ONC Lawyers
89 Articles0 Comments

ONC Lawyers is a professional and dynamic legal practice based in Hong Kong. We have been growing continuously since our establishment in 1992, and have now become one of the largest local law firms with more than 100 members of legally-qualified and supporting staff. The major areas of practice of our lawyers include banking & finance, capital market, China practice, construction & arbitration, corporate & commercial, criminal litigation, employment, family & matrimonial, immigration, insolvency & restructuring, insurance & personal injury, intellectual property & technology, litigation & dispute resolution, notary public services, real estate, securities, futures & funds, shipping & logistics and wills & probate. ONC Lawyers was formerly known as Or, Ng & Chan (prior to 1st May 2008), whilst our Chinese name 柯伍陳律師事務所 has remained unchanged.

A blow to the giant – Adidas loses trademark battle against Shoe Branding Europe BVBA
Business,Intellectual Property

Reading Time: 5 minutesIntroduction On 19 June 2019, The European Union General Court (the “General Court”) dismissed the appeal application filed by Adidas and upheld the decision of European Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”)’s Second Board of Appeal that, among other things, Adidas’ signature mark of parallel equidistant stripes lacks the distinctiveness required for it to be qualified for […]

Why was McDonald’s “BIG MAC” trade mark revoked in Europe?
Business,Intellectual Property

Reading Time: 4 minutesIntroduction In the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (“EUIPO”) decision in Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd v McDonald’s International Property Company, Ltd dated 11 January 2019, the EUIPO revoked McDonald’s rights in respect of the trade mark “BIG MAC”. The reason for the decision was that McDonald’s had failed to provide sufficient evidence to the EUIPO to prove that […]

Variation of a Mareva injunction may not override legitimate interests of third parties
Criminal and Litigation,Hong Kong,Regional Law

Reading Time: 6 minutesIntroduction In Securities And Futures Commission v Mo Shau Wah And Others [2018] 3 HKLRD 356, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) dismissed an appeal brought by Mo Shau Wah (“Mo”) in relation to a Mareva injunction obtained against her in proceedings brought by the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”), against the dismissal of her application for an […]

Hong Kong: Gay civil servant wins final appeal on spousal benefits for husband
Employment,Hong Kong,LGBTQ,Marriage,Personal,Regional Law

Reading Time: 7 minutesIntroduction We discussed the judgment of the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) in Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service and Another [2017] CFI 736; HCAL 258/2015 and also its appeal judgment of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) ([2018] HKCA 318; CACV 126/2017) respectively in our Newsletters June 2017 and June 2018 issues. This year, the appellant (“Mr Leung”) […]

Does removing an insolvent party from a joint venture infringe the anti-deprivation rule?
Business,Hong Kong,Insolvency,Investments,Legal Contracts,Regional Law

Reading Time: 5 minutesIntroduction The Court of First Instance analysed whether a clause within a joint venture agreement between a company in liquidation and an interested party should be void for being classified as “disposition” under section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32). Build King Construction Ltd (“BK”) formed a joint venture […]

The importance of the use of languages in determining the intended coverage of arbitration clause
Dispute Resolution,Hong Kong,Legal Contracts,Regional Law

Reading Time: 8 minutesIntroduction It is not uncommon that parties to a commercial agreement include an arbitration clause to govern the way in which dispute is settled. In Giorgio Armani SpA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd [2019] HKCFI 530, in deciding an application by the plaintiff seeking the continuation of an anti-suit injunction against the defendant from taking any further […]

DDoS attack – cybercrime for misusing a victim’s computer through the victim’s website
Criminal and Litigation,Cybersecurity,Hong Kong,Legal Updates,Regional Law

Reading Time: 4 minutesIntroduction In a recent case HKSAR v Chu Tsun Wai [2019] HKCFA 3, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) set out the basis to which a cyber-attacker may be found guilty for damaging the other’s property by misusing the victim’s computer through the victim’s website. Background On 12 October 2014, Mr Chu Tsun Wai (“Mr Chu”) took […]

The CFA clarifies the relationship between “bribery” and “misconduct in public office” in Donald Tsang’s case
Criminal and Litigation,Hong Kong,Regional Law

Reading Time: 5 minutesIntroduction In our previous newsletter “Donald Tsang’s Conviction Sheds Light on the Offence of Misconduct in Public Office”, we discussed the conviction in February 2017 of Mr Donald Tsang Yam-kuen (“Tsang”), the former Chief Executive of Hong Kong (the “Chief Executive”), of the charge of misconduct in public office. Tsang first appealed to the Court […]

新加坡法院承认在美国进行的关于新加坡注册公司的破产程序为外国主要程序
Business,Insolvency

Reading Time: 1 minutes简介 2019年3月4日,新加坡高等法院(「法院」)就Re Zetta Jet Ptd Ltd and others (Asia Aviation Holdings Ptd Ltd, intervener) [2019] SGHC 53一案颁下判词,全面承认美国破产程序为《新加坡示范法》下的外国主要程序。 背景 Zetta集团(包括Zetta Jet USA, Inc及Zetta Jet Ptd Ltd(「新加坡Zetta」))于2017年在美国破产法院被入禀申请自愿破产(「美国破产程序」)。介入人于2017年9月19日在新加坡取得了禁制令,阻止新加坡Zetta及其他人在美国破产程序中采取进一步行动(「新加坡禁制令」)。然而,美国破产程序仍继续进行。 2017年12月13日,受托人向法院申请承认美国破产程序。法院于2018年1月24日在Re Zetta Jet Pte and Others [2018] SGHC 16一案中有限度地承认了美国破产程序,但仅限为了让受托人能够申请解除新加坡禁制令。 2018年3月9日,新加坡Zetta提出要求解除新加坡禁制令的申请。新加坡禁制令于2018年7月12日经各方同意而被解除。 《新加坡示范法》 新加坡自2017年5月23日起采纳及实施了《联合国国际贸易法委员会跨境清盘示范法》(1997年5月30日)(《示范法》),具体规定载于新加坡《公司法》(第50章,2006年修订版)附表十(《新加坡示范法》)。 根据《新加坡示范法》,外国代表可向法院申请承认外国清盘程序,如果符合指定条件,且法院信纳,承认该程序不会违反新加坡的公共政策(「公共政策例外情况」),则法院则必须承认该外国清盘程序。 承认外国清盘程序为主要程序或承认其为非主要程序存在分别,两者的济助及后果各有不同。 外国主要程序比外国非主要程序可享有更广泛的济助:只有外国主要程序可自动享有《新加坡示范法》第20(1) 条下的济助。主要程序是指在债务人的主要利益中心进行的程序。 在本案中,法院需审理的主要争论点包括如何确定新加坡Zetta的主要利益中心,以及公共政策例外情况是否适用。 主要利益中心 关于新加坡Zetta的主要利益中心,法院考虑了评估主要利益中心的日期以及评估的方式。 评估日期 关于评估主要利益中心的日期,法院考虑了其他司法管辖区的做法: 英国及欧洲的做法,以及《联合国国际贸易法委员会示范法制定及诠释指引》(2013年)采取的做法:采用外国清盘程序的开始日期。 澳洲的做法:采用申请承认外国程序的聆讯日期。 美国的做法:采用申请承认外国程序的存档日期。 法院决定采纳美国的做法,认为这种做法能提供较大的确定性、更切合实际商业环境以及《示范法》条文的措词。 法院表示,在外国清盘程序开始后,容许公司酌情决定将主要利益中心转移至另一个司法管辖区以争取最大机会达致有效的重组方案(避逃刑事或类似法例除外),是无可非议的。 相关因素 《示范法》及《新加坡示范法》并无界定「主要利益中心」。根据《新加坡示范法》第16(3) 条,债务人的注册办事处所在地点被推定为债务人的主要利益中心(「该推定」)。法院裁定,该推定并非一项可被推翻的法律推定,而是视乎特定案情可被其他因素取代的起始考虑因素。 除了该推定,法院认为并无实际的法定指引,说明何谓债务人的主要利益中心。法院考虑了联合国国际贸易法委员会发出的指引,以及参考了英国、欧洲、澳洲和美国的案例。 法院认同英国、欧洲及澳洲的司法惯例,裁定上述的其他因素应该是一般能够由第三方(特别是债权人及潜在债权人)客观地确定的因素。法院应着重实际发生的事实,并进行范围广泛的查讯,以了解有关公司在某个地方的活动及与该地方的关连。在考虑这些因素时,无需严格辨别Zetta集团内的不同实体,因为确定主要利益中心并不涉及独立法团身分的概念。 法院考虑了以下因素: […]

Is it likely for the Court to order one of the parents in a child relocation application to pay security for costs?
Divorce and Child Custody,Personal

Reading Time: 5 minutesIntroduction An order for security for costs requires a Plaintiff to pay into the Court an amount of money that the Court considers appropriate for the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings. Whilst it is common for a party to take out an application for security for costs in civil proceedings (such as shareholder disputes), it […]

Can employers rely on “team based” commission and team leader bonus already paid to employees to deduct sickness allowance, holiday pay and annual leave pay payable to employees?
Employment,Hong Kong,Personal,Regional Law

Reading Time: 6 minutesIntroduction In a recent case Mak Wai Man v Richfield Realty Ltd [2019] HKDC 358, the District Court clarified whether statutory entitlements (including sickness allowance, holiday pay and annual leave pay) payable to employee under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) can be reduced by “team based” commission (the “Commission”) and team leader bonus (the “Bonus”) already paid […]

香港:医疗疏忽——医生应向病人披露多少治疗风险资料?
Hong Kong,medical negligence,Personal,Regional Law

Reading Time: 1 minutes简介
医生通常在两种情况下须负上疏忽法律责任:第一是在施行医疗程序时疏忽;第二是在征求病人同意进行医疗程序时,未有向病人披露医疗程序的风险。
就上述第一种情况,我们在早前在〈医疗疏忽——认识医护人员对病人的责任〉一文中已探讨了如何采用Bolam测试确定须具备的谨慎责任的标准。至于第二种情况,由于英国最高法院在Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11一案中的裁决,Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582案中确立的传统测试(「Bolam测试」)在英国不再适用。