OLN

OLN Marketing

A Review of In Vitro Fertilisation Regulations in Different Jurisdictions

by

(This article was published in the February 2025 Issue of the Hong Kong Lawyer)

In vitro fertilisation (“IVF”) has emerged as a cornerstone of assisted reproductive technology, offering hope to same sex couples, single people, couples facing infertility and/or mothers in high-risk pregnancies. With advancements in medical science, the procedure has become more accessible with increasingly higher success rates, yet the legal frameworks governing IVF vary significantly around the world. This article examines the legal landscape of IVF across a number of jurisdictions, highlighting key regulations, ethical considerations as well as societal implications.

The Rising Importance of IVF

The dawn of IVF began in 1978 with the birth of Louise Joy Brown, the world’s first “test-tube baby”. By 1982 when Brown’s sister was born, the latter was already the world’s 40th IVF baby. Since then, the procedure has evolved, becoming a common solution for men and women struggling to become parents due to various factors as diverse as age, medical conditions and/or lifestyle choices. Since 2001, the World Health Organization has recognised infertility as a significant global health issue affecting millions of people, estimating that worldwide, one of every six persons of reproductive age will experience fertility at some point in their lives; it emphasises the need for equitable access to reproductive technologies.

Jurisdictional Variations and Legal Considerations
Australia

Australia has established a comprehensive legal framework for IVF through the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 in New South Wales allows IVF for both medical and social reasons. Publicly supported and private IVF clinics may impose their own age limits on IVF patients. One of the stated objects of the legislation is to prevent the commercialisation of human reproduction – hence the sale of human embryos is not legal in Australia. If donated embryos are used in IVF, they must be donated as altruistic gifts, although the payment of reasonable expenses is allowed. Consent is also a critical component, requiring both partners to agree on the use of their gametes. In New South Wales, providers must seek the approval of the Secretary of the Ministry of Health if embryos over 15 years old are to be used.

Canada

In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (“AHRA”) regulates IVF practices, emphasizing patient safety and informed consent. The Act permits IVF for medical reasons, while social IVF is less clearly defined. Storage of embryos is limited to a maximum of 10 years and public healthcare coverage for IVF varies by province, with some offering partial public funding or tax credits for IVF treatments. In the province of Ontario, for example, the government provides treatment for one IVF cycle for one patient per lifetime, provided the patient is a resident of Ontario under 43 years of age. The AHRA prohibits the sale of ova, sperm and/or embryos and specifically states that altruistic donations are in line with Canadian values.

Germany

Germany maintains a conservative stance on IVF. The Embryo Protection Act dates back to 1990 and prohibits egg donation, surrogacy, the creation of embryos for non-medical reasons and limits the number of embryos that can be transferred in one cycle. A few states offer subsidies for IVF to same sex couples and unmarried couples, but the vast majority of states only provide assistance to heterosexual couples. The outdated legal framework reflects societal values that have apparently evolved. The current German coalition government set up an expert commission which in April 2024 recommended legalising and regulating egg donation and making surrogacy legal in limited circumstances.

Hong Kong SAR

Hong Kong’s Code of Practice on Reproductive Technology & Embryo Research was published by the Council of Human Reproductive Technology in 2002 and also reflects conservative values. Since same sex marriage is not yet legally recognised in Hong Kong, couples in same sex marriages and single women are not yet able to access post egg freezing services leading to live pregnancies. Only altruistic IVF is allowed in Hong Kong – commercial surrogacy is not legal. A few public hospitals provide public IVF services to couples where the wife is a Hong Kong permanent resident under the age of 40 years with no biological children. Unfortunately, the waiting period for the initial IVF appointment could be up to three years.

Japan

Japan has seen a rise in IVF popularity – in 2021, 1 in every 11.6 babies born was an IVF baby. Yet legal support for IVF remains limited. The Act on Regulation of Human Cloning Techniques governs IVF practices, only allowing the procedure under strict regulations. Embryo storage is permitted, but the law emphasizes that embryos should not be created for non-medical reasons. Due to the declining birth rate, IVF and other infertility treatments were added to national health insurance in 2022 but are only available to married couples. There are no legal provisions regulating surrogacy in Japan.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom offers a progressive legal environment for IVF pursuant to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which also established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. IVF is permitted for both medical and social reasons, with no age restrictions for women, although clinics may impose their own policies. Public funding for IVF is available depending upon where a patient lives but typically reserved for couples facing medical infertility. Altruistic surrogacy with paid expenses is legal in the UK, but surrogacy agreements are not enforceable.

United States

In the United States, IVF and surrogacy laws are primarily regulated at the state level, leading to significant variations and a complex landscape. While many states have adopted supportive legislation for IVF and commercial surrogacy, others impose restrictions based on ethical or religious beliefs. Insurance coverage for IVF also varies widely, with some states mandating coverage for infertility treatments. In February 2024, IVF treatments came to a standstill in Alabama when the state’s supreme court ruled that frozen embryos should enjoy the same rights as children. Fertility providers paused IVF treatments for fear of prosecution for “wrongful death” in the event any embryos were destroyed during treatment. It was not until certain protections were carved out for fertility providers that IVF treatments resumed.

Conclusion – Ethical and Societal Implications

The legal frameworks surrounding IVF vary considerably across jurisdictions, guided by significantly different cultural, ethical and societal values. Issues such as embryo rights, consent and access to reproductive technologies are at the forefront of public discourse and legislation. 

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.

Oldham, Li & Nie Excels Once Again in 2025 Chambers’ Greater China Region Guide

by

Oldham, Li & Nie (OLN) has been recognised in the 2025 edition of the Chambers’ Greater China Region Guide for its expertise in Corporate/M&A and Family/Matrimonial law.

The guide also highlights two of our lawyers as leading professionals in the region:

Client feedback includes:

  • “They gave us practical advice promptly and always gave us fee estimates in advance” 
  • “Both partner and associate have a thorough understanding of complex intertwined agreements and manage against these, providing invaluable knowledge to our business management”
  • “Oldham, Li & Nie are very commercial and take pride in working to tight deadlines and producing their work on time”
  • “Stephen is very hard-working and commercial”

The Chambers Greater China Region Guide conducts annual evaluations of law firms and lawyers across the Greater China Region, assessing factors such as technical legal skills, professionalism, client service, and business acumen.

For more details on OLN’s rankings, visit our profile in the 2025 Chambers Greater China Region Guide.

How Hong Kong’s Legal System Protects Your Creative Works on Online Sharing Platforms

by

Online sharing platforms (OSP), like YouTube and TikTok, have revolutionized the distribution of creative works. While these OSP provide unprecedented opportunities for exposure, they also present significant risks of copyright infringement. Notably, infringers have taken advantage of the borderless nature of the Internet, believing either that their actions are extraterritorial and beyond legal reach, or that copyright owners are unlikely to pursue legal action in the foreign jurisdictions where these infringers reside. Infringers who believe they can act with impunity have inflicted significant harm on copyright owners.

Where the infringement occurs on an OSP, a request may be made by the copyright owner for the removal of the infringing contents. Due to the unregistrable nature of copyright, the OSP may require copyright owners to initiate legal action as further proof of ownership. However, an OSP would usually not express on the specific jurisdiction in which such legal action should be filed.

Choosing the right jurisdiction

There are potentially three options a copyright owner may choose.

A common belief is that a copyright owner may only sue the infringer in accordance with the jurisdiction clause in the Terms and Conditions with the OSP. However, since there is no privity of contract between the owner and the infringer, the jurisdiction clause is likely to be irrelevant.

On the other hand, as copyright is territorial in nature, copyright owners are often advised to pursue legal action in the jurisdiction where the infringer is domiciled. This approach has the apparent advantage of making it difficult for the infringer to evade legal proceedings and enforcement. However, many copyright owners may hesitate to take this route due to their unfamiliarity with the specific foreign legal system, as well as the disconnect between the economic loss incurred and the forum chosen for the lawsuit. Additionally, infringers may intentionally exploit the subtle differences in copyright regimes.

Another option is to initiate legal action in the jurisdiction where the copyright owner is based or has a business presence. Traditionally, it was believed that actions taken abroad could not infringe upon local intellectual property rights, making this option seem unviable.  However, given the borderless nature of the Internet, it is increasingly accepted that the “targeting” of residents within a jurisdiction should be regarded as an act occurring within that jurisdiction. For instance, in the recent English case of Entertainment One UK Ltd & Anor v Sconnect Co Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3295 (Ch), the English Court acknowledged its jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute involving IP infringements on an OSP where the consumers in the UK were specifically targeted, even though the alleged infringer was based in Vietnam.

Once the option to sue in jurisdictions other than the infringer’s hometown becomes available, pursuing legal action in Hong Kong can be a strategic choice if the copyright owner is based in Hong Kong or if the economic value of their creative works is realized here.

Hong Kong’s advantages in safeguarding copyright

At the heart of Hong Kong’s copyright protection is the Copyright Ordinance, which extends to various forms of creative expression, including music, art, literature, and audiovisual content. This legislation grants creators exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their works. Under the Copyright Ordinance, no registration is required. Hong Kong also adopts an open system which does not require the claimant to be domiciled or incorporated in Hong Kong.

Where the infringer is domiciled in another jurisdiction, the Court needs to consider whether it should extend its authority to a body outside its jurisdiction. In such case, Order 11 Rule 1(1)(f) of the Rules of the High Court provides a suitable jurisdictional gateway. This rule permits a claim based on a tort to be served on the defendant outside of the jurisdiction if the damage was sustained or resulted from an act committed within Hong Kong.

As explained, “targeting” may now be considered an act within Hong Kong. If Hong Kong customers are targeted, this may also lead to a loss incurred in Hong Kong since the Hong Kong customers may now prefer the infringing content over the infringed content. While the law requires that such loss should be “significant”, there is no requirement for the copyright owner operating in multiple jurisdictions to demonstrate that Hong Kong is the sole or primary location of those losses.

Even if the above is satisfied, the Court still has a discretionary power to decline jurisdiction, especially when there is a more appropriate forum for the specific case. In Entertainment One UK Ltd, the English Court has taken into account the following in finally accepting jurisdiction:

  • The location where the copyright was created or implemented
  • The location where the loss is primarily incurred
  • The location of relevant witnesses

Depending on the objectives of the claimant, an OSP may sometimes only require the commencement of legal action as proof of ownership. In such case, a claimant in Hong Kong may opt to file a writ without further pursuing the matter by serving the writ on the defendant. If the writ remains unserved within one year from the date of its filing, it will automatically expire without any consequences to the claimant.

Conclusion

While navigating jurisdictional complexities can sometimes be daunting, copyright owners can strategically choose where to initiate legal action based on critical factors such as the locations of the owner and the infringer, the nature of their losses, and their imminent and long-term objectives.

In particular, when the infringing act or content in question is connected to Hong Kong, the evolving interpretation of “targeting” enhances the prospects for legal redress in the region. This shift allows copyright owners to leverage local legislation more effectively, ensuring their rights are protected against infringement in this increasingly borderless world.

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.

Strategies for Managing Parallel Imports and Protecting Distribution Rights in Hong Kong

by

In Hong Kong, the importation of parallel goods or unauthorized products across territory that compete with authorized distribution channels does not constitute trademark infringement.

However, an exception to the international exhaustion rule exists if the condition of parallel-imported goods has changed or been impaired after being put on the global market. In such cases, the reputation or distinctiveness of the trademark may be adversely affected (refer to Section 20(1) of the Hong Kong Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap. 559)). This exception can pose challenges, especially in exclusive distribution relationships.

Exclusive distributors often face difficulties in enforcing their rights against parallel importers unless the products are defective or deteriorated. Moreover, legal mechanisms such as the tort of passing off may not offer adequate protection to authorized distributors, particularly when misrepresentation is hard to prove for goods originating from the original owner or overseas authorized dealer.

To address these challenges, it is crucial to include specific provisions in distribution agreements:

  • Addressing Parallel Imports:
    Distribution agreements, especially those with exclusive distributors, should empower the distributor to enforce their rights within agreed territories.
  • Intellectual Property Rights:
    Clearly define rights related to intellectual property, including designs and artwork created by the distributor, to ensure that the distributor benefits exclusively from such creations.
  • Enforcement of IP Rights:
    Define and clarify the distributor’s right to enforce intellectual property rights in case of infringement and outline associated cost and compensation.

To further protect the distributor’s interests beyond contractual agreements, the following measures may be considered:

  • Differentiation:
    Label parallel import goods distinctly from authorized products, potentially by adding the distributor’s mark to enable customers to recognize the distributor’s trademark.
  • Quality Differentiation:
    Enhance the quality of authorized goods compared to parallel imports, such as tailoring products for local or Asian markets.
  • Trademark Infringement:
    Highlight that the use of a distributor’s registered trademark by a parallel importer constitutes trademark infringement.

Depending on the nature of the goods, particularly health supplements, customers may prioritize warranties and services offered with authorized versions.

Apart from the above, there are non-legal strategies to protect and promote distributed goods, such as:

  • Digital Marketing:
    Incorporate the distributor’s link on the owner’s website to direct customers to authorized channels.
  • Customer Communication:
    Warn customers on the distributor’s website about risks associated with unauthorized purchases.
  • Customer Engagement:
    Enhance relationships through loyalty programs and personalized marketing.
  • Marketing Initiatives:
    Conduct awareness campaigns to educate customers on the benefits of purchasing from authorized distributors.

While it may be challenging to entirely eliminate parallel imports, distributors can take action by sending cease-and-desist letters to parallel importers and emphasizing their exclusive distribution rights.

Ultimately, controlling parallel imports within the agreed territories is a contractual matter that requires collaboration between distributors and owners for effective resolution.

OLN can assist distributors and trademark owners in protecting their interests against parallel imports in Hong Kong. Please contact us for more information.

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.

香港 – 内地判决相互强制执行机制系列文章

by

「一国两制」的治理体系指导着香港特别行政区（“香港特区”）和中国内地（“内地”）多方面的关系往来。在不同的法律领域，两地判决相互认可及强制执行的案件数量不断增多，相互认可和强制执行机制也逐步完善。本系列文章将着眼于此类机制的最新发展展开讨论。

在系列的第一辑，我们首先讨论与从事跨境公司业务和商业交易的个人及公司最密切相关的问题；民事和商事判决的相互认可和强制执行。

在本系列的后续部分，我们将探讨仲裁、破产/清盘和婚姻诉讼中判决的跨境执行。

第一辑： 民商事判决相互强制执行

《内地民商事判决（相互强制执行）条例》（第645章）（“新条例”）于2024年1月29日正式生效，取代《内地判决（交互强制执行）条例》（第597章）（“旧条例”）已近9个月。而旧条例仍适用于2024年1月29日前作出的内地判决。本文首先介绍两条例之间的不同，然后深入探讨香港特区法院如何适用或在未来将如何适用新条例所提供的更为宽松的机制。

讨论基础

下表比较了旧条例中较为严格的规定以及新条例中更宽松的要求。

要求旧条例新条例
1. 做出内地判决的法院必须为在旧条例附表1中列出的指定法院，即：
– 最高人民法院
– 高级人民法院；
– 中级人民法院；
– 认可的基层人民法院		任意内地法院
2. 可以被承认的判决性质仅可以是金钱相关的判决– 金钱或非金钱相关的民商事案件判决；
– 宣告性救济；
– 执行令；
– 刑事案件中衍生的赔偿及损害赔偿令；
– 知识产权判决，

‧ 其中包括：涉及以下事项的诉讼中作出的判决 – 版权或有关权利；商标；地理标志；工业品外观设计；专利；集成电路的布局设计（拓扑图）；保护未披露信息的权利；任何人根据《中华人民共和国民法典》第123条或《植物品种保护条例》（第490章）就植物新品种享有的权利；

‧ 不包括：就关乎侵犯发明专利或实用新型专利的侵权纠纷提起的法律程序；寻求确定标准必要专利的许可费率的法律程序。
3. 其他被排除的判决（除知识产权相关判决 – 见上述第二点）– 无力偿债、债务重组和破产案件中的判决（关于认可和执行无力偿债和破产程序中的判决有单独的立法，将在本系列的稍后阶段讨论）；
– 某些仲裁事项的判决（涉及仲裁协议的有效性、撤销仲裁裁决以及承认/执行中国的仲裁裁决）（关于认可和执行仲裁裁决有单独的立法，将在本系列的其他部分进行讨论）；
– 反诉禁令；
– 临时救济（如中间禁令）；
– 婚姻案件中的判决（关于认可和执行中国婚姻案件中作出的判决有单独的立法，将在本系列的其他部分进行讨论）；
– 有关遗产管理或分配的判决；
– 某些海事案件的判决；某些行政案件的判决。		与旧条例相同
4. 判决的终局性– 由最高人民法院作出的判决；
– 由高级人民法院、中级人民法院或认可基层人民法院作出的一审判决，并且按照内地法律该判决不准上诉或上诉期满而没有上诉；
– 由最高人民法院、高级人民法院、中级人民法院作出的二审判决；
– 由指定法院在因下级法院所作判决而引致的再审中作出的判决;
– 由内地法院出具证明书，证明判决是终审判决并在内地可以执行的，被视为是最终判决的（除非有其他证据否定最终性）。		与旧条例相同。通常来讲，如果判决是由最高人民法院做出的，或者上诉期已过，且案件未再审，则被视为终审判决。
5.专属管辖条款（或选择内地法院管辖协议）当事人必须通过书面方式同意，因合同纠纷产生的争议必须由内地法院专属管辖。业务合同中的争议解决条款可以约定内地法院拥有非专属性的管辖权。
6. 内地法院的实际管辖权和可执行性内地法院必须具有审理案件的实际管辖权：
– 被告必须在受理诉讼的内地法院实际或派代表出庭;
– 侵害行为（如合同违约、实施侵权行为）的发生地必须在内地;
– 争议与内地之间存在实际联系。

判决也必须可在内地执行。		与旧条例相同
7. 撤销登记判决的理由违反程序公平和自然公正原则，例如被告没有获得合理的陈词机会，或者被告没有收到诉讼通知。

明显不符合香港特区的公共政策。 

以欺诈手段获得登记判决。

在香港特区开始诉讼程序后，中国法院就同一诉讼请求受理了案件。
香港特区法院已就当事人的同一诉讼请求作出判决，并且该判决已在香港特区获得承认／执行。		与旧条例相同
新条例的影响及香港特区法院如何解释其较宽松的规定

由于原告向香港特区法院提出的登记申请是单方面进行的，即无需通知被告，因此只有被告（通过申请）反对登记令的案件才会被公开。使法律前景更不明朗的另一个原因是，目前大多数公开的案件都是关于旧条例的，因为新制度只存在了不到一年的时间。

然而，近期根据旧条例判决的一些案件表明：旧条例中的某些限制很可能会继续对原告在新条例的规定下申请登记的造成障碍。

对有利于内地法院的争议解决条款提出质疑 – 内地判决的判案依据

高等法院（原讼法庭）在 信达澳亚基金管理有限公司 v 宜华生科技股份有限公司  [2024] HKCFI 1957 一案中的裁决（裁决日期：2024年7月30日）显示，香港特区法院在考虑是否存在有利于内地法院的管辖权条款时，虽然不得对内地法院判决的判案依据提出质疑，但会在某些特定情况下间接考虑「诉讼主张的依据/判案依据」。

在本案中，原告向被告公司购买公司债券，交易受一系列合同文件的约束：(a) 公开给公众投资的债券文件（募集说明书）; (b) 被告公司与受托人签订的债券受托管理协议；及(c) 债券持有人会议规则。除第一被告外，其余被告（第二至第五被告）均担任担保人。中国法院作出判决，要求所有担保人被告承担责任。

在对合同框架进行详细分析后，香港特区法院裁定，原告所依据的向中国法院提供司法管辖权的条款来自债券受托管理协议，但由于原告并非该协议的当事人，原告不应从该司法管辖权条款中获益。因此原告无权主张该司法管辖权条款项下的权利，而旧条例的主要要求之一未获满足。此外，香港特区对本案合同框架的解释是，受托人只有在获得债券持有人会议的授权后才能起诉原告。

此案提醒我们，在某些情况下，香港特区法院在评估是否符合认可判决要求时，会间接考虑案件的判案依据，作为评估是否符合「法律规定的表面要求」这一条件。

鉴于在本案诉讼中不存在排他性要求的争议，该判决为在新条例（不要求排他性管辖权，但要求有明确的管辖条款，指定内地法院为争议解决机构）下裁决的案件提供了先例。

何谓终局判决及如何处理中华人民共和国的执行令

在内地，原告通常会在收到支持损害赔偿的判决后申请执行令，与香港特区不同的是，执行令会涉及不同编号的案件。在某些情况下，原告会起诉借款人，获得只针对借款人的判决，然后同时对借款人和担保人提起强制执行诉讼，而担保人在最初的诉讼中从未成为被告。

申请人还需注意，在向香港特区法院申请登记对担保人的判决之前，针对借款人的强制执行程序应当已完全完成。

在湖州升华金融服务有限公司诉纯品生活科技股份有限公司 [2024]HKCFI1464一案（裁决日期：2024年6月13日）中，香港特区法院撤销了针对担保人的登记令，原因不仅在于判决中没有明确赔偿金额，还在于针对借款人的强制执行程序尚未完成，因此判决不能视为具有终局性。

在一些案件中，内地原告在执行程序中将被告的股东或子公司追加为一方当事人。根据香港特区的法律，这种行为被认为违反了公司面纱不能被揭开的原因，即股东是一个独立的法律实体，与所持有的公司截然不同。笔者怀疑中国法院在此情况下发出的强制执行令会否被视为旧条例或者新条例下的「判决」，因为在香港特区，强制执行令的其中一种形式是扣押令（Garnishee Order），而扣押令并不被视为判决，更不必说是旧条例要求的金钱判决。此外，以这种方式揭开公司面纱是否会被视为违反公共政策，从而使判决可能被撤销？

证明管辖权排他性的困难

尽管新制度并不要求在合同文件中约定内地法院具有专属管辖权来解决争议，但它确实要求使用明确的描述约定管辖权，即使该管辖权并非排他性的。在北京人济房地产开发集团有限公司诉朱敏 [2022] HKCFI 1027一案中，专家证人花费了大量时间和费用来解释以下条款：

「各合伙人履行本协议所发生的争议，应通过协商解决。合伙人不愿通过协商解决或者通过协商不能达成一致意见的，可依法向本合同签署地人民法院提起诉讼。」

最终，香港特区法院裁定，「可」字是允许性的，并不赋予排他性。此案提醒合同当事人，如果跨境执行判决的是一项重要考量，应当就合同中争议解决或司法管辖条款的措辞寻求专业法律意见。

由于跨境交易的数量不断增加，且各司法管辖区的法律制度大相径庭。因此，诉讼变得越来越复杂。无论是在合同签署阶段还是在出现争议时，如有疑问，请寻求法律专业人士的帮助。

如想与我们律师事务所细谈，请联系我们争议解决部门的合伙人，赵君宜律师（+852 9169 4356 / +852 2186 1885）。

免责声明：本文仅供参考。本文中的任何内容均不得诠释为香港法律建议或向任何人提供的任何与此相关的法律建议。对于任何人因本文所含的内容而造成的任何损失和/或损害，高李严律师行不承担任何责任。

What to do if there is issue regarding Testamentary Capacity?

by

BACKGROUND

In our last article, ENSURING TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY FOR AGED AND INFIRM TESTATORS, we have discussed the importance of ensuring testamentary capacity for aged and infirm testators in the will-making process. The next issue then becomes: if we consider that there is issue regarding testamentary capacity, what should we do?

WHAT TO DO IF THERE IS ISSUE REGARDING TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY?

If your solicitor has concerns or doubts about your testamentary capacity, it is always advisable to instruct a medical practitioner to assess testamentary capacity. Whilst it is not necessary for the doctor tasked to be a specialist doctor with experience in diagnosing or treating of mental disorder or mental handicap or to be an Approved Doctor under s. 2(2) of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136), nevertheless, engaging a mental health expert, especially a psychiatrist, is always preferred and advised.

Usually, the psychiatrist will consider:[1]

1. Understand

Whether you are able to understand the information relevant to decision concerned:

  • Nature and purpose of the will
  • Risks and benefits of executing the will
  • Risks of not signing the will
  • Alternative and their risks and benefits

2. Retain

Whether you are able to retain the information long enough to make an effective decision;

3. Believe

Whether you are able to believe the information and to apply information realistically to own situation;

4. Weigh

Whether you are able to weigh the information in the balance to arrive at a choice – i.e. making a decision based on all the relevant factors (risks, benefits, short term outcomes, and long-term outcomes)

5. Express

Whether you are able to express the choice, through verbal or non-verbal means

If the psychiatrist considers there is testamentary capacity on the testator’s part, it is advisable to adhere to the “Golden Rule”, i.e. to have the psychiatrist to serve as a witness to your will.

HOW CAN OLN ASSIST?

At OLN, we provide initial consultation service regarding wills drafting. Our solicitors are experienced in assessing if the testator has the requisite testamentary capacity. In case of any issue, OLN can arrange mental health specialist doctor to assist in conducting an assessment for client to ascertain his/her testamentary capacity. If you have any questions on the above, please contact our Partner Mr Jonathan Lam or our Associate Mr Dexter Yuen.

[1] Dr. Gabriel B K Hung, “Framework for clinical assessment of mental capacity in older adults” (The Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited, presentation material for HKMC Seminar dated 28th July 2013), available at https://www.hkmc.com.hk/files/page/82/2.%20Framework%20for%20clinical%
20assessment%20of%20mental%20capacity%20in%20older%20adults%20%20Dr.%20Gabriel%20Hung.pdf accessed at 3rd January 2025.


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.