• 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
        • 新創公司
        • 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
        • 新創公司
        • 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
        • 新創公司
        • 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
        • 新創公司
        • 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
Eggs freezing

凍卵:世界各地卵母細胞冷凍保存的法律現況

Featured Home

凍卵:世界各地卵母細胞冷凍保存的法律現況

January 15, 2025 by OLN Marketing

(這篇文章發表在 2025年一月香港律師會會刊)

冷凍卵子在後疫情時代已成為主流。在疫情期間,婚禮與懷孕都被推遲,這對數百萬正值生育年齡的婦女而言尤其重要。美國國家醫學圖書館的一份報告指出,女性在出生後,一生中只能生產約一至二百萬個卵母細胞(未成熟卵子)。當女性年屆 51 歲(更年期的平均年齡)時,卵子的品質和數量都會下降,大約只剩下一千個卵子。在生育的黃金時期凍結優質的卵子以備日後使用,今時今日被認為是在未完全準備好懷孕和生育時實際可行的方法。

一些美國公司十多年前已開始提供冷凍卵子作為員工福利。《衛報》早在 2014 年就報導,矽谷公司為了吸引和留住頂尖女性人才,為員工支付冷凍卵子的費用。耶魯大學在2018年發表的一項有關冷凍卵子的研究發現,85% 的女性都是單身,其中許多人表示沒有合適的伴侶。婦女可能尚未準備好懷孕或生育的原因眾多,包括事業抱負、家庭狀況、經濟考量、個人環境和健康狀況。

因健康狀況以外的原因而冷凍卵子,稱為一般「社會原因」冷凍卵子。

司法管轄區的差異與法律考量

並非每個司法管轄區都容許因社會原因(即非健康狀況)進行卵母細胞冷凍(凍卵)而不受限制。以下是一些司法管轄區的法律狀況回顧:

澳洲為冷凍卵子提供自由的法律制度,容許基於社會原因進行凍卵。事實上,在 1984年,澳洲是第一個利用冷凍卵子生下嬰兒的國家。雖然沒有特定的年齡限制,但鼓勵婦女在 35 歲之前冷凍卵子,以提高日後生產的成功率。儲存年限取決於各州的法律,在新南威爾士州和維多利亞州一般為 10 年。維多利亞州的《2008 年輔助生殖治療法案》(第31A 條)允許其患者審查小組在有合理理由或小組認為有特殊情況時,延長卵子和精子的 10 年儲存期限。《1991 年人類生殖科技法》也規定西澳洲的儲存期限為 10 年,若有「特殊理由」則允許延長。費用也因州而異,但有些健康保險計劃可能會承保部分費用。

在加拿大,《輔助人類生殖法案》規範輔助人類生殖技術,其中包括卵子冷凍。加拿大衛生部的精子和卵子安全法規指導文件允許卵子儲存長達 10 年。儘管有些診所不向非加拿大公民提供服務,但對年齡或婚姻狀況沒有限制。社會原因冷凍卵子(稱為選擇性冷凍卵子)不在政府醫療保健的承保範圍內。

法國最近才透過法國《公共衛生法》第 L2141條,容許所有29至37歲的婦女進行社會原因冷凍卵子,不論其婚姻狀況或性取向。儘管這項自由化措施容許婦女在生育選擇上有更多自主權,但批評者譴責現實情況,因為冷凍卵子在私人領域是被禁止的,而且在公共衛生系統中,光是初次預約醫生就可能需要等待超過兩年,這實際上剝奪了 35 歲以上婦女冷凍卵子的權利,儘管《世界報》在 2022 年報導,法國每四對育齡夫婦中就有一對有不孕不育問題。

在香港特別行政區,冷凍卵子沒有年齡限制;然而,根據《生殖科技及胚胎研究實務守則》,婦女必須已合法結婚,才能使用體外授精技術令卵子受精。由於香港尚未在法律上承認同性婚姻,同性婚姻中的婦女和單身婦女無法獲得冷凍卵子後的服務從而懷孕生產。《人類生殖科技條例》成立了人類生殖科技管理局,負責監督現已過時的 2002 年實務守則。冷凍卵子最長可儲存 10 年,由於卵子品質下降,建議婦女在 35 歲前冷凍卵子,此儲存限制試圖將潛在懷孕的年齡限制在 45 歲。這個法律框架說明香港限制性的婚姻法和生育權之間的複雜關係。

愛爾蘭的《2024 年健康(輔助人類生殖)法》已於 2024 年 7 月 2 日該國的總統簽署。儘管冷凍卵子必須由私人出資,但對社會原因冷凍卵子並無限制。當醫療治療影響到生育能力時,公共醫療保健可能會支付冷凍卵子的費用。卵子最長可儲存 10 年,之後若要延長儲存期限,必須重新取得同意。輔助人類生殖管理局有權考慮和決定延長儲存期限的申請。

2023 年, 新加坡的《2020 年保健服務法》管理輔助生殖服務,根據《2023年保健服務(輔助生殖服務)規例》,出於社會原因冷凍卵子自由,但僅限於 21 歲至 38 歲以下的婦女。然而,若非因社會原因而進行冷凍卵子,則婦女必須已合法結婚,且其丈夫必須同意該程序,這代表了非常保守的社會價值觀。社會原因冷凍卵子並不包括在該國的Medisave(所有有工作的公民和永久居民都要供款的強制性醫療儲蓄帳戶)中,但其他生殖服務可能包括在內。

自 2006 年起,西班牙對生殖技術採取漸進式的處理方式。第 14/2006號《輔助生育技術法》允許因社會原因冷凍卵子,無年齡限制,無時間限制。該法律框架支持婦女作出生育選擇的權利,使西班牙成為歐洲最熱門的凍卵目的地之一。但是,社會原因冷凍卵子並不包括在政府醫療保健系統的範圍內,必須由私人出資。

在英國,婦女可以基於社會原因冷凍她們的卵子。《1990 年人類受精與胚胎學法案》規範這種做法,婦女可將卵子儲存長達 10 年,並可每隔 10年更新同意書,最長可儲存55年。雖然沒有特定的年齡限制,但英國的人類受精與胚胎學管理局建議 38歲以下的婦女一般可以冷凍 7至 14 個卵子。然而,獲得公共資金冷凍卵子的機會只保留給面對可能影響生育能力治療的人,英格蘭、北愛爾蘭、蘇格蘭和威爾斯之間的標準各不相同。社會原因凍卵必須由私人出資,而且不受任何價格規定的限制。

在美國,每個州各自規管冷凍卵子。在紐約州,自由的法律允許因社會原因冷凍卵子,無年齡限制,無婚姻狀況限制。根據俗稱的「試管嬰兒法」,保險公司必須依法承保冷凍卵子(以及冷凍卵子後的三個試管嬰兒週期)。

其他考慮

成本可能是決定冷凍卵子的重要因素。整個過程(從最初的諮詢到治療前的測試、刺激卵巢、觸發注射、監測、卵母細胞擷取、卵母細胞評估到冷凍保存,再加上隨後的儲存費用)通常非常昂貴。財務負擔可能相當大,而且在許多司法管轄區(甚或大多數),社會原因凍卵不在公共醫療保健的承保範圍之內,也不在私人保險計劃的償付範圍之內。為了在成本低、安全標準高且卵母細胞解凍成功率高的地區進行手術,越來越多人選擇地點。

總結

冷凍卵子的法律問題在不同司法管轄區有很大差異,應該引導婦女決定何時何地進行冷凍卵子手術。了解這些差異以及其他重要因素,如成本、臨床成功率、可用的支持系統和正在進行的輔助生殖技術服務(如體外受精、代孕)的可及性,包括監管它們的具體法律至關重要。全面了解這些因素,對考慮以凍卵作為其生育計劃的人來說,是非常重要的。

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。

Filed Under: Oln, 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證, 最新消息 Tagged With: Elder Law

患者自主權的新紀元:《維持生命治療的預作決定條例草案》賦予的新權利

January 10, 2025 by OLN Marketing

2024年11月20日,香港立法會通過了《維持生命治療的預作決定條例草案》,並於2024年11月24日刊憲。《條例草案》將在經過18個月的緩衝期後,於2026年5月正式生效。這項條例引入了重大變革,使個人在可能因精神或身體狀況無法自行作出醫療決定的情況下,能夠事先決定其醫療治療方式。

《條例草案》賦予個人訂立預設醫療指示(Advance Medical Directives,簡稱AMD)的權利,使其能夠預先作出具法律約束力的醫療決定。這包括在特定情況下拒絕接受如機械通氣、心肺復甦術(CPR)或人工營養及水分補給等生命維持治療。此外,患者亦有權選擇「不作心肺復甦術指示」(Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation,簡稱DNACPR),讓患者有權利拒絕心肺復甦。

本文闡述了《條例草案》引入的新權利,並概述了個人如何採取步驟行使這些權利。

ADVANCE MEDICAL DIRECTIVE (AMD) 預設醫療指示(AMD)

預設醫療指示(Advance Medical Directive,簡稱AMD)是一份具法律約束力的文件,允許個人指示醫護人員在特定情況下不提供生命維持治療,例如當其處於末期病況、持續植物人狀態或不可逆昏迷時。

可以拒絕的生命維持治療的類別:

  • 醫療機械通氣
  • 心肺復甦術(CPR)
  • 人工營養及水分補給(如經導管餵食)

步驟 1:確認資格

  • 年滿18歲或以上
  • 具備精神能力,能就生命維持治療作出決定
  • 在訂立AMD時,在醫生和律師的判斷下,不受外界或第三者的不當影響

步驟 2:選擇拒絕的治療

  • 決定要拒絕哪些生命維持治療,例如:

– 機械通氣

– 心肺復甦術(CPR)

– 人工營養及水分補给

步驟 3:填寫法定表格

  • AMD必須以書面形式訂立,並使用法定表格。表格需簽署並由至少兩名證人見證。
  • 一名證人必須是註冊醫生(Registered Medical Practitioner,簡稱RMP),以確認您具備精神能力並理解決定的後果。
  • 證人不得是您遺產的受益人。

步驟 4:數碼存檔

完成AMD後,數碼副本將安全地存放於專用電子系統中(計劃整合至由醫務衛生局管理、目前正分階段開發的電子健康記錄平台 eHealth),確保醫護人員在需要時能夠查閱您的AMD。

步驟 5:撤銷

如果您改變主意,可以通過以下方式撤銷您的AMD,只要您仍具備精神能力:

  • 口頭聲明您的撤銷意圖
  • 提供書面聲明
  • 銷毀原始文件

「不作心肺復甦術」指示(DNACPR)

《條例草案》亦賦予個人權利,可訂立「不作心肺復甦術指示」(Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation,簡稱DNACPR)。該指示明確要求醫護人員在患者發生心肺停止時,不進行心肺復甦術(CPR)。

如果您希望選擇DNACPR指示,可以通過以下方式開始程序:

選項 1:通過預設醫療指示(AMD):如果您已訂立AMD,您可以在其中包含拒絕CPR的指示,這相當於發出了DNACPR指示。

選項 2:醫學判定:當醫生判定CPR在您的情況下適當或無效時,醫生可以基於醫學建議發出DNACPR指示。

選項 3:明確要求:如果您希望主動提出DNACPR指示,必須通過填寫法定表格以書面形式確認,並由醫護人員記錄,確保其與您的意願和健康狀況一致。

緊記: DNACPR指示需由兩名註冊醫生(Registered Medical Practitioners,簡稱RMPs)確認,其中至少一名必須是專科醫生。

《維持生命治療的預作決定條例草案》標誌著個人在醫療決策自主權方面的一次重大轉變。通過允許患者訂立預設醫療指示(AMD)和選擇不作心肺復甦術指示(DNACPR),該條例賦予個人提前作出重要治療決策的權利,確保即使在未來喪失表達能力的情況下,其意願仍能得到尊重。

儘管該法案要到 2026 年 5 月才會生效,但個人應考慮在此過渡期間的選擇。

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。

Filed Under: Oln Tagged With: Elder Law

破地獄:談葬禮安排條款之重要性

January 8, 2025 by jennifer

引言

本地賣座電影《破地獄》已經成為香港的一種文化現象。電影透過幾個相連的故事,探討了道教傳統的 「破地獄」儀式,並以此為主題,通過感人的方式探討殯儀的議題,從而引發市民對生死議題的關注和討論。

本文旨在討論如何確保個人在葬禮安排上的意願能夠得到尊重,包括具體儀式、儀式的地點和類型,以及遺體應土葬或火葬。

實際步驟

  1. 諮詢禮儀師或宗教領袖
    如果你對自己的葬禮安排有特別的偏好,你應該首先諮詢禮儀師或宗教領袖,以確保你的願望符合資格且可行。尤其如果你希望舉行一個能夠反映個人信仰的儀式,因爲不同的民間習俗和宗教信仰可能會因其慣例和傳統而對葬禮安排有不同的要求和手續。

    此外,關於土葬或火葬,必須注意的是,隨著香港人口的增長和老齡化,香港對這類設施的需求越來越大[1]。我們建議你考慮這些設施的成本和可行性,並在有生之年預先計劃,以獲得這些設施。

  2. 與家人溝通您的意願
    當你決定了你的葬禮安排,你也應該與你的家人溝通你的意願,確保你的家人了解你的喜好。同時,這亦提供他們一個提問的機會,讓你就他們任何不清楚的地方向他們作出澄清。

  3. 諮詢律師及草擬葬禮安排條款
    當你確認個人就殯葬安排和做法的意願確切可行後,你應該諮詢律師,草擬具體的殯葬安排條款,以表達你的殯葬意願。一個清晰明確的葬禮安排條款至關重要,可以讓遺囑執行人知悉你的意願。

關於葬禮安排條款執行性的限制

雖然你已經遵循上述實際步驟,但您需要知道,根據香港法律,遺體並非財產,而有關葬禮安排條款在法律上並無約束力。

在 Re Estate of Lu Han Lung [2010] 3 HKLRD 651 一案中,法院就葬禮安排條款的執行性以及殯葬安排確立以下原則:-

  • 遺體在法律上並非財產;
  • 任何人不能以遺囑方式處置其遺體,而死者生前以遺囑或其他方式作出的任何殯葬指示均無約束力;
  • 一般而言,遺囑中指定的遺囑執行人或已知的遺產代理人(如果死者去世時沒有簽訂遺囑)有權擁有遺體,並負責殯葬事宜;
  • 未亡配偶或事實上的配偶的權利通常優先於子女的權利;
  • 然而,在特殊情況下,起始法律地位可能並不適用;
  • 在法律上有權選擇如何處理遺體的人應先咨詢其他持份者,但無法律上的責任作出咨詢;及
  • 在法律上有權安排葬禮和埋葬的人士不能排除死者的親友以合理和適當的方式表達對死者的思念。

因此,立遺囑人必須明白和理解,即使在遺囑上加入殯葬安排條款,這類條款在法律上並無約束力。然而,將葬禮遺願記錄在案可以作為指引,減少不必要的家庭糾紛。

高李嚴律師行如何提供協助?

我們提供有關草擬遺囑的初步諮詢服務。我們的律師在草擬遺囑方面經驗豐富,可以草擬有關殯葬安排的條款。如 閣下對上述事宜有任何疑問,請聯絡我們的合夥人林雋溢先生或我們的律師袁向凡先生。


[1] “立法會十八題:骨灰龕位的供應” (新聞公報:2022年5月4日),香港特別行政區政府官方網站:https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202205/04/P2022050400446.htm, 2025年1月2日。

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。

Filed Under: Oln, 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證 Tagged With: Elder Law, Estate planning, funeral arrangements

From Claims to Chains: The High Price of Overstating Your Losses in a Statement of Damages

November 8, 2024 by OLN Marketing

Introduction

In personal injury claims, the plaintiff is required to sign a statement of truth to verify the truth of the facts stated in a Statement of Damages. The potential consequences of overstating one’s losses are highlighted in the case of Zurich Insurance Company Limited v Chan Man Fu [2024] HKDC 1615.

Background

This case revolves around a committal application by an insurance company against a plaintiff in the underlying personal injury proceedings.

The respondent, Chan Man Fu, was involved in a traffic accident on 12 November 2018. Following the accident, Chan filed a personal injury claim against another driver whose motor insurer was the applicant in this case. At the time of the accident, Chan was represented by T.S. Tong & Co., with Tam as the handling solicitor, appointed by the Legal Aid Department.

Under the Statement of Damages dated 13 October 2022, Chan claimed a monthly income of HK$45,000 which includes his alleged earnings from two jobs: a freelance job at a cemetery and a part-time taxi driver job. The total amount of pre-judgment and post-judgment loss of earnings claimed by Chan come up to more than HK$5 million. The Statement of Damages included a statement of truth translated by Tam and signed by the respondent before Tam, confirming the accuracy and truthfulness of the information provided.

Key Evidence Suggested Chan Had No Income

Contrary to Chan’s declared income in the Statement of Damages, various documents disclosed by Chan during the personal injury proceedings revealed that Chan had no income at all during the relevant period:-

  1. An Annual Statement of Earnings and Property Acquired dated 3 November 2018 (which was only nine days prior to the traffic accident) as signed by Chan, showed Chan had declared no income, listing only Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) of HK$8,678;
  2. In the Annual Statement of Earnings and Property Acquired filed for the period of 3 October 2018 to 3 October 2019, Chan also declared no income other than CSSA of HK$8,928;
  3. In an application for the Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Scheme submitted by Chan himself in April 2019, Chan described himself as a self-employed taxi driver who was only familiarizing himself with the roads and had not taken any order or earned any income.

In face of the overwhelming evidence that Chan was lying about his income, Chan attempted to shift the blame on his solicitors by alleging that there was misunderstanding between him and his solicitors in that the income stated in the Statement of Damages was only referring to his potential income and not his actual income at the time of the accident. Chan also alleged that he was asked to sign the statement of truth (which Chan alleged Tam for claiming it was in draft form) first before the solicitors had explained the importance of the statement of truth and consequences of giving false statement (which Chan admitted was at least done after the signed the document). Chan also said that when he told Tam some statements in the Statement of Damages were incorrect, Tam allegedly said, “it does not matter, we can revise it [the Statement of Damages] later.”

The court finds Chan’s explanation implausible, as Chan did not insist on correcting the Statement of Damages even after being told about the serious consequences that can following the making of false statement. This remained the case long after the Statement of Damages is filed. Chan also failed to summon Tam to give evidence at the hearing nor adduce any evidence from Tam in support of his account of events.

Judgment

After considering the evidence above, the District Court Judge found Chan guilty of making false statements in his Statement of Damages. The court stressed that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Chan had knowingly or recklessly made false declarations about his income. The judge highlighted that Chan’s actions were a blatant attempt to mislead the court and secure financial benefits fraudulently.

Chan was eventually sentenced to 21 days of imprisonment for contempt of court. Additionally, he was ordered to pay the costs of the applicant on an indemnity basis, with counsel certificate.

Key Takeaways

This case highlights two key reminders in respect of signing of statements of truth in legal documents:

  1. Honesty is Paramount: Claimants must provide truthful information in legal declarations. False statements can lead to severe legal consequences, including imprisonment, penalties, and adverse legal costs orders.
  2. Verification of Claims: Before signing statements of truth, claimants should ensure that all claims and damages sought are accurate and supported by concrete evidence. Even if they are legally represented, claimants are ultimately responsible for the information they provide. They should fully understand the contents and implications of any legal documents before signing.

The case of Zurich Insurance Company Limited v Chan Man Fu underscores the critical importance of honesty and evidence in personal injury claims. Claimants must be diligent in ensuring the accuracy of their statements and be prepared to substantiate their claims with verifiable evidence. This case serves as a stark warning that the legal consequences of making false statements can be dire and far-reaching, affecting not the claimant’s chance of success in a personal injury action but also his potential exposure to imprisonment and monetary.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

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, 最新消息和刊物, 人身傷害法, 最新消息 Tagged With: Personal injury

What You Need to Know before commencing Personal Injuries Action – Importance of Compliance with Pre-Action Protocol in Practice Direction 18.1

October 25, 2024 by OLN Marketing

Introduction

Before parties commence a personal injury proceedings in the Court, parties are required to adhere to, amongst others, the Pre-Action Protocol in Practice Direction 18.1 (“PD 18.1”). The importance of abiding to the Pre-Action Protocol is highlighted in the decision of Mak Shiu Cheung v Luk Man Tai [2023] HKDC 1801.

Facts of the case

This case concerns a traffic accident case, the facts of which are straightforward: the vehicle that the Plaintiff drove on was hit by the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result.  

On 2 May 2023, the Plaintiff’s solicitors issued a Letter of Claim as per PD 18.1 to the Defendant (“Letter of Claim”). However, the Letter of Claim (1) did not disclose the fact that there has been an Employees’ Compensation Action already commenced on behalf of the Plaintiff in respect of the accident; and (2) did not disclose documents relating to the issue of quantum such as medical reports and records as well as the Plaintiff’s earning records such as payrolls and tax returns.

The Defendant replied to the Letter of Claim on 11 May 2023, which was within one month after the Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant. In the reply letter, the Defendant requested for documents and information such as the Plaintiff’s payroll records and all documents related to the Employees’ Compensation Action (“Reply Letter”).

The Plaintiff’s Solicitors did not respond to the Reply Letter and instead commenced the proceedings by issuing the Writ, filing and serving the Statement of Claim and Statement of Damages around 3.5 months later on 22 August 2023.

The Defendant took out a Summons on 7 September 2023 (the “Summons”), asking for:-

  • Stay of proceedings of 3 months from the date of order (“Issue 1”);
  • Plaintiff to make discovery of documents to the Defendant as required under paragraph 66 of PD 18.1 and the Reply Letter and comply with PD 18.1 as to constructive communication and engagement of a single joint expert (“Issue 2”);
  • Plaintiff to be disallowed of the costs of preparation of the Statement of Claim and Statement of Damages (“Issue 3”); and
  • Costs of the present application be to the Defendant (“Issue 4”).

Ruling of the Court

There is no dispute as to Issue 1 and Issue 3 as the Plaintiff conceded and agreed to waive the costs for the preparation of the Statement of Claim and Statement of Damages and to stay the proceedings for a period of 3 months.

The real dispute is on Issue 2 and Issue 4.

Regarding Issue 2, the Plaintiff argued that it was not necessary to take out the Summons and that the Plaintiff had to commence a legal proceedings because, amongst others, the Defendant failed to give a constructive reply in their Reply Letter as to whether the insurer of the Defendant will admit liability and whether there will be third party which may be at fault and that the Plaintiff would be time-barred if the legal proceedings was not commenced.

The Court found for the Defendant, stating that:-

  • The Plaintiff failed to contain all the basic information and documents specified in PD 18.1 in his Letter of Claim, particularly there is a lack of particulars regarding the Employees’ Compensation Action and failure to disclose the relevant quantum documents;
  • The Plaintiff’s solicitors is the solicitors on record for both the Personal Injuries Action and Employees’ Compensation Action and therefore this is not a case where the Plaintiff does not have knowledge on the Employees’ Compensation Action;
  • This is not a case where the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of quantum documents such as medical reports and records and income proof as these documents were filed in the list of documents in the Employees’ Compensation Action prior to the issuance of the Letter of Claim of the Personal Injuries Action;
  • This is also not a case where such quantum documents can be obtained by the Defendant by other means;
  • Admission of liability is not a prerequisite for an initial reply to be amounted to a “constructive reply”;
  • The current proceedings most likely could have been avoided if the Plaintiff had complied with the Pre-Action Protocol; and
  • Even so, the Plaintiff failed to comply with PD 18.1 as it had not served the Writ and Statement of Claim along with other documents such as statement of facts and finding of guilt, documents on post-accident earnings, pre-accident earnings, statement by the Plaintiff and other eye-witnesses when they were available and were not served under the Pre-Action Protocol.

The Court repeatedly emphasized that the importance of strict compliance to the Pre-Action Protocol in PD 18.1. The rationale behind the Pre-Action Protocol in PD 18.1 is to encourage early settlement of the matter in order to save time and costs for parties and the Court. The burden lies with the Plaintiff to include and disclose the basic information and documents specified in Appendix A and Schedule A of PD 18.1. The Court highlighted that any half-hearted and half-baked attempt to purportedly comply with the Pre-Action Protocol would not be tolerated by the Court and a simple “oversight” will not generally be accepted. Any unnecessary costs incurred or wasted would result in adverse cost consequences and even a wasted costs order (i.e. an adverse costs order made to penalize a party’s improper conduct).

As to costs (Issue 4), the Court suggested that the Defendant had good grounds to ask for a wasted costs order against the Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s solicitors and costs on an indemnity basis. However, in view of Defendant’s concession, the Court only ordered for a disallowance of costs on the Plaintiff for preparation of the Statement of Claim and Statement of Damages and the costs of and occasioned by the application be to the Defendant on a party-and-party basis.

Key Takeaways

In a personal injury claim, the plaintiff is required to adhere and ensure compliance to the Pre-Action Protocol in PD 18.1 to provide the requested documents and information to the defendant to facilitate the defendant’s investigation to the matter and for achieving early settlement between the parties. Failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol would lead to costs consequence and even a wasted costs order.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

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, 人身傷害法 Tagged With: personal injury action, claim process, legal procedures, legal compliance

Assisted Reproductive Technology Laws in Hong Kong

October 22, 2024 by OLN Marketing

Due to advances in reproductive medicine, women in their 40s and beyond are now able to give birth to healthy babies. Although controversial, it was reported in 2005 that a 66 year old Romanian woman had given birth to a healthy baby girl through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).

Assisted reproductive technologies have significantly improved the ability for older women to become pregnant and successfully deliver live babies. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines assisted reproductive technology as “all fertility treatments in which either eggs or embryos are handled”. This year, the world’s first “test tube” baby born via IVF, Louise Brown, celebrates her 46th birthday. In Hong Kong, the first reported successful birth via IVF was reported in 1986.

Egg freezing

It has been estimated that females are born with a finite, lifetime supply of approximately one million oocytes (immature eggs) which decrease in quality and quantity beyond the mid 20s, when peak fertility has been observed. Freezing high quality eggs during the prime childbearing years for later use is now considered practical when one is not ready to become pregnant.

Egg freezing has become more popular in recent years, particularly in the pandemic and post pandemic era. TIME Magazine surveyed a fertility practice with over 50 clinics in the US and it reported a 50% increase in the number of women freezing their eggs between 2019 and 2021.

In Hong Kong, there are no age or marital status restrictions on women who wish to freeze their eggs. Frozen oocytes (i.e., 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.

The public healthcare system offers women suffering from cancer under the age of 35 years with egg freezing services if they have not had chemo or radiotherapy, demonstrate adequate follicle count upon pelvic scanning and have a greater than 50% predicted survival rate post cancer treatment. The costs of egg storage still need to be borne by the patient.

In most other instances, the total costs of egg freezing must be funded by patients, either out-of-pocket, through private insurance, or a combination of both.

IVF

When a patient is ready for pregnancy, her oocytes may be harvested or thawed and then used in IVF, described by the Mayo Clinic as a process whereby “…eggs are collected… and fertilised by sperm in a lab. Then a procedure is done to place one or more of the fertilised eggs, called embryos, in a uterus, which is where babies develop.”

Unfortunately, a woman must be legally married in a monogamous relationship to have her eggs fertilised using IVF pursuant to the Hong Kong Code of Practice on Reproductive Technology & Embryo Research (the Code). Since same sex marriage is not yet legally recognised in Hong Kong, couples in same sex marriages and single women are not yet able to access post egg freezing services leading to live pregnancies. Appendix IV of the Code does allow for the transfer of eggs outside of Hong Kong to an IVF centre licensed or established according to the laws where the centre is situated. Section 4 of the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance established the Council on Human Reproductive Technology, which oversees the 2002 Code.

Three public hospitals are able to provide public IVF services to a couple where the wife is a Hong Kong permanent resident under the age of 40 years with no biological children. The waiting period for the initial IVF appointment could be up to three years and patients still need to pay out-of-pocket for medication, certain procedures and embryo storage (if applicable).

Surrogacy

Through IVF, a woman can serve as a surrogate in Hong Kong, carrying an embryo through to childbirth, but only for a couple in a legally recognised marriage, again ruling out same sex couples. Commercial surrogacy (i.e., receiving monetary payment) is prohibited pursuant to section 17 of the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance and therefore only altruistic surrogacy is allowed. Furthermore, section 18 of the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance goes on to state that surrogacy agreements are not enforceable so altruistic arrangements may ultimately be rescinded by either party to a surrogacy agreement.

Pursuant to Chapter XII of the Code, a multi disciplinary team must provide a commissioning couple and the surrogate mother (and her husband if applicable) with counseling so the parties are able to understand the ethical, legal, medical, moral and social implications of the surrogacy arrangement. The counseling team must consist of two registered medical practitioners, a legal professional, a social worker and/or a clinical psychologist. Recommendations on the surrogacy arrangement including the reasons and details for the surrogacy must be recorded by the multi disciplinary team.

Hong Kong legal framework for assisted reproductive technology

Hong Kong’s legal framework illustrates the complex intersection between restrictive marriage laws and reproductive rights in Hong Kong.

By 2023, Hong Kong’s fertility rate had plummeted to 0.75, one of the lowest in the world. The reasons have been attributed to, amongst other factors, health conditions, a society inhospitable to child rearing, desire to have freedom, fear of financial burdens and responsibilities, career ambitions, lack of childcare options, short parental leaves, an overly competitive schooling system and/or lack of a suitable co-parent.

It may be time to review and update the laws in relation to assisted reproductive technology in order to help support higher fertility rates in the HKSAR, enabling more women to successfully give birth.

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, 長者法律服務

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 15
  • 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