaw Awards, organised by asialaw – a prominent legal directory known for its comprehensive regional rankings – recognise the most outstanding law firms, practitioners, and deals across Asia each year.

For 2025, asialaw celebrated legal excellence across 20 jurisdictions and 28 practice areas and industry sectors, based on meticulous research and feedback from clients and peers.

For the full list of winners and more information on the asialaw Awards 2025, please visit the asialaw website.

Filed Under: カテゴリーなし, News

Asialaw 2025 Rankings: Oldham, Li & Nie Recognised Again Across Multiple Practice Areas and Sectors

10月 24, 2025 by OLN Marketing

Oldham, Li & Nie has again been recognised by asialaw in the recently released asialaw profiles 2025.

The firm is ranked in the following practice areas:

  • Dispute Resolution – Highly Recommended
  • Intellectual Property – Highly Recommended
  • Corporate and M&A – Recommended
  • Labour & Employment – Recommended
  • Private Client – Recommended
  • Restructuring and Insolvency – Notable

In addition, Oldham, Li & Nie is recommended in the following sectors:

  • Insurance – Recommended
  • Technology and Telecommunications – Recommended
Asialaw Highly Recommended Law Firm 2025

Oldham, Li & Nie’s partners received five individual recognitions across their respective practice areas:

  • Gordon Oldham – Senior Statesman in Dispute Resolution
  • Richard Healy – Notable Practitioner in Dispute Resolution
  • Tracy Yip – Distinguished Practitioner in Corporate and M&A
  • Vera Sung – Distinguished Practitioner in Intellectual Property
  • Anna Chan – Distinguished Practitioner in Tax and Private Client

In its analysis, asialaw noted “Full-service law firm Oldham Li & Nie is particularly known for its dispute resolution practice. Gordon Oldham, Richard Healy and Anna Chan are main partners for dispute resolution, while Tracy Yip is a key partner for corporate and M&A. Oldham’s practice covers corporate finance, joint ventures and real-estate structuring as well as commercial litigation. It often deals with high-net-worth clients and financial aspects of matrimonial disputes.”

For more details, please visit Oldham, Li & Nie’s profile on asialaw: https://www.asialaw.com/Firm/oldham-li-nie-hong-kong-sar/Profile/1112#profile

The firm has also been shortlisted for the eighth annual asialaw Awards in two categories:

  • Oldham, Li & Nie – Hong Kong Law Firm of the Year
  • Anna Chan – Hong Kong Female Lawyer of the Year

About asialaw

asialaw  is the only directory with in-depth analysis of Asia’s regional and domestic firms and leading lawyers – useful for practitioners, BD teams, and corporate decision-makers. Beyond its rankings, asialaw also publishes awards shortlists and winners recognising top firms and client service excellence across the region.

For more information, please visit https://www.asialaw.com/

Filed Under: 保険法, プライベートクライアント, 知的財産法, 破産法, 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法, 紛争解決, 企業法務 Tagged With: Corporate law, intellectual property, Insurance, Labour Law, TMT

Oldham, Li & Nie Recognised by 2026 ITR World Tax

10月 20, 2025 by OLN Marketing

We are proud to announce that Oldham, Li & Nie has once again been recognised among the leading tax law firms in Hong Kong in the newly published ITR World Tax 2026 edition.

In this year’s rankings, Oldham, Li & Nie achieved Tier 1 position in Private Client and Tier 3 in General Corporate Tax.

Our Partner and Head of Tax and Private Client practice, Anna Chan, has been recognised as a Highly Regarded Practitioner for outstanding work in Private Client and Tax Controversy, and was also honoured as a Women in Tax Leader.

Partner Victor Ng has been recognised as a Highly Regarded Practitioner for his significant contributions in General Corporate Tax and Private Client matters.

These recognitions highlight the depth of our Tax and Private Client team’s expertise and our commitment to client service.

OLN’s rankings in 2026 ITR World Tax

OLN’s practitioners profiles in 2026 ITR World Tax

ITR World Tax 2026 Highly Regarded Practitioner - Oldham, Li & Nie
ITR World Tax 2026 Women in Tax Leader - Oldham, Li & Nie
About ITR World Tax

ITR World Tax is the most comprehensive global directory of the world’s leading tax advisory firms and practitioners. Covering over 150 jurisdictions globally, it recognises firms and individuals who demonstrate technical excellence, commercial acumen, and outstanding client service.

Filed Under: 税務, プライベートクライアント Tagged With: Private Client, Tax Controversy, Tax, Corporate Tax

Court of First Instance ruled employer failed to justify summary dismissal and awarded damages of more than HKD5.4 million to employee

7月 17, 2025 by OLN Marketing

In Hu Yangyong v Alba Asia Limited [2025] HKCFI 2484 (OLN acted for the Plaintiff), the Court of First Instance found that the Defendant employer company failed to discharge its burden of justifying summary dismissal, and the Plaintiff employee was wrongfully dismissed by the Defendant employer company. The Court awarded damages to the Plaintiff as a result of the wrongful dismissal.

The Plaintiff was the Chief Operating Officer (Asia) of the Defendant since 1 June 2017. The Plaintiff’s employment contract provided for various allowances and benefits, such as out-of-pocket family expense reimbursement and business expense reimbursement. On 7 September 2018, the Plaintiff was summarily dismissed by the Defendant on the grounds of alleged misconduct and dishonesty arising from reimbursement of expenses.

The Court of First Instance reiterated and reaffirmed the principle on summary dismissal:
Summary dismissal is regarded as a strong and extreme measure and is justified only in exceptional cases. The onus of proof is on the employer to establish that summary dismissal is justified. The standard of proof is generally the balance of probabilities, but the more serious the allegation, the stronger the evidence must be before the court concludes that the allegation is proven. While summary dismissal may be justified by an act of gross misconduct by the employee, what amounts to gross misconduct requires a fact-finding exercise. An act of dishonesty will not automatically justify summary dismissal since there are degrees of dishonesty. Summary dismissal will only be justified if the dishonest act amounts to a repudiation of the contract of employment.

In the present case, the Court of First Instance found, amongst others, that summary dismissal was not justified, as the Defendant had failed to meet the thresholds required for summary dismissal. In particular, the Court found that the Plaintiff had genuinely incurred family expenses exceeding the threshold and had nothing to gain personally. The Defendant failed to show that the Plaintiff had acted with dishonesty or fraudulent intent.

Key takeaways:

Summary dismissal should be considered as a remedy of last resort. Employers should exercise caution before making a decision to summarily dismiss an employee.

The full judgment can be viewed here:

[https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=169764&QS=%24%28alba%2Casia%29&TP=JU]

Partner Victor Ng, Senior Associate Barbara Kwong, and Associate Claudia Wong acted for the Plaintiff.

OLN has extensive experience in handling employment-related matters, including wrongful termination, and contractual disputes. With a strong track record of representing both employers and employees, OLN is well-equipped to provide practical, strategic, and effective legal advice to navigate complex employment issues.

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

Filed Under: 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法 Tagged With: Employment Dispute

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 16
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

This website uses cookies to optimise your experience and to collect information to customise content. By closing this banner, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies. Please read the cookies section of our Privacy Policy to learn more. Learn more

Footer

OLN logo

Suite 503, 5/F, St George's Building
2 Ice House Street, Central
Hong Kong

Tel. +852 2868 0696 | Email us
について 弁護士紹介 事業拠点 OLN IP Services プライバシーポリシー
業務内容 インサイト 採用情報 OLN Online
について 業務内容 弁護士紹介 インサイト 事業拠点
採用情報 OLN IP Services OLN Online プライバシーポリシー
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN logo

© 2026 Oldham, Li & Nie. All Rights Reserved.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}
お問い合わせ

メッセージの詳細をここで共有してください。すぐにご連絡させていただきます。

    x