John Murphy on The Nature and Scope of Liability for Procuring the Commission of a Tort (The Cambridge Law Journal)

"The Nature and Scope of Liability for Procuring the Commission of a Tort"
John Murphy
The Cambridge Law Journal
Published online: February 2026

Abstract: It has long since been accepted that where a defendant induces a primary wrongdoer to commit a tort against a claimant, the procurer may be held liable for the losses and harm thereby caused. Typically, the existence of such liability has been asserted rather than rigorously demonstrated both by judges and jurists. And while some detailed scholarly engagement with this form of liability has been proffered, the explanations on offer have tended to rely less on established principles of law, than on certain theoretical pre-commitments held by the authors in question. The Supreme Court’s decision in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed has injected some much-needed clarity into this conspicuously underexplored area of law. Yet even now, as this article seeks to show, there is much that remains uncertain concerning the nature and scope of such liability. It therefore seeks to shed light on those matters.

Say Goo on Shareholder Profit Maximization Efficient? Improving the Societal Efficiency of Corporations (Amicus Curiae)

"Is Shareholder Profit Maximization Efficient? Improving the Societal Efficiency of Corporations"
Say Goo
Amicus Curiae (‘Friend of the Court’), Vol. 7 No. 2 (2026): Series 2, pp.601-639
Published online: March 2026

Abstract: This article fundamentally challenges the dominant corporate social responsibility (CSR) paradigm by arguing that structural governance reform (stakeholder boards) is necessary because voluntary CSR, disclosure requirements, and external regulation cannot adequately internalize externalities when boards are legally bound to prioritize shareholder interests. It fundamentally reframes CSR from a voluntary ethical choice or matter of “enlightened” management discretion to a structural governance problem. It challenges the dominant assumption that shareholder profit maximization maximizes societal efficiency. It demonstrates formally that when externalities can be externalized, shareholder profit (M) diverges from societal efficiency (E), sometimes dramatically. Current corporate law compounds this problem by legally obligating directors to pursue the misleading profit figure rather than genuine social value. The proposed solution offered is that stakeholder board representation offers a more direct and potentially more efficient mechanism for internalizing costs than relying on external regulation alone. Voluntary environment, social and governance reporting, stakeholder consultation, and investor pressure all fail because they leave intact the fundamental board structure that creates incentives to externalize. Stakeholder representation addresses the root cause.

Say Goo on The Role of Party Committees in SOEs and Stakeholder Representation in China (The Journal of Comparative Law)

"The Role of Party Committees in SOEs and Stakeholder Representation in China"
Say Goo
The Journal of Comparative Law, Vol 20, Issue 2, 2025
Published in Oct 2025

The Background

State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China have long been struggling with, amongst other problems, the question of the efficiency of their governance structure and their corporate social responsibility (CSR). The recent introduction of party committees into China's SOEs and the imposition of a duty of corporate social responsibility on the SOEs was intended to deal with these issues, but have raised concerns in the West of political interference by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the SOEs' operations, thereby affecting the objectives and efficiency of the SOEs, and how this duty is to be fulfilled by SOEs. This paper therefore, examines the research question: how China can improve the corporate governance structure of SOEs to better fulfil CSR while maintaining efficiency, and specifically, whether implementing stakeholder representation within existing party committee structures or boards of directors would be able to address current governance shortcomings?

James Zeng on A Legal Theory of State-Owned Enterprises: The China Experience (Cambridge University Press)

A Legal Theory of State-Owned Enterprises: The China Experience
James Zeng
Cambridge University Press
Published online: January 2026

Description

The privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is more accurately described as a process of legalization rather than liberalization, given that the state often continues to regulate private enterprises even after privatization. This process requires clearly defining the boundaries between public power and private property, which entails significant social costs. The continued prevalence of SOEs in China is largely due to the difficulty of defining these boundaries, especially in sectors where safeguarding private property clashes with state priorities. Such sectors include water utilities, coal mining, commercial banking, and infrastructure, where competing state goals complicate the full privatization of the market. Therefore, it is essential to be cautious against the legal centrist view' that assumes law is inherently superior to state ownership. Privatizing SOEs is not merely the transfer of equity-it demands the establishment of advanced legal and regulatory frameworks, making it a complex and gradual endeavor.

Adrian Kuenzler on Meta’s peculiar acumen—moving privacy ahead in social media markets (Yearbook of European Law)

"Meta’s peculiar acumen—moving privacy ahead in social media markets"
Adrian Kuenzler
Yearbook of European Law
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: This article puts forward a new perspective on Meta Platforms Inc., a recent breakthrough decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), reconfiguring key debates around the use of personal data by social media companies and how that use affects the manner in which individuals and social relations are represented, realized, and governed through digital markets. The decision enables dominant social media companies to offer, for an appropriate fee, a paid version of their products if users reject personal data processing by the platform. While Meta defies conventional viewpoints as to how consumers can give valid consent to the processing of their personal data, this article submits that the decision to enable them to do so in this fashion is expedient. The CJEU uncovers a rift between different avenues of consumer influence and recognizes that these avenues are interlinking means of moving privacy ahead in concentrated markets. Though existing legal doctrine does not fully accept that vital reality, Meta in fact clears the way for privacy to be realized in digital markets.

HKU Jessup Team crowned 2026 Hong Kong Overall Champion

The HKU Jessup Team was declared the Hong Kong Overall Champion in the 2026 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition on 28 February 2026. The Jessup Moot is also known as one of the most prestigious international mooting competitions in the world. This year’s Jessup problem concerned the issues of intervention of non-party states, indigenous rights, general principles of international law and immunities of state-owned enterprises.

The Team consists of Cherie Cheung (PCLL), Jonathan Ho (PCLL), Evan Robinson (PCLL), and Matthew See (LLB3). In addition to the Champion title, the Team was awarded both the Best Applicant Memorial Award and the Best Respondent Memorial Award, as well as two Best Oralist awards, with Evan Robinson and Cherie Cheung winning the 1st and 3rd Best Oralist awards respectively.

The Team would like to express their sincerest gratitude to the coaches, Mr Fergus Tam and Mr Thomas Lam, for their valuable feedback and guidance. The Team would also like to thank the guest judges, Mr Ryan Cheung, Mr Raphael Leung, Mr Jason Louie, Ms Faith Lee, Ms Holly Leung, Ms Ally Chan, Mr Leo Pang, Mr Chung Hin Yue, and Ms Veronica Yu for their kind assistance, helpful advice and rigorous advocacy training. The team now advances to the Global Rounds in Washington DC, in which they will represent Hong Kong.

Craig Purshouse and Emma Cave on Fifty years of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976: A spent statute? (Medical Law Review)

"Fifty years of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976: A spent statute?"
Craig Purshouse, Emma Cave
Medical Law Review, Volume 34, Issue 1
Published online: February 2026

Introduction: In July of this year, 50 years will have passed since the enactment of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, the statute governing tort liability for prenatal injuries in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Golden anniversaries are often worth commemorating and, given that the Act was a response to the thalidomide disaster, this one might seem especially deserving of celebration. Alas, in this commentary, we have come to spoil the party. We are far from the only killjoys. From its earliest conception, the Act elicited a stream of criticism. Commenting on the Bill that led to the Act, Ian Kennedy and RG Edwards believed that it represented ‘a number of ad hoc decisions without any coherent structure either in legal reasoning or in social policy’ that would not ‘satisfy the needs of most children’. The late Margaret Brazier was equally scathing, attacking its ‘complex and convoluted rules’ and concluding that it ‘does little for the reputation of Parliamentary draughtsmen and has proved a nightmare to operate in practice’.