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: Importance of Tomlin Order

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. 

An important piece of consideration is to consider settling the civil action in Hong Kong by way of Tomlin Order. 

The nature of Tomlin Order 

In Hong Kong, Tomlin Orders are governed by the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) and the Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H). 

Provided under O.42 r.5A(2)(b)(iii) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) and O.42 r.5A(2)(b)(iii) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H), Tomlin Order is a form of consent order which allows the parties to stay the proceedings upon the mutually agreed settlement terms which are scheduled to the Order but the terms of which do not otherwise form of the Order itself. 

Accordingly, Tomlin Order enables the parties to stay the proceedings, preserving the option to return to Court to enforce the settlement terms if one party fails to comply. This avoids the need for new legal action, making it an attractive option for settling a civil dispute. 

Further, the schedule, being a separate contractual agreement, can include terms that go beyond the ordinary terms typically ordered by the Court, and even go beyond the scope of the original dispute in the proceedings. 

In the Hong Kong case Shum Ho Seung v. Shum Foo Hang (As the Administrator of the Estate of Shum Kwok Hang, Deceased (18/12/2017, HCMP 3134/2016) [2018] 1 HKLRD 434, the Court clarified that it lacks general power to vary the terms in the schedule unless specific provisions for variation are included in the Order itself, or contractual law justifies it. In practice, the standard wording of a Tomlin Order in Hong Kong may include phrases like “all further proceedings be stayed except for the purpose of carrying into effect the terms of settlement,” with liberty to apply for enforcement. 

Here are the key benefits of settling a case via a Tomlin Order in Hong Kong: 

1. Enforceability without separate legal action 

If one party breaches the settlement terms in the schedule, the other can apply to the court to enforce the terms scheduled to the Tomlin Order directly, without starting a new legal action. 
 
For example, if a Defendant fails to pay an agreed sum as provided under the schedule to the Tomlin Order, the Plaintiff can seek enforcement by applying to a Judge/Master as appropriate. 
 
This is a way a more efficient and costs-saving route than settling the civil dispute by way of a separate settlement agreement, whereby generally, if a party breaches the terms of the settlement agreement, the other party will have to bring a fresh claim.

2. Flexibility in Settlement Terms 

The schedule can include terms which go beyond what the Court would typically impose in a judgment, e.g. ceasing certain actions not directly related to the original proceedings. In contrast, the terms which parties could enter by way of Consent Judgment (without Court’s leave) would be more limited under the straight statutory rules.
 
3. Preservation of Finality with Flexibility 

The stay of proceedings means the case is “paused”, but not dismissed. If the terms are fulfilled, the dispute ends without a full trial. On the other hand, if the settlement terms are breached, the innocent party can either enforce the scheduled terms or, in some cases, lift the stay to resume litigation (depending on how the Order is drafted). This balances closure with a safety net as opposed to a full withdrawal/dismissal, which may leave a party vulnerable if the other reneges. 

Conclusion 

The Tomlin Order must be carefully drafted to ensure enforceability and to prevent any pitfall compromising a party’s rights and interest. In summary, a Tomlin Order in civil litigation offers enforceability without separate legal action, flexibility, and preservation of finality with flexibility, making it ideal for parties seeking a practical binding settlement. For specific advice, as each case depends on its own facts, please consult a solicitor. 

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 Dispute: Importance of Payment by Instalment Clause

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.

An important consideration is to consider having payment of settlement sum by instalments. In our experiences, this option has proven to be a game-changer, enabling parties to reach amicable resolutions more effectively. The practical benefits of having payment by instalment clauses in your settlement agreement are listed below:-

1. Alleviating Financial Flexibility for the Paying Party

When a party is required to pay a large settlement amount upfront, it can strain its cash flow, potentially forcing them to reject the settlement entirely.

By having payment by installment clauses in the agreement, the paying party gains room to better manage its finances. This flexibility can make the difference between a stalled negotiation and a signed deal, as it allows the debtor to commit to a resolution without jeopardizing their operational stability.

For instance, a small business facing a HK$1,200,000 settlement sum might struggle to pay it all at once. Spreading that amount over 12 monthly installments of HK$100,000, however, transforms an overwhelming burden into a manageable expense. This practicality often encourages parties to agree rather than prolong the dispute through litigation.

2. Ensuring enforceability of the Settlement Agreement

In cases involving a one-off payment, the settlement agreement carries a heightened risk of being contested down the line, as the paying party may later claim they were misled, poorly advised, or coerced into accepting the terms under economic duress—arguments that could potentially unravel the deal in court. A lump-sum payment, often made under pressure to resolve a dispute quickly, can leave the payor feeling cornered, especially if their financial situation deteriorates shortly after, prompting them to challenge the agreement’s validity by asserting they had no real choice but to comply at the time.

In contrast, a payment-by-instalment clause significantly mitigates this risk by spreading the financial obligation across multiple, manageable payments over an extended period, creating a built-in mechanism that strengthens the agreement’s practicality.

As long as the paying party adheres to some of the instalment schedule (i.e. making certain payment instalments), it is arguable that it effectively elects to affirm to the terms. This repeated compliance undermines any later attempt to overturn the agreement, as it creates a hurdle for the payor to convincingly argue misrepresentation or economic duress when their actions over months or years have indicated voluntary commitment.

By reducing the immediacy of the financial burden and providing a track record of commitment, such clause discourages post hoc legal challenges, offering both parties greater certainty in the resolution process.

3. Building Trust between Parties

Incorporating instalment payments into a settlement agreement can help build trust between parties. The paying party’s commitment to making regular payments reflects reliability and good faith, while the receiving party can appreciate the structured approach to fulfilling the agreement. The continued fulfillment of payment instalments can serve as a positive spiral for both parties to develop trust and positive interactions moving forward.

4. Preserving Business Relationships

Many business disputes occur between parties with ongoing or potential future dealings—suppliers and clients, partners, or vendors. A lump-sum demand can sour these relationships irreparably, whereas an installment plan demonstrates mutual accommodation. By agreeing to terms that work for both sides, the parties signal a willingness to maintain civility and cooperation, which can pave the way for future collaboration once the dispute is resolved.

Conclusion

Incorporating payment by installment into settlement agreements is more than a financial workaround—it’s a strategic tool that bridges gaps, builds trust, and expedites resolutions. For the paying party, it offers a lifeline to meet obligations without crippling their operations. For the receiving party, it ensures compensation with manageable risk. This approach transforms disputes from adversarial standoffs into opportunities for mutually agreeable solution.

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.

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.

超越迷信：在香港無遺囑死亡的真實影響

by

在亞洲許多地區，討論死亡和準備遺囑仍然被視為禁忌，有些人甚至認為寫遺囑會帶來厄運或不幸。這種抗拒意味著很多人從未考慮過，當他們在沒有遺囑的情況下去世時，遺產將受到《無遺囑遺產條例》（第73章）和《非爭議性遺囑認證規則》（第10A章）「無遺囑法」的管控，可能無法與個人意願相符。

在處理已故者的遺產之前，必須向法庭申请遺產承辦書。以下人士有權作為申請者（按照優先順序排列）：

1. 配偶

2. 子女

3. 父母

4. 兄弟姊妹

5. 祖父母

6. 叔叔和阿姨

獲授管理遺產授權書的人將成為管理人，負責根據法律處理遺產。管理人必須確定並收集已故者的資產，清償未付的債務和開支，然後根據法律的規定分配遺產。以下是在無遺情况下, 繼承者的優先順序。一般來說，在無遺囑的情況下，法律只允許你的配偶繼承一半，你的孩子繼承另一半。

除了能夠確保您的意願得到遵循之外，立遺囑還有兩個主要原因：

(1) 如果有遺囑，從法院獲得遺產承辦管理書的過程要快得多（快幾個月甚至幾年）。

(2) 避免在您過世後，您的家人或親密伴侶之間發生遺產訴訟。 優秀的遺囑/遺囑承辦律師將能夠計劃一套遺囑及其他文件，以避免那些認為自己曾經得到您經濟支持的人基於與您曾經的密切關係向法院申請分享您的遺產。 香港法律允許享受過您的財務支持的人向法院申請分享您的遺產。

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。

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。