OLN

Featured Home

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。

Eggs on Ice: The Legal Landscape of Oocyte Cryopreservation on Jurisdictions Around the World

by

(This article was published in the November 2024 Issue of the Hong Kong Lawyer)

Egg freezing has become more mainstream in the post-pandemic era. Weddings were postponed along with pregnancies during the pandemic years and this has been significant for millions of women in their prime childbearing years. A report in the US National Library of Medicine stated that females are born with a finite, lifetime supply of approximately 1-2 million oocytes (immature eggs); by the time a woman reaches the age of 51 (the average age for menopause), her eggs have decreased in both quality and quantity, with approximately one thousand eggs left. Freezing high quality eggs during the prime childbearing years for later use is now considered practical when one is not quite ready for pregnancy and childbirth.

Some US companies have offered egg freezing as an employee benefit for over a decade now. The Guardian reported as early as 2014 that Silicon Valley companies were covering egg freezing costs for their employees, in a push to attract and retain top female talent. A Yale University study published in 2018 on egg freezing found that 85 percent of the women were single, with many of them reporting not having suitable partners. There are a myriad of reasons why women may not be ready for pregnancy or childbirth, including career aspirations, family situations, financial considerations, personal circumstances and health conditions.

Egg freezing for reasons other than purely health conditions is known as egg freezing for generic ”social reasons”

Jurisdictional Variations and Legal Considerations

Not every jurisdiction allows oocyte cryopreservation (egg freezing) to be done for social reasons (i.e., non health conditions) without restrictions. Here is a review of the legal landscape in a number of jurisdictions:

Australia offers a liberal legal regime for egg freezing, allowing the procedure for social reasons. In fact it was the first country to produce a live birth from frozen eggs, in 1984. There are no specific age restrictions, but women are encouraged to freeze their eggs before the age of 35 to optimise success for later live birth(s). The storage limit depends upon state legislation and is generally 10 years in states like New South Wales and Victoria. The Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Section 31A) in Victoria allows its Patient Review Panel to extend the 10 year storage period for eggs and sperm if reasonable grounds are given or if the
panel considers there are exceptional circumstances. The Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 also provides for a storage period of 10 years in Western Australia, with extensions allowed for “special reasons”. Costs also vary by state, but some health insurance plans may provide coverage for a portion of the expenses.

In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act governs assisted human reproduction technologies, which encompasses egg freezing. Health Canada’s Guidance Document on the Safety of Sperm and Ova Regulations allows eggs to be stored for up to 10 years. There are no restrictions on age or marital status, although some clinics do not provide services
to non-Canadian citizens. Social egg freezing (termed elective egg freezing) is not covered by
governmental healthcare.

France only recently legalized social egg freezing for all women between the ages of 29 and 37 regardless of marital status or sexual orientation, via the French Public Health Code Article L2141. Although this liberalisation allowed women more autonomy over their reproductive choices, critics decry the reality of the situation since egg freezing is prohibited in the private sector and there could be a wait in the public health system of over two years just for the initial doctor’s appointment. This effectively denies women over the age of 35 the right to egg freezing and is despite the fact that Le Monde reported in 2022 that one in every four couples of childbearing age in France suffers from infertility issues

In the Hong Kong SAR, there are no age restrictions on egg freezing; however, a woman must be legally married to have the eggs fertilised using IVF pursuant to the Code of Practice on Reproductive Technology & Embryo Research. Since same sex marriage is not yet legally recognised in Hong Kong, women in same sex marriages and single women are unable to access post egg freezing services leading to live pregnancies. The Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance established the Council on Human Reproductive Technology, which
oversees the now outdated 2002 code of practice. Frozen eggs can be stored for up to 10 years, and since women are advised to freeze their eggs before the age of 35 due to declining egg quality, this storage limit tries to cap potential pregnancies at age 45. This legal framework illustrates the complex intersection between restrictive marriage laws and reproductive rights in Hong Kong.

Ireland’s Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024 was signed by its President on 2 July 2024. There are no restrictions on social egg freezing although it must be privately funded. Where medical treatments have affected fertility, public healthcare may cover egg freezing costs. Eggs may be stored for a maximum of 10 years, following which new consent must be obtained for any extension. The Assisted Human Reproduction Regulatory Authority has the authority to consider and determine applications for extensions of storage.

In 2023, Singapore’s Healthcare Services Act 2020 which governs assisted reproductive services liberalised egg freezing for social reasons pursuant to the Healthcare Services (Assisted Reproductive Service) Regulation 2023, but only for women from the ages of 21 to below 38 years. However, where egg freezing is not done for social reasons, a woman must be
legally married and her husband must consent to the procedure, again representing very conservative societal values. Social egg freezing is not covered under the country’s Medisave, the mandatory medical savings account that all working citizens and permanent residents contribute to, although other reproductive services may be covered.

Spain has had a progressive approach to reproductive technologies since 2006. Assisted Reproductive Technology Law 14/2006 allows egg freezing for social reasons without age restrictions and without time limits. The legal framework supports women’s rights to make
reproductive choices, making Spain one of Europe’s most popular destinations for egg freezing. However, social egg freezing is not covered for citizens under the government healthcare system and must be privately funded.

In the United Kingdom, women are able to freeze their eggs for social reasons. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 regulates the practice, and women can store their eggs for up to 10 years and renew consent for each successive period of 10 years up to a maximum of 55 years. While there are no specific age restrictions, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK advises that women under 38 years of age are generally able to freeze 7-14 eggs. However, access to public funding for egg freezing is reserved for those facing medical treatment that could affect fertility, with the criteria varying between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Social freezing must be privately funded and it is not subject to any price regulations.

Each state regulates egg freezing in the US. In New York state, liberal laws allow egg freezing for social reasons without age restrictions and regardless of marital status. Pursuant to the colloquial “IVF law”, Insurers are required by law to cover egg freezing if deemed medically
necessary (and three cycles of IVF following egg freezing)

Other Considerations

Cost may be a significant factor in the decision to freeze eggs. The entire process – from initial consultation to pre-treatment testing, ovarian stimulation, trigger injection, monitoring, oocyte retrieval, oocyte assessment to cryopreservation plus subsequent storage fees can often be costly. The financial burden can be considerable, and in many if not most jurisdictions, social egg freezing is not covered under public healthcare or reimbursable under private insurance plans. “Venue shopping” is becoming more and more popular in order to undergo the procedure in jurisdictions with lower costs, high safety standards and ultimately, high success rates in oocyte thawing.

Conclusion

The legal aspects of egg freezing vary significantly across jurisdictions, which should guide women’s decisions about when and where to undergo the procedure. It is crucial to understand these differences alongside other important factors such as costs, clinical success rates, available support systems and the accessibility of ongoing assisted reproductive technology services (e.g., in-vitro fertilisation, surrogacy) including the specific laws governing them. This comprehensive understanding is important for those considering egg
freezing as part of their reproductive plans.

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.

患者自主权的新纪元：《维持生命治疗的预作决定条例草案》赋予的新权利

by

2024年11月20日，香港立法会通过了《维持生命治疗的预作决定条例草案》，并于2024年11月24日刊宪。 《条例草案》将在经过18个月的缓冲期后，于2026年5月正式生效。这项条例引入了重大变革，使个人在可能因精神或身体状况无法自行作出医疗决定的情况下，能够事先决定其医疗治疗方式。

《条例草案》赋予个人订立预设医疗指示（Advance Medical Directives，简称AMD）的权利，使其能够预先作出具法律约束力的医疗决定。这包括在特定情况下拒绝接受如机械通气、心肺复苏术（CPR）或人工营养及水分补给等生命维持治疗。此外，患者亦有权选择「不作心肺复苏术指示」（Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation，简称DNACPR），让患者有权利拒绝心肺复苏。

本文解释《条例草案》引入的新权利，并概述个人如何采取步骤行使这些权利。

预设医疗指示（AMD）

预设医疗指示（Advance Medical Directive，简称AMD）是一份具法律约束力的文件，允许个人指示医护人员在特定情况下不提供生命维持治疗，例如当其处于末期病况、持续植物人状态或不可逆昏迷。

可以拒绝的生命维持治疗的类别：

  • 医疗机械通气
  • 心肺复苏术（CPR）
  • 人工营养及水分补给（如经导管喂食）

步骤 1：确认资格

  • 年满18岁或以上
  • 具备精神能力，能就生命维持治疗作出决定
  • 在订立AMD时，在医生和律师的判断下,不受外界或第三者的不当影响

步骤 2：选择拒绝的治疗

  • 决定要拒绝哪些生命维持治疗，例如：

– 机械通气

– 心肺复苏术（CPR）

– 人工营养及水分补给

步骤 3：填写法定表格

  • AMD必须以书面形式订立，并使用法定表格。表格需签署并由至少两名证人见证。
  • 一名证人必须是注册医生（Registered Medical Practitioner，简称RMP），以确认您具备精神能力并理解决定的后果。
  • 证人不得是您遗产的受益人。

步骤 4：数码存档

完成AMD后，数码副本将安全地存放于专用电子系统中（计划整合至由医务卫生局管理、目前正分阶段开发的电子健康记录平台 eHealth），确保医护人员在需要时能够查阅您的AMD。

步骤 5：撤销

如果您改变主意，可以通过以下方式撤销您的AMD，只要您仍具备精神能力：

  • 口头声明您的撤销意图
  • 提供书面声明
  • 销毁原始文件

「不作心肺复苏术」指示（DNACPR）

《条例草案》亦赋予个人权利，可订立「不作心肺复苏术指示」（Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation，简称DNACPR）。该指示明确要求医护人员在患者发生心肺停止时，不进行心肺复苏术（CPR）。

如果您希望选择DNACPR指示，可以通过以下方式开始程序：

选项 1：通过预设医疗指示（AMD）：如果您已订立AMD，您可以在其中包含拒绝CPR的指示，这相当于发出了DNACPR指示。

选项 2：医学判定：当医生判定CPR在您的情况下适当或无效时，医生可以基于医学建议发出DNACPR指示。

选项 3：明确要求：如果您希望主动提出DNACPR指示，必须通过填写法定表格以书面形式确认，并由医护人员记录，确保其与您的意愿和健康状况一致。

紧记： DNACPR指示需由两名注册医生（Registered Medical Practitioners，简称RMPs）确认，其中至少一名必须是专科医生。

《维持生命治疗的预作决定条例草案》标志着个人在医疗决策自主权方面的一次重大转变。通过允许患者订立预设医疗指示（AMD）和选择不作心肺复苏术指示（DNACPR），该条例赋予个人提前作出重要治疗决策的权利，确保即使在未来丧失表达能力的情况下，其意愿仍能得到尊重。

尽管该法案要到 2026 年 5 月才会生效，但个人应考虑在此过渡期间的选择。

如果您想知道关于这方面的保障，请联络我们的合伙人，赵君宜律师（+852 2186 1885 / +852 9169 4356）。

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。

Breaking the Hell’s Gate and the Importance of Funeral Arrangement Clauses

by

INTRODUCTION

The local blockbuster movie “the Last Dance” has become a cultural phenomenon in Hong Kong. The movie explores the traditional Taoist practice of “Breaking the Hell’s Gate” through a couple of connected stories and addresses the topic of deathcare in a thematic and touching manner, thereby sparking awareness and discussion about end-of-life planning.

This article aims to discuss how one can ensure one’s wishes regarding funeral arrangements be respected, i.e. the specific ceremonies to be performed, the location and type of the service, and burial or cremation.

PRACTICAL STEPS

  1. CONSULTING FUNERAL DIRECTOR OR RELIGIOUS LEADER
    If you have a particular preference regarding your funeral arrangement, you should first consult a funeral director or religious leader to ensure the eligibility and availability of your wishes. This can be particularly important if you desire a ceremony that reflects your faith, as different faiths and religious believes may have different requirements or formalities regarding holding a funeral arrangement in accordance with that religious practice and tradition.

    Further, regarding burial or cremation, it must be noted that with a growing and ageing population in Hong Kong, there is a greater demand for such facilities in Hong Kong[1]. It is advisable to consider the costs and availability of these facilities and plan ahead during your lifetime in securing them.

  2. COMMUNICATING YOUR WISH WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS
    Once you have made up your mind regarding your funeral arrangement, you should also communicate your wishes with your family members. This is to ensure that your family members understand your preferences. It also provides an opportunity for them to ask questions or to clarify with you in case of any ambiguity.

  3. CONSULTING A LAWYER AND DRAFTING FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS CLAUSE
    After you have been confirmed your preference regarding funeral arrangement and practice can be catered for, you should then consult a solicitor to draft a specific funeral arrangement clause in order to express your funeral wishes.  Clarity is key so that your executor of your Will can honour your wishes.

LIMITATION REGARDING ENFORCEABILITY OF WILL DISPOSITION

Even though you have already followed the above practical steps, you should note that there is a limitation under the law in Hong Kong, namely that there is no property in a dead body, and that a will disposition regarding disposal of a dead body cannot be legally enforced.

In Re Estate of Lu Han Lung [2010] 3 HKLRD 651, the principles surrounding property in dead body, enforceability of will disposition and funeral arrangement are laid down by the Court as follows:-

  1. There is no property in a corpse;
  2. A man cannot by will dispose of his dead body, and any direction by will or otherwise by the deceased on burial cannot be enforced;
  3. As a starting position, the executor named in a will or the known personal representative (if the deceased passed away without leaving a will) is entitled to the possession of the body and is responsible for its burial;
  4. The right of the surviving spouse or de facto spouse will also generally be preferred to the right of the children;
  5. However, such starting position can be displaced where there are special circumstances;
  6. A person with the privilege of choosing how to bury a body is expected to consult with other stakeholders, but is not legally bound to do so; and
  7. The person with the privilege of organizing the funeral and burial cannot exclude friends and relatives of the deceased from expressing their affection for the deceased in a reasonable and appropriate manner.

It is therefore important for the testator to appreciate and understand that even though he/she can include funeral arrangement clause, such clause is not legally enforceable. However, having funeral wishes documented can serve as guidance and help prevent family disputes.

HOW CAN OLN ASSIST?

At OLN, we provide initial consultation service regarding wills drafting. Our solicitors are experienced in drafting will clauses that could cater one’s wishes and instructions regarding funeral arrangement. If you have any questions on the above, please contact our partner Mr Jonathan Lam or our Associate Mr Dexter Yuen.

[1] “LCQ18: Supply of niches” (Press Releases, 4th May 2022), available at https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202205/04/P2022050400446.htm, accessed at 2nd 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.