OLN

Featured Home

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.

代孕的法律問題: 複雜的概念

by

(這篇文章發表在 2025年三月香港律師會會刊)

一般而言，代孕是指一個人同意代另一人或多人懷孕並生下孩子，而孩子出生後，後者將成為孩子的合法父母。由於種種原因，包括對代孕者的潛在剝削、兒童權利方面不明確，以及在某些社會中可能違反社會及／或宗教價值觀等，代孕備受爭議。經常出現的問題包括：婦女是否有權對自己的身體作出自主決定，代孕是否會導致兒童及／或婦女的身體被進一步物化，而生殖是一項基本人權的原則則反駁了這些問題。

利他代孕的定義是沒有金錢報酬的代孕（支付醫療費用除外），很可能是出於代孕者的善心。另一方面，商業代孕的定義為代孕安排，涉及為代孕者提供的服務支付金錢。

可能的父母權

當一個孩子通過代孕出生，可以想像到有多達五種人對父母權各有不同要求，有時甚至互相衝突：精子捐贈者、卵子捐贈者、代孕者、預定的父母（如果他們不是精子捐贈者及／或卵子捐贈者），以及離婚時的繼父繼母。每種類型的個人及其父母權所產生的法律問題都很複雜，而且往往充滿不確定性。

情緒和心理因素

代孕過程可能會對所有參與方造成情緒上的負擔。準父母可能會經歷一系列的情緒，從興奮到焦慮的過程，甚至可能在極端情況下改變主意。代孕者也會面對身體和情感上的重大障礙，包括懷孕期間或之後的潛在併發症，以及與所懷孩子形成情感紐帶的風險。從懷孕前到分娩後，認識、溝通、諮詢和強大的機構支持系統，對社會適應代孕安排是必不可少的。

財務考量

代孕的財務影響可能相當大，通常從幾萬美元到幾十萬美元不等。成本可能包括醫療程序、法律費用、中介費用和代孕者的補償。許多有意成為父母者發現，他們所面對的情況是保險保障有限，因此財務規劃變得非常重要。

代孕的道德問題

有許多不同的觀點突顯了這種生育安排的複雜性。討論的核心是富裕的準父母和經濟條件較差的代孕者之間可能出現的權力互動，這引起人們對商業代孕協議中剝削和知情同意的關注。代孕機構和其他經紀人的角色可能會造成潛在利益衝突，優先考慮利潤而不是代孕媽媽甚至孩子的福祉。最近，基因增強和選擇的倫理影響使情況更加複雜，因為它們挑戰生育過程中公平公正的觀念。此外，醫療從業人員必須堅守其專業責任，確保所有各方都充分知情並獲得支持，強調道德準則的必要性，即在尊重準父母意願的同時，也要優先照顧代孕者和兒童的健康和權利。

法律環境與考慮

圍繞代孕的法律問題可能很複雜，而且因司法管轄區不同而有很大差異。在某些國家，法律完全支持代孕，而在其他國家，代孕仍然受到高度監管，甚至被禁止。了解這些法律框架（通常反映不同社會價值觀），對法律執業者、準代孕者、準父母和相關醫療服務提供者而言至關重要。

許多司法管轄區可能尚未立法規管實際代孕以外的複雜法律問題，例如在國外出生的兒童在移民和公民身份方面的權利、他們獲取遺傳／生物資訊的權利、與代母保持關係的權利，以及其他披露要求的權利。

妥善起草的代孕協議可以涵蓋未來可能出現的情況，例如產前檢測決策、潛在衝突、醫療緊急情況或甚至終止懷孕。但在許多司法管轄區，代孕協議是不可執行的。因此，許多代孕安排的結果可能無法預料。

澳洲

澳洲各州均禁止商業代孕，理由是擔心代孕者受到剝削，以及父母的權利和孩子的最佳利益。利他代孕是容許的，有些州的限制比其他州嚴格。如果費用與代孕程序、懷孕或分娩直接相關，則可對可驗證的自付費用進行補償。

根據 2017年（2023 年更新）《在臨床實踐和研究中使用輔助生殖技術的道德準則》， 允許的費用包括以下各項：

  • 懷孕或分娩前、懷孕期間和分娩後的醫療和諮詢費用；
  • 澳洲境內的交通和住宿費用；
  • 無薪假期造成的收入損失；
  • 保險；
  • 出席與代孕安排相關的聚會和程序所需的托兒費用；及
  • 法律諮詢。

對準父母的法律承認取決於代孕安排所在的州。在新南威爾士州，《2010 年代孕法》 規定，在孩子出生時，代孕者被承認為孩子的生母，如果她已婚或有伴侶，則該人被承認為另一方父母。然後，準父母必須向最高法院申請親子關係令，才能被承認為合法父母。

在新南威爾士州作出的代孕安排，在法律上不可強制執行。

加拿大

聯邦《輔助人類生殖法》(簡稱AHRA) 規範加拿大的代孕，只容許利他代孕，容許費用補償，但嚴格禁止商業代孕。 AHRA 不影響在加拿大簽訂的任何代孕協議的合法性，該協議必須遵循簽訂協議所在省份的法律。

可依法報銷的項目包括

  • 出行支出；
  • 照顧受養人或寵物的支出；
  • 諮詢服務的支出；
  • 法律服務及付款支出；
  • 獲得《食品與藥物法》第 2 條定義的任何藥物或裝置的支出；
  • 獲授權人士為評估、監控及提供孕婦健康及產後護理而以書面方式提供或推薦（以及此類推薦的費用）產品／服務的費用；
  • 助產士／陪產員服務的費用；
  • 雜貨支出，但不包括非食品項目；
  • 孕婦服裝支出；
  • 電訊費用；
  • 產前運動班的相關支出；
  • 與分娩有關的支出；
  • 醫療、殘障、出行或人壽保險的支出；及
  • 取得或確認醫療或其他記錄的支出。

父母獲得合法父母身份的法律程序因省份而異。例如，根據安大略省的《兒童法律改革法》，準父母可通過簡單的行政程序建立親子關係，前提是代孕協議是在受孕前簽訂的，各方均獲得了獨立的法律建議，準父母不超過四人，並且是通過輔助生育技術受孕的。

香港特別行政區

根據《人類生殖科技條例》（第 561章）第 17 條，香港禁止商業性質的代孕安排。在利他安排中，因懷孕和代孕產子而產生的善意醫療費用可依法償還。

要確立合法的親子關係，準父母可根據《父母與子女條例》（第 429 章）第 12 條取得父母令。遺憾地，只有合法結婚的異性夫婦才能提出申請。在考慮申請時，法院會追溯授權和批准代孕費用。

英國

在英國，代孕受 1985 年《代孕安排法》的規管。代孕者可以獲得合理費用補償，但是代孕協議不能被強制執行。商業代孕被禁止。

英國沒有對合理費用作出定義，導致法院對可允許費用作出寬鬆的解釋，但商業代孕是嚴格禁止的。 英格蘭和威爾斯法律改革委員會於 2023 年與蘇格蘭法律委員會發布了聯合報告，建議明確準父母被允許支付的款項類別，以及準父母在代孕孩子出生後成為合法父母的條件。

目前在英國，代孕者是孩子出生時的法定父母。如果代孕者已婚或有伴侶，則其配偶／伴侶是孩子的另一位法定父母，除非他們沒有給予同意。準父母可以在孩子出生後向家庭法院申請父母令，以獲得作為父母的法律認可，但前提是準父母之一與孩子有遺傳關係（即卵子或精子捐贈者）。否則，成為合法父母的唯一方法就是收養。

美國

在美國，各州的代孕法有所不同。加州和伊利諾伊州等州出台了寬鬆的法規，支持利他代孕和商業代孕安排，通常承認準父母作為孩子的法定監護人。相反，亞利桑那州修訂法規第 25-218 條，禁止代孕。在許多其他州，其立法機構尚未制訂支持或反對代孕的立法。

紐約家庭法院法案第 686章第 5-C條容許對代孕者進行報銷和補償、可執行的代孕協議，以及在孩子出生前對親子關係的判斷，該判斷在孩子出生時生效。

這種雜亂無章的法律往往導致準父母「擇地而行」，選擇對代孕更有利法律條件的州進行代孕。但是，當準父母尋求成為孩子的合法父母時，在一個地方安排代孕，然後帶著孩子去另一個地方生活可能會導致更複雜的情況。

其他司法管轄區

印度、俄羅斯和烏克蘭等國家由於法律較為寬鬆，已成為國際商業代孕的熱門目的地。然而，當準父母希望帶著代孕出生的孩子返回祖國時，他們必須意識到可能面對的法律挑戰。

總結

利他代孕和商業代孕為許多個人和夫婦提供了一條可行的途徑，讓他們能夠克服經濟、法律、身心障礙，建立家庭。對這些複雜的情況需要仔細考慮、成熟和專業的規劃。對於準父母來說，了解不同司法管轄區管理代孕的具體法律法規，以及相關費用和支持系統，至關重要。

免責聲明：本文僅供參考。本文中的任何內容均不得詮釋為香港法律建議或向任何人提供的任何與此相關的法律建議。對於任何人因本文所含的内容而造成的任何損失和/或損害，高李嚴律師行不承擔任何責任。

入住香港安老院：不可忽視的法律與合約考量

by

2024年4月15日，消費者委員會發布了一份 重要報告，深入檢視香港安老院的標準、費用及透明度。報告中揭示了多項問題，例如隱藏費用、不一致的護理標準等。同時，報告也突顯出一個更深層次的問題：含糊的合約條款及許多家庭對於選擇安老院所涉及的法律和財務複雜性缺乏認知。

入住養老院，無論是政府補貼的還是私人的，都是一個重大決定，不僅涉及評估設施、人員配備和服務是否足夠。合約的條款規範了從費用到護理服務以及作為住戶的權利等一切事項。這一點在私人安老院尤為重要，因為家庭通常需要承擔更多大的財務責任，所以必須更加謹慎地審視所簽署的協議內容。

在本文中，我們將探討在香港選擇安老院時每個人都應該注意的主要法律和合約考量。

牌照與認證

無論你考慮的是私人還是資助的安老院，第一步是確保該設施擁有合法牌照。在香港，所有安老院（RCHEs）均受《安老院條例》（第459章）規管，該條例為住宿、員工配置和護理服務設立了最低標準。

除了牌照外，還應考慮該安老院是否獲得像香港認證服務（HKAS）等認可機構的認證。認證意味著該機構遵守更嚴格的標準，這可能會轉化為更好的護理服務和更安全的環境。正如消費者委員會指出的，獲得認證的安老院更有可能投資於持續改進。

費用：透明度至關重要

報告顯示，私人安老院的費用差異巨大, 從每月6,000港元到超過80,000港元不等。然而，這些數字往往不包括消耗品、醫療護理，甚至基本的空調費用等額外費用。因此，仔細檢查合約並確保以下事項清楚明確是至關重要的：

  • 基本費用：清楚了解每月收費包含哪些項目。
  • 額外收費：常見的額外費用包括醫療陪診、特殊膳食需求或失禁用品如尿片。這些費用可能迅速累積，因此務必要求提供詳細清單。
  • 退款和押金政策：如果住戶住院或選擇提前離開安老院，未使用的費用是否會退還？許多合約對於退款有嚴格的規定，或者根本沒有相關條款，因此這一點需要特別注意。
  • 費用調整：查看是否有允許調整費用的條款。雖然生活成本上漲是常見的，但合約應明確規定通知期限以及允許的漲幅百分比。

在私人安老院中，家庭需承擔全部財務負擔，因此費用透明度尤為重要。

護理服務：安老院能否滿足不斷變化的需求？

消費者委員會的一大關注點是安老院在應對住戶健康狀況變化時的靈活性有限。無論安老院提供的是基本護理、護理服務還是專門的失智護理，合約都應清楚列明可提供的服務以及如果護理需求隨時間發生變化時的應對方式。

例如：

  • 該設施是否提供24小時全天候護理服務？
  • 如果住戶出現行動問題或需要臨終護理，會怎樣處理？
  • 如果需要，安老院是否會協助安排轉介至更高護理級別的設施？

私人安老院可能提供更具個性化的護理服務套餐，但這些通常需要支付相當高的費用。事先了解安老院是否能持續滿足你親人的需求，或者是否可能需要將其轉介至其他設施，這是非常重要的。

終止政策

終止條款在不同的安老院之間差異很大，消費者委員會的調查結果顯示，安老院在處理合約終止方面缺乏一致性。務必注意合約中有關以下方面的具體條款：

  • 自願終止：如果你決定離開安老院，需要提前多長時間通知？退款政策是怎樣的？
  • 安老院主動終止：在什麼情況下安老院可以解除住戶合約（例如，無法支付費用或健康問題無法處理）？
  • 驅逐程序：這些程序應與消費者保護法相符，以防止不公平或突然的驅逐。

私人安老院可能會有更嚴格的條款偏有利于安老院，因此仔細審查這些條款至關重要。

爭議解決：你的選擇是什麼？

許多合約中包含要求爭議通過仲裁或調解而非法院訴訟解決的條款。雖然這些程序可能較為快速，但也比較昂貴，也可能會限制你採取法律行動的權利。確保合約中規定了清晰、公正和透明的解決程序，並了解像香港消費者委員會等資源，該機構可以調解爭議並提供建議。

住戶權利：應注意的法律保護

根據《安老院（長者）條例》，住戶有權享有基本權利，如隱私、尊嚴以及參與護理決策。私人安老院經常以提供「高端」服務為賣點，但這些基本權利不應該受到妥協。在審查合約時， 確保它反映了對以下承諾的支持：

  • 醫療服務：現場醫療人員和緊急應對系統的可用性。
  • 安全與衛生：感染控制、清潔和定期健康檢查的政策。

消費者委員會還鼓勵家庭詢問員工與住戶的比例，因為較低的比例通常會帶來更好的護理服務。

資料隱私與法律監護

消費者委員會強調，保護住戶的個人和醫療資訊至關重要，特別是在可能涉及外部服務的私人設施中。確保合約符合《個人資料（私隱）條例》（第486章），並包含有關資料共享或使用的明確指引。

如果住戶有法律監護人或授權書，請確認安老院承認這些安排並尊重指定代表的決策權。

結論：保持知情，保障權益

消費者委員會的報告強烈提醒人們，在香港入住安老院是一個具有重大法律和財務影響的決定。

如果您想了解更多關於這方面的保障，請聯絡我們的合夥人，趙君宜律師 （+852 2186 1885 / +852 9169 4356）。

免責聲明: 本文僅供參考。本文中的任何內容均不得詮釋為香港法律建議或向任何人提供的任何與此相關的法律建議。對於任何人因本文所含的內容而造成的任何損失和/或損害，高李嚴律師行不承擔任何責任。