OLN

Featured Home

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

by

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/

Oldham, Li & Nie Recognised by 2026 ITR World Tax

by

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.

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

by

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.

How to settle civil disputes: Is the Case as strong as initially assessed?

by

Something must have gone wrong before parties commence civil litigation, whether the problem arises from breach of contract, unpaid invoices, or differing interpretations of terms of the contract. As civil litigation is costly, time-consuming, unpredictable, and at times excruciating for the parties’ peace of mind, it is not uncommon for parties to compromise and settle the civil dispute midway in the litigation proceedings. 

After years of advising and settling civil disputes, this series hope to shed light on the dos and don’ts for parties when they enter into settlement negotiations, and when they eventually sign and execute the settlement agreement.

Halfway into the litigation, when more evidence has now been discovered and more financial resources have been put, it is not uncommon for parties to consider settling the case. However, what are the relevant factors in play in deciding whether settling is the right move?

One of the key factors is to re-assess the merits of the case: Is the case as strong as initially assessed? If not, an otherwise unattractive settlement amount may now become lucrative.


1. Limited information/material at the Pleading Stage

Before commencing a formal litigation, the information available to the party is rather limited, as the information and evidence available are usually confined to the ones in one’s own possession, custody or power.

Whilst it is possible to speculate the likely defence(s) or case theory to be advanced by the opponent(s)(s), such is meagre at best, as compared to what will eventually rely upon by the opponent(s) and what will surface in the later stages of the litigation. Without hearing the other side’s story and learning about the evidence in the opponent(s)’s possession, custody or power, it is possible for one to be overly optimistic about the merits of his case, and to neglect the possible risks.

2. Opponent(s)’s evidence made available at the Discovery Stage

Before the discovery stage, one cannot easily access to the documents or materials under your opponent(s)’ possession, custody or power, due to reasons of confidentiality and trade secrets.

However, at the discovery stage, parties are required to mutually disclose all the evidence at its possession, custody or power, which are relevant to the case. As such, many of the documents which are otherwise confidential would now become accessible and discoverable.

These newly available documents/materials disclosed by the opponent(s), e.g. internal business documents and internal protocol, may drastically affect the merits of one’s case and prospect of recovery, as many factual and legal assumptions may no longer hold true. For instance, whilst one may allege that the opponent(s) has failed to exercise due care in discharging its contractual or tortious duties, yet the internal protocol and internal correspondence disclosed by the opponent(s) may reveal that the opponent(s) had already duly complied with its internal protocol and exhausted all means that could have done in preventing the incident.

The litigant and its legal advisor(s) must therefore carefully re-assess the merits of one’s case in the light of the evidence newly disclosed.

3. Merits/views of expert evidence

At the later stage of the proceedings, it may be the case that it is necessary for the parties to seek expert evidence to resolve certain issues. For instance, expert evidence may be required to assess whether the litigant’s conduct amounts to breach of industry standard, or to opine on the value of the asset in dispute.

Expert evidence can significantly influence the outcome of a case by providing specialized knowledge that clarifies complex issues, bolsters credibility, or challenges opposing claims.

Its weight depends on the expert’s qualifications, the reliability of their methodology, and the relevance of their expert evidence to the issues in dispute. When compelling expert evidence is introduced, it may strengthen or undermine a litigant’s position.

The quality of expert evidence therefore mandates litigants to re-assess the merits of their respective cases.

4. Availability/unavailability of key witness at the Trial Stage

It is not uncommon to encounter scenarios where due to various circumstances (e.g. incapacity or death), much to the litigant’s surprise, the key witness(es) unexpectedly becomes unavailable to attend trial to give evidence in support and be cross-examined by the opponent(s).

If a pivotal witness is available, their account could strengthen a litigant’s position, while their absence may weaken the case by leaving gaps in the narrative or proof.

This shift in the evidentiary foundation can compel a litigant to re-assess the case’s merits, potentially prompting adjustments in strategy, such as pursuing settlement, or adjusting expectations for trial outcomes.

Litigation tools to remedy the position

In order to better assess the merits of the case, whether pre-action or during the litigation, it is vital to consider using various litigation tools to obtain more relevant information in order to assess one’s merits of the case. These tools serve to uncover critical evidence, clarify opposing claims, and streamline decision-making, reducing risks and costs. Litigation tools available to litigants include:-

  • Pre-Action Discovery (O.24, R.7A of the Rules of High Court (Cap. 4A) (“RHC”); O. 24, R.7A of the Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H) (“RDC”)): Enables one to obtain documents from potential parties before filing a claim, revealing key information to evaluate whether a case is worth pursuing, saving time and resources.
  • Further and Better Particulars (F&BP) (O.18, R.12 of RHC; O.18, R.12 of RDC): Compels opponent(s)s to clarify vague assertions and claims during litigation.
  • Requests for Supporting Documents (O.24, R.10 and O.24, R.11A of RHC; O.24, R.10 and O.24, R.11A of RDC): Compels opponent(s)s to produce documents referred to in its pleadings, affidavits or witness statements.
Conclusion

Deciding whether to settle, and if so, at what amount, is a complicated judgment, which requires sophisticated legal advice derived from years in Courtroom, comprehensive legal research, and client-handling experience. One key exercise that litigants and their legal advisors must undergo is the continuous re-assessment of the merits of the case as the litigation progresses through the various litigation stages.

In particular, the factors of the newly available opponent(s)’s evidence, merits/views of expert evidence, and availability/unavailability of key witness all come into play in deciding whether to proceed with the litigation or to pursue settlement.

Further, by using litigation tools to uncover evidence or clarify claims, litigants are equipped with more information to assess the merits of one’s claims in order make an informed decision.

Should you have any enquiries regarding civil litigation and commercial agreements, please contact our firm.

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.

APAC Perspectives on Data Privacy Laws: A Globalaw Roundtable Discussion Recap

by

On 25 April 2025, at the Globalaw Asia Pacific Regional Meeting in Osaka, Japan, our Partner and Head of Tax and Private Client, Anna Chan, joined Uday Singh Ahlawat of Ahlawat & Associates (India), Han Sung Kang of DLG Law Corporation (South Korea), Ariel Hung of Stellex Law Firm (Taiwan) and Yusaku Akasaki of Chuo Sogo LPC (Japan) for an insightful roundtable discussion on the evolving landscape of data privacy laws across key APAC jurisdictions.

Globalaw Asia Pacific Roundtable on Data Protection
Globalaw Asia Pacific Roundtable on Data Protection

The recent decade has seen an increase of phishing attacks and data breaches. With the introduction of the new cybersecurity law in Hong Kong which will come into effect next year, there is heightened concerns over data security and rights of data subjects. The roundtable discussion therefore offered a timely forum to visit topics such as obtaining consent from data subjects, protecting the rights of data subjects and data breaches reporting practices, as well as on recent legislative developments in in Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. This article summarises each of the participants’ inputs in the roundtable discussion, each speaking from their respective jurisdictions, on these topics.

Obtaining consent from data subjects
  • In Hong Kong, a data user must expressly inform the data subject the purpose for which the data is to be used on or before collection of the data. Provision of personal data pursuant to such information by the data subject shall be deemed sufficient consent which is implied. However, new consent from the data subject is required if such personal data shall be used for a new purpose. So far as cross-border transfer is concerned, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (“PDPO”) provides, among others, that data subject should also consent in writing specifically but this requirement has not come into effect yet.
  • In India, when seeking consent from data principals, it is crucial to sufficiently disclose that their personal information will be transferred to another entity. The details of such third-party entity (to which the data will be transferred) as well as the purpose of such transfer also needs to be disclosed. In the case of cross-border transfer of personal information, the manner of seeking consent from data principals remains the same.
  • In Japan, business operators must clearly outline the purpose of data collection and obtain specific consent for the cross-border transfer of personal information with certain exceptions.
  • In South Korea, informed and voluntary consent is essential for collecting and using personal data, unless a legal exception applies. Also, consent for collection, third-party provision, and cross-border transfers must be clearly distinguished and obtained separately.
  • In Taiwan, organizations must expressly inform data subjects when collecting personal data, detailing the collection purposes, data types, usage scope (duration, geography, territory, and methods), data subject rights, and consequences of non-disclosure, unless exempt by law. When collection involves planning for cross-border transfers, intended overseas jurisdictions should also be specified.

Is there a “right to be forgotten”?
  • In Hong Kong, while there is no express “right to be forgotten”, under the PDPO, data users must ensure personal data is retained only as long as necessary, and generally must take practicable steps to erase the personal data held by them where it is no longer required unless the statutory exemptions apply.
  • In India, there is no clear statutory provision for the “right to be forgotten” but the Indian courts have recognized the “right to be forgotten” in some judicial pronouncements. The Indian judiciary has also attempted to clarify the distinction between “right to be forgotten” and the “right to erasure” in their judicial pronouncements. Further, the forthcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act (“DPDPA”) will provide for a statutory “right to erasure” (unless the statutory exemptions apply).
  • In Japan, while there is no express “right to be forgotten”, the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (“APPI”) recognises the right of data subjects to correct, add, or delete their personal data only on the ground that the retained personal data is contrary to the fact.
  • In South Korea, data subjects have the rights to access, correct, delete, and suspend the processing of their data, as well as to withdraw consent. While there is no express “right to be forgotten”, it is being increasingly recognised in practice as a separate right from the general deletion right. In common practice, business operators in South Korea often establish a defined retention period and periodically re-request consent.
  • In Taiwan, while there is no explicit “right to be forgotten”, similar protections exist under the Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”) through various data subject rights, including rights to access, correct, delete data and demand cessation of data processing and use. In practice, certain Taiwan courts have interpreted constitutional principles of informational self-determination and privacy to support this right, balancing individual rights against public interest when assessing removal requests, thus adapting to emerging digital privacy challenges.

Data breaches reporting practices
  • In Hong Kong, business operators are encouraged to voluntarily report data breaches in accordance with the best practices published by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data. For now, there are no specific criminal penalties for data breaches while civil liabilities may arise from breaches of contract, confidentiality, and negligence. That said, the newly enacted Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, expecting to take effect on 1 January 2026, will require the operators of crucial infrastructures in Hong Kong in the eight industries including energy, information technology, banking and financial services, transportation, telecommunications and broadcasting services and healthcare services to, among others, implement security plans and protocols, and report on security incidents. Failure to comply will result in fines ranging from HK$500,000 to HK$5 million.
  • In India, the forthcoming DPDPA prescribes that data breaches shall be reported to both the Data Protection Board of India and the data principal without delay. Failure on the part of data fiduciaries in providing such a notice could result in severe criminal penalties (as prescribed under the DPDPA).
  • In Japan, in the event of serious data security breaches, business operators are required to notify both the Personal Information Protection Commission (“JPIPC”) and data subjects. The APPI imposes criminal penalties for various improper handling of personal data as well as failure to comply with the JPIPC rectification requests and orders.
  • In South Korea, in the event of any leak involving sensitive personal data, business operators should notify the Korean Personal Information Protection Commission and data subjects within 24 hours of identifying such leak. Criminal penalties are imposed for intentional or severe negligence (e.g. illegal data sales or leaks), alongside with administrative fines, corrective orders, potential suspension of processing and public disclosure.
  • In Taiwan, the PDPA currently mandates that organisations are required to notify affected individuals of data breaches only after the relevant facts have been clarified. Criminal penalties apply for intentional misconduct, with a tiered system of administrative fines for other non-compliance. Notably, proposed amendments to the PDPA announced in March 2025 include heightened reporting requirements, and business operators should monitor these upcoming developments closely.

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.

Recent updates on IP practices in Hong Kong

by

1. IPD new forms

The Intellectual Property Department (“IPD”) of Hong Kong has announced that a new set of Trade Marks Forms, Patents Forms and Designs Forms (“the new forms”) will be effective from 16 May 2025.

A key feature of all the new forms is the inclusion of a declaration requiring agents to confirm their local physical presence and residency or their engagement in business activities at the specified address in Hong Kong.

Additionally, the forms include a warning that providing false information or declarations constitutes an offence. The primary purpose of this requirement is to mitigate the risk of missed communications or deadlines if an agent lacks a physical presence in Hong Kong.

Therefore, IP owners should ensure they engage an agent with an actual physical presence in Hong Kong, rather than one that merely maintains a mailing address without conducting business activities.

Another notable feature of some of the new forms—specifically T8, T10, T11, P9, P10, P19, D5, and D11 – is the addition of data fields to capture the type and place of incorporation of IP owners, grantees, licensees/sub-licensees, mortgagees, and other relevant parties. This enhancement is designed to facilitate due diligence processes in relation to IP transactions.

IPD has provided the draft versions of the new forms for information purpose, see https://www.ipd.gov.hk/en/home/whats-new/index_id_628.html.

2. Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Trade Marks

IPD has revised the Chapter on “Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Trade Marks” with the aim to elaborating the Registry’s examination practice primarily focus on Sections 11(4)(a), 11(4)(b) and Section 11(5)(a) of Trade Marks Ordinance, summarize as follows:

Section 11(4)(a) –

marks contrary to accepted principles of morality, if the marks are: –

  • Offensive or vulgar
  • Threatening national security
  • Containing offensive or hateful content
  • Imitating official symbols
  • Containing references to tragedies or disturbing events

Section 11(4)(b) –

marks that are likely to deceive, if they: –

  • contain words “made/made in/imported from” or “exported from” a geographical place but in fact the goods are imported/exported from or made elsewhere; or
  • suggested official approval but without any actual endorsement.

Section 11(5)(a) –

use prohibited in Hong Kong by virtue of any law, if:

  • the use of the trade mark constitutes an offence under the PRC Law on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR and/or the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

Our firm could assist clients to assess the chance of refusal of the intended trade mark on the above grounds as well as other grounds before filing to avoid potential refusal of the marks.

3. Shortening the time of issuing hearing notice

Previously, IPD often took a year or more to schedule a hearing after the close of pleadings. However, in recent trends, IPD has significantly reduced the time required to issue a hearing notice, often scheduling hearings in less than a year. In some cases, hearing notices are issued within just one or two months.

This improvement is beneficial, as it allows parties involved in proceedings to anticipate a faster resolution of their cases, ensuring a more efficient legal process.

How We Can Help

As a Hong Kong law firm, we can serve as the client’s authorized agent in handling the registration of their IP rights, including the preparation and submission of the necessary IP forms to the IPD.  Additionally, we provide expert assistance in assessing the risk of trade mark refusal based on various legal grounds. By conducting this evaluation before filing, we help minimize the likelihood of rejection and ensure full compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

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.