OLN

Test Blog

New Patent System in Hong Kong

by

The Patent (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 and the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rule 2019 will come into effect on 19 December 2019.  It marks the history of Hong Kong that she will have her originally granted patent registration for the first time.

Highlights of Reform of Patent system in Hong Kong

The existing patent system, namely, standard patent and short term patent, will be retained with some refinement of short term patent. 

The new feature of the reform patent system is the introduction of the original grant patent system and some other issues relating to the existing patent system. 

1. Standard patent by original grant (“Standard Patent (O)”)

It is an entire new patent system in Hong Kong.  The applicant can file their standard patent (O) application directly in Hong Kong without first filing the patent application in designated patent office. 

New features:

(1) Direct filing of the patent application with or without priority claim.

(2) Apart from checking minimum requirement on formality, the applicant will need to request for substantive examination within 3 years from the application date or priority date.

(3) The patent will be substantively examined as to its patentability, namely, novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability by examiner in Hong Kong. 

(4) If the examiner considers that the patent lacks of novelty and/or inventive step, he will issue examination notice (and/or further examination notice), and the applicant has to deal with the official objection.  The application will be granted if the applicant can overcome all the objection or it may be provisionally refused if the application does not fulfil the formal requirement.

(5) If the applicant cannot overcome the official objection after examination, provisional refusal will be issued, which is subject to review requested by the applicant. 

(6) Applicant may request for review on provisional refusal notice, and the examiner will issue review opinion (or one or more further review opinion), and the applicant has to overcome the objection.  If the objection can be overcome, patent will be granted. Otherwise, the examiner will issue final refusal notice, subject to appeal to High Court.

2. Standard patent by re-registration (“Standard Patent (R)”)

Standard Patent (R) application in Hong Kong is retained.  The procedure is the same as the existing system, i.e. the application must be based on a designated patent application filed in China, U.K. or Europe designating U.K.  It may simply regard this system as a re-registration system.  The substantive examination of the Standard Patent (R) is conducted by the designated patent office.

The application process is divided into two stages, i.e. 1st Stage – Request to Record must be filed in Hong Kong within 6 months after the date of publication of the designated patent and 2nd Stage – Request for Registration and Grant must be filed in Hong Kong within 6 months after the publication of the request to record in HK; OR, the date of grant of the designated patent, whichever is later.  No grace period is allowed for 1st Stage or 2nd Stage filing.

3. Short term patent (“STP”)

Under the current system, STP application can be filed directly in Hong Kong, subject to examination on the formalities and submission of a search report issued by competent patent registry, e.g. China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”).  Proprietor to establish the validity of the patent in enforcement proceedings before the court.  The STP is retained with refinement as follows:

New features:

(1) The application can include 2 independent claims instead of 1 independent claim.

(2) Proprietor or interested party can request for post-grant substantive examination of the short term patent.  If the proprietor wishes to commence enforcement action of an unexamined patent, it is a pre-requisite to have certificate of substantive examination.

(3) If the proprietor cannot overcome the objection raised in the examination notice issued against the short term patent, the examiner will issue provisional revocation notice of the patent, subject to appeal to High Court.

(4) When making a threat of infringement proceedings against a person, the proprietor should furnish with that person the basic patent information.  Otherwise, the threat may be regarded as groundless and a party aggrieved by the threat may be entitled to seek relief.

Filing Tips under the New Patent System

Missing priority deadline –  Possible restoration of priority right if a subsequent standard patent (O) or short-term patent application is filed within 2 months after the expiry of the 12-month priority period   
– Statement of priority and supporting documents may be filed with the Registrar within 16 months from the earliest priority date claimed   
      
Reference to an earlier specified application – An alternative for filing something that appears to be a description of an invention (one of the minimum requirements for obtaining a filing date)   
– Applicant can file a reference to an earlier specified application together with a statement indicating that a description and the drawings (if any) of the invention are completely contained in the specified application   
      
Missing parts of descriptions or drawings – applicant can take its own initiative to file missing parts of description or drawing within 2 months from date of filing OR file the same within 2 months (extendable) from the date of notice   
– If filed within the prescribed period but later than the accorded date of filing, the accorded date of filing may be changed to the date on which the missing parts of the description or missing drawings were filed   
      
Voluntary amendment – may be filed any time before publication; OR   
– at the time of filing request for substantive examination   

4. Other Remarks

i. Regulating certain title or descriptions of Patent Practitioners

Under Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2016, use of certain titles or descriptions is prohibited:

  • certified patent agent/attorney
  • registered patent agent/attorney
  • a title/description reasonably causing a belief that a person using such title/description holds a qualification that is –

(i) granted for approving that person to provide patent agency services in Hong Kong; and

(ii) recognized by law or endorsed by the Government.

  • Exception: titles/descriptions that solely relate to a person’s qualification for providing patent agency services in jurisdictions outside Hong Kong with clear indication of such jurisdictions is allowed.

ii. Revised official fee for patent filing

  • Concession official fee for e-filing over paper filing, applicable to Standard Patent (O) and STP
  • Inclusion of official fee for request for substantive examination Standard Patent (O) application/STP and request to review Registrar’s opinion on provisional refusal of Standard Patent (O) application or provisional revocation of STP
  • Revision of renewal fee of a standard patent on progressive scale, 1st level for 3rd to 10th year; 2nd level for 11th to 14 year and 3rd level for 15th to 19th year.

iii. New set of patent forms

  • New set of official forms for patent filing will be introduced, e.g. for filing Standard Patent (O), request for substantive examination.  Certain existing official forms are also revised to accommodate the new patent system.

iv. PCT patent

  • Though Hong Kong is not a PCT patent application receiving office, the applicant can claim priority within 12 months from their PCT patent application for the Hong Kong patent application.

Legal Update: Tax Treatment of Payments on Termination of Employment

by

In its recent decision in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Poon Cho Ming, John [2019] HKCFA 38, the Court of Final Appeal revisited the issue of tax implications on terminal or severance payments. It reaffirms the orthodox position in Fuchs v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2011) 14 HKCFAR 74 that a payment made in return for acting or being an employee is taxable.

Background

Immediately prior to July 2008, the Claimant was employed as an executive director and the Group Chief Financial Officer with a company in Hong Kong. On 18 July 2008, he was informed of the company’s decision to terminate his employment but refused to go quietly. He threatened to bring the matter in front of shareholders and to take his claims to court, which would likely attract media attention and trigger market reaction.        

To avoid acrimonious disputes, the company entered into a Separation Agreement with the Claimant, promising to pay, inter alia, a payment in lieu of any discretionary bonus (the “Sum”) and acceleration of the vesting of certain option shares of the company previously granted to him so that he could exercise those share options (“Share Option Gain”).

Judgment

The test laid down in the Court of Final Appeal’s landmark decision in Fuchs is that a payment has to be paid as a reward for past, present or future services in employment to be classified as income earned in the course of employment, which is chargeable to salaries tax. Everything else is outside the operation of the statute and non-taxable.  

As a matter of substance, the Sum, which was in an arbitrary amount, was of a “wholly different nature” from any discretionary bonus under the employment agreement between the Claimant and his employer. It was decided that the Sum was not a payment to induce the Claimant to provide future services or to reward him for past services. Rather, it was paid with a view to eliminating any possible claim the Claimant might advance against the company. The Court applied the Fuchs test and found that the Sum is not chargeable to tax.

With reference to the Share Option Gain, it was paid under the Separation Agreement, which abrogated any rights that Mr Poon might have under his employment contract. It has been held that sums paid to employees as consideration to or compensation for the total abrogation of contract (Henley v Murray [1950] 31 TC 351 and Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue v Knight [1973] AC 428) are not given to reward past services, and hence non-taxable. In the same vein and consistent with Fuchs, the Share Option Gain was not taxable as it was not paid as a reward for past services.

Implications

This decision clarifies the tax treatment of sums paid in scenarios where an employer terminates the employment of staff and wishes to placate them with payments. Essentially, one must look at the reason for which the money is paid and consider whether it arises out of arrangements in the employment contract. The determination of the nature of such payment becomes a question of fact.

One of the arguments advanced by the Commissioner in the present case was that the “substitution test” from Mairs v Haughey [1994] 1 AC 303 should be applied so that the Sum, made in lieu of bonus, would be considered to take on the nature of a bonus which means the Sum would be regarded as recognition of the Claimant’s past employment services. However, looking at the substance of the Sum, the Court found that the Sum was paid to silence the Claimant and the amount was determined arbitrarily.

The reaffirmed principle in relation to terminal payments is helpful to both employers and employees when they have to negotiate for and structure the drafting of a separation agreement.  It is also essential for the employers and employees to maintain documentary evidence relating to the terminal payments.  

If you have any questions in relation to the above, please contact any member of Employment and Tax Teams or the writer at victor.ng@oln-law.com.

Legal Update: Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act

by

The formal relationship between the United States (the “US”) and Hong Kong is based upon the “one country, two systems” framework established in the Basic Law of Hong Kong. The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (the “HK Policy Act”) enacted by the US establishes the US government’s policy of treating Hong Kong as a non-sovereign entity distinct from China for purposes of US-Hong Kong trade and economic cooperation.

On 19th November 2019 following a similar move by the House of Representatives, the US Senate passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 (the “HK Human Rights Bill”), which is intended to amend the HK Policy Act. Despite passage by both the House and Senate, however, the HK Human Rights Bill will not become law until the US President signs off on it.

This writer tries to explore key provisions of the HK Human Rights Bill and analyse its potential impact on Hong Kong should it be passed from the commercial point of view.  This article should not form any advice on US laws and legislation.  

Major provisions of the HK Human Rights Bill

  1. The existing HK Policy Act requires the Secretary of State to submit an annual report on US-Hong Kong relationships in terms of bilateral agreements entered into, cultural exchanges and export control cooperation etc. The Human Rights Bill adds additional matters for reporting, including China’s ability to limit Hong Kong’s autonomy, limitations to Hong Kong’s autonomy, and their impact on US-Hong Kong cooperation. 

    The Secretary of State is obliged to submit an annual certification on the status and treatment of Hong Kong under treaties and agreements as to commercial and law enforcement cooperation.
     
  2. Another major amendment to the HK Policy Act is that US visa applicants shall not be denied solely on the basis of the applicants’ past arrest, detention or government action against them as a result of their participation in Hong Kong protests.   
     
  3. The HK Human Rights Bill, if enacted, requires the US President to submit a report to the Congress, assessing whether Hong Kong enforces the US Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and sanctions imposed by the US and the United Nations. The report shall describe goods and services transshipped or re-exported through Hong Kong in violation of such sanctions and relating to terrorism, drugs trafficking or weapons of mass destruction, or other matters that pose a threat to US national security or economy.

    The HK Human Rights Bill particularly provides for scrutiny of whether US-originated technology is transferred to China through Hong Kong in violation of US laws, and which ends up being used in mass surveillance, predictive policing or social credit system in China.  
     
  4. The Secretary of State will have to notify the Congress of any proposed legislation in Hong Kong that may put US citizens at risk of rendition to China or have an adverse impact on US interests in Hong Kong. 
     
  5. Foreign persons regarded as being knowingly responsible for gross violations of human rights in Hong Kong, including arbitrary detention or torture of individuals in Hong Kong, are to be identified in a report to the Congress. The said persons may be subject to sanctions by the US such as freezing of their US properties and barring of entries into the US by themselves and their family members.  

Implications

Should the HK Human Rights Bill be enacted, it entails (and indeed, expands the scope of), among other things, an annual review of the degree of autonomy of Hong Kong, which was the justification for preferential trade and economic benefits as a result of the city’s special status granted under the HK Policy Act – It is indeed with this special status Hong Kong is shielded from tariffs on Chinese goods levied by the US.

Should the special status of Hong Kong be revoked, it would be unavoidable for Hong Kong to suffer a heavy economic blow from various tariffs and import and export restrictions. There is also the possibility of US sanctions imposed on Hong Kong, creating challenges to Hong Kong’s commercial services and potentially unseating it from its position as an international financial hub.

Other benefits afforded by the special status, such as the free currency exchange between Hong Kong and US Dollars, import of sensitive technologies from the US to Hong Kong, and circumvention by Hong Kong residents of visa restrictions that apply to their mainland Chinese counterparts, would likely be cancelled should the HK Human Rights Bill be enacted.

Not only would Hong Kong suffer, but the US-Hong Kong relationship could also be jeopardized. There are currently more than 1,300 US firms operating in Hong Kong. The US trade surplus with Hong Kong is the single largest with a US trading partner, and the US remains a major source of foreign direct investment in Hong Kong. 

From a business perspective, if the HK Human Rights Bill becomes law, we can expect to see a chilling effect on US trade and investments in Hong Kong. While it is unclear how substantial the economic impact it would have on Hong Kong, it is almost certain that Hong Kong’s reputation as a trusted player in the global economy would be adversely affected.

If you are interested to discuss with or want to learn more about how your business may be impacted by different current legal developments, please feel free to contact us atvictor.ng@oln-law.com.

What does it take to void an aircraft lease for common mistake?

by

What is meant by common mistake?

The general rule under English law is that a contract is likely to be deemed void if, at the time it was concluded, both parties wrongly assumed a particular state of affairs which for some reason did not in fact exist.

It is also generally accepted that a common mistake cannot occur when one party has made a warranty that a state of affairs exists, with the result that performance of the contract becomes impossible.

The key elements to a common mistake are that the contract becomes impossible to perform, and also the subject matter of the contract becomes “essentially and radically different from the subject matter which the parties believed to exist”.

This rule was examined by the English High Court in the case of Triple Seven MSN 27251 Ltd and Anor v. Azman Air Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 1348.

The facts

In June 2016, the airline (Azman Air Services) entered into separate leases for two Boeing 777’s belonging to a lessor (Triple Seven Ltd). The aircraft were to be used to perform pilgrimage flights to Saudi Arabia from West Africa over a 5-year period. Shortly after the leases were signed however the airline was informed by the Saudi regulator that it would not be licensed to operate these services, even though the Nigerian equivalent had given its approval. The airline therefore refused to accept delivery of the aircraft as a result of the Saudi regulator’s decision, relying on what it said was a ‘common mistake’. Specifically, the airline alleged that both parties believed (or at least understood) that the airline would be approved to operate the pilgrimage flights, and this was the sole purpose for the aircraft agreements. The airline failed to make any rent payments when they became due under the lease. The lessor did not accept that there had been a common mistake and proceeded to bring a claim for damages against the airline having unilaterally terminated the aircraft leases.

The decision

The court considered the key elements of common mistake set out above and applied them to the facts of this case. It was decided that the parties had entered the leases on the assumption that a) the Nigerian regulator had given its approval; b) the Saudi regulator may/may not do likewise; c) the airline was expecting to receive Saudi approval; d) the Saudi regulator had not made its decision at the time the leases were signed.

It was held by the court that whilst there were certain shared mistaken assumptions, they were not sufficiently fundamental, and did not make the leases essentially and radically different from the parties original understanding, nor would they render the agreements impossible to perform. It is worth noting that the Saudi regulator’s failure to approve the proposed services only applied to the first year of the operation. Approval may have been granted for the subsequent periods during the 5-year lease period.

The Judge (Mr Peter Eggers QC) stated that the 2016 pilgrimage was just one such event within the 5-year lease period; the airline could have made significant profit from the remainder of the period; whilst revenue earned from the 2016 pilgrimage was important it was not sufficiently important to the performance of the agreements as a whole, and also there was nothing to suggest that the knock-back for the 2016 pilgrimage by the Saudi regulator would necessarily apply in subsequent years.

The Judge was also persuaded that under the leases there was an allocation of risk (that the Saudi regulator would not provide its approval) to the airline. The leases provided that the airline’s obligations were “absolute and unconditional, irrespective of any contingency or circumstance whatsoever”.

The Judge therefore found for the lessor, awarding them in excess of USD $22million in damages for breach of contract.

Practice points

  • Make allowance for any risks which are specific to the performance of the contract when negotiating with your opposite party.
  • Draft appropriately. Make sure that the contract provides for, and apportions the risk that an expected set of circumstances (which are crucial to the performance of the contract) do not occur.
  • Don’t waste time attempting to argue common mistake if the contract imposes absolute or unequivocal obligations.

Contact

To discuss any issues raised by this article, or any other issues relating to an aviation commercial dispute then please contact me – gdoldham@oln-law.com

*Disclaimer – the views expressed in this article are those of the writer, and not necessarily those of the firm. 

New Arrangement on Court-ordered Interim Measures for Hong Kong and China Arbitral Proceedings

by

Introduction

On 1 October 2019, Hong Kong became the first jurisdiction to have an arrangement with Mainland China on interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings.  The Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “Arrangement”) was signed on 2 April 2019 and came into force on 1 October 2019.

Prior to the Arrangement, parties to foreign-seated arbitrations could not apply to the Mainland courts to grant interim measures.  The new Arrangement has now given the green light to do so. 

The Arrangement

In a gist, the Arrangement has empowered parties to Hong Kong-seated arbitral proceedings to seek interim measures in Mainland courts in aid of the arbitral proceedings and vice versa.  To better understand the benefits of this, one must first understand the pre-Arrangement scenario.

Before the Arrangement came into force, parties to an arbitration in Hong Kong could only seek interim measures from the Hong Kong courts such as injunctions against Hong Kong properties.  That meant that if a party had assets in the Mainland, there was nothing the other party could do in Hong Kong to restrain asset dissipation.  Likewise, no such assistance was available from Hong Kong to parties conducting arbitration in the Mainland.

After the Arrangement, interim measures, including property preservation, evidence preservation and conduct preservation can now be applied for by Hong Kong arbitral parties to the Mainland courts.  This Arrangement, however, is only available to parties engaging in administered arbitrations as opposed to ad hoc arbitrations.

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Arrangement, an application for such interim measures should be made to the Mainland court where the other party is resident or where the asset or the evidence is located.  An application can only be made prior to an arbitral award being made.

It should be noted that however, the requested court in the Mainland may require the applicant to provide security among other things pursuant to Article 8 and that once an application has been made, the applicant cannot make a separate application to another Mainland court.

Conclusion

In view of the benefits of preventing the deliberate destruction of evidence or dissipation of properties which may not be undone or tracked down, we believe the Arrangement will now attract more parties to choose Hong Kong as the seat for arbitration (particularly where the other party has Mainland assets), as opposed to other jurisdictions which do not have such an arrangement in place.

Hong Kong will no doubt benefit from this and further cement its position as an arbitration hub particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.

OLN provides a wide range of dispute resolution services including arbitration services. If you have any questions on the above, 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.

Why has Regulation EU261 not caught on in Asia?

by

Background

Looking at the stats, there are over 90 million passengers every year flying between the EU and Asia (by Asia I mean the Far East, Gulf states and the Indian Sub-Continent). Almost all of these journeys cover a distance which exceeds 3,500 km. When these flights are delayed, the delays can run into many hours and it can be difficult for the flight crew to make up time over such long distances.

Typically, these routes are flown using large wide-bodies such as B777’s and A380’s which can hold 350 – 500 passengers respectively. Load factors are also generally strong on these routes. It doesn’t take a mathematician to work out that at 600 Euros per delayed passenger, there is a lot of money swilling around to be claimed in the event of a flight delay.

European Law

A passenger travelling on a European flight to, or from Asia which was cancelled or delayed may have the right to compensation under European law. The law still applies even if the passenger resides in Asia. Regulation EU 261 covers European airspace, so the passenger doesn’t have to be an EU citizen to make a claim. The regulation says that affected passengers can claim compensation from an airline when a flight lands at its destination more than three hours late. With a cancelled flight, the passenger has the right to take an alternative flight with the same airline to the destination, or cancel the flight and receive a full refund. Airlines don’t always pay out however, and may try to avoid doing so if the delay is caused by a so-called ‘extraordinary circumstance’ such as bad weather or crew strikes – see below.

Previously, airlines refused to pay out for delays caused by technical faults claiming they counted as extraordinary events. But, in 2014 two English Court rulings declared that airlines should pay out when a delay was caused by a technical fault.

How much a passenger is entitled for a delay or cancellation depends on the flight that they booked, and the amount of time they were delayed. The flight must have departed from an EU airport and can either be operated by any airline (so this includes all European, Asian and Gulf carriers), or it must have arrived into an EU airport and have been operated by an EU airline. The ‘EU airport’ definition also includes any airport in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

Airline’s duty

Airlines have a duty to look after stranded passengers, even if cancellations are because of extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. Passengers should keep a record of what they spent (including receipts) in order to try to reclaim from the airline using the EU 261 rule. Airlines should compensate passengers if their flight is cancelled or badly delayed. They should also offer meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation whilst passengers wait for a rearranged flight.  

When making a claim, passengers will need to confirm the airline and flight number, the names of other passengers if travelling as a group, and the reason given by the airline for the delay. A four hours (or more) delay on a journey which exceeds 3,500km between an EU and non-EU airport (in Asia) gives a compensatory award of 600 Euros. It is always a good idea for passengers to keep hold of boarding cards as proof of travel.

If a flight is cancelled, passengers should be offered an alternative flight with the same airline to their destination either on the day or the following day if there is space, or a full refund for the flight. If this is not possible then they should be given the option of a flight with a different airline, if there’s room. If the passengers end up paying for this on top of the cost of the original ticket, they should be able to claim any extra money back – if they can prove that no other suitable option was given by the original airline. If passengers were given more than 14 days’ notice about the cancellation, they will only be entitled to a new flight or a refund for the original flight. But, if they were given 14 or less days’ notice they might be able to claim compensation on top of a refund, or alternative flight. The amount of compensation differs depending on when passengers were told about the cancellation, the length of the flight, and how long they had to wait for a new flight. The cancellation also needs to have been something which could have been avoided by the airline, so again passengers won’t be able to claim for reasons such as extreme weather conditions or a crew strike.

Extraordinary circumstances

Airlines don’t have to accept every claim, and can refuse to pay if ‘extraordinary circumstances’ apply. If the airline turns down the claim because of extraordinary circumstances, passengers can challenge this if they do not believe it to be true. They can take the matter up with the local Civil Aviation Authority if it is not settled properly. Many airlines still try to wriggle out of such claims, and a good example of this is an airline claiming technical faults as extraordinary circumstances. This is because the regulation gives no definition of exactly what extraordinary circumstances are, but does give some examples. Typically, they would include acts of terrorism, security risks, extreme weather e.g. volcanic ash, political unrest, industrial action strikes not relating to the airline, and hidden manufacturing defects in an aircraft. If the airline tries to claim extraordinary circumstances, challenge them to explain exactly what they were, and why they could not have been reasonably avoided. The onus is on the airline to prove this.

How far back can I claim?

Regulation EU 261 does not set a time limit on how far back claims can go, instead stating that this should be determined by the laws in respective countries. In Hong Kong for example, the statute of limitations law is six years, so by this logic an airline should consider claims for delays dating back six years from the time the claim is submitted. Again though, it is important though that passengers have kept their flight documents as proof of travel.

Denied boarding

EU 261 also applies to denied boarding claims. Passengers should not volunteer to surrender their seat if asked to do so by the airline. In cases where they volunteer to give up on a seat in exchange for a travel voucher, airline miles or other form of compensation they will be no longer eligible to claim under the EU Regulation. Passengers won’t be entitled to compensation either if they failed to check-in on time, were not at the gate on time, did not have the required travel documents (boarding pass, passport, visas etc.), or they created/represented a health, safety or security concern. In other words, passengers are only covered when they have been denied boarding against their will. This often happens in cases of overbooking i.e. the airline (over) sold more tickets than there are seats on the plane. They do this to compensate for passenger “no-shows”, i.e. passengers who booked a ticket but then do not show up for a flight. If passengers are denied boarding because of an overbooked flight, they are also entitled to compensation.

Need any help?

It seems, thus far, that the Asian travelling public have overlooked, or were simply unaware of their air passenger rights under EU law.

Not to worry, that is all about to change. Watch this space………

Come on Asia, it’s time to claim!

Contact

To discuss any issues raised by this article then please contact me – gdoldham@oln-law.com