• 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

合約受挫失效原則:冠狀病毒大流行(Covid-19)是否為商業租戶不支付租金提供了法律依據?

Test Blog

合約受挫失效原則:冠狀病毒大流行(Covid-19)是否為商業租戶不支付租金提供了法律依據?

April 22, 2020 by OLN Marketing

作者:陳韻祺, 謝昇餘及何樂為

與世界其他地區一樣,香港正竭力應對冠狀病毒在不同方面造成的影響。冠狀病毒大流行不僅奪走了無數生命,而且大肆破壞了經濟。您是否租用了你以為就能負擔得起的房屋,直至冠狀病毒改變一切之前?您是否打算以冠狀病毒為由而退出已經簽署了的租賃協議?在本文中,我們將列出一些常見問題並為您提供答案,以便您可以了解公共衛生突發事件(例如冠狀病毒)可能對房東和房客的權利和義務產生什麼影響。

問題1:是否有人曾因病毒爆發而提起訴訟以終止租賃協議/擺脫租賃義務?↓

問題2:Li Chun Wing的判決是否使未來的租戶不再因Covid-19大流行而依賴合約受挫失效原則?↓

問題3:那麼,租戶如何才能立即終止租約並要求退還預付了的租金/押金?↓

問題4:鑑於上述情況,房東應採取什麼行動?↓

問題5:如果我打算簽訂新的租賃協議,應該注意什麼?↓

問題1:是否有人曾因病毒爆發而提起訴訟以終止租賃協議/擺脫租賃義務?

回答:

是的,但是相關案例是關於家庭租賃的情況。

2003年,香港因嚴重急性呼吸系統綜合症(SARS)爆發而遭受重創。該綜合症在全球感染了8,096人,造成744人死亡。香港的私人住宅淘大花園E座不幸有共107人被感染。鑑於形勢嚴峻,政府對該處施加了10天的隔離令,強行撤離其中的所有居民。隨後,科學研究發現污水處理系統中的U型渠乾涸,導致病毒從建築污水處理系統傳播回公寓。

不幸的淘大花園E座租戶面臨兩難困境:在這種情況下,他們是否有法律根據終止租約?還是應該在隔離令期滿後繼續留在這個對許多人來說並不安全的場所?

該問題在香港區域法院Li Chun Wing v Xuan Yi Xiong [2004] 1 HKLRD 754一案中得到了法庭的指引。在此案中,E座的租戶(“ T”)在隔離令失效後終止了他的兩年租約,而房東(“ L”)針對T向法庭申請簡易判決,對T索取應計租金和因據稱拒絕租賃協議而造成的損失。因此,在該案中法院要考慮的是,T是否有權終止租賃協議。

T主要依賴的法律原則是合約受挫失效。這個原則所指的是,當發生重大事件(沒有任何一方違約且合同未提供清楚足夠的條款)時,從而大大改變了當事方可以合理考慮的未履行的合同權利和/或義務在執行時,法庭可以決定各方毋須進一步執行合同。但是,該重大而突發的事件不僅必須增加簽約方的負擔,而且必須要如此重要以至於要完全從合同中解除當事人,否則會造成不公平的情況。在考慮合約受挫失效的論點時,區域法院指出,此案的10天隔離令就房舍的整體使用而言是微不足道的,因為有關租賃協議的期限為2年。因此,法院駁回了關於合約受挫失效的論點,並裁定租賃令不受隔離令的影響。

T的另一種論點是,租賃協議中應該有一個隱含的約定使該場所適合租客居住。法院同樣駁回了這個論點,因為法院通常不會在租賃協議中加入這種隱含的約定,而且無論如何,在該案件中並沒有證據表明在隔離令期滿後該棟大廈仍然是不安全的。

問題2:Li Chun Wing的判決是否使未來的租戶不再因Covid-19大流行而依賴合約受挫失效原則?

回答:

不一定。

法院在Li Chun Wing的判詞中強調:導致承租人對房屋的預期使用中斷的事件不會使租賃受挫失效,除非該中斷預計會持續至租賃的完結,或至少會持續在未到期的期限內很長一段時間。

這就是說,流行病的持續時間,或更確切地說,與租期相比流行病的相對持續時間,是決定租約是否受挫的重要因素。正如傳染病專家指出的那樣,Covid-19可能不會迅速消失,我們可能不得不與之展開長期戰爭。這可能與SARS疫情形成鮮明對比。SARS疫情最初對香港造成了沉重打擊,但在數週內迅速得到緩解。

因此,對於租期短的租戶來說,他們可能更容易依賴合約受挫失效原則。但是,這並不意味著長租約永遠都不能同樣地依賴挫敗原則,因為Li Chun Wing只是區域法院的裁決。另一方面,在最近的英國高等法院Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Limited & ors v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch)一案中,有人提出這不僅僅是租約時長的問題,而取而代之的是,法院應通過綜合考慮所有情況來決定合同的“共同目標”是否受到挫敗。這將要求我們超越租賃本身並考慮以下的因素:

– 租約簽署時的背景或上下文

– 租約訂立時雙方(特別是關於風險)的知識,期望,假設和考慮

– 重大事件的性質;和

– 各方對在新情況下對能否履行合同未來表現的可能性進行的合理和客觀推測

問題3:那麼,租戶如何才能立即終止租約並要求退還預付了的租金/押金?

回答:

除非合同另有規定,否則房東和租戶通常無權在合同規定的期限屆滿之前隨時終止租約。在大多數情況下,即使使了用不可抗力條款,它們也僅允許暫停租金或減租,而不允許終止租賃。但是,除了上述可能引起合約挫敗失效的情況外,在某些情況下,如果發生了毀約性違約,則非違約方有權終止租賃。

通常,只有在違反合同的程度足以使非違約方被剝奪合同“實質上所有利益”的情況下,才產生毀約性違約。如果房東單方面決定關閉租賃地點,除非雙方另有同意,房東有可能會違反了默示的隱含的安靜享受條款。但是,在政府強制關閉的情況下,會比較難將錯誤歸咎於房東並聲稱房東違反了租約。

就租戶預付的租金或預付款(例如兩個月的租金)而言,首先,必須轉向實際的租賃協議,並檢查雙方方是否就如何處理定金達成協議。如果合同在此問題上不清楚或沉默,則需要對租賃協議和情況進行逐案分析。在簡單直接的情況下,即房東違反了租賃協議以致引起毀約性違約,則租戶幾乎可以確定終止租賃並要求退還押金。相反,如果承租人是違約方,則房東可能會將押金用於支付因承租人違約造成的損失。

但是,如上所述,很多時候承租人可能不能夠客易地確定他/她是否有權以其他理由(例如沮喪)撤銷合同或終止合同(請參閱上文問題2的答案)。這是房客必須格外謹慎的地方,因為如果後來裁定該違規行為不是毀約性的違規行為,則他們可能有責任向房東賠償未付的租金,間接損失和法律費用。

問題4:鑑於上述情況,房東應採取什麼行動?

回答:

對於房東,在開始任何法律收取租金之前,請務必考慮您收取租金的權利是否受到Covid-19的影響。如下所述,您的租賃協議中可能包含合同條款(例如不可抗力條款和“重大不利變化”條款),這些條款已經考慮到了流行病/大流行的情況,並使當事方在特定情況下不必履行合同。當然,答案將在很大程度上取決於當事方的意圖和其他環境因素。

問題5:如果我打算簽訂新的租賃協議,應該注意什麼?

回答:

除了明確的合同終止條款外,各方還必須注意不可抗力條款和“重大不利變化”(MAC)條款。

有關不可抗力條款的討論,請參閱我們的高級合夥人Gordon Oldham撰寫的文章:https://oln-law.com/are-you-frustrated-by-your-force-majeure-clause。締約方可考慮提供明確明確的不可抗力條款,以包括流行病/大流行事件。

此外,合同中通常會包含MAC條款,其中明確規定,某些重大改變一方當事人的業務、營運、資產、負債、狀況(例如財務狀況)的事件可能會產生終止協議的權利。同樣,與不可抗力條款一樣,如果各方希望依靠MAC條款,該條款必須明確地包括流行/大流行事件。如果以一般方式起草MAC條款,則法院傾向於狹義地解釋該條款並將Covid-19排除為MAC事件。在確定是否觸發MAC子句時,還必須針對以下情況進行案例分析:

– 雙方的意圖

– 雙方對處理Covid-19情況的討論;

– 該方業務的市場可比性;和

– 將該方的業務績效與可比市場的績效進行比較。

結語

隨著Covid-19形勢的不確定性發展,我們認為可能會出現一些案例,測試合約受挫失效原則是否可以將租戶從租約中解僱,以及在什麼情況下會發生這種情況。在有明確的指導方針之前,我們建議房東和租戶都留意情況並審查關鍵的租賃協議條款,以評估Covid-19對他們造成的具體影響。與大多數其他爭端類似,最好的解決辦法是始終考慮各種商業現實和實用性來嘗試友好的談判和討論。如果租戶發現不可避免地要放棄租金,我們建議他/她與房東進行討論,並嘗試在採取任何法律行動之前理清租金減免是否可行。

如果您希望獲得法律意見以評估您的當前狀況,請隨時與我們聯繫(anna.chan@oln-law.com或martin.tse@oln-law.com),我們很樂意為您提供解答和幫助。

免責聲明:本文僅供參考。本文中的任何內容均不得解釋為對任何人的香港法律意見或任何與此有關的法律意見。高李嚴律師樓對因本條所載材料所造成的任何行為所造成的任何損失和/或損害不承擔任何責任。

Filed Under: 爭議解決

Revised Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes on E-commerce and Digital Assets – Part 2

April 21, 2020 by OLN Marketing

The Inland Revenue Department (the “IRD”) has recently revised and reissued Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes 39 (the “DIPN 39 (Revised)”) since it was first published in July 2001. Amongst others, the IRD has now provide some guidance on how it is going to assess digital assets (including but not limited to cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets or digital tokens). The article aims to discuss the tax treatment of the digital assets under the DIPN 39 (Revised).

1. No Specific Legal Legislation for Digital Assets

Currently, there is no specific provision in the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (the “SFO”) or other legislation which governs the digital assets or tokens. In general, if a digital token has terms and features that may qualify as “securities” as defined in the SFO, it will be subject to the regulation and scrutiny of the Securities and Futures Commission. For instance:-

1. Where a digital token offered in an initial coin offering (the “ICO”) represents equity or ownership interest in a corporation such as shareholders’ rights, i.e. the right to receive dividends and the right to participate in the distribution of the corporation’s surplus assets upon winding up, etc., such token may be regarded as “shares”;

2. Where a digital token is used to create or to acknowledge a debt or liability owed by the issuer, for example, an issuer may repay a token holder the principal of their investment on a fixed date or upon redemption, with interest paid to the token holder, such the digital tokens may be considered as a “debenture”; or

3. Where token proceeds are managed collectively by the ICO scheme operator to invest in projects with an aim to enable a token holder to participate in a share of the returns provided by the project, the digital tokens may be regarded as an interest in a “collective investment scheme”.

Payment tokens or utility tokens, however, are not subject to the regulation of the SFC.

2. Tax Treatment of the Digital Tokens and Cryptocurrency Business

As explained in the DIPN 39 (Revised), the nature of the digital tokens issued in an ICO (i.e. the rights and obligations associated with the digital tokens) will determine the taxability of the proceeds from the ICO. If “security” tokens are offered in an ICO, the proceeds thereof will be capital in nature and hence not taxable from the perspective of the issuer.  On the other hand, if utility tokens are offered in an ICO, the IRD is of the view that such proceeds could be taxable under section 14 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 622) as the proceeds represent prepayment by the token holders for future benefits or services.

As for digital token holders, if it can be established that the tokens are capital assets rather than trading stock, any profits from the disposal of the tokens will not be chargeable to profits tax. The well-established 6 badges of trade will be relied on by the IRD in determining whether a digital token is a capital asset or a trading stock. The IRD has also made it clear that it will apply the broad guiding principle in determining the source of profits arising from cryptocurrency transactions, i.e. the nature of the profits in question, the relevant operations that produced the profits in question and the place where those profit-generating operations were carried out.

3. Our Observations

Notwithstanding the inclusion of a new section for the taxation of digital assets and cryptocurrency businesses under the DIPN 39 (Revised), little concrete or additional guidance (save and except for the part on security tokens) has been provided when it comes to the determining of the nature of a digital asset and the source of profits for cryptocurrency businesses.  The over-reliance on the 6 badges of trade and the basic charge under the IRO to tax an emerging industry which involves blockchain technology is likely to cause many ICO issuers and cryptocurrency businesses to be subject to tax review by the IRD and give rise to tax disputes. It is high time for the blockchain businesses to get prepared for the IRD’s stricter scrutiny for a tax perspective.

If you have any questions on the above, please contact one of the members of our Tax Advisory Team.

Shall you be interested to download this article as a brochure, please click on the following link: Revised Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes on E-commerce and Digital Assets – Part 2

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: 稅務諮詢部

Hong Kong’s Tax Treatment on the Emerging E-commerce Business and Digital Assets – Part 1

April 21, 2020 by OLN Marketing

Technological advancement and shifting consumer patterns have contributed to the increasing trend of businesses or exchange done virtually. The current form of Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) (the “IRO”), however, contain no specific provisions to deal with the taxation of e-commerce and / or digital assets businesses. To cope with such change of circumstances and to fill the gap, the Inland Revenue Department (the “IRD”) issued the Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes 39 in July 2001 to provide clarity on its taxation of e-commerce businesses. Such Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes was recently revised and issued by the IRD in late March 2020 (the “DIPN 39 (Revised)”). In gist, it adopts the general approach (as provided for under section 14[1] of the IRO and at common law) in determining whether a person is chargeable to Hong Kong Profits Tax for those businesses. The sharp difference between e-commerce businesses and traditional trading and manufacturing businesses prompted the IRD to revisit the relevant tax position and issue additional guidelines thereon. The article aims to discuss the notable changes under the DIPN 39 (Revised).

1. What does that mean by carrying on an e-commerce business in Hong Kong?

Previously, the IRD was of the view that the mere presence of a server in Hong Kong (even if the server was capable of concluding contracts, processing payments or delivering digital goods without the involvement of human activities) would not generally be considered as carrying on a business in Hong Kong.  The IRD would adopt a totality of fact approach to consider a basket of factors (including but not limited to where the goods are stored, where services were rendered, where contracts were made and where payments were made, etc.) in concluding whether or not a person was carrying on an e-commerce business in Hong Kong. 

Further, given that the server did not fall within the scope of “a branch, management or other place of business”, the mere presence of a server in Hong Kong did not constitute a permanent establishment (the “PE”) for non-resident persons and hence, those non-resident persons would not be considered as carrying on an e-commerce business in Hong Kong solely by that reason. Such position taken by the IRD was contrary to the view of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the “OECD”).

The IRD has now adopted a substantially different position as stated in the DIPN 39 (Revised). The DIPN 39 (Revised) clearly provides that if the core operations and support activities atypically seen in an e-commerce model (see paragraph 7 of the DIPN 39 (Revised)) are performed in Hong Kong, the person concerned will be considered as carrying on an e-commerce business in Hong Kong.

The IRD’s position on “server” has also been aligned with that of the OECD. The IRD’s current view is that the server may constitute a fixed place of business (and hence a PE) if an essential and significant part of the e-commerce business (as distinguished from preparatory or auxiliary activities) is conducted via the server. This literally means that a non-resident person, who owns or rents a server in Hong Kong which is capable of concluding contracts, processing payments or delivering digital goods in Hong Kong even without the involvement of human activities in Hong Kong, might be considered as having a PE in Hong Kong for Profits Tax purposes. While the IRD clarifies that that the sub-contracting to a HK service provider which so happens hosts the non-resident’s website via a server located in HK would not constitute an establishment of PE by that non-resident per se (as long as the server is not at the disposal of the non-resident), it is noteworthy that a non-resident without a PE in HK might still be subject to the Hong Kong Profits Tax if it is regarded as carrying on a business in Hong Kong. All relevant facts and circumstances would be examined before any conclusion could be made.

2. Is the profit of the e-commerce sourced in Hong Kong?

Instead of merely looking at the location of the server, the IRD makes it clear that the correct approach in determining the source of profits of an e-commerce business should be identifying the core operations of the e-commerce business generating the profits and determining where those core operations take place.  In that respect, the IRD has provide 2 illustrations in the DIPN 39 (Revised):-

Illustration 1:If a person, resident in Hong Kong, performs all the core operations and support activities of an e-commerce business in Hong Kong apart from operating a server, intelligent or otherwise, which is at the person’s disposal and located outside Hong Kong for e-commerce purposes, the profits from the person’s e-commerce transactions will be fully charged to profits tax as profits derived from Hong Kong.
  
Illustration 2:If a person, resident in a territory which has concluded a double tax agreement with Hong Kong, performs most of the operations and support activities of an e-commerce business outside Hong Kong apart from operating merely a server with essential and significant activities which is at the person’s disposal and located in Hong Kong (i.e. the server constitutes a permanent establishment in Hong Kong), profits attributable to the server permanent establishment having regard to the functions the server performs in Hong Kong will be charged to profits tax in accordance with the general principles in section 14.

The logical conclusions to be drawn from the illustrations are that (1) if all the core operations and support activities of an e-commerce business are performed in Hong Kong, the profits generated therefrom will be subject to Profits Tax, irrespectively of the residency of the person, the location of the server and whether or not the server is at the disposal of the person; and (2) a server in Hong Kong at the disposal of a non-resident person might constitute a PE of that non-resident person, giving rise to chargeable profits attributable to that server “activities” in Hong Kong.

3. Our Observations

The IRD’s initiative to revise the rules on the taxation of e-commerce business to be aligned with international tax rules and standards is certainly welcome. The changes as contained in the DIPN 39 (revised) do provide more clarity on how the IRD is going to assess e-commerce businesses. 

Having said that, from a practical point of view, given the fast pace in the development of e-commerce businesses (e.g. crowdfunding, dashboard solutions, drop shipping, online marketplace or flexible payment solutions) and their ever-changing models, it is believed that more e-commerce businesses (whether Hong Kong resident entities or non-Hong Kong resident entities) will be subject to the review by the IRD in terms of chargeability or offshore claims for the following reasons:-

(a) it is of utmost difficulty in determining (1) whether the business activities carried out by a person engaged in an e-commerce represent core operations and support activities of a business or merely constitute preparatory activities; and (2) whether or not the activities conducted via a sever represents an essential and significant activities of the relevant e-commerce business, as all of these are judgmental and might vary between different e-commerce businesses; and

(b) it is never easy to fully comprehend an innovative e-commerce business or its model (e.g. when blockchain business first emerged) and it seems to us that the IRD and the assessors are still analyzing such business and its model in a conventional way.             

In light of the changes under DIPN 39 (Revised) which is likely to be further revised by the end of 2020 upon the finalization of the report on digitalization by the OECD, clients should review their e-commerce businesses and make changes to the models to reduce any adverse tax implication or bearing thereof or better prepare themselves for the IRD’s enquiries on the e-commerce business. If you have any questions on the above, please contact one of the members of our Tax Advisory Team.

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] Section 14 of the IRO provides that a charge to Profits Tax will arise when the following three conditions are satisfied: (a) the person must carry on a trade, profession or business in Hong Kong; (b) the profits to be charged must be from such trade, professional or business carried on by the person in Hong Kong; and (c) the profits must be “profits arising in or derived from” Hong Kong.

Filed Under: 稅務諮詢部

Notarization amidst the Pandemic

April 20, 2020 by OLN Marketing

Introduction

Since the Covid-19 outbreak, one practice that has remained relatively stable is our notarial services. 

This can be easily explained as a lot of flights have now been cancelled and people are now unable (or unwilling) to travel overseas whether for business or for their private affairs, yet because of certain contractual or legal duties that they have to fulfil, they need to get legal documents signed or submitted be it affirmations for ongoing court cases, contracts for sale and purchase of assets, documents in support of emigration applications or even updated company documents to comply with their filing duties with relevant foreign authorities. 

Whilst there are some online notaries who conduct notarization by video conference, this is not a universally accepted method (certainly not in Hong Kong) largely because the notary is unable to satisfactorily verify the identity of the person as he will not be able to meet the client physically and to check that the identification document he/she holds and produces is likely to be genuine or not. Another issue is the notary cannot actually confirm the document he saw signed in a video is the one he eventually receives and notarizes. At best, he can just compare and believe it is likely to be the same document. As such, this method is not ideal and definitely not encouraged. 

What is notarization? 

In short, notarization is the process where a Notary Public prepares or authenticates certain legal documents by signing his signature and affixing his notarial seal on them. Such documents are intended to be used overseas (save for Mainland China where similar processes are conducted by a China Appointed Attesting Officer). A Notary Public in Hong Kong needs to first qualify as a Hong Kong Solicitor before he/she can take the notarial exam and be appointed by the High Court. At the moment, Hong Kong has around 400 qualified Notary Public out of more than 10,000 qualified solicitors in Hong Kong. 

What is Legalization? 

Whilst some countries seem to accept notarized documents as valid (mostly the Commonwealth countries) without being legalized, the general rule is that the signature and seal of a Notary Public should be authenticated.  This process takes place at that country’s consulate in Hong Kong to ensure that the Notary Public is a qualified person to do the job. We normally need to be first registered at the consulate before we can assist the client with the legalization process. Depending on the consulate, the process can sometimes be complicated and tedious. 

What is Apostille?

You may have come across this term before in your business dealings or personal affairs and scratched your head in puzzle. This is actually a simplified version of legalization where the documents are authenticated by apostilles issued by the High Court of Hong Kong. The documents that require authentication by apostille are normally used for signatory states or territories to The Hague Apostille Convention although a lot of non-signatory states and territories also require documents to be apostilled prior to legalization. The purpose of the Convention was to streamline the process of legalization. 

If you or your organization have questions or issues relating to this topic, please contact Selwyn Chan, Partner and Notary Public at selwyn.chan@oln-law.com. 

For more information about Selwyn Chan, Partner of Oldham, Li & Nie, please visit the following link: https://oln-law.com/selwyn-chan.  

Disclaimer:  This article is for reference only.  Nothing herein shall be construed as legal advice.  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: 公證服務

高李嚴律師行榮登2020年Asian Legal Business年度雇主

April 14, 2020 by OLN Marketing

我們很高興地宣布,高李嚴律師行連續兩年被Asian Legal Business評為2020年年度雇主。 ALB最佳選擇雇主排名的編制考慮了來自亞洲各地2500多名私人執業律師的反饋,從管理合夥人到律師助理,以及ALB的市場知識。

該排名最近由ALB雜誌2020年4月亞洲版發布。請找到以下出版物鏈接:

https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/sites/default/files/e-magazines/ALB-APR-2020/viewer/desktop/index.html?doc=5FF43EE4533154DF180E7194791EADB0

Filed Under: 最新消息

香港知識產權署運作中斷的公告

April 9, 2020 by OLN Marketing

作者:楊素滿

由於社區最近爆發新型冠狀病毒,香港知識產權署(“知識產權署”)發布了自2020年1月28日以來第四次發出中斷香港專利註冊處,外觀設計註冊處和商標註冊處運作的通知。

知識產權署將每週檢查一次情況,以確定是否會發布進一步的中斷通知。

在中斷運作的期間,知識產權署將維持以下有限度的服務:

  • 網上檢索系統 –公眾可以通過公共網上檢索系統進行搜索
  • 電子提交服務–電子提交服務用戶可以通過電子提交系統以電子方式提交申請或其他文件
  • 每個星期五出版《香港知識產權公報公告》
  • 位於胡忠大廈二十四樓的公眾櫃檯服務(其辦公時間為星期一至五下午一時至下午五時四十五分, 並只在2月的17(星期一),19(星期三)和21(星期五)開放
  • 熱線電話:2961 6901/2961 6820

所有文件可繼續以郵遞方式送交至胡忠大廈二十四樓的商標、外觀設計及專利註冊處。

中斷期間的注意事項:
商標註冊處

  • 補救不足之處通知

根據《商標規則》第11條發出的不足之處通知書内原訂的有關補救不足之處的限期會順延至中斷公告所指明的日期,即緊隨註冊處中斷運作結束日的首個辦公日。
根據最近分別於2020年1月28日,2月1日,2月8日和2月14日於2020年發布的《中斷通知》(以下稱“中斷通知”),如果截止日期為1月29日至31日,2月3日至7日之間的任何一天, 2月10日至14日,或2020年2月17日至21日,將延長至2020年2月24日(“新限期”)。

  • 處長意見通知書

同樣,中斷公告一旦生效,於處長根據《商標規則》第13條發出的意見通知書内原訂的有關提出書面回應/請求的限期會順延至中斷公告所指明的日期,即緊隨註冊處中斷運作結束日的首個辦公日。申請人應在新限期採取適當行動,確保其申請仍然有效。

  • 異議程序

在中斷期間,在異議程序中應遵守的最後期限不一定延期。假如你原先的限期是在該中斷公告所涵蓋的時期之中, 則有關限期會自動延展至緊接中斷公告結束日的首個辦工日(“新限期”)。
但是,如果就根據《商標規則》中一些不能延展的時限而言,則應提醒訴訟各方在新的期限內採取適當的行動,以保留其在訴訟中的權利。

  • 另一方提供文件

對於有爭議的事項,例如異議,如你的限期是根據收到另外一方的文件的日期而決定的(例如根據《商標規則》第17(1)條提交的反陳述),提交該文件的限期即由你收到該文件(以上述為例,即反對通知)當日起開始計算。因此,無論收到文件的日期是否在中斷公告所涵蓋的時期之中,應不會影響計算你下一步的限期。

專利和外觀設計註冊
一般而言,該期限會順延至緊隨專利/外觀設計註冊處中斷運作結束日的首個辦公日。儘管該期限獲延展,但如果有關維持/續期費是在原有期限屆滿後但在獲延展的期限屆滿前通過電子提交系統繳付,則由於系統的限制,該系統仍會要求申請人/所有者就「遲交」的款項繳付附加費用。在這種情況下,申請人/所有者完全有權在事後要求退還該附加費用。

網上註冊紀錄冊上的記項
儘管知識產權署會盡力更新網上的專利和外觀設計註冊紀錄冊上的記項,但在特殊個案中仍可能存有差異。如果申請人/所有者留意到自己的專利/外觀設計申請或註冊的狀態未有正確顯示在網上的專利/外觀設計註冊紀錄冊上,請與知識產權署聯絡,以便他們跟進並相應地更新記項。 

任何疑問,請聯繫楊素滿律師 (evelyne.yeung@oln-law.com)。 免責聲明:本文僅供參考。高李嚴律師事務所對任何人因本文所所載的任何內容而行所造成的任何損失和/或損害不承擔任何責任。

Filed Under: 知識產權法

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 30
  • Page 31
  • Page 32
  • Page 33
  • Page 34
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 54
  • 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