OLN

OLN Marketing

宁枉毋纵？

by

最近在《南华早报》上发表的一篇文章（于2020年9月19日发表在《亚洲周刊》增刊上）引起了我的关注。2016年，在中国四川省遂宁市，一位母亲推着婴儿车出门，载着她的12个月大的婴儿。突然，一个用于手部锻炼的金属球，在附近楼宇从天而降，击倒婴儿，并导致该婴儿死亡。

事后当局进行调查，但并没有找到肇事者。即便如此，该家庭还是向涉事楼宇内的所有业主提起诉讼。此案最终在船山区人民法院开庭审理。经审讯后，法院裁定该楼宇的所有业主均应负上责任，并责令他们共同赔偿损失。

根据《侵权责任法》第八十七条规定，「不明抛掷物、坠落物损害责任纠纷」，适用过错推定原则，即只要业主或房屋的使用人不能举证证明自已没有过错，则推定其有过错。法庭认为此举证原则适用于该楼宇的所有业主。

即使只有一所住户可以犯下涉事行为，但法官指出，平衡各方利益，法律应保护弱者，从而达到赔偿受害者的目的，并向社会传达警号。楼宇中的每个业主均被责令赔偿人民币3000元。换句话说，真正的罪魁祸首逍遥法外，逃过法网，避开面临数十万元罚款和最高一年监禁的刑期。无容置疑，判决引起其他无辜业主的不满。
此案受到了内地网民的热烈关注和评论。虽然没有人会否认婴儿的家庭应该得到赔偿，但对无辜的人追究责任和惩罚明显是不公平的。很多人指责警察在调查此案失职，包括提出以下质疑：1）当局有否对金属球进行了指纹识别？ 2）当局有否在每个公寓中搜索并尝试寻找匹配的金属球（金属球通常以一对形式运作）？ 3）由于一般都是较多老年人使用金属球，用作按摩之用，当局有否对该楼宇的老年住户进行额外调查和搜证？有些人将此判决批评为二流司法，也有些人指法院逃避问题。

对来自西方的读者来说，仅仅为了不让真正肇事者逃出法网，而采取宁枉毋纵的原则，令人嗤之以鼻。这让我想起了第二次世界大战期间，纳粹德军采取的一种报复行动。为了不让杀害德国士兵的肇事者逃之夭夭，他们往往不惜把整条村庄的人全部处决。

但从另一个角度而言，此判决真的可以与卑鄙的纳粹战术相提并论吗？追究涉事责任，让肇事者承担责任，同时让受害者获得应有赔偿，绝对符合公共利益。可能只有这种政策性的判决，才能使大厦管理人员改善安全措施，并对大厦安全更加谨慎。

然而，在这种情况下采取过错推定原则，也不无可取之处。无辜的住户不难满足此举证责任。一定有很多住户在案发时间不在他们的住所，并能提出相关不在场证据，包括目击证人。无辜的住户也可以证明自己从未拥有或使用过这种金属球。

从法律的角度而言，虽然香港奉行无罪推定原则，可是，实际上，法庭往往采取过错推定原则。几乎所有针对政府公务员的公职人员行为失当的控罪，只要证明到他们的银行账户上有太多资产，而超出他们条件容许所获得的资产，便往往已经能证明他们受贿了。在英国，在收受或处理黑钱的控罪，法律假定所涉金钱或财产皆为犯罪得益，除非被告能证明相反的情况。

这些过错推定原则是为了公共利益。这些推定不仅使所有遭受不法行为的受害者得益，更对整个社会有莫大裨益。这些原则不仅帮助上述遇到人生巨变的父母，也能帮助我们每一位。

Globalaw网路研讨会：香港能否继续成为亚洲金融中心？

by

内容摘要：
• 香港在内地大湾区规划中可发挥重要作用
• 香港走出逆境的能力不应被低估
• 香港的连串示威和游行表明对住房、青年就业和特区政府管治等问题不满，而这些问题不一定与内地有关。
• 短期内，投资者和有意移民的人士可能会对冲他们部分在港投资，但不会短期内从香港撤资。
• 随着中美贸易战改变了全球政经格局，全球地缘政治发展将对香港的长期前景更具决定性。
• 市场仍需观察国家安全法的具体执行情况
• 只要企业治理，法治，资本自由流动维持现状，香港作为亚洲金融中心的作用将继续稳固。

主持人

  • 高李严律师行高级合夥人 高国峻律师

与会讲者

  • Connie Bolland小姐 – Economic Research Analysis创办人以及首席经济师 
  • 卓百德先生 – 环球经济和房地产专家、希慎兴业有限公司独立非执行董事、龙湖集团控股有限公司独立非执行董事
  • James Hartshorn先生 – Bartra Capital Property Group亚洲区域总监
  • 沈旭晖教授 – 香港中文大学全球政治经济社会科学硕士课程副课程主任

网路研讨会主题：
-最新环球地缘政治局势和经济走向
-香港在中美贸易战中的角色
-相对于主要竞争对手，上海，深圳，东京和新加坡，香港作为环球金融中心的竞争力。

高国峻律师在网路研讨会开首指出，时移世易，我们必须认清社会变革，包括科技、政治和气候等各个方面，变革速度来得比往日为快。尤其，香港的社会变化来的特别快。因为香港发生连串示威和香港捲入中美贸易战中，客户会希望知道香港的未来将如何发展。

高国峻律师：
香港、上海和深圳是否都属于国家总体规划的一部分？香港是否应该与上海和深圳有更多融合和交流，从而同时壮大三地的发展？

卓百德先生：
部分私人投资可能会撤出香港，但随着大湾区的发展，香港作为集资中心的地位只会越见巩固。我们不应低估内地执行大型政策措施（如设立深圳经济特区）的能力，亦不应低估香港迈入下一个发展阶段的能力。四十年前，香港大约有100万人从事制造业。如今，只剩大约20-30万人从事制造业。香港的发展经历了许多周期。只要香港的法治，法律制度，企业治理和资本自由流动保持现状，并没有重大改变，香港才能继续发展。大湾区可能会发展出类似纽约证券交易所/纳斯达克/芝加哥商品交易所的三元交易所。由于内地投资者高度重视香港的资本自由流动，香港可以从众多城市突围而出。

Connie Bolland 小姐：
从历史上看，香港的经济产业转型相当成功，成功从以制造业为主导转型成金融中心。可是，中国（深圳）综合开发研究院发布的《全球金融中心指数》目前将香港排在第六位，排在纽约、伦敦、东京、上海和新加坡之后。因此，我们不可以轻言说上海并不是我们的竞争对手。
香港拥有来自内地以及世界各地的资本投资，庞大的交易量，蓬勃的发展机会以及良好的人力资本。
虽然与上海和深圳的竞争日益增加（尤其深圳锐意发展为科技中心），但香港仍能吸引内地以及其他国家的科技公司来港上市，集资发展业务。新加坡则是主要吸引印尼和越南的初创公司到其交易所上市。而东京主要吸引日本的公司到其交易所上市。纵观整个亚太地区，对比各个资本市场，香港仍然拥有一个较为蓬勃和成熟的资本市场，于市场份额中处于领先地位。

高国峻律师：
您对香港交易所作为粤港澳大湾区发展规划的一部分有可看法？市场会否担忧香港将不再拥有高度自治，从而引发信任危机？

沈旭晖教授：
作为一个土生土长香港人，我对香港前景感到悲观。内地试图套用新加坡模式作为治港蓝图。可是，国际社会对此回应不但并非为正面，更对此采取严厉的态度。
市场一般期望美国只会采取较为象征性的制裁。可是，现在美国已经进行第二轮甚至第三轮的制裁，这将影响香港的经济以及银行业。市场和投资者可能不再相信香港与内地有实质区别。他们可能会把资金转移至东京，但这并不会再在短期内进行，至少需要4-5年的时间。短期内市场可能会开始对冲，分散在香港的投资。市场认为香港一贯实行的规则和惯例正在改变。由于投资者有众多的选择，他们现在可能会进行对冲，并分散在港投资，而选择投资其他地方，例如东京。

高国峻律师：
香港的游行和示威衍生暴力，也令人不安，游行和示威的背后成因为何？

沈旭晖教授：
泛民主派需要负上部份责任。可是，政府一直未能解决香港的房屋和生活成本高昂的问题。香港是全球居住成本最高的地方之一。从2009年开始，房屋价格增长了280％，但整体薪酬却没有录得同样升幅。扣除通货膨胀等因素后，实际收入实际上下降了。教育成本高昂、医疗质素下降也是问题成因之一。香港市民有权要求基本的经济和生活条件。

Connie Bolland 小姐：
同意，游行和示威是由于行政长官是由缺乏认受性的选举产生，而不是按照《基本法》所期许的普选产生。泛民主派需要负上部份责任。但与此同时，政府在多个范畴都不愿进行改革，回应民意。政府同时未能让社会各方进行有意义和有建设性的对话，同求出路。
由于住房价格连年上升，市民整体居住质素有所下降。与此同时，青年就业也是一个重大问题。虽然整体失业率为6％，但目前青年的失业率已经超过10％。这些青年大多受过良好教育，渴望贡献社会。除此之外，政府最大败笔为处理人口问题。自1997年以来，在大量移民湧入的情况下（大概200万人），政府没有推出相应的政策措施。因此，市民普遍对此感到不满。虽然旅游业能拯救本港经济在2003年非典危机面对的低谷，但旅游业同时亦带动租金上升，市民的生活成本因此日益增加，引起不满。上述所有社会问题所引起的民愤便一并爆发出来。

高国峻律师：
40年以来，从来没有一届政府比现届政府更为不力、更为缺乏想象力。行政长官自己承认只担当行政职务。市民希望政府能有所作为。您对此有何看法？

沈旭晖教授：
我们对于政府目前管治模式感到忧虑。市民期望「一国两制」能有效实行。随着中央政府对参与香港管治的信心日益增强，一个与市民期望有所不同的治港模式正在衍生。
我清楚地记得，2008年在北京举行奥运会时，香港人为自己作为中国人的身分而感到自豪。香港现时已出现取态上的重大分歧。实际上，香港局势本来并不那么严峻，可是，政府并没有采取任何回应市民需求的政策。随着事态发展，参与游行的市民不限于生活环境恶劣的人，而有更多中产阶级和学生参与。这些人大多受过高等教育（包括那些曾经在外国留学的人），他们并没有面对居住环境变得恶劣的问题。房屋问题确是一个严峻的问题，但游行和示威同时将社会上不同界别的人连合在一起。我敢说，即使建制阵营也对国家安全法有所不满。

高国峻律师：
现时尚未有法庭判词解释国家安全法，所以现时审视国家安全法的实施似乎言之尚早。其实特区政府从1997年开始已经有机会就国家安全立法。可是，由于特区政府未能就国家安全立法，所以中央政府便为香港就国家安全立法。每个地区都需要应对恐怖主义和分裂行为，今次立法有何不同？

沈旭晖教授：
殖民地时期的煽动罪一直存在。再者，今天其他国家也有自己的国家安全法。现在的主要问题是，特区政府在1997年之后的 23 年都未能就国家安全立法。可是，北京政府单方面为香港就国家安全立法。此举甚至超出了部份建制派的预期。我的同事身处世界各地，不论身处美国还是英国，现在都必须采取适当的预防措施。国家安全法的条文也是一个问题。我们可做与不可做的界线非常模糊。任何个人行为都可以随意被起诉，因为当局尚未划清行为和言论的红线。希望在一两年后，我们会了解更多。

高国峻律师：
市民都渴望稳定性，同时亦用他们双脚投票。在 1997 年之前，不少香港人去了温哥华，但 99% 的人最后都回来了。唯一的结果就是温哥华房价暴涨。这次会有所不同吗？

James Hartshorn先生： 
是的，移民到其他国家的人数肯定会激增，但目前实际上只有一小部分人正在办理移民。例如，我们发现 300 名持有移民签证的人中，只有 20 人移民到海外。市民都将移民视为一种安全机制、一种后备计划。近代史上曾出现过三大移民潮，天安门事件后、1997 年回归前和现在。
在 2020 年 5 月的高峰期，我们发现曾经有 41,000 人次在线搜索「移民」一词。我们有 50 名来自香港的客户移民到爱尔兰。目前的情况来看，爱尔兰是较鲜为人知的移民目的地之一，而加拿大则是最着名的移民目的地。市民目前对英国就英国国民海外护照（“BNO”）的最终政策抱持观望态度。BNO持有人会被允许在英国居住 6 个月或更长时间吗？有多少人会真的选择移民到英国？上述一切都充满不确定性。

高国峻律师：
今天的听众大部分都是法律界人士，他们的客户不少都是基金或在香港进行各类的商业活动，他们应该担心未来的局势吗？

Connie Bolland 小姐：
香港美国商会最近的一项研究显示，在接受调查的 180 家公司中，有 77% 的公司担心国家安全法，因为此法的具体执行含糊不清。因此，尽管大多数人都不会立即离开，但不少人仍然抱有忧虑。在接受调查的人士中，53% 的人有应急计划，而66% 的人对前景感到悲观。

沈旭晖教授：
虽然很多人说要离开香港，但这里的白领薪酬较高，令不少人却步。许多在职人士宁愿留在香港工作，而将他们的妻子和儿女送到海外。这种模式将继续下去。一些投资将会转移到海外的其他市场，但一般在职人士将在香港留最少两到三年，而未有逼切移民需要。中央政府将继续努力吸引国际投资者来港投资。我认为，我们现时已经非常接近「一国一制」的制度，所以短期内北京会尝试让内地企业来港上市，从而为这里的美国投资银行家提供就业机会。主要的不确定性其实在于全球地缘政治局势。中美脱钩会成为现实吗？中美脱钩将如何发生？中美关系已经过了不归路。在过去的十年中，中国企业在美国进行了大量投资。我们必须密切留意全球地缘政治局势，以了解长期趋势。

高国峻律师：
我们不单需要面对示威、新型冠状病毒和国家安全法的冲击，我们还需应对中美贸易战的挑战，因为我们不再被视为与内地有区别。香港在这一切中将扮演什么角色？

卓百德先生：
现时一切发展都非常微妙。这一切都始于美国和特朗普，但欧洲都加入了与中国竞争的行列。中国的不公平贸易行为和不符合世贸组织期望的行为令人惊奇。特朗普现时专注与中国竞争。整个世界现时都观望美国的行为。欧洲理事会本周发表了一篇严厉抨击中国贸易政策的文件。此举与美国无关。无论中国会否采取反制措施，香港都难免成为夹在中间的磨心，不论香港一直以自由贸易中心运作与否。我们将密切留意美国大选的结果，观看新一届政府的对华政策。

高国峻律师：
如果你认为你在香港什么都做不了，这会不会是一种过于简化的看法？北京大可以说，香港已经享有高度自治。北京也可以说他们从来没有干涉香港事务，即使香港曾经发生暴力的示威活动。我们应该在香港做些事情，为市民带来希望和光明的未来。

卓百德先生：
我们乐见香港领导阶层表现出一些领导力。港区国家安全法源于中央政府认为特区政府不能有效处理内部事务，所以需要中央政府就此立法。也许他们有一个很好的观点。

沈旭晖教授：
香港对内地的的重要性被低估了。香港对内地的重要性不能只从GDP反映，而是香港作为内地外汇中介的角色，此角色暂时仍未被其他内地城市取代。如果我们有更好的政府，香港仍然可以发挥重要作用。香港与其他身处海外的港人较为富裕，亦拥有紧密的网路，能够建立第二经济体来维持香港的经济。香港长远仍有前景。

Connie Bolland 小姐：
香港必须确保资本市场保持自由和开放，并巩固健全的法治。这两点与良好的企业管治将阻止香港的作用被削弱。1967年香港暴乱期间，当年我还是个小女孩，亲历屋顶上设有机枪的情境。骚乱过后，麦理浩总督彻底改革了香港的基础设施和医疗体系，以改善民生。海底隧道便是那个时代的产物。现在我们有什么东西可以给予和提供？领导阶层需要就此思考，并提出创新的观点。

James Hartshorn先生：
过去一直有关于上海取代香港的传言，但这将不会发生。香港享有健全的法治和新闻自由。就目前的情况而言，资本的自由流通将不会有任何限制或改动。香港的财政状况让各地政府羨慕，此情况将不会有特别大的改动。

高国峻律师：
今天的研讨会到此为止。我们将密切留意内地有关香港的政策法规。北京政府拥有务实、耐心的计划。例如，北京现在进行最大规模的空气净化，以改善污染情况。
我记得一句古老的格言，到达破产法庭的最快方法，便是听取专家的建议。本次网路研讨会的目的不是要给出任何答案，而是为听众提供一些深入的背景知识，以做出更佳的商业决策。感谢今天所有参与的与会讲者。

高李严律师行是一家总部位于香港的律师事务所，拥有 40 名律师，在上海设有办事处。它是 Globalaw 的创始成员。Globalaw 是一个领先的全球专业网路，于 1994 年创建，由 85 个司法管辖区的 110 家律师事务所组成，宗旨为提供个性化的法律服务。

An update on the status and enforceability of prenuptial agreements in Hong Kong

by

This is the third in a series of articles where we examine recent trends in Family Law issues which have a broad impact on the community. The initial article discussed recent developments in divorce law and procedure in England and Wales regarding “no fault” divorce. We then looked at litigation funding and maintenance payments for children of unmarried parents. Here, we examine the enforceability of prenuptial agreements in Hong Kong. 

It is now ten years since the leading case in England and Wales (Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC42) changed the way in which courts had historically treated prenuptial agreements. Four years later the courts in Hong Kong adopted the principles set out in Radmacher as law in a case which went to the Court of Final Appeal (SPH v SPA [2014] HKFLR 386). In the absence of any further legislative development, these two cases are still important landmark decisions. Lawyers in our team are often asked whether prenuptial agreements are binding in Hong Kong and unfortunately this is not a question which can produce a simple Yes or No response. The quick answer is that a clearly drafted prenuptial agreement will be considered by a court in Hong Kong in the context of all the surrounding facts of the case; however, the court has ultimate discretion on matters regarding financial provision in divorce and will not simply “rubber stamp” a prenuptial agreement if it believes that doing so would result in an outcome it perceives as unfair or which leaves one party in “a predicament of need”. We will look in more detail below at the current law, and what steps can be taken by a couple considering entering into a prenuptial agreement to ensure the best chance of it being upheld.

A point to note at the outset is that common law jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and UK take a very different approach on this issue to many civil law jurisdictions which have well established marital property regimes and where the community at large often has a significantly deeper acceptance and understanding of a prenuptial agreement. A court in Hong Kong would likely uphold an agreement entered into in a marital property regime jurisdiction where the parties could show that they understood the full implications of the agreement. This is especially so if an agreement is signed in a country where it is commonplace practice and drafted simply and clearly – even if no legal advice is taken at the time by either party. This is clearly seen in the Radmacher decision as set out below.

BACKGROUND

Before Radmacher, prenuptial agreements were generally not enforced on the public policy grounds that they “undermine the concept of marriage as a lifelong union”.        

Radmacher involved a wealthy German heiress, Katrin Radmacher, and her French investment banker turned academic researcher husband Nicholas Granatino. They had entered into a German law governed prenuptial agreement which the husband subsequently sought to have set aside. The Supreme Court held that on the facts of the case it was fair to require the parties to adhere to the agreement they had made based on, among other points, the husband’s relative financial sophistication notwithstanding that the husband did not have separate legal advice and the agreement was drafted by a German notary who was accustomed to acting for the Radmacher family. The judgment also provided detail on how the court should consider “fairness” both from the perspective of procedural fairness (eg was the less wealthy party coerced into signing without independent advice in rushed circumstances?) and substantive fairness (eg would the less wealthy party be left in a “predicament of real need” if the agreement were strictly enforced?). Radmacher is so important because for the first time the courts determined that, although a prenuptial agreement is not automatically binding on a husband and wife, it may be upheld if it can be shown that it was “freely entered into” and “with a full appreciation of its implications”.

In recent years, the key cases in England and Wales have generally followed the Radmacher approach whilst providing more guidance and detail on issues such as how a court would treat agreements entered into under marital property regimes (eg Z v Z [2012] 1 FLR 1100, which we touch on below), the relative importance of legal advice given (or not given) at the time the agreement was created, and the degree by, and circumstances which, cause the courts to consider the less wealthy party’s “needs” and ultimately what is fair.  Z v Z is an interesting example of a French prenuptial agreement which arose in divorce proceedings in London. After cohabiting for five years, the couple entered into a “separation de biens” marriage contract which on its face excluded the concept of sharing of any property – from before or during the marriage – between the couple. All the formalities of the contract were entered into correctly, the contract was not at all unusual in the context of the families and the wife understood the nature of the contract when she entered into it. The husband sought to rely on the agreement, asserting that a 50:50 split (the likely ratio to be awarded in an English court not taking the prenuptial agreement into account) was inappropriate, and that he argued that his wife’s needs would be well met if she were to take a 35% share of the marital asset pool, which was approximately GBP15,000,000 (HKD150,000,000) and all generated during the marriage by equal contribution. The wife asked for a 50% share based on her equal contribution to the 14 year long marriage and five year prior cohabitation. The Judge determined that, based on the legal principles outlined in Radmacher and the overall facts of the case, it would be fair to depart from equality to reflect the agreement, and awarded the wife 40% of the pool.

Finally, a very recent case in England, S V H [2020] EWFC B16, serves as a cautionary note and a useful reminder of the potholes which can arise. This case involved a couple each entering into their second marriage, and signing a prenuptial agreement prepared by a foreign notary five days prior to the wedding outside the UK. Neither party took independent legal advice, nor did they make any financial disclosure to each other. After the marriage broke down, the wealthier and younger  wife sought to rely on the agreement whilst the husband argued that it should not be upheld on the grounds that it would drastically limit the amount of support he would receive. The judge (HHJ Booth), exasperated by each parties’ conduct in the case, concluded “In my judgment there is no value in the prenuptial agreement. There was no formal process of disclosure, there was no advice given to either party, other than by the notary who prepared the document and at five days before the ceremony”. As a result, the judge disregarded the agreement and awarded the husband both an income award and a property on trust (to revert to the wife on his death).   

HONG KONG CASE LAW

SPH, the leading case in Hong Kong, involved a divorce between two German nationals who had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany before marrying in Hong Kong the following year. The couple disputed whether the divorce should take place in Germany or Hong Kong, and the husband applied to the Court of Final Appeal to seek to persuade the court in Hong Kong that Germany was a more appropriate forum, but he was unsuccessful. The Court of Final Appeal used the opportunity to review the applicable law relating to prenuptial agreements and it subsequently adopted Radmacher as good law in Hong Kong.

In the five years since SPH there have been few cases dealing with prenuptial agreements which have been adjudicated by the courts so the law in Hong Kong has not developed very far from Radmacher. One recent case (LCYP v JEK [2019] HKCFI 1588) is however helpful. LCYP concerned a divorce between a US born husband and a Hong Kong born wife who were married in New Jersey, USA, having previously entered into a prenuptial agreement governed by New Jersey law. In the course of the over 20 year marriage, the couple had become very affluent from a somewhat modest starting point. The issue which concerned the court related to ancillary relief (i.e. financial provision for the wife), and in particular the weight which the court should allow for an unvitiated prenuptial agreement. In this context, an “unvitiated agreement” describes an agreement which is clear and straightforward, and not flawed in any way. HH Chan J confirmed that SPH was still the guiding case, and he also quoted extensively from Radmacher to review how the court should consider concepts such as “need”, “fairness”, “autonomy” and “future circumstances”. Based on the legal principles outlined in both Radmacher and SPH on the one hand, and the facts of this particular case on the other, the Judge commented “I do not believe that the law requires the court to quantify the amount of weight to be attached to an unvitiated prenuptial agreement. In this case, it would not be right to attach no weight to [it]. On the other hand, it would be wrong to place great weight on it because it would be unfair to do so”. He further added “The couple were young at the time of entering the [prenuptial agreement]. The circumstances had changed in a way which they did not anticipate. In particular, the financial landscape at the time of breakdown of marriage was vastly different. The advancement of the family’s standard of living had much to do with the sacrifice of the wife. She is now left in a much disadvantaged position having given up the opportunity to develop her career for the sake of the family. It is simply wrong for her to be held to the terms of the [agreement] whilst the husband got to keep the fruit of her sacrifice”.   HH Chan J’s decision provided the wife with considerably greater financial provision than the prenuptial agreement contemplated.   

KEY PRACTICAL POINTS 

As set out above and in Radmacher, the requirements for enforcement of an agreement prepared in a marital property regime jurisdiction are significantly different for an agreement prepared in common law regimes such as UK, USA and Hong Kong. What are the key takeaways from the case law which would demonstrate to a Hong Kong court that a prenuptial agreement entered into in UK, USA or Hong Kong is both procedurally and substantively fair, and hence more likely to be upheld?

  • The enforcing party must show that any agreement has been entered into freely with both parties fully understanding what they were each signing 
  • The agreement should be entered into at least 28 days before the wedding, and there can be no evidence of duress or undue influence
  • Both parties should make full disclosure to one another of all material financial information
  • Both parties should seek independent legal advice (note that this is not a “must” in situations where it may not be customary to do so, e.g. certain civil law jurisdictions where an agreement may be prepared by a notary acting for both parties)
  • The agreement should be fair, meaning that it does not leave the less wealthy party in a “predicament of real need”
  • Both parties should be clear that they intend the agreement to be binding irrespective of where they may divorce (i.e. it could happen in a jurisdiction governed by a law very different to the governing law of the agreement) and when they may divorce (i.e. do the provisions have equal effect on a 5 year and a 50 year marriage or is there a “sunset” clause providing for the agreement to terminate at a certain date)
  • There can be no upward limits on the amount of financial provision for the children – this matter remains firmly in the court’s jurisdiction  

OUR  EXPERIENCE

We regularly advise international and Hong Kong based clients on issues arising from prenuptial agreements. Stephen Peaker, the Head of the Family Law Department, acted for the wife in SPH, the leading case in Hong Kong, at the Court of First Instance ([2012] HKFLR @52-69), and is currently acting on a case representing a client seeking to set aside a financial consent order for failure to disclose a new relationship which induced him not to rely on a prenuptial agreement from a marital property regime jurisdiction (GM-SA v DMP-J [2017] HKFLR @ 513-). This case is markedly different from LCYP (which featured an agreement prepared in New Jersey, USA and which would therefore need to satisfy the items flagged above in Key Practical Points), and is rather the same type of agreement, and follows the same legal principles, as Radmacher.   

CONCLUSION

This is a subject which needs to be approached with care. There is clear case law precedent available to guide the courts on legal principles but facts nevertheless play an important role. If the supporting fact pattern is generally in line with the points outlined in Radmacher on the issue of the application of the prenuptial agreement in a marital property regime jurisdiction or in “Key Practical Points’ above, as the case may be, then the court will in all likelihood uphold an unvitiated prenuptial agreement.    

September 2020
Stephen Peaker, Partner and Head of Family Law
Michael Openshaw, Consultant
Family Law Department
Oldham, Li & Nie

This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.

OLN ranked among Asialaw’s Leading Lawyers 2021

by

高李严律师行跻身Asialaw 2021年领先律师行列

Asialaw已宣布它们2021的领先律师，而我们很高兴地宣布高李严律师行再一次榜上有名。

恭喜以下合伙人获得评选！

关于Asialaw领先律师

Asialaw领先律师评选出杰出的私人执业法律专业人，并于上述18个业务领域和24个司法管辖区中被划分为市场领先者，领先者和冒起之星。 Asialaw咨询法律服务的“买家”以及对市场有深入了解的私人执业律师。有关更多Asialaw领先律师的详细资料，请参见此处。

假期通信- 知识产权团队

by

假期通信

由于公众假期，我们的中国和香港办事处将在以下日期关闭。

办事处办事处关闭恢复工作日期
中国办事处  2020年10月1-8日  2020年10月9日  
香港办事处2020年10月1-4日2020年10月5日

请注意，2020年9月27日星期日和2020年10月10日星期六在中国是工作日。在这两天内，有关中国商标事项的截止日期不能推迟。

如有紧急情况，请通过电子邮件发送至ip@oln-law.com，或通过短信发送至（852）60282100。谢谢。

Purchase of a property in France by Hong Kong resident: key elements to be taken into consideration

by

When it comes to buying a property in France for a French national residing abroad, some difficulties in carrying out the process may arise. These may in particular be related to the (1) the financing of this project and (2) its signature by means of a power of attorney.

1.    Legal opinion:

Getting a loan from a bank located in France can sometimes be more delicate if the borrower is not a French resident. Indeed, some banks can be quite cautious and reluctant as they will find it more difficult to check the borrower’s financial situation and background information.

It is noted that lending criteria can vary tremendously from one bank to another. Nevertheless, generally speaking, before lending money banks will carefully take into consideration the following elements with regards to the borrower:

•    The level of income and indebtedness;
•    The amount of the personal contribution;
•    The professional situation;
•    Place of residence; and
•    The guarantee.

In addition to these elements, in the context of an application for a loan made in some foreign countries such as Hong Kong or Dubai, some banks will require from the borrower to provide a “Legal Opinion” signed by a qualified lawyer in the country of residence of the borrower. 

This legal opinion confirming information regarding the situation of the borrower (personal status, capacity to enter into a loan agreement, no indebtment…) will be a condition precedent to making this loan to the borrower.

A template of Legal Opinion is generally provided by French banks.

One can expect that the local lawyer will only have to sign the template for minimal fee. However, the local lawyer drafting the legal opinion will be responsible for each statement contained in this document and it is therefore critical for him/her to check that they are all correct (knowing that most of the supporting documents will be in another language). His/her work will also consist in amending the template sent by banks and ensure it complies with the Hong Kong law requirements. Therefore, this kind of file is time consuming and one should expect a local lawyer to spend at least a few hours working on it.

In addition, even though the Legal Opinion is drafted and signed by a Hong Kong lawyer, it requires the assistance of lawyers qualified in French law for the verification and analysis of all the documents provided by the borrower as well as the explanation of the rules of French law.

Seeking the assistance of a firm which includes both local and French lawyers who are familiar with this type of document and transaction is essential. Endless back and forth exchanges with the banks and some potential misunderstandings on the content of the Legal Opinion may indeed delay the release of funds.

2.    Power of attorney:

In France, a Notaire is a public official responsible for receiving all the “actes” and contracts to which the parties wish to confer the seal of authenticity, to assure their date, to hold them in trust and to deliver authentic copies of them. The Notaire has the monopoly in matters relating to purchases, sales, exchanges, co-ownerships, land plots, leases, mortgages etc.

Given the international pandemic, many buyers find it difficult to travel to France to sign in person the deed of sale at the Notaire’s office. Therefore, they usually sign over a power of attorney and send it to the Notaire in charge of the transaction.

a.    Private form/public form

There are two types of powers of attorney for France: those in private form (“acte sous seing privé”) and those in public form (“acte authentique”). 

The difference lies in the fact that a power of attorney in private form is established directly between the parties whereas a power of attorney in public form is received before a French Notaire. 

The nature of the document needed generally depends on the transaction undertaken.

Authentic powers of attorney are those made for the regularization of solemn deeds as in the case of a donation. Also in the context of the purchase of a property off-plan, French law provides that the power of attorney must be in public form. 

Regardless of the form of the power of attorney and even though a power of attorney in private form is more straightforward as it requires less formalism, the drafting will require the assistance of a local lawyer/Notaire to ensure the validity of the document.

Besides, the signature of a power of attorney in private form will have to be certified by the French consulate or a Notaire who can attest that it is indeed the person who signed the document.

b.    The specific case of Off-plan purchase (“Vente en l’état futur d’achèvement”)

France is one of the most secure countries in the world when it comes to buying off-plan property (VEFA) as buyers’ interests and money are protected by a number of clauses along the way.

As stated above, a power of attorney in public form is required for this type of transaction which means the document may need to be authenticated and signed before a Notaire in order to be valid and enforceable under French law.

It used to be possible to sign such power of attorney before French consulate and diplomatic services officials as an alternative to a French Notaire. However, since 1 January 2019, French consulate or embassy do no longer provide such notarial services.

This major change complicates somewhat the process as it may turn out to be an impossible mission to find a French qualified Notaire allowed to practice overseas.

Based on our recent experiences, it appears that some Notaires in France may be reluctant in accepting a power of attorney in public form executed before a Hong Kong qualified public notary but the rule does not seem absolute. Some Notaires may accept a power of attorney executed in these conditions. In any event, individuals who are facing this situation have to make sure with their Notaire beforehand this solution is feasible before considering it. 

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.