OLN

Test Blog

There Is A Caveat to The Will – What are the Next Steps?

by

What can be done if there are disputes over the validity of a will or the administrator of the estate? Provided that the ‘Grant of representation’ has not yet been issued by the Hong Kong Probate Registry, which would indicate that it has already validated the will, a concerned party may enter a ‘Caveat’. This will ensure that the “Caveator’, that is the person who lodges the caveat, will be informed if any application is made for the issue of a grant of representation.

While the existence of a caveat may indicate there are genuine concerns in a probate or administration process and therefore a sign of potential disputes, the effect of entering a caveat is not necessarily contentious in itself. Nevertheless, caveat proceedings do start when a caveat is lodged with the Probate Registry against an estate of a Deceased. The Probate Registry only process non-contentious applications for grant. If the application has become “contentious”, the contention must be resolved first. In theory, the entering of a caveat can be contentious, and the caveat must be dealt with first before the application can be processed further.

A caveat is a notice preventing a grant of representation being issued by the Registry without notice to the caveator. Some of the common reasons to enter a caveat are:-

•    To allow more time for the caveator to make enquiries, obtain further information or evidence to:

o    Oppose proof of a will
o    Challenge the validity of a will
o    Oppose the issue of the grant of representation to the person entitled
o    Ascertain entitlement where there is no will (the deceased died intestate)

•    To act as a preliminary step to a probate action, or to citation (for more information, see our article on citations)
•    To be a first step in an application by people who have equal entitlement to the grant of representation

Once entered, a caveat remains in force for 6 months from the date of entry and then automatically ceases to have effect, unless withdrawn or removed prior to such date. There is no limitation to the number of further caveats and extensions that can be made. 

How to Handle a Caveat?

Issuing of any grant of representation shall not be allowed if the Probate Registry has knowledge of an effective caveat. Where an effective caveat is in place, the applicant for grant of the relevant estate would be asked by the Registrar to deal with the caveat. This can sometimes come as a surprise to grant applicants as they may not have been previously aware of the caveat.

Depending on the circumstances, there are various ways of handling an estate with a caveat. In any event, given the many potential contentious issues that may arise and the sensitive nature of probate or administration in general, legal advice should be sought and the matter should always be handled with care.

A caveat can only be removed:-

•    By withdrawal of the caveat by the caveator giving notice at the Probate Registry, as long as an appearance to a warning has not been entered
•    By the non-appearance of a caveator to the warning to caveator
•    By an order of the High Court that the caveat does cease to have effect and a grant of representation be issued
•    By the expiration of 6 months form the date of entry or effective extension

It may be worrying to discover that a caveat has been lodge, but it is not unusual to find occasions where the caveat process is misused and caveats are simply lodged to stall for time, or even where parties have no grounds to contest a will or the administration of an estate. Where there is no valid reason to lodge a caveat, there could be costs consequences for the caveator. 

Whether you discovered a caveat or you are thinking of entering one, it should be reminded that caveat proceedings are by nature contentious and can well be the start of a litigation. Any step taken after the commencement of a caveat proceedings could cause legal consequences, including costs. It is therefore recommended that you seek independent legal advice before taking any step in dealing with a caveat.

If you have any questions regarding the above or would like to obtain further information on our probate and estate planning services, please feel free to contact our Probate and Estate Planning team.  

This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.

February 2021

家庭信託: 明智地使用法律費用

by

早期建議如何能大大減少未來的成本

正如中國俗話所說：家醜不可外揚，所有的家庭問題都應該在“屋內”解決是中國文化根深蒂固的思想。通常家庭和私人財富經理都不會輕易聯繫律師，只有當問題嚴重到難以處理或者成為災難的時候，才會想到去聘請法律顧問，此時要解決如此嚴重的問題往往會需要一筆相當大金額的資金。本通報是為在早期階段建立的法律備留提供實務的指標，以避免未來出現這種噩夢。

結構形成

在香港，有多樣的服務和產品可以供高淨值人士和家庭選擇。香港仍然是超級富豪的聚集中心，他們擁有大量的私人財富，主要包括易於投資的資產，其中大部分以私人信託的形式持有，用於財富和遺產規劃的主要手段。這聽起來很簡單，但隨著高淨值人群的擴大，香港的財富和遺產規劃師看到第二和第三層次的富人對複雜規劃的需求越來越大，特別是對於財富的代際轉移，家族企業的繼承問題及長期慈善目標。
客戶的喜好（或在許多情況下，他們的服務提供者的喜好），以及遺產原因往往是選擇結構和管轄區的主導因素。然而，設計不良的結構和不適當的管轄區選擇可能導致嚴重的違規問題，資產的不流動，不必要的行政支出，或對商業運作的阻礙。因此，根據以下關鍵因素，在最適合的管轄範圍內，與法律顧問密切合作來搭建一個適合的結構框架很重要:

1. 受益人的具體需求

相關問題包括:

a) 是否需要持續的支援，以及支持多長時間（例如，對未成年人和老年受益人）？在這種情況下，什麼是確保部分資產保持流動性的最佳方式？
b) 是否有必要擁有獨立的財富組合，如果有必要，離岸基金是否合適？
c) 是否有任何具體的管轄事項（例如，美國公民問題）需要為某些受益人提供更多保護？
d) 他們在家族企業中是否有任何作用？如果使用私人信託公司，是否可以預見身兼數職的衝突？

2. 稅收效率

流行的離岸司法管轄區（如英屬維京群島和開曼群島）的實體和活動不徵稅，這對於那些要求其資產易於轉讓，同時對所有權高度保密的人來說是理想的。在香港，雖然本地產權沒有資本收益稅，但在香港進行的貿易活動，專業或商業經營所產生或衍生的利潤須繳納利得稅。因此，結構中的相關香港實體所獲得的報酬或利潤，即使是通過離岸工具，也可能要被徵稅。

稅收考慮的另一個方面是個人受益人的潛在個人責任，特別是在接受分配時。

3.    合規問題
隨著全球範圍內反洗錢和反金融犯罪鬥爭的開展，從提供基本的個人資料到提供詳細的有關資金和收入的來源都成為不可避免的合規要求。諸如 “實益擁有權”，”經濟實質 “和 “FATCA “等術語在所有流行的財富停放管轄區經常成為頭條新聞。根據不遵守報告義務的動機來選擇管轄區是不現實的，因為人們最終會選擇一個沒有或很少有金融和專業基礎設施的管轄區，即使如此，這樣的管轄區最終也會發展並變得規範。

對合規要求的正確做法是請法律顧問繪製出每年完全遵守所有報告義務所需的行動和資訊。從邏輯上講，適當的規劃和準備的成本將大大低於處理未能遵守某些職責的後果的成本。  

關鍵的檔

多年來，在香港，信託一直是資產保護和繼承計畫的默認設置。儘管瞭解這些好處，家庭一般不願意放棄對資產的控制權，往往會尋求保留某些權力。然而，最近的法院案件（例如JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017] EWHC 2426 (Ch)）證明，由委託人控制的信託很容易受到攻擊，法院已經開發了一些方法，使協力廠商（通常是債權人或離婚的配偶）能夠對信託資產執行命令。

與此相反，許多司法管轄區引入了具體條款，旨在使信託人（委託人）能夠保留廣泛的權力。香港的信託不會僅僅因為委託人為自己保留了投資或資產管理的權力而無效。然而，香港的法定保護並不包括保留撤銷權或任命和罷免受託人或受益人的權力，而這些權力在包括新加坡在內的離岸制度中都有。

因此，重要的是要明白，所有的檔必須始終根據具體事實來起草。然而，作為一項一般原則，關鍵是只保留有關委託人所需的權力。例如，將企業納入信託的委託人可能希望保留否決企業的擬議出售或其他處置的權力。但是，請注意，如果這與其他廣泛的權力相結合，如更換受託人的權力，決定誰是受益階層成員的權利，以及例如對信託資產的任何處置的否決權，那麼法院可能會說，委託人有辦法控制信託資產的處置，並且在實踐中，確保他們有受託人會服從他們的意願。另一條一般規則是，保留對行動的否決權可能比積極的權力更安全。僅僅能夠阻止行動的發生，委託人被認定為保留了實際所有權的可能性要小得多，因為他們不能僅僅通過行使這些否決權來實現對財產的任何處置。

減輕訴訟風險

糾紛是不可避免的，而且往往會使受託人處於衝突的地位。典型的爭議情況包括受益人的配偶在離婚時要求披露信託的細節，受益人無法就分配問題達成共識，或者受託人和受益人之間在處理某些資產方面存在分歧。

將問題提交給法院可能聽起來令人生畏，但大多數法院都有法定的監督管轄權，可以下達處理信託資產的命令。香港《受讬人條例》第56條允許受託人向法院提出申請，要求獲得必要的權力來管理或管理歸屬於受託人的財產。與境外法院可能行使的更廣泛的自由裁量權相比，這是一個相對狹窄的管轄權。作者為一個位於香港的開曼信託的受託人代理，根據信託法第48條尋求開曼法院的命令，以批准受益人無法同意的分配建議。因此，在糾紛的早期階段，向對信託有管轄權的法院尋求指示，以減少全面訴訟的風險，是一種良好的做法。

總結

由於圍繞著私人財富管理問題的多樣性和複雜性，正如上述強調的問題和情況，財富管理人應該在規劃，起草的早期階段，以及在任何潛在糾紛的發現前因第一時間與法律顧問緊密合作。

February 2021

Shareholders’ Agreement 101 – Do I Need One?

by

Why do you need a shareholders’ agreement?

When friends or family members come together to form a company, more often than not, they will not consider the need for a shareholders’ agreement as they tend to rely on mutual trust, respect and confidence. Of course, this generally works perfectly when the business is doing well and profitable, and while the shareholders are receiving their expected return on investment. But what if things turn sour? Whether the business is not doing well or trust and confidence morph into distrust and suspicion, what can shareholders do? In circumstances like these, the shareholders’ agreement comes into play. A well drafted shareholders’ agreement should be able to offer a solution to the parties in most cases. As with any other agreement such as those for sale and purchase, and loan transactions, the importance of a shareholders’ agreement is to safeguard interests of the shareholders and if disputes arise between the parties, there is an agreement they can fall back on setting out clearly what the parties can or cannot do, and shall or shall not do.

What is a shareholders’ agreement?

Shareholders’ agreement is an essential agreement between the shareholders of a company and the company itself. It can be between the company and all or just some of the shareholders; for instance, a company with different classes of shares and holders of different classes of shares might prefer to separately enter into a shareholders’ agreement with the company instead of with holders of all classes of shares. A shareholders’ agreement is used to govern the company’s management and operation and sets out all the rights and obligations between the shareholders and the company. A shareholders’ agreement is particularly important for third party investors investing in an existing company or business or when unrelated parties come together to form a new company.

What terms are to be included in a shareholders’ agreement differ according to the parties’ needs and bargaining power and/or the particular type of business. Still, a typical shareholders’ agreement normally consists of the following terms:

  • the type of business the company will run
  • the management of the company, i.e., the composition of the board of directors and any committees
  • the right of shareholders to nominate directors
  • frequency, procedures for convening and holding board meetings and shareholders’ meetings
  • matters which require simple majority, super majority or unanimous votes
  • specific obligations of shareholders
  • dividend policy
  • issue of new shares and admission of new shareholders
  • transfer of shares
  • anti-dilution mechanism
  • deadlock
  • minority shareholder protection
  • further financing needs of the company
  • non-competition undertaking by shareholders
  • term and termination of the shareholders’ agreement
  • dispute resolutions

If investments are to be made in stages, the shareholders’ agreement would normally include the timetable for capital contribution, share subscription by the shareholders, shareholding structure and other typical clauses in a share subscription agreement.

Minority protection

Where a company has only two shareholders, one of them holds 51% (majority shareholder) and the other one holds 49% (minority shareholder) of the issued shares, the minority shareholder typically has no control over how the company will be managed and operated as the minority shareholder will be out-voted by the majority shareholder at general meetings, assuming all decisions only require a simple majority vote, i.e., >50%, of the shareholders to pass. However, according to the Companies Ordinance (Cap.622, Laws of Hong Kong), certain decisions of a company are required to be passed by special resolutions, i.e., passed by at least 75% of the voting shares. These decisions include the alteration of the articles of association, change of the company’s name, reduction in the share capital of the company, etc., meaning that the majority shareholder in the above case cannot simply pass a resolution by itself to alter the articles of association of the company. In addition to those decisions specified in the Companies Ordinance that must be approved by special resolutions, to protect their interests, the minority shareholder will negotiate with the majority shareholder for other matters to be passed by special resolutions which are not otherwise required so by law. Common examples include capital expenditure above a certain amount, disposal of material assets, change in the company’s principal business, further financing through equity or borrowings or change in dividend policy, etc. 

Often when an investor invests in a business as a minority shareholder, the investor is in fact investing in the experience, expertise and knowledge in the industry and business operation of the company’s management team who are normally the majority or founding shareholders of the company. In case the majority shareholders decide to divest and sell their shares, the investor could also consider selling their shares as there may be uncertainty as to the management, operation and profitability of the business once the company changes hands. Hence, the investor will almost inevitably request a “tag-along right” to be incorporated in the shareholders’ agreement, giving the investor the right but not the obligation to co-sell its shares on the same terms to the prospective buyer of the majority stake. 

A minority investor would normally request a non-competition undertaking from the company and the majority shareholders to oblige them not to engage in any business operations or investment in other businesses that are similar to or in direct competition with that of the company. This is to avoid any negative impact on the profitability of the company. 

Majority protection

Not only do minority shareholders need a shareholders’ agreement to protect their interests, majority shareholders also have certain interests that require safeguarding. A potential nightmare for a majority shareholder could be when they have found a prospective buyer willing to buy-out 100% of the company but the minority shareholder refuses to sell their shares. What happens next is the entire deal falls through. To avoid this, the shareholders’ agreement should include a clause whereby if the majority shareholder decides to sell all of their shares in the company to a third-party buyer, they will have the right (but not the obligation) to request the minority shareholder(s) to also sell their shares in the company on the same terms. Once requested by the majority shareholder, the minority shareholder(s) will be obligated to sell their shares. Contrary to the tag-along right afforded to minority shareholders, such a right is known as the “drag-along right” of the majority shareholder.

In addition, a majority shareholder would not want any information relating to the business operations, prospects, customers, suppliers, financial information or trade secrets being disclosed to any third party, especially competitors, or shares in the company sold to competitors. Therefore, specific clauses that deal with the use and disclosure of confidential information and on the restrictions on the transfer of shares will need to be incorporated in the shareholders’ agreement to address the majority shareholder’s concerns.

Equal shareholdings

Suppose every shareholder in a company holds the same percentage of shares, for example, there are five shareholders each holding 20%. In this case, where there is no majority shareholder, would any of the majority or minority protection provisions mentioned above still apply? If two or more shareholders join hands and outnumber the rest in terms of shareholdings, arguably there will be a (collective) majority camp against the minority shareholders. What if none of the shareholders can agree on an issue? Circumstances like this is commonly known as a “deadlock” situation, where things come to a standstill and cannot move forward. If a deadlock situation continues, it could seriously affect the continued operation of the business. A well-drafted shareholders’ agreement should have specific provisions incorporated to cater for deadlocks and provide mechanisms to resolve issues. 

Shareholders’ agreement vs Articles of Association

Whether the terms of a shareholders’ agreement will be reflected in the company’s articles of association very much depends on the parties’ wishes. In Hong Kong, the articles of association of a company are public documents and can be searched and obtained for a fee by anyone. If the articles of association of a company is amended to incorporate and reflect terms of the shareholders’ agreement, all such terms incorporated in the articles of association will also become public information. Hence, whether the terms of the shareholders’ agreement will be incorporated in the articles of association and how much of it should be incorporated becomes another area of negotiation between the shareholders and the company. Suppose certain terms of the shareholders’ agreement differ from the articles of association, such as the quorum for a board meeting, and the parties decide not to amend the articles of association to reflect the same, should the shareholders comply with the articles of association or the shareholders’ agreement? To avoid this embarrassing situation, it is always good practice to include a clause in the shareholders’ agreement to the effect that if there is any contradiction or discrepancy between the shareholders’ agreement and the articles of association, the terms of the shareholders’ agreement will prevail.

If you wish to find out more about whether you need a shareholders’ agreement for your company, how to protect your interests, and what terms should be included in your shareholders’ agreement, please feel free to speak to members of our corporate and commercial team.

January 2021

Simon Wong
+852 2186 4848 / +852 9460 9816
simon.wong@oln-law.com
Partner, Corporate & Commercial
Oldham, Li & Nie

No Way! No Will? – What you Need to Know about Hong Kong Intestacy

by

When someone passes away without having executed a valid will, the law of intestacy governs the administration and distribution of assets of the Estate. Two key pieces of this legislation are the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance (Cap. 73) (the “IEO”) and the Non-contentious Probate Rules (Cap. 10A) (the “Rules”).

Before dealing with the deceased’s estate, a Grant of Letters of Administration must be obtained from the Probate Registry. Individuals who are entitled to apply for a Grant of Letters of Administration of the intestate’s estate are those set out in rule 21 of the Rules, in the following order of priority:

1.    A surviving spouse
2.    Children
3.    Parents
4.    Siblings
5.    Grandparents
6.    Uncles and aunts.

Those who are successful in obtaining a Grant of Letters of Administration are the administrators and are empowered to deal with the estate in accordance with the IEO.

After obtaining the Grant of Letters of Administration and having arranged for the funeral of the deceased, the administrator should first collate all the assets of the deceased and settle any debts and expenses. After that, the administrator should distribute the estate to the beneficiaries in accordance with section 4 of the IEO, with the table below illustrating some examples of entitlement under section 4 of the IEO.


Entitlement on Intestacy

 

Surviving Relatives

 Status of Other Relatives Entitlement Arrangement

1. 

 Spouse No issue* of the deceased, parent, full sibling or issue* of full sibling  All to the surviving spouse

2.

 Spouse and issue* of the deceased Other relatives immaterial

The surviving spouse takes the personal chattels, HK$500,000 and half of the residuary estate.The other half is held on statutory trust** for the surviving issue*.

 

3.

Spouse and one or more of the following relatives, namely:

  • parent or
  • full sibling or
  • issue* of full sibling 
   The surviving spouse takes the personal chattels, HK$1,000,000 and half of the residuary estate. The other half is held for the surviving parent(s) or on statutory trusts for the surviving full sibling(s).

4.

 Issue* of the deceased No spouse All to the surviving issue* on statutory trust. 

5.

 Parent(s) No spouse, no issue* of the deceased All to parent(s)

6.

 Full siblings No spouse, no issue*, no parent All to full siblings on statutory trusts**

7.

 Half siblings No spouse, no issue*, no parent, no full siblings All to half siblings on statutory trusts**

8.

 Grandparent(s) None of the above All to grandparent(s)

9.

 Full uncles and aunts None of the above All to full uncles and aunts on statutory trusts.

10.

 Half uncles and aunts None of the above All to half uncles and aunts on statutory trusts.

11.

 None of the above relatives

 

 All to the Hong Kong Government as unowned property.

*Issue in succession law means the descendant of a person, such as children and grandchildren.
**For details on statutory trusts refer to the IEO 

Despite the prescribed entitlement under the IEO, beneficiaries of an estate may sometimes redistribute their entitlement through a Deed of Family Arrangement executed by all beneficiaries and setting out the agreed redistribution of the deceased’s estate. Do note though that the redistribution through a Deed of Family Arrangement may attract stamp duty. 

While the law prescribes a specific priority for the distribution of an intestate’s estate and may leave certain wiggle room for beneficiaries to alter their entitlement, it would certainly be useful to make a valid will to ensure your estate will be inherited exactly as planned. 

If you have any questions and would like to obtain further information on our probate and estate planning services, please contact one of the members of our Probate and Estate Planning team, who are listed here: https://oln-law.com/probate-estate-planning.  

This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.

January 2021

OLN Lawyers Contribute to Lexis Nexis on Start up Sale & Purchase

by

Sharing their knowledge and expertise on Start up Sale and Purchase Agreements, Partners Anna Chan and Victor Ng have contributed to the ‘Hong Kong Encyclopedia of Forms and Precedents’ by LexisNexis Second Edition, 2020 Reissue. This is Hong Kong’s only collection of precedents which covers all the key areas of commercial law and general practice.

Please click here for more information.

新冠疫情暴露了香港破損的法院制度亟待修復

by

此文章由高國峻律師撰寫發表於2020年12月28日《南華早報》

11月，習近平主席重申”堅持走中國特色社會主義法治道路”，中國法律界全體成員必須”確保忠於黨、忠於國家、忠於人民、忠於法律”。

這些言論進一步激起了香港有關司法獨立完整性的辯論。然而，香港廣泛的法律界只關注形勢如何發展，而完全忽視了“法庭上的大象”。香港的法院制度正在遭到破壞。在法庭上處理民事案件，包括婚姻訴訟而花費時間是荒謬的。拖延正義就是拒絕正義。 

我們的法院制度就像一輛備受推崇的老式勞斯萊斯，“法治”為其標誌性女主角。但不幸的是，座椅的皮質已破舊，油漆也幾十年沒有翻新過，發動機需要徹底檢修，電子配件也狀態欠佳。 

最重要的是，法院缺乏長期應對新冠疫情的能力。香港法院從二月至四月在第一波疫情期間關閉，就約有9萬宗案件受到影響，占年度案件總量的近20%。隨著時斷時續的限制措施，法院逐漸恢復，直到出現了第四波疫情。法院雖然會保持開放，但隨著限制社交距離措施的收緊，將會再次導致聆訊和審議庭數量的減少。

由於大量出現的庭審延遲和停滯，人們為此付出了巨大的代價。想想那些離婚的夫妻：在疫情爆發之前，由於家事法庭的嚴重積壓，他們等待聆訊的時間就要長達9個月。而現在，隨著法庭的關閉和限制社交距離措施，這些額外出現的延遲，給這些家庭尤其是孩子們，在本已痛苦不堪的離婚過程中帶來了更大的傷害。

Jarndyce v Jarndyce是查理斯·狄更斯在《荒涼山莊》中虛構的一個法庭案件，是關於高等法院對一筆巨額遺產處理的故事。這個官司曠日持久，一直延續到第三代人才得以解決。它雖然最終以原告取得勝利結束，但全部遺產最終卻用來支付了訴訟費，“竹籃打水一場空”。這是狄更斯對法庭訴訟曠日持久和費用昂貴的批判，在這個故事裡，他建議任何可能成為原告的人：”忍受任何錯誤都比你來這裡打官司要強”！

這些話放在任何司法管轄範圍內都是至理名言——如果你能解決，就絕不要上法庭。不過，如果我們看看香港破損的法院制度，這尤其貼切。如今一個向高等法院提出索賠要求的原告可能需要等待長達18個月才能輪到聆訊。但即使取得判決成功，裁決的執行也遙遙無期。

金鐘的香港高等法院不僅是費用排名前10%的訴訟管轄區之一，也是訴訟進程最慢的後20%之一。

對原告來說這並不是僅有的。許多被告對他們提出索賠，但在被告花費了大量法律費用以及漫長地等待，到為他們辯護之後，才發現這些索賠是毫無根據的。對於原告而言，令人痛心的是，儘管這是一個有成功機會的案件，但他們只有在被告有時間處置了任何資產或者以其他方式申辯貧窮之後才會被帶到法庭上。

即使是官司打贏了，執法也是不確定的，很可能整個過程要花費雙倍的時間。再加上上訴程式，可能會使當事人在法庭上的時間再次翻倍。因此，香港的法律制度令律師和大眾都非常焦慮和氣憤也就不足為奇了。
這種狀況與我們法官的優秀素質毫無關係。我們的司法部門做得很好，我們應該全力支持他們。這只是因為缺少輔助工作人員和法官以及流行的根深蒂固但卻不合時宜的做事方式導致的結果。比如，不用電子檔案，卻帶著大量盒裝檔上法庭的幾百年前的舊習慣，但現在只要個ipad就夠了。

為了視野更加開闊，OLN最近通過説明創建國際律師事務所網路Globalaw，對全球54個司法管轄區的訴訟程式進行了調查。

調查發現，在這54個司法管轄區中，香港不僅是訴訟費用排名前 10% 的司法管轄區之一，而且也是訴訟進程最緩慢的後20%之一。香港有理由為自己的法律制度感到自豪，但香港的法律制度就像那輛老勞斯萊斯一樣，花費昂貴卻反應遲鈍，亟需進行大修。

其他司法管轄區已經表現出願意利用技術手段來提高法院制度的效能，並且在疫情期間已行之有效。例如，英國多年來一直在其法院制度中使用視訊會議和遠端解決方案。新加坡自2000年以來就有了無紙化法院，這使得他們能夠在整個疫情期間使用電子檔案系統。

在香港，我們迫切需要加倍努力，集中精力進行法院制度的修繕工作。我們必須徹底地修復法律制度的基礎設施，以阻止它繼續妨礙法院發揮效力，使他們為公眾的利益工作而不是為律師的利益而工作。

如果我們想以自己的法律制度為傲，那麼就讓我們從徹底改革法院制度開始。我們生活在21世紀而不是狄更斯的同時期。

Gordon Oldham是OLN的高級合夥人。他是一位資深的香港律師和商人。