Kelvin Kwok on Rethinking the Antitrust-Securities Interface (American Business Law Journal)

"Rethinking the antitrust-securities interface"
Kelvin Kwok
American Business Law Journal, Summer 2026, pp. 151-175
Published online: May 2026

Abstract: This article proposes a new theoretical framework for resolving conflicts between antitrust law and securities regulation, which is distinctive in four respects. First, it eschews the traditional approach of resolving antitrust-securities conflicts through implied antitrust immunity, which unjustifiably prioritizes securities regulation above antitrust law. Second, it argues for a narrow definition of conflict, encompassing only conduct presently authorized or required by the securities regime that also has likely and significant anticompetitive effects; practices that are illegal under both antitrust law and securities regulation are thereby excluded. Third, this article builds on the literature on the antitrust-intellectual property interface to recommend a structured, rule-of-reason framework for resolving conflicts at the antitrust-securities interface. Unlike implied antitrust immunity, which automatically allows securities regulation concerns to trump antitrust concerns, the rule of reason seeks to strike a proper balance. The analysis begins by asking whether the securities practice has likely and significant anticompetitive effects. It then inquires into the securities regulation concerns behind the conduct and whether there is a less restrictive means of addressing those concerns. Fourth, a two-stage procedure is proposed for implementing the rule of reason to resolve antitrust-securities conflicts in rulemaking and adjudication, involving the collaboration of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, and the courts.

Please click here to read the full article on SSRN.

Alric Wong and Wilson Lui on Four problems in appellate review of foreign law: Evaluating the Spectrum Approach (Common Law World Review)

“Four problems in appellate review of foreign law: Evaluating the Spectrum Approach”

Alric Wong (LLB 2025, PCLL Candidate) and Wilson Lui (Research Fellow, Centre for Private Law)
Common Law World Review
Published online: May 2026

Abstract: This article critically evaluates the Spectrum Approach as applied in the appellate review of findings of foreign law. The Spectrum Approach posits that the degree of deference to trial judges’ determinations of foreign law depends on the analogousness of the foreign legal system to the domestic legal system, situating cases on a spectrum between questions of fact (for dissimilar systems) and questions of law (for closely aligned systems). While the Spectrum Approach attempts to offer a structured framework, this article identifies four key deficiencies with the Approach: (1) over-emphasis on the common–civil law dichotomy, (2) circularity in assessing ‘similarity’ between legal systems, (3) artificial separation in the ascertainment and application of foreign law, and (4) indeterminacy for cases occupying the middle of the spectrum. This article argues that the Spectrum Approach involves unnecessary inconsistencies and complexities, which the Privy Council did not adequately address in its decision of Perry v Lopag Trust Reg. This article advocates for a flexible, context-sensitive adjudication without any rigid categorisation or sequential reasoning, ensuring consistency with principles of judicial restraint and fairness. This debate has important implications on the treatment of foreign law in domestic courts amid increasing cross-border litigation.

Wilson Lui on Hong Kong Citation of Legal Authorities and Materials (HKCLAM)

Hong Kong Citation of Legal Authorities and Materials

Revised First Edition

Wilson Lui (Research Fellow, Centre for Private Law)

Published online: April 2026

The Hong Kong Citation of Legal Authorities and Materials (HKCLAM) (香港法律典籍引用格式) is the first legal citation style in Hong Kong. It aims to provide local and foreign legal professionals, law students, and members of the public with a uniform and simple citation style when citing legal authorities and materials commonly used in Hong Kong.

HKCLAM is named by the fifth edition of The Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) as the sole guide for Hong Kong primary legal sources. It is also designated as the citation style for the Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies, the oldest student-run flagship legal journal in Hong Kong. It has been recognised and welcomed by legal practitioners, academics, and students alike.

The revised first edition of HKCLAM was published in April 2026 to bring it in line with the fifth edition of OSCOLA, published in late March 2026. HKCLAM is freely available and licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Edward Lui on Public interest immunity and judicial deference (Legal Studies)

"Public interest immunity and judicial deference"
Edward Lui
Legal Studies
Published online: April 2026

Abstract: The puzzle underlying the law of public interest immunity (PII) is well known. In ordinary proceedings all relevant evidence should be placed before the court and the parties, including when the government is one of those parties. But what if some of the relevant evidence – due to reasons in the public interest – cannot be disclosed to the other parties involved? The traditional way in which English law tackles this puzzle is by invoking the law of PII. Ever since the landmark decision in Conway, it has been settled that ‘the courts should balance the public interest in the proper administration of justice against the public interest in withholding any evidence which a Minister considers ought to be withheld’. If the public interest favours disclosure of the evidence, the evidence is admitted and made ‘available to both parties and to the court’; but if the contrary is true the evidence will be excluded altogether from the proceedings and made ‘available neither to the other parties nor to the court’.

David Winterton and Michael Dimarco on Future Performance and Proof in Contract Damages (Sydney Law Review)

"Future Performance and Proof in Contract Damages"
Michael Dimarco, David Winterton
Sydney Law Review
Published online: April 2026

Abstract: A longstanding common law controversy is whether, following a contract’s termination for the defendant’s repudiatory breach, the plaintiff’s entitlement to substantial damages depends upon proving its ability to have performed any outstanding, and now discharged, obligations. This question may arise in various distinct contexts and consideration of the relevant case law reveals that courts have not imposed identical proof requirements across these different scenarios. Despite these ostensible inconsistencies, the adoption of a two-stage model reveals the existence of an intelligible order within the leading authorities. The first stage involves determining the nature of the relationship between the parties’ unperformed obligations. This relationship may decisively determine what the plaintiff must prove to recover substantial damages. But if not, the onus of proving whether the plaintiff would have been able to perform any remaining obligations, if relevant to its entitlement to substantial damages, must be allocated. Proper allocation of this onus requires consideration of certain other features of the case, including most notably the presumptive availability of specific performance to the plaintiff. This article explains the operation of this model by analysing the leading English and Australian decisions, providing a framework for resolving the various scenarios that may arise.

Professor Scott Veitch joined the Series Editors of Econormativities (A new Routledge book series)

Congratulations to Professor Scott Vietch, who has joined the Series Editors of Econormativities (A new Routledge book series). 

Econormativities is a new Routledge book series, publishing novel explorations of normativity for contemporary theorisations of life, in a rapidly evolving global technosocial ecology.

This book series invites original scholarship exploring the emerging realm of ‘econormativity’. A fundamentally interdisciplinary project, the series welcomes contributions from law and legal theory, political and social theory, science and technology studies, environmental studies, human geography, history, the history of ideas, design studies, creative arts research, Indigenous studies, philosophy, anthropology, and any discipline where novel ‘modes of existence’, new norms and new normativities, are challenging existing conceptual, and especially legal, frameworks.

Please click here to read more details about the book series on Critical Legal Thinking (CLT).

Taorui Guan won the 3rd place of the ATRIP 2025 Essay Competition

Congratulations to Taorui Guan on winning the 3rd Place for the ATRIP 2025 Essay Competition with his paper “Reconstructing Originality in Human–AI Collaboration under US Copyright Law”.

Every year, ATRIP holds an Essay Competition for Young Researchers in Intellectual Property Law. The competition is sponsored by FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys. For more information, please click here to view on ATRIP website.

Suhong Yang spoke at the 120th American Society of International Law Annual Meeting and elected Co-Chair of the Asia Pacific Interest Group

From 22 to 25 April 2026, the American Society of International Law (“ASIL”) convened its 120th Annual Meeting with the theme, “Advancing and Defending the Rule of Law” in Washington D.C.

Suhong Yang was invited to speak on the panel “International Criminal Justice in the Contemporary Asia-Pacific Region” with co-panelists Emma Palmer (Griffith University) and Azadah Raz Mohammad (Melbourne Law School), which was moderated by David Luban (Georgetown University Law Center). The panel discussed the following issues: situations under investigation by the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) in the Asia-Pacific Region, such as the Philippines and Myanmar; mechanisms for international criminal justice in addition to the ICC, including domestic prosecutions, universal jurisdiction, and hybrid tribunals in the Asia-Pacific Region; and initiatives and efforts concerning Afghanistan at international and domestic levels, including the UN-mandated investigative mechanisms for Afghanistan, the ICC arrest warrants, gender apartheid and the draft convention on crimes against humanity, and the People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan. Suhong focused on mechanisms other than the ICC, addressing hybrid courts in East Timor and Cambodia, the International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), and future possibilities for tackling human trafficking in East and Southeast Asia. The panelists also actively engaged with audiences for various questions. This panel was well attended and received lots of good comments. A recording of the panel can be watched online. Last year in September, Suhong and Professor Simon Young organized a successful two-day workshop on the topic of this panel at HKU.

In addition, at the time of the 2026 ASIL Annual Meeting, Suhong got elected as Co-Chair of the ASIL Asia Pacific Interest Group for a three-year term. She looks forward to serving the members and fostering conversations on diverse topics regarding international law and the Asia-Pacific Region. Meanwhile, Suhong’s three-year term as Secretary of the ASIL Women in International Law Interest Group came to an end. Suhong will continue to serve as a member of the Steering Committee and contribute to enhance the role and careers of women in the field of international law.

ASIL is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational membership organization founded in 1906 to foster the study of international law and to promote the establishment and maintenance of international relations on the basis of law and justice. The Society’s members are from more than 100 nations. ASIL advances international law scholarship and education for international law professionals as well as for broader policymaking audiences and the public. ASIL holds Special Consultative Status to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations and is a constituent society of the American Council of Learned Societies.

ASIL’s Asia Pacific Interest Group brings together lawyers, scholars and others interested in the topic to inform each other of developments relating to international law and international relations in this vast and important region. Topics include such diverse areas as gender discrimination, sovereignty and the state, Taiwan-Mainland relations, Hong Kong’s political future, islands in the Pacific, human rights, intellectual property, the impacts of Western countries, and many more. Among our faculty, Professor Weixia Gu was a Co-Chair of the Asia Pacific Interest Group from 2018 to 2021.

HKU Team wins the Best Memorial for Prosecutor in The 24th Red Cross International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Moot

From left: Fung Chun Hei Justin, Kok Karina Ka Ying, Heng Adriel Wee Xin

Congratulations to Mr Justin Fung Chun Hei (BSocSc(Govt&Laws)&LLB 3), Ms Kok Karina Ka Ying (BA&LLB 3), and Ms Adriel Heng Wee Xin (BBA(Law)&LLB 3), for winning the Best Memorial prize for the Prosecutor in The 24th Red Cross International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Moot.

The Team takes this opportunity to express their sincere gratitude to the team coaches, Mr Ernest Ng and Mr Jason Ko for their unfailing support and helpful guidance throughout. The Team would also like to thank Mr Chak Hei Lau, Mr Raphael Leung, Mr Jason Louie and Mr Kevin Lau, as well as members of the previous Red Cross Moot Teams, Ms Christy Suen, Mr Fergus Tam and Mr Martin Lau for their kind assistance.

[Summer course] Law/Data: An Introduction to Computational Methods for Legal Research

This is a 5-Day Course Designed for PhD Students and Legal Academics.

Period: August 24 – 28, 2026 (Monday – Friday)

Venue: The University of Hong Kong

 

課程中文資料，請按此 (Click here for course information in Chinese)

 

Course Overview

This five-day intensive course introduces PhD students and early career researchers in law and law-related disciplines to computational methods for legal research. Designed specifically for participants with no prior experience in computer programming, the course provides a practical and conceptually grounded introduction to how computational techniques can be used in contemporary legal scholarship.

 

Computational methods—such as text analysis, data collection, and visualization—are increasingly used across legal studies, socio-legal research, and interdisciplinary work that engages with courts, legislation, policy, regulation, and legal institutions. Yet many legal researchers lack structured opportunities to acquire these skills in a supportive, methodologically oriented environment. This course addresses that gap.

 

Lecturers:

• Ryan Whalen (Associate Professor & Director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law)

• John Zhuang Liu (Associate Professor, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law)

 

The course is hosted at The University of Hong Kong and sponsored by the HKU Centre for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies.  The course will be taught in English.

 

Aims and Learning Objectives:

 

By the end of the course, participants will:

 

• Understand how computational approaches can be integrated into doctrinal, empirical, and interdisciplinary legal research

• Gain hands-on experience with basic computational techniques commonly used in legal studies

• Develop foundational literacy in programming concepts relevant to research

• Learn to critically assess the strengths and limitations of computational methods in legal contexts

• Be equipped to begin using computational tools independently or in collaboration with other researchers

 

The emphasis throughout is on methodological understanding and research design, rather than technical mastery.

 

Course Structure and Content:

The course runs over five consecutive days and combines short lectures, guided hands-on exercises, and discussion sessions. Topics include:

 

• Introduction to computational legal research and research design

• Working with legal texts and documents

• Basic text analysis and legal corpus exploration

• Data collection, cleaning, and management for legal research

• Visualization and exploratory analysis for legal questions

• Reproducibility, transparency, and ethical issues in computational legal research

 

Practical sessions are carefully scaffolded and assume no prior coding experience. Examples and exercises are drawn from law and law-related research contexts.

 

Teaching Approach

The course adopts a beginner-friendly, research-led pedagogy. Technical concepts are introduced slowly and motivated by concrete legal research problems. Participants will work with real legal materials and research scenarios, allowing them to reflect on how computational methods intersect with doctrinal reasoning, qualitative interpretation, and normative analysis.

 

No prior programming experience is required, and no technical background is assumed.

 

Who Should Attend?

This course is designed for PhD students in law and law-related disciplines, early career researchers conducting legal, socio-legal, or interdisciplinary research, and researchers interested in incorporating computational methods into their work. Participants from all legal traditions and research areas are welcome.

 

Fees (in Hong Kong dollars):

• HKU students and staff: $ 2,500

• Students (non-HKU): $ 4,000

• Public: $ 6,000

• $500 discount for early-bird payment by June 15, 2026, Hong Kong Time

 

Certificate of attendance will be given out to course participants. Register for the course: https://hkuems1.hku.hk/hkuems/ec_hdetail.aspx?guest=Y&ueid=104795.  A payment link will be sent to registrants later.

 

For inquiries, contact Ms. Grace Chan at mcgrace@hku.hk / 39174727.

Craig Purshouse on The Montgomery mistake (New Book Chapter)

"The Montgomery mistake"
Craig Purshouse
in José Miola (ed) and Louise Austin (ed), Research Handbook on Medical Consent, (Edward Elgar Publishing, April 2026), Chapter 6, pp. 98 - 111
Published in April 2026

Introduction: Until very recently, the arc of the law of negligent information non-disclosure appeared to be bending towards ever-greater protection of patient autonomy. The high point of this vision was the 2015 UK Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Mrs Nadine Montgomery was a pregnant diabetic woman who was not warned of a 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia, a medical emergency where the baby’s shoulder become trapped behind the mother’s pelvis, associated with a vaginal delivery. Shoulder dystocia carries with it a much smaller risk of serious complications and, unfortunately, both risks eventuated during her labour and so she brought a claim on behalf of her son for the injuries he had sustained. In their joint leading judgement, Lord Kerr and Lord Reed held that a doctor is under a duty ‘to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments’. The test of materiality was said to be ‘whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attached significance to it’. The much-maligned House of Lords decision in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital – where the majority had supported the Bolam test, with its focus on whether a professional’s actions complied with responsible peer opinion – was dead.

Ambiguities in Montgomery about what makes an alternative or variant treatment ‘reasonable’ have recently been the subject of another UK Supreme Court decision. McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board was a claim brought by the window and family members of Mr Neil McCulloch, who had died of a heart attack at home after being discharged from hospital with potential acute pericarditis. His family argued that he should have been offered a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as ibuprofen, by the defendants. The claim…...