Reconciliation of the NPCSC's Power of Interpretation of the Basic Law with the Common Law in Hong Kong

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Man-mun Chan
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Common

Part III Regulation of Financial Products, 7 Asset Management and Investment Products

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arner Douglas W ◽  
Hsu Berry FC ◽  
Goo Say H ◽  
Johnstone Syren ◽  
Lejot Paul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Asset Management ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Financial Products ◽  
The Common

This chapter presents an overview of the legal and regulatory framework for financial products and asset management in Hong Kong. The chapter discusses the regulatory framework for asset management generally and provides an overview of the legal and regulatory framework for a variety of financial products. Most financial products are largely matters of private contract and therefore governed by the common law framework, with disputes adjudicated by the courts. However, in Hong Kong a variety of statutes address an ever growing range of financial products, including: bills of exchange and cheques (Bills of Exchange Ordinance); company shares (Companies Ordinance and Listing Rules); and security interests (Companies Ordinance, Bankruptcy Ordinance, and other property related ordinances). The chapter also considers opportunities for the asset management industry in Hong Kong.

scholarly journals “You have to teach the judge what to do”: Semiotic gaps between unrepresented litigants and the common law

Semiotica ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (216) ◽  
pp. 363-381
Author(s):  
Matthew W. L Yeung ◽  
Janny H. C Leung
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Actual Practice ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
Legal Professionals ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common

AbstractThe courtroom can be seen as a semiotic space where the practice of signs is institutionalized. There are specific ways to perform signs in court, be they verbal (e. g., turn-taking) or nonverbal (e. g., attire). Legal signs communicate and signify differently than their non-legal counterparts. Laypeople may not be aware of such differences, and may encounter a gap between their expectation and the actual practice of legal signs. This is precisely the case for unrepresented litigants, laypeople who go to court without legal counsel, whose understanding and practice of signs usually differ from legal ones given their limited exposure to legal knowledge and culture. This paper examines unrepresented litigants’ lay practice of signs in Hong Kong courtrooms, and analyses how it clashes with that used by legal professionals. Our data consist of courtroom observations of 54 Cantonese case managements and 13 Cantonese trials in district courts in Hong Kong, 10 interviews with unrepresented litigants and 6 relevant judgments. The paper shows that the differences in the use of semiotics often place laypeople as out-group members of the law and may limit their access to justice. Our analysis will contribute to an understanding of laypeople’s behavior in the courtroom, which in turn bridges the communication gap between laypeople and legal professionals in common law jurisdictions.

scholarly journals Whither the Common Law Derivative Action?

2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Lian Yap
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
The Common ◽  
Legal Frameworks

The common law derivative action was developed as a result of decades of case law in common law jurisdictions. Hong Kong and Singapore continue to retain the common law derivative action within their respective legal frameworks, despite both having enacted statutory derivative actions. This paper considers the situations in which the common law derivative action continues to have practical application in each of these jurisdictions. It then considers whether the common law derivative action should be abolished in these jurisdictions, and if so, what consequential changes should be made to the statutory derivative action framework concurrent with this proposed abolition.

The New Arbitration Ordinance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-197
Author(s):  
Lee Tin Yan
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Pacific Region ◽  
Special Administrative Region ◽  
Legal Environment ◽  
Asia Pacific Region ◽  
Administrative Region ◽  
The Common

Because of the unique position that Hong Kong occupies in China and its separate legal system based on the common law, it is a well-established policy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (‘‘HKSAR’’) Government to develop and enhance Hong Kong’s status as a major dispute resolution centre in the Asia Pacific region. One significant initiative in this regard is the recent introduction of a new Arbitration Ordinance to further improve the legal environment for arbitration in Hong Kong.

The Future of Wednesbury Unreasonableness in the Substantive Review of Administrative Discretion: A Hong Kong Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ramsden
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Unintended Consequence ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
Sliding Scale ◽  
General Basis ◽  
The Common ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Constitutional Protections

Abstract The continued use of Wednesbury unreasonableness in the substantive review of administrative discretion has received considerable scholarly attention throughout the common law world. Recent local developments in proportionality review bring this debate to the fore in Hong Kong. It has been argued that the Court of Final Appeal’s articulation of a sliding scale of proportionality review has strengthened the case for the formal abolition of Wednesbury unreasonableness, on the basis that proportionality has now embraced an identical unreasonableness standard. This article challenges the claim that Wednesbury is now a redundant concept in Hong Kong public law. Descriptively, there remain material differences between Wednesbury and proportionality, even under its modified deferential form. Normatively, too, Wednesbury remains justified as a means to recognize the limited general basis in which common law substantive review can occur. A conflation of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality can have the unintended consequence of diluting constitutional protections. Furthermore, the emergence of a sliding scale of Wednesbury review in Hong Kong reduces, rather than increases, pressure for its abolition in favour of proportionality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document