OLN

Test Blog

CEDB Released a Public Consultation Paper on Updating Hong Kong’s Copyright Regime on 24 November

by

The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of the Government of Hong Kong just released on 24 November 2021 a public consultation paper on updating Hong Kong’s copyright regime. 

This is brilliant news to copyright owners and fingers crossed with the passage of the new legislation! If you may wonder the meaning behind, the current Copyright Ordinance enacted in 1997 is considered badly obsolete and can barely cope with the rapid advancements and innovations in technology. Despite the Government’s deliberation to update the legislation initiated since 2006 with public consultations conducted,  two serious attempts to amend the Ordinance (The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 and The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014) did not succeed due to filibustering by some members asserting the view that freedom of creativity or expression could possibly be compromised under the proposed legislative provisions.

The consultation paper described the legislative proposals in the 2014 Bill to be the result of years of deliberations of the Government, Legislative Council, copyright owners, online service providers and copyright users, representing the consensus and balance of interests of different stakeholders to enhance protection for copyright in the digital environment and combat large scale online piracy – which should be materialized without further delay.  

Key legislative proposals based on the 2014 Bill

A. Communication right – introduction of technology-neutral exclusive communication right for copyright owners to communicate their works to the public through any mode of electronic transmission in line with the international practice

B. Criminal liability – criminal sanctions introduced against infringers making unauthorised communication of copyright works to the public for profit or reward and with prejudice caused to the copyright owners

C. New copyright exceptions – for the education sector, libraries, museums, archives, temporary reproduction of copyright works by OSPs, and media shifting; and new fair dealing exceptions for the purposes of parody, satire, caricature and pastiche, commenting on current events, and use of quotation to facilitate expression of opinions or discussions in the online and traditional environment

D. Safe harbour provisions – limiting OSP’s liability for copyright infringements on their service platforms caused by subscribers as an incentive for OSPs to cooperate with copyright owners to combat online piracy

E. Additional damages in civil cases – empowering the court to award additional damages according to the circumstances with additional factors to assess including the unreasonable conduct of an infringer and likelihood of widespread circulation of infringing copies

Issues inviting public views

1. Should Hong Kong continue to maintain the current exhaustive approach by setting out all copyright exceptions based on specific purposes or circumstances?

2. Should Hong Kong introduce provisions to restrict the use of contracts to exclude or limit the application of statutory copyright exceptions? (currently is non-interference approach to contractual arrangements between owners and users)

3. Should Hong Kong introduce specific provisions to govern illicit streaming devices used for accessing unauthorized contents on the Internet, including set-top boxes and Apps? (Government’s current position is not to)

4. Should Hong Kong introduce a copyright-specific judicial site blocking mechanism? (Government’s current position is not to)

Issues to be considered for future legislative amendments
  • Extension of copyright term of protection
  • Introduction of specific copyright exceptions for text and data mining
  • AI and copyright

The consultation period is 3 months from 24 November 2021. We are more than happy to convey your thoughts to the Bureau or share our thoughts on issues you may have on copyright protection or circumstances that may put you at the risk of infringing someone else’s copyright.

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.

How to Settle Civil Disputes: Use of Mediation

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.

When parties are in a dispute actively considering for settlement, mediation stands out as a viable and pragmatic process to resolve conflicts while reducing the burdens of prolonged litigation.

Mediation

Mediation is a structured process in which one or more impartial individuals, without adjudicating a dispute or any aspect of it, assist the parties in identifying the issues in dispute, exploring and generating options, communicating with one another and reaching an agreement regarding the resolution of the dispute[1].

Benefits of Mediation

  1. Without prejudice privilege

As codified under section 9 of the Mediation Ordinance (Cap. 620), a mediation communication may be admitted in evidence in any proceedings (including judicial, arbitral, administrative or disciplinary proceedings) only with leave of the Court or tribunal.

The without prejudice privilege allows parties to negotiate freely without fear that their discussions can be used against them in court, encouraging open and honest dialogue. 

  1. Confidentiality

The process of mediation is strictly confidential.

As provided under section 8 of the Mediation Ordinance (Cap. 620), a person must not disclose a mediation communication, except for limited exceptions (e.g. consent of all relevant parties, content of mediation communication is already in the public domain, or disclosure is required by law).

The confidential nature of the mediation ensures that sensitive details remain private, protects the emotional well-being and prevent the public exposure often seen in trials. Confidentiality also affords parties a safety net to frankly disclose their concerns and objectives of the settlement proposal.

  1. Impartiality of the mediator 

The mediator must be impartial and conflict-free. The impartiality of the mediator ensures that all parties would be treated fairly, thereby encouraging honest and open dialogue in the process. The mediator will also actively manage the process, such that the more vulnerable party would not be undermined by the stronger party.

  1. Expertise of the mediator

As parties have the flexibility to decide who to appoint as mediator, mediation offers a distinct advantage by allowing parties to select an industry expert as the mediator, ensuring the facilitator has specialized knowledge relevant to the dispute. 

This expertise enables the mediator to better understand the technical or sector-specific issues at play, fostering more informed discussions and credible solutions that resonate with both sides. For instance, in a construction dispute, a mediator with engineering experience can grasp the nuances of project delays or defects, helping parties navigate complex claims more effectively. By choosing a mediator with the required industry insight, parties can achieve a more tailored and efficient resolution, making mediation a highly beneficial option for settlement.

  1. Costs and time involved 

Costs involved in the mediation process are significantly lower than litigation, addressing financial strain and opportunity costs of scarce resources, making mediation a practical choice halfway through a costly legal battle. Uncertainties and risks of litigation could also be managed.

Conclusion

Mediation should be seriously considered for dispute resolution due to its compelling advantages, including the without prejudice privilege that encourages open negotiation without legal repercussions, confidentiality that safeguards sensitive information from public exposure, the impartiality of the mediator that ensures a fair process, the expertise of the mediator that brings specialized insight to complex issues, and the reduced costs that alleviate financial strain. These benefits collectively provide a practical and humane alternative to litigation, making mediation an effective pathway to settlement that preserves relationships, optimizes resources, and promotes fair outcomes.

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.

[1] Department of Justice. “Mediate First for a Win-Win Solution” 

How to Settle Civil Dispute: Human Cost at Stake

by

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

After years of advising and settling civil disputes, it is hoped that this series can shield light on the dos and don’ts for parties when they enter into settlement negotiation, and when they eventually sign and execute the settlement agreement.

However, what are the relevant factors in play in deciding whether settling is the right move?

One crucial, but often overlooked, factor is the human costs involved.

  1. Opportunity costs of scarce resources and time invested in the litigation

Aside from financial resources, litigation demands time, emotional energy, and focus, often pulling one away from family, work, or health. Especially for private clients, it is no exaggeration that litigation is like their “second job”.

The energy, finances, and focus devoted to a prolonged legal battle may detract from other personal or professional opportunities, making settlement a strategic choice to reclaim those resources and redirect them more productively.

Settling a civil dispute could therefore provide peace of mind to one, allowing you to reclaim your life sooner and to prioritize over other aspects of life.

  1. Interest of family members and loved ones

In deciding whether to settle a case, one important factor to consider is the interest of family members and loved ones, who may be deeply affected by the litigation’s demands. The emotional strain, time commitment, and financial pressures of continuing the case could place a heavy burden on relationships, often making settlement a more compassionate option to prioritize their well-being and restore balance.

For instance, a parent with a young child requiring funds to study abroad may be willing to accept a lesser but immediate settlement sum, in the hope of improving the financial situation of one’s household for upcoming needs. 

  1. Harmony among family members or business partners

It is essential to acknowledge that litigation severely damages the harmony and trust once built among family members or business partners.

The litigation process often unearths painful accusations, long-term grudges, and divides loyalties, leaving behind a legacy of resentment and fractured bonds. Testifying against one another in Open Court marks a point of no return, as parties are usually destined to part ways forever.

Settlement could therefore serve a viable path to prioritize reconciliation and preserve the relationship over the adversarial toll of litigation.

  1. Prevention of emotional turmoil

The uncertainties and risks of litigation bring huge amount of stress to the litigants, especially the case of private client. It is not uncommon to see litigants suffering from insomnia in the nights leading up to trial or even being diagnosed with mental disorder thereby warranting therapy and medication.

Moreover, bringing up sensitive details and trauma into open trial may heighten the emotional turmoil for the litigant involved. The public exposure of personal struggles and traumatic experiences could intensify distress. It would be difficult for a litigant to move on to the next stage of his/her life if he/she is required to testify in open Court the past trauma and be exposed to intimating cross-examination from the opponent’s counsel. 

The stress and anxiety may make settlement a preferable option to alleviate this burden and promote mental well-being.

Conclusion

In deciding whether to settle a case, the human costs of litigation, encompassing the opportunity costs of scarce resources and time invested, the interests of family members and loved ones, the potential disruption of harmony among family members or business partners, and the need to prevent emotional turmoil must be carefully weighed. These factors highlight the profound personal toll of continuing a legal battle, often making settlement a more humane and practical option to mitigate these impacts and foster a healthier resolution for all involved.

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.

Navigating Legal Minefields: Directors’ Dilemmas in Relying on Legal Advice Given to his Company

by

  1. BUSINESS PRACTICE OF SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE

In the ever-evolving business world, legal issues are an inevitable challenge that organizations must navigate to ensure compliance, mitigate risks, and safeguard their interests. Since directors can be held personally liable for companies’ conduct in some cases, out of prudence, it is not uncommon for the directors to seek advice either from external legal advisors or internal legal advisors or both.

It is trite under common law that advice by external legal advisors (i.e. law firms or barristers in private practice) would be covered by legal professional privilege (LPP). LPP is a fundamental right that protects confidential communication between a lawyer and their client from being disclosed without the client’s consent, ensuring that the client can seek and receive legal advice in confidence. Unlike other communication with non-lawyer (such as an accountant), even a law-enforcer empowered to demand for information cannot compile disclosure of material covered by LPP. The case Citic Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice (No 2) [2015] 4 HKLRD 20 confirms that such LPP can also be enjoyed for communication with in-house counsel.

A company has to act through individuals. Usually a company’s conduct is directed and done through its directors. In process of seeking legal advice and receiving legal advice, the role of directors is indispensable. Not only directors act on behalf of the company, but also by actively engaging with legal counsel, by signing a retainer with lawyer, giving debriefing on issues at hand, providing instructions to lawyer and corresponding with lawyer on behalf of the company. There is therefore no surprise if directors have the confusion that the advice from the lawyer is given to himself and he could rely thereon for certain personal act.

As a matter of law and the principle of separate legal personality. The legal advice addressed to a company does not belong to the directors. Ownership of LPP is with the company but not the directors. This can potentially cause problems. Imagine a director sought legal advice on behalf of a company and rely on such advice to act in a certain way. Such act by the director was later found to be illegal and the director faced criminal charge. When the director wished to rely on the legal advice as a defence, such evidence was not available because the advice was covered by LPP but only the company, as the owner, could waive the same.

In such hypothetical case, the crucial legal questions would be:-

  • Who owns the LPP over the communications with legal counsel (external and internal)? The company (legal person) or the director (natural person), or jointly?
  • Who can waive such LPP in litigation to further one’s claim and/or defence?
  • Is there any exception to LPP such that LPP can be compelled to be disclosed?

  1. HONG KONG POSITION

Ownership of LPP

When a company’s employee, on behalf of company (but not in his/her personal capacity), seeks and receives legal advice from duly qualified legal advisor (external or internal), it is the company who owns the LPP over the communications and documents which are created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice, but not the employee himself/herself, as the Court of Appeal held in Citic Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice (No 2) [2015] 4 HKLRD 20 at §59:-

“…It can, we think, be said that the client is simply the corporation, and that the question is really one of which of its employees should be regarded as being authorised to act for it in the process of obtaining legal advice. As we have suggested earlier, there are good reasons why such employees should not be restricted to select members of the corporate legal department and we see no good reason why such restriction is required….”[1]

Provided that a director is authorised to act for the company in obtaining legal advice, it is the company who owns the LPP over the communications and documents.

Absolute nature of LPP and Waiver of LPP under HK law

LPP is a constitutional right entrenched in Article 35 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that “Hong Kong residents shall have the right to confidential legal advice, access to the courts”. The absolute nature of LPP is discussed by Ribeiro PJ in Secretary for Justice v Florence Tsang Chiu Wing (2014) 17 HKCFAR 739, whereby His Lordship stated at §29 that:-

“While an exercise of balancing competing interests is required in deciding whether some should be released from implied undertaking, it is well established that “LPP does not involve such a balancing of interests. It is absolute and is based not merely upon the general right to privacy but also upon the right of access to justice”

As such, LPP entails the right to resist the compulsory disclosure of those communications. Unless the privilege is waived by the client, “once privileged, always privileged”[2]. As privilege of the client, it can be waived, expressly or impliedly, by the client. For example, there is a waiver when the client brings proceedings for professional negligence against the solicitor, or where the client applies for an order of wasted costs against the solicitor[3].

The absolute nature of LP is strict, such that even athird party who has come into possession of a privileged writtencommunication, whether through inadvertence, mistake or even surreptitiousconduct, should not be allowed to give evidence of it unless the client waivesthe privilege[4].

  1. CRIME/FRAUD EXCEPTION TO LPP

Although the nature of LPP is absolute, it is settled that privilege does not attach to communications between lawyer and client if the purpose of the client in seeking legal advice is to facilitate criminal or fraudulent conduct[5].

  1. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FACED BY A LITIGANT IN WHITE-COLLAR LITIGATION

By reason of the absolute nature of LPP and that the LPP is owned by the company, if a defendant (e.g. director/employee), who is privy to these LPP communications/documents and who wishes to disclose these LPP communications/documents for his defence at criminal trial, he must first seek waiver from the company. As it is the company who owns the LPP and LPP is a constitutional right entrenched in Article 35 of the Basic Law, he must not disclose or refer to these communications/documents without prior waiver from the company, no matter how useful and exculpatory these LPP communications/documents are.

As it is the company who owns the LPP, and that the company and the director/employee are separate legal entities, the company may well elect not to waive its LPP claim over these communications/documents, even though this may be at the expense of the director/employee.

In the event the company refuses to waive its LPP claim over these communications/documents, not only this creates insurmountable difficulties to a defendant’s defence at trial, this, arguably, even renders a trial unfair to a defendant, for he is effectively prevented to refer and rely on relevant and pertinent defence evidence though there is no fault on his own part (assuming crime/fraud exception does not apply). Arguably, the predicament he is caught in is akin to the prejudicial situation where there is a key defence witness absent for the trial.

  1. CONCLUSION

The situation where in a criminal trial, a director/employee is unable to refer or disclose communications/documents subject to LPP owned by the company is unsatisfactory, which warrants reform. The position in other common law jurisdictions is different (to be discussed in another article) and Hong Kong may draw reference therefrom. This is more pertinent in the current business landscape than before as regulatory frameworks continue to evolve and expand, the need for ongoing legal guidance has become not just a precautionary measure, but an essential component of sustainable and compliant business operations.

At the same time, legislative reform should be considered to establish a balanced approach that respects the company’s privilege while ensuring director/employee is not unduly hindered in their roles. Such reforms could include statutory exceptions or protocols for accessing privileged documents under specific circumstances, subject to judicial safeguard. By providing clearer legal pathways and updating the legislative framework, the interests of both companies and their director/employee can simultaneously be safeguarded, promoting fairness and efficiency in corporate governance and legal proceedings.

[1] Citic Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice (No 2) [2015] 4 HKLRD 20 at §59
[2] CITIC Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2012] 2 HKLRD 701 at §§23-24
[3] Johannes Chan SC (Hon) LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE: IS IT ABSOLUTE? P.465
[4] CITIC Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2012] 2 HKLRD 701 at §§40-51
[5] CITIC Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2012] 2 HKLRD 701 at §77

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 Dispute: Is the Case Worth Pursuing?

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. 

However, what are the relevant factors in play in deciding whether settling is the right move?

Two key factors are costs and financial affordability.

Parties may face significant financial strain as legal costs accumulate rapidly. It becomes critical to evaluate expected future legal expenses against available financial resources to determine whether continuing the case is sustainable or if settlement options should be explored.

1. Incurred and Expected Future Legal Costs: counting the Price of Persistence

Litigation could be costly. By the time the litigation has already progressed to the mid-stage, it is certain that parties may have already spent nonnegligible sums for legal costs, filing fees, and fees for expert reports.

The next pertinent question then becomes: how much more legal costs and disbursements will be incurred?  

Whilst it must be acknowledged that the length of the litigation process itself is uncertain and unpredictable (as it also depends on the actions taken by the opposing party), it is appropriate to consult your solicitor to give an estimate of the costs exposure going forward, based on certain reasonable assumptions.

For instance, in the midway of the litigation, when the witness statements have already been exchanged and parties have also indicated their estimated length of cross-examining the opponent’s witnesses, it is possible to arrive at the number of trial dates to be set down should leave be given. Based on the number of trial dates, it is possible for the legal costs to be estimated in so far as the trial is concerned. 

Armed with the estimated legal costs for the trial, the party could then have a better estimate of the costs that lie ahead. High legal costs could erode the recovery of damages. Weighing incurred and estimated legal costs ensures you’re not throwing good money after bad.

2. Financial Resources: can one afford the fight

Based on the estimated legal costs to be incurred, one could then assess whether one’s financial resources suffice to sustain the upcoming legal costs.

For private clients, draining personal funds may jeopardize daily living expenses or long-term goals like retirement. For businesses, prolonged legal battles could divert valuable financial resources from investment or other more productive activities.

Settlement therefore offers certainty and finality to the dispute, albeit at a lower payout.

Conclusion

In deciding whether to settle a case, incurred and expected costs as well as financial affordability are indispensable considerations to factor. The mounting legal expenses incurred through the process, combined with the litigant’s financial resources, often necessitate a pragmatic evaluation of whether continuing litigation is viable or if settlement offers a more sustainable resolution.

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.