• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
location icon香港中環雪厰街二號聖佐治大廈五樓503室phone-icon +852 2868 0696 linkedintwitterfacebook
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 繁
    • ENG
    • 简
    • FR
    • 日本語
Oldham, Li & Nie
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 關於
        • 獎項與排名
        • 企業社會責任
  • 專業服務
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 破產法
        • 爭議解決
        • 投資基金
        • 公證服務
        • 長者法律服務
        • 家事法
        • 保險
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 人身傷害法
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 知識產權法
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 日本事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 法國事務
        • 合規、調查和執法
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 家事法
        • 知識產權法
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 保險
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 破產法
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 爭議解決
        • 人身傷害法
        • 日本事務
        • 投資基金
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 公證服務
        • 法國事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 長者法律服務
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 合規、調查和執法
  • 律師團隊
  • 最新消息
  • 辦事處

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

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

OLN

  • Block Content Examples
  • Client Information & Registration
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy (EU)
  • Globalaw
  • OLN Podcasts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Review
  • Test Blog
  • 加入我們
  • 專業服務
  • 律師團隊
  • 我們的歷史
    • 獎項與排名
    • 高李嚴律師行的企業社會責任
  • 所獲獎項
  • 標準服務條款
  • 聯繫我們
  • 評價
  • 評語
  • 辦事處
  • 關於我們
  • 高李嚴律師行
  • 高李嚴律師行和社區
  • 關於
        • 獎項與排名
        • 企業社會責任
  • 專業服務
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 破產法
        • 爭議解決
        • 投資基金
        • 公證服務
        • 長者法律服務
        • 家事法
        • 保險
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 人身傷害法
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 知識產權法
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 日本事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 法國事務
        • 合規、調查和執法
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 家事法
        • 知識產權法
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 保險
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 破產法
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 爭議解決
        • 人身傷害法
        • 日本事務
        • 投資基金
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 公證服務
        • 法國事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 長者法律服務
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 合規、調查和執法
  • 律師團隊
  • 最新消息
  • 辦事處
Chambers & Partners 2023

OLN Recognised Again as a Leading Firm by Chambers and Partners

OLN Marketing

OLN Recognised Again as a Leading Firm by Chambers and Partners

January 16, 2023 by OLN Marketing

We are pleased to announce that Oldham, Li & Nie has been recognised once again as a Leading Firm by Chambers & Partners in its newly released Greater China Region Guide 2023.

Chambers & Partners is the world’s leading provider of legal research and analysis. Its second edition of Greater China Region Guide brings together extensive, independent in-depth market analysis, and rankings of the leading law firms and professionals across all four jurisdictions of the Greater China Region. It features five exclusive sections: China (International Firms), Hong Kong Bar, China (PRC Firms), Macau SAR and Taiwan Jurisdiction. 

Our departments were recommended as follows:

  • Corporate/M&A: Independent Hong Kong Firms – Band 3
  • Family/Matrimonial (International Firms) – Band 4

Our four lawyers received individual rankings:

  • Gordon Oldham, Corporate/M&A – Senior Statespeople
  • Tracy Yip, Corporate/M&A – Band 3
  • Stephen Peaker, Family/Matrimonial – Band 3
  • Richard Healy, Dispute Resolution – Band 5
Chambers Greater China Region 2023 Badge - Ranked Firm Oldham, Li & Nie

Filed Under: Oln, 最新消息

Oldham, Li & Nie contributed to the Lexology Getting The Deal Through (GTDT) series – Public M&A Hong Kong

December 5, 2022 by OLN Marketing

The Lexology GTDT – Public M&A guide has been published. Our Partner Simon Wong prepared the Hong Kong chapter for the guide.

This reference guide enabling side-by-side comparison of local insights into public M&A issues worldwide, including types of business combination; principal laws and regulations; cross-border and sector-specific considerations; governing laws; filing and disclosure requirements; duties of directors and controlling shareholders; shareholder approval and appraisal rights; hostile transactions; break-up fees and frustration of additional bidders; government influence; conditional offers; financing; minority squeeze-outs; waiting and notification periods; tax; labour and employee benefits; restructuring, bankruptcy or receivership; anti-bribery, anti-corruption and sanctions issues; and recent trends.

Read and download the whole chapter below.

Download the Lexology Getting the Deal Through (GTDT) Public M&A Hong Kong Chapter

Filed Under: 公司和商業法, 最新消息 Tagged With: Corporate law, Public M&A

The Future Of Travel From A Family Law Perspective

November 14, 2022 by OLN Marketing

(This article was published in the November 2022 Issue of “Britain in Hong Kong – The Future of Travel” magazine)

In Hong Kong, the quarantine rules have drastically eased after almost 3 years of tight restrictions.  In particular, the Hong Kong Government recently removed the hotel quarantine restriction.

With the ease of travel restrictions in Hong Kong, what is the future of travel from a family law perspective and the things you should consider ahead of your holidays? 

Whilst it may be desirable to book flights and pack your bags for a spontaneous trip, it is more complicated when you are divorced or are divorcing and have children to consider.  Prior to leaving Hong Kong with the children, an agreement must be reached with the co-parent. If an agreement is not reached, the parent who wishes to remove the children from the jurisdiction of Hong Kong for the holidays must apply to the Family Court for an order allowing him/her to remove the children from Hong Kong.  Given the delays with the Family Court, it is a good idea to apply as early as possible as it may take two (2) to three (3) months before it will  be decided by the Family Court.

For example, if you are planning a holiday with the children next summer and you are currently in dispute with your spouse about these holidays, you should meet with your solicitor as soon as possible and apply to the Family Court preferably no later than January 2023 to avoid pressure with respect to air tickets and hotel bookings.

The Family Court orders have a deadline for the return of children to Hong Kong.  However, it is preferable to have flexible dates built into the Family Court order so that if there is a delay caused by a flight cancellation or you or your family member has a sudden onset of Covid-19 whilst traveling, provisions will be made in the Family Court order so that the extraneous events which you have no control over, do not cause you to be in breach of the Family Court order and does not result in further court applications being made.   

Ahead of travel, another document you may want to consider is a Deed of Parenting. A Deed of Parenting is a legal document that simply states that you and your spouse are the legal parents of the children.  On a practical level, you can take with you the original birth certificates of the children (instead of a Deed of Parenting) or preferably have your solicitor sign a certified true copy of the birth certificate so you do not have to take the original documents with you whilst traveling.  Whilst a Deed of Parenting is not needed in a “traditional” family, these days families are often made up of same-sex couples where the birth certificates will not assist.  In these circumstances, a Deed of Parenting will be helpful.  A Deed of Parenting can clearly state the legal parents of your children without any question or issue.

This may be important during these travel times when customs and immigration officers are burdened with ever-changing rules for individuals coming in and out of their country. 

Another legal document parents may wish to consider is a Deed of Guardianship.  A Deed of Guardianship sets out guidelines for the caring and well-being of minor children in the event of both parents passing away or temporary unavailability due to unforeseen circumstances such as unexpected quarantine during Covid-19 times, especially if you test positive upon arrival in Hong Kong and are required to quarantine at a designated hotel or quarantine facility.

A Deed of Guardianship is a legal document signed by both parents and two witnesses and sets out specific guidelines regarding the care of your minor children.  A Deed of Guardianship will set out the minor children’s primary caretakers and can also identify temporary guardians until such time the minor children can be in the care of their parents or permanent guardians.

Deed of Guardianships may be especially important to expatriates living in Hong Kong, especially when family members are not in the same jurisdiction.  For many expatriates, having a Deed of Guardianship can provide parents with the peace of mind about the care of their children in emergency situations.

It is important to speak with a solicitor who can assist in the preparation of travel with your children.  Oldham, Li & Nie (“OLN”) has a full-service matrimonial team well-versed on such topics and can provide comprehensive advice. Having the appropriate documents prior to travel is imperative in this post-Covid world and can provide you with peace of mind!


Filed Under: Oln, 家事法, 最新消息

Hong Kong’s proposed refinements on foreign source income exemption (“FSIE”) regime for passive income – Part 1

September 30, 2022 by OLN Marketing

In response to its inclusion on the “watchlist” for non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes by the European Union (“EU”), the Hong Kong government launched a consultation on the proposed refinements to Hong Kong’s FSIE regime for passive income, mapping out significant changes to address the EU’s concerns such that Hong Kong would not be “blacklisted” by the EU for tax purposes.

The amendment bill in relation to the proposed refinements will be introduced into the Legislative Council in October 2022. The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau aim to secure the passing of the amendment bill by the end of 2022 and bring the refined FSIE regime into force from 1 January 2023. The Inland Revenue Department will issue administrative guidance on requirements for exemptions and tax credits (please see part 2 below).

1. What is taxable and who is the taxpayer?
Covered income

Under the FSIE, offshore passive income is deemed to be sourced from Hong Kong and chargeable to profits tax if it is:

  1. interest, dividends, disposal gains or intellectual properties (“IP”) income (collectively, “In-scope Offshore Passive Income”);
  2. received in Hong Kong;
  3. by a constituent entity of an MNE group (a “Covered Taxpayer”); and
  4. the Covered Taxpayer fails to meet the relevant economic substance requirement or nexus approach requirements.

Covered taxpayer

The proposed refinements will only apply to multinational enterprise groups (“MNE”) which is defined under the Global Anti-Base Erosion (“GloBE”) Rules promulgated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as “any group that includes at least one entity or permanent establishment that is not located in the jurisdiction of the ultimate parent entity”.

Hence, the proposed refinements are not applicable to: (1) stand-alone local companies, (2) purely local group companies or (3) individuals.

2. Exemptions and tax credit

According to the consultation paper, by meeting the relevant economic substance requirements or nexus approach requirements, or qualifying under the participation exemption, an In-scope Offshore Passive Income could still be exempt from profits tax.

Step 1 and 2: economic substance / nexus approach & participation exemption

Interest Dividends Disposal gains IP income

Step 1 

Can the covered income fulfill these requirements?

1a. If yes, the income would not be deemed taxable.

1b. If no:

For interest and IP income, check if the income is qualified for foreign tax credit or unilateral tax credit (see Step 3 below).

For dividends and disposal gains, check if the income is qualified for participation exemption (see Step 2 below).

Economic substance requirements

  • The Covered Taxpayer has to conduct substantial economic activities (“Relevant Activities”) with respect to the relevant passive income in Hong Kong:
  • for a non-pure equity holding company, the Relevant Activities will include (i) making necessary strategic decision, and (ii) managing and assuming principal risks in respect of any assets it acquires, holds or disposes of.
  • for a pure equity holding company (i.e. a company which, as its primary function, acquires and holds shares or equitable interests in companies and only earns dividends and disposal gains in relation to shares or equity interest), a reduced substantial activities test applies and the Relevant Activities will only include (i) holding and managing its equity participation, and (ii) complying with the corporate law filing requirements in Hong Kong.
  • It is possible for the Covered Taxpayer to outsource the Relevant Activities if it is able to demonstrate (i) adequate monitoring of the outsourced activities, and (ii) that the Relevant Activities are conducted in Hong Kong.

How is “substance” being measured?

  • Non-pure equity holding companies have to meet the adequacy test in terms of:
  • (i) employing an adequate number of qualified employees; and
  • (ii) incurring an adequate amount of operating expenditures in Hong Kong in relation to the Relevant Activities.
  • The Inland Revenue Department (“IRD”) will consider whether a taxpayer has met the adequacy test after taking into account a list of factors, including:
  • (i) nature of business;
  • (ii) scale of operation;
  • (iii) profitability;
  • (iv) details of employees employed;
  • (v) the amount and types of operating expenditures incurred, etc.
  • As the adequacy test will be determined based on a totality of facts, there will be no minimum objective threshold in terms of number of employees or operating expenditure.
  • Pure equity holding companies have to meet the reduced substantial activities test, which may be satisfied by:
  • (i) having a director who is a Hong Kong tax resident;
  • (ii) holding annual board meetings;
  • (iii) fulfilling annual filing requirements under the Companies Ordinance, etc.
  • subject to further guidance from the IRD and the draft legislation.

Nexus approach requirements

  • Income from a qualifying IP asset can qualify for preferential tax treatment based on a nexus ratio
  • Nexus ratio = Qualifying expenditures incurred by the taxpayer to develop the IP asset / Overall expenditures incurred by the taxpayer to develop the IP asset
  • This proportion of research and development (“R&D”) expenditures is a proxy for substantial economic activities.

Qualifying IP asset

  • Only covers (i) patents and (ii) other IP assets which are functionally equivalent to patents if those IP assets are both legally protected and subject to similar approval and registration processes (e.g. copyrighted software)
  • Marketing-related IP assets (e.g. trademark and copyright) are excluded from the preferential tax treatment

Qualifying expenditures

  • Only include R&D expenditures that are directly connected to the IP asset
  • Acquisition costs of the IP asset are excluded
  • Only cover expenditures on R&D activities (i) undertaken by the taxpayer within the jurisdiction providing the IP regime (“IP Regime Jurisdiction”); (ii) outsourced to unrelated parties to take place inside or outside the IP Regime Jurisdiction; and (iii) outsourced to resident related parties to take place within the IP regime jurisdiction

Taxpayers may be permitted to apply a 30% uplift on the qualifying expenditures, subject to a cap equal to the overall expenditures incurred by the taxpayer

Step 2

For dividends and disposal gains that are already deemed taxable, can the participation exemption requirements be fulfilled?

2a. If yes, the income can be exempt.

2b. If no, check if the income is qualified for foreign tax credit or unilateral tax credit (see Step 3 below).

N/A

Participation exemption

  • The income concerned will continue to be tax-exempt if:
  • (i) the investor company is a Hong Kong resident person (i.e. a company incorporated in Hong Kong, or if incorporated outside Hong Kong, normally managed or controlled in Hong Kong) or a non-Hong Kong resident person that has a permanent establishment in Hong Kong;
  • (ii) the investor company holds at least 5% of the shares or equity interest in the investee company; and
  • (iii) no more than 50% of the income derived by the investee company is passive income.
  • In terms of the requirement of “Hong Kong resident person”, it may not be necessary for companies to apply for a Hong Kong Tax Resident Certificate. The company should be able to fulfill this requirement by demonstrating control of the company in Hong Kong, having a majority of directors who are Hong Kong residents, conducting business activities in Hong Kong, having meetings in Hong Kong etc.

Anti-abuse rules

  • (i) Switch-over rule
  • If the income concerned or the profits of the investee company is or are subject to tax in a foreign jurisdiction the headline tax rate of which is below 15%, the tax relief available to the investor company will switch over from participation exemption to foreign tax credit.
  • (ii) Main purpose rule
  • If there is any arrangement or series of arrangements undertaken by the investor company with a main purpose (or one of the main purposes) of obtaining a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the exemption, the participation exemption will not be available.
  • (iii) Anti-hybrid mismatch rule
  • Where the income concerned is dividends, the participation exemption will not apply to the extent that the dividend payment is deductible by the investee company.
N/A

Step 3: double taxation relief – unilateral tax credit

For taxpayers who would suffer double taxation if they fail to get exemption under the refined FSIE regime, it is proposed that a unilateral tax credit will be provided to these taxpayers who paid tax in a jurisdiction which has not entered into a comprehensive avoidance of double taxation agreement with Hong Kong (“Non-CDTA Jurisdiction”).

The proposed unilateral tax credit will only be provided in respect of the In-scope Offshore Passive Income which is taxable under the refined FSIE regime. No such tax credit will be available for:

  • In-scope Offshore Passive Income which is exempt from profits tax under the refined FSIE regime;
  • Tax paid in a Non-CDTA Jurisdiction which relates to income other than the In-scope Offshore Passive Income; or
  • Tax paid in a jurisdiction that has a tax treaty with Hong Kong (in such case tax credit would be made available under the tax treaty).
3. Conclusion

The change in Hong Kong’s FSIE regime is happening soon (possibly on 1 January 2023 as aforementioned) for Hong Kong to keep up with the latest international tax standards. While we await the introduction of the amendment bill, it is advisable for businesses to keep an eye on the latest developments, review the corporate structure with reference to the information currently available and consult a tax adviser if in doubt.

If you have any question regarding the topic discussed above, please contact our partner Victor Ng at victor.ng@oln-law.com for further assistance.

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

Filed Under: Oln, 最新消息, 稅務諮詢部

OLN獲新發佈的《亞洲法律概況2022/23年度排名》高度推薦

September 16, 2022 by OLN Marketing

我們很高興地宣布,高李嚴律師行再次獲得《亞洲法律》的高度推薦。

《亞洲法律概況2022/23》認可本行在以下業務領域的專業知識:

  • 爭議解決 – 高度推薦
  • 企業併購 – 推薦
  • 知識產權 – 推薦
  • 勞工及僱傭 – 推薦
  • 私人客戶 – 推薦
  • 重組與破產 – 值得關注

高李嚴律師行還於以下行業被推薦:

  • 保險 – 推薦
  • 消費品及服務 – 值得關注
  • 科技及通訊 – 值得關注

《亞洲法律》亦認可本行的合夥人在各自的業務領域中獲得排名:

  • 高國峻 被公認為爭議解決方面的業界資深律師
  • 李卓賢 被公認為爭議解決方面的卓越律師
  • 葉琳寶 被公認為公司企業和商業法方面的卓越律師
  • 宋靜妍 被公認為知識產權方面的卓越律師
asialaw Profiles 2023

關於《亞洲法律》

《亞洲法律概況》是唯一一份全面分析亞洲地區和國內律師事務所以及該地區頂尖律師的法律名錄。

概況於每年 9 月在線上發佈,而今年的排名為23 個司法管轄區(從孟加拉到越南)以及 28 個行業和業務領域提供律師事務所和律師推薦。

Filed Under: Oln, 最新消息

仲裁員的披露責任:模糊不清的法律救濟

August 18, 2022 by OLN Marketing

(本文於《香港律師》二零二二年八月期刊發表)

在Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48一案中,英國最高法院認為,仲裁員有法律責任披露可能掩蓋其公正性的事實和情況。此判決被譽為釐清了有關仲裁員利益衝突的英國法律,但令人費解的是,法庭卻未有實際制裁備受挑戰而又未能履行其披露責任的仲裁員。

本文將審慎研究由賀知義勳爵宣判的英國最高法院一致裁決。作者將論證,第一,披露責任的理論根源並不穩妥。其次,訂定披露責任儘管有助提高國際仲裁的透明度,但如沒有任何實際後果,只會落得毫無意義。本文將指出有關辭呈機制和擬議制裁的邏輯缺陷。我等謹認為,英國最高法院應採用明確測試:無法履行披露責任的仲裁員應被免職,並向仲裁方提供救濟 。

背景

2010年墨西哥灣井噴事故導致Deepwater Horizon鑽油臺遭受破壞。與其他涉事方達成了11億美元的和解協議後,Halliburton根據其責任保險單向Chubb展開仲裁,尋求彌償。在雙方未能就第三名仲裁員的委任達成協議下,英國高等法院在經抗辯的聆訊後委任了Kenneth Rokison QC 為仲裁員。Rokison隨後在 Halliburton 不知情的情況下獲任命為另外兩宗與 Deepwater Horizon 事件相關的仲裁程序的仲裁員。Halliburton發現後,對Rokison的公正性提出質疑,並根據Arbitration Act 1996(「1996年《仲裁法》」)第24(1)(a)條要求免職 。

英國最高法院裁定,仲裁員有一項「次要」的法律責任披露任何可能影響其獨立性或公正性的情況。賀知義勳爵認為,這法律責任蘊含於1996年《仲裁法》第33條,而其規定仲裁員在仲裁程序中必須公平公正地行事。賀知義勳爵認為只有仲裁員作出強制披露,才能夠履行其法定公正責任,以及委任合同中相應的隱含條款 。

應用上述法律原則,英國最高法院同意仲裁共同方確實可於重疊的仲裁程序中先測試其案件強弱,從而於餘下仲裁程序取得優勢,故仲裁員有責任披露任何相關任命,以消除表面偏頗的印象。然而,仲裁員沒有披露也不代表會自動被免職。這極其量只構成一個考慮因素。儘管Rokison確實沒有遵從披露責任,剝奪了Halliburton在仲裁程序中異議的機會,從而損害了仲裁的公平性,但英國最高法院平衡各因素後裁定Rokison無需請辭 。

使人困惑的理論根源

首先,披露責任法理上的先天缺陷剝奪了其任何獨立存在的可能性。披露責任據稱的根源為以 1985年《聯合國貿法會國際商事仲裁示範法》(《聯合國示範法》)條文為藍本的1996年《仲裁法》。為了跟上仲裁界不斷演變的標準和期望,1996年《仲裁法》刻意省略任何關於披露責任的條文 。英國最高法院如此對1996年《仲裁法》第33條的重新解釋,不僅顯得與立法原意不符,更使披露責任有名無實。一個較少爭議的主張,又不把披露責任從屬於公正責任,可能是基於必要性和公共政策考慮將其隱含在委任合同中(Haywood v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] UKSC 22, [32])。下文將進一步闡述,若英國議會採納了《聯合國示範法》第12條,法定救濟亦理應存在的。

空有法律責任而沒有救濟:鼓勵仲裁員明知故犯

英國最高法院判決中最明顯的不足,是未有因應仲裁員違反披露責任而提供周全的救濟。英國最高法院於決定仲裁員是否應出任該職位時,樹立了雙重標準:

1.       如果尋求任命的仲裁員未能獲得仲裁共同方同意,向非共同方就相關仲裁作出必要的披露,該仲裁員自然應拒絕任命;

2.       相反,若然仲裁員明知故犯,在披露自己已出任相關仲裁程序的仲裁員前已接受任命,則除非法庭發現偏頗,該仲裁員也不會被免職 。

換言之,英國最高法院無法提供任何制裁(或誘因 )來阻止仲裁員接受不應接受的任命。共同仲裁員在相關任命中出現偏頗的風險不應被低估。仲裁方在有關連的仲裁程序中藉指定同一位仲裁員以獲得「內幕信息」的情況並不罕見(例如Beumer Group UK Ltd v Vinci Construction UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 2283)。保密訴訟與生俱來的是缺乏公眾的監督和一致的裁決標準,如果法院無法有效執行披露責任,該責任無異於無牙老虎。Rokison絲亳無損地脫身,正正揭示了披露機制現存的漏洞,本應為強制的機制卻淪為自願性質。

被削弱的阻嚇力

另一議題是針對違反披露責任的兩項提議法律制裁能否起到威懾作用,並提供足夠救濟。賀知義勳爵首先指出,當主體事宜接近需要披露的界線,即合理第三者會斷定不披露將構成看似偏頗,則不披露本身已足以構成對該仲裁員公正性的合理懷疑,使其被免職。不過這實際只複述了錯綜複雜的偏頗測試,沒有提供任何獨立的救濟予仲裁方。

其次,當沒有披露的主體事宜被裁定屬嚴重,但不披露本身不構成偏頗,仲裁員可被命令承擔自己的辯護費用及/或提出異議一方的費用。然而,賀知義勳爵引用了1996年《仲裁法》第29條,質疑對失當仲裁員提出個人申索的可能性。第29條的字眼甚廣:除非出於惡意,否則「仲裁員無須為在履行或充作履行其職能時所作或疏忽的任何事情負責」。驟眼看來,如果這條文適用,它亦會防止任何針對仲裁員作出的訟費命令,因為訟費命令亦是一種個人責任。我等謹認為,第29條在此並不相關。首先,披露責任於仲裁員上任前已出現,而任何個人責任豁免權只於此後生效。其次,因不披露而產生的任何責任與仲裁員(充作)履行其職能無關。

若違反責任理應有法律上的回應,公平的補償至少應是該失當仲裁員退還迄今收到的所有報酬,並補償仲裁方在仲裁程序中試圖將其免職而虛耗的訟費。儘管如此,可惜的是Rokison沒有受到任何制裁,不禁令人嚴重質疑上述處罰的可用性。再者,即使Rokison受到法律制裁,於這迂迴曲折的程序中,訟費亦難以充分補償無辜的仲裁方,故確有迫切需要訂定更全面的救濟。

可得的救濟

如上所述,依我等愚見,披露責任應為一項獨立存在的責任,不從屬於公正責任。此外,正如Lady Arden指出,違反披露責任即違反背後的委任合同。英國最高法院應有多種普通法的救濟從Halliburton的困境中把其拯救出來。如仲裁員違反委任合同中如此的隱含責任 ,則仲裁方應可終止合同並要求賠償,正如其他司法管轄區中類似的裁決(見1993年5月12日1996 Rev. Arb. 411, at 411巴黎大法院的判決)。失當的仲裁員亦可能因作出失實陳述而容許仲裁方撤銷委任合同。在適當的情況下,恰當地履行披露責任可為委任合同其中一個先決條件,在條件發生之前,雙方不會受到合同約束,從而消除了任何法律不確定性。

若Halliburton一案發生於香港,《仲裁條例》(第 609 章)第 25 條中申請仲裁員迴避的法定機制則可能派上用場。迴避可從兩方面提出:偏頗或不具備各方當事人約定的資格。「資格」一詞,既未有在法規中定義,亦未有於《聯合國示範法》的注釋說明中解釋。按該詞自然和通常的含義,其意義為一種使某人適合特定工作或活動的特質(《牛津詞典》),自應包括提供全面並如實披露的責任。因此,即使在沒有出現任何偏頗情況下,法院也可以僅因為仲裁員違反披露責任,將失當仲裁員免職。

結論

恕我們直言,英國最高法院對Halliburton案的判決引起的疑問多於其解答的問題。法院沒有充分依據下,訂立了仲裁員的法律披露責任,卻沒有就違反責任而提供週全救濟。法院所提出有限甚或空洞的救濟亦缺乏建設性,尤其是法院沒有盡用現存所有的合同救濟來補償因仲裁員未有履行披露責任而受害的仲裁方。法院的任務是在公正和公平的程序中彰顯各方的利益,故我等希望法院能夠於適當的時候糾正這個裁決。

鳴謝

作者感謝高李嚴律師行合夥人梁泳澤 (Dantes Leung) 律師的研究指導。作者承擔全部錯誤及遺漏的責任。

Filed Under: Oln, 爭議解決, 最新消息

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 8
  • Page 9
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • Page 12
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 51
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

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

Footer

OLN logo

香港中環雪厰街二號聖佐治大廈
五樓503室

電話 +852 2868 0696 | 電郵我們
關於 律師團隊 辦事處 OLN IP Services 私隱政策
專業服務 最新消息 加入我們 OLN Online
關於 專業服務 律師團隊 最新消息 辦事處
加入我們 OLN IP Services OLN Online 私隱政策
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN logo

© 2025 Oldham, Li & Nie. All Rights Reserved.

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

請在此處分享您的訊息的詳細資訊。我們將盡快與您聯繫。

    x