Showing posts with label LLB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LLB. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Sean Yau (LLB 2016) on Natural resources at the crossroads of international environmental and trade law: Forgiving mismanagement or unfulfilled promises? (Jindal Global Law Review)

"Natural resources at the crossroads of international environmental and trade law: Forgiving mismanagement or unfulfilled promises?"
Sean Shun Ming Yau (LLB 2016)
Jindal Global Law Review
Published online: July 2025

Abstract: The question how to best effectuate natural resources management is predetermined by the limits to which a state retains its sovereign discretion to act in an equilibrium range bounded by legal norms superimposed by various fields of international law. While international environmental law seeks to procure sustainable, equitable, and responsible exploitation, distribution, and uses of natural resources in a national jurisdiction, WTO law points to the opposite direction. Despite its aspiration to attain sustainable trade at its inception, the law and practice of the WTO soon exposed various points of friction which are counterintuitive, at times contradictory, to the institutional philosophy advancing the co-existence of trade liberalisation and ‘optimal use of the world’s resources’ as expressed in the preambular text of its constitutional instrument. The constitutional failure to balance the dual-objectives transpires in the ambivalence of its Members to balance obligations arising from the two fields of law. This article argues that WTO law establishes certain structural relationships of favouritism prioritising trade freedom, which either fundamentally contradicts, excludes, or leaves very little room for considerations of international environmental law, or otherwise indirectly debilitates a Member’s regulatory autonomy to respect the same. In consequence, state behaviour has been largely uniformised by the homogeneity of trade rules, with a view to creating a ‘borderless’ global economy where natural resources are traded freely. Such surrenders natural resources management to the invisible hands of market conditions prone to unsustainable exploitation and inequitable distribution.

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Sean Yau (LLB 2016) on the Legality of the Use of Force for Self-Determination (Palestine Yrbk Int'l L)

Sean Shun Ming Yau (LLB 2016)
2020, Vol 21, Issue1, pp. 32-76
Introduction: Self-determination is a complex animal. It is the only principle in international law which is so antithetical to State centricity – the premise of the legal architecture – and yet is one of the most fundamental principles of the discipline. More than 70 years after the adoption of the United Nations (UN) Charter, when the principle of self-determination first became black-letter law, today almost every aspect of its scope and content remains highly unsettled. To some, this concern is immaterial because they consider the principle obsolete and no longer applicable in today’s world. Over the past decade, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its Advisory Opinions on Kosovo and recently on Chagos, has shown otherwise. It not only left the door open whether international law permits a right to secession; even more, it demonstrated that the process of decolonization might be void if unlawfully completed. The article taps into one of the biggest nuances in this area of law: the use of force in the exercise of the right to self-determination, with a particular reference to Palestine. This is not least because the use of force has often been the means resorted to in historical attempts to achieve self-determination. Nonetheless, neither courts and tribunals nor academic scholars have seriously studied the issue. The question whether or not the use of force for self-determination is lawful is also particularly interesting from a legal perspective. It is one of the few phenomena of international life where two legal norms, both with a hierarchical superiority – namely the prohibition on the use of force and the right to self-determination – seem to collide... Click here to read the full article.

Sunday, January 3, 2021

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

Jason Fee (LLB 2020) on Trust-owned Companies and the Irreducible Core of the Trust (Trusts & Trustees)

"Trust-owned companies and the irreducible core of the trust"
Jason Fee (LLB 2020)
Published in September 2020
Abstract: The recent Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal case of Zhang Hong Li v DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd upheld the effectiveness of anti-Bartlett clauses. This gives rise to the question of whether a trust-corporate structure, coupled with a well-drafted anti-Bartlett clause, leaves any room for trust obligations. Through the lens of the law on trust-owned companies, this article thus seeks to reconceptualise the ‘irreducible core of trust obligations’. It argues that the irreducible core means the minimum duties which are necessary to preserve the integrity of the trust concept. It draws a distinction between core and mandatory duties, in that the ‘bells and whistles’ one adds in specific contexts may be mandatory duties reflecting appropriate policies, instead of core duties necessary for a trust to exist. It accordingly considers the proper content of the irreducible core, as distinguished from other mandatory duties.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Claudia Tam (LLB 2019) on Measuring Law Students’ Attitudes Towards and Experiences of Clinical Legal Education at HKU (Int'l J Clinical Legal Ed)

"Measuring Law Students’ Attitudes Towards and Experiences of Clinical Legal Education at The University of Hong Kong"
Claudia Man-yiu Tam (LLB 2019)
International Journal of Clinical Legal Education
2020, Volume 27, Issue 1
Abstract: As law schools in Hong Kong begin to integrate experiential learning into their educational models, clinical legal education (CLE) has symbiotically gained traction as an effective way for students to apply their legal knowledge in a skills-based and client-centered environment. This empirical study is the first of its kind to evaluate the impacts of CLE at The University of Hong Kong (HKU) over the past ten years, by analyzing the survey responses provided by 125 law students regarding their attitudes towards and experiences of CLE. The article traces the birth and development of CLE at HKU, turning first to its theoretical basis to make the case for its importance, and placing emphasis on the ability of CLE’s teaching-service pedagogy to alleviate the public interest law deficit and supplement passive learning as an engaging instructional method in the Hong Kong context. The survey results are then discussed in light of the doctrinal analysis to illustrate that clinic and non-clinic students alike are generally satisfied that HKU’s CLE program has achieved its skills, cognitive, and civic aims, and notably, that clinic students had a statistically significant higher intention to participate in pro bono work after graduation than non-clinic students or students engaged in volunteering.

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Alexa Lam's Inspiring Message to Incoming HKU Law Students 2018-2019

Talk at Faculty Opening Ceremony
31 August 2018
To most of you here, today is a special day. It marks the start of a new chapter of your life. It is a relatively short chapter – you are spending just a few years here, but it will probably be one of the most important chapters, because it is during this time that you will develop the moral and intellectual compass which you will use to navigate your life journey. 
     Your sense of pride and excitement, tempered perhaps by a bit of foreboding, is almost palpable. There is ample justification for this. Not only have you gotten into a prestigious university in the region, you actually managed to enroll in its top 20 world-ranking law school. Once you get over the next few years of lectures, tutorials, assignments and exams, you will join the profession of smart men and women in black robes, funny wigs and lawyer-speak in glamorous downtown Central, where successful professionals spend most of their waking hours. 
     You wanted to do law, and your wish has been granted. I have heard anecdotally that our LLB freshmen are increasingly a sophisticated bunch. Before they stepped foot into Cheng Yu Tung Tower on the first day, they had worked out what courses are the least rigorous and the most likely to yield a good grade, who are the teachers to avoid in the next four years because they are mean with their grades, how they could sail through law school with minimum work, etc. Our Department Head Professor Zhao Yun told us that you all came with top admission scores, which means that at age 18, you already have the ability to grapple with knowledge in a broad range of academic subjects. I therefore cannot believe that you are here just for the purpose of getting a ticket to the exclusive club of legal practice and big money. You would be doing yourself a great disservice, indeed you would be throwing away the opportunity of a lifetime, if you did not take advantage of the environment that university provides to equip yourselves with skills that will enable you to get the greatest intellectual and emotional satisfaction out of not just work but life in general. Life is a long journey – if it is just work and nothing else, it is a journey of hardship. You may become rich, but yours is an impoverished life. 
     To enjoy a rich life (and money does not equate a rich life), you must have passion for what you do and what you believe in. Passion drives your desire to participate, use your creativity, innovate solutions and in the end excel. The joy is not just in the result but the process. Let me illustrate with a story. 
     In the course that I teach, students are required to take part in a moot. They are given a life case – a hearing pending before the Market Misconduct Tribunal on an insider dealing complaint brought by the securities market regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission. Students were told that they should themselves form moot groups of four each - two for the regulator and two the defendants. The facts of the case are set out in a Notice filed by the regulator and available on the Tribunal’s website. Effectively a statement of claim by the regulator, the notice is of course a one-sided document setting out facts and allegations in the regulator’s favour. Other than this, there was very little structure. Students were advised that members of a group could agree among themselves on any additional facts that would give the defendants a good defence. That of course would make the regulator’s case more difficult but it would even the odds and render the hearing more interesting. When students were first told about this, they looked distinctly unhappy. I could just see what was on their minds: "Why does this professor have to be so marfan? Why can’t she just talk about the case in lecture? How am I to figure out a group to join? What a waste of my time!" Some emailed me right after class asking if I could do the grouping for them as they did not know one another. One even questioned if it was not the responsibility of the teacher to set up and assign students to groups. 
    I sent around a list of names of students in the class with their contact email address. In my message I made clear that a student’s ability to organize his group, agree with his group members the facts of the case and a fair allocation of work for each team member, and work with his team members to deliver results would go towards the student’s overall grade. The mention of the word “grade” worked like magic. Everyone rushed to email me with details of his group. As students started working with their group members, I noticed a sea change of attitude. I started getting enthusiastic emails asking for clarification of the Tribunal’s procedures and telling me about the additional facts on which their group had agreed. On the day of the mooting, students came before me, men and women smartly dressed in black, displaying a command of the facts, an understanding of the law, an ability to advocate a seamlessly woven legal argument and a poise and eloquence worthy of the best that this Law Faculty has ever produced. Some even prepared their bundles of documents, which included actual announcements, financial reports and media publications relevant to the company whose shares the regulator claimed were the subject matter of the insider dealing. Their enthusiasm in presenting their case in the best light was almost contagious. After their mooting, brimming with pride and satisfaction, students told me how much they had enjoyed the process, and they thanked one another in their group for a great experience together. 
     The central theme of the story is that in the next four or five years at HKU, there is nothing about learning that is a waste of your time. Learning comes in all forms and modes. Your teacher is only a small part of it. You learn because of your own intellectual curiosity and imagination, which drive thinking, debates, research and analysis. You learn from your peers, and you learn from actual and vicarious experiences. 
     Let me talk about your peers. Your class is big – some 200 students. Apart from those who are “your type”, many come from schools whose students you have never interacted with. Then there are those who went to high schools abroad, and still others who come from Mainland China, or other common law jurisdictions. They are an important part of your learning. In a world where technology continues to disrupt incumbents and open new theatres of opportunities, hard facts and skills that you learn today may become completely obsolete tomorrow. Your role model – the smart men and women in black in downtown Central, could be replaced one day by robot advisers. In Mainland China, they are already experimenting with virtual trials where cases are argued and adjudicated on the web. To stay relevant, you have to be agile and adaptable. Diversity, therefore, is the key to success in the tomorrow’s world. 
     Many of your classmates come from a different history and culture. Get to know them. You will find that there is something that you can learn from one another, or something about them that could help you better understand yourself. Explore the different activities, forums, clubs and programs that are available. They do not have to be law related. They are never a waste of time. Even if in the end you find that you do not enjoy any particular activity, you will have given yourself the opportunity of trying it. Understanding yourself, who you are and what you stand for, is crucial. The next four or five years is a time for you to do that. That is what I meant about building your moral and intellectual compass. You will need that as your guide when you come to crossroads in your life journey. 
     “That all sounds grand, but then what about my law studies? Where do I find to study law, which is my first priority?” Those of you who have been warned about the onerous workload of a law undergraduate may wonder. Let me share with you the provocative words of Lord Sumption, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in a recent debate in Cambridge on the motion “Those who wish to practise law should not study law at university”. Lord Sumption made the comment that “…law is dead easy. Most of it is common sense with knobs on. The difficulty is in the facts. Once you understand and strip away 95% of the facts which are not relevant, the legal solution is obvious…” While that may be over simplifying the process of legal reasoning, and I am certainly not suggesting that the next four years will be dead easy, what Lord Sumption said reminds us that the practice of law requires not just knowledge of the rules in the statue book and in cases – that is the easy part, but more importantly an understanding of the history, culture, values and sensibilities of society that the law serves. That understanding comes from acquiring a broad knowledge of the world and of humanity, and from the sharing of ideas in a liberal environment with a diverse body of contemporaries. 
     So far, I have focused on how you could prepare for a successful legal career and an intellectually fulfilling life. I now wish to say a few words to those of you who are not sure that you want to practice law, or whether you even wish to be here in the first place. I had 20 academic advisees last year. Among them was one who told me that he was studying law only because both his parents wanted it. I have heard similar stories in medical student circles. For these students, I would urge you to look at the next four years as an investment in a richer life ahead. An undergraduate law degree is a rigorous intellectual grounding in legal reasoning, logical analysis and dialectical debates within a historical, cultural, literary and political context that are relevant to the world you live in today. These are excellent tools for almost any other discipline or profession that you may wish to take up later in life. History is full of stories of successful men and women who first trained in law and subsequently excelled in other fields. More than half of the presidents of the United States for instance were trained as lawyers. Your law studies here could well be a prelude to more exciting things to come. Use the time here to open you mind to the ideas and opportunities that a liberal university environment has to offer. You will not be disappointed. 
     With that, let me draw this to a close by wishing you all an enriching experience at HKU.

Monday, July 16, 2018

HKU Law Students Excel in Mooting Competitions (Maritime Law and Competition Law)

L-R: A Fung, J Ma, K Lee, F Chan,
R Cheung
The 19th International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot 
Competing against 29 universities from 14 overseas jurisdictions, the HKU Maritime Law Moot Team was awarded the 1st Runner-Up of the Oral Hearings held in Brisbane, Australia from 29 June to 3 July 2018. The 2018 Maritime Law Moot Team consisted of Alex Fung (PCLL), Justin Ma (PCLL), Ferrida Chan (BBA-Law) and Ryan Cheung (LLB), coached by Mr. Ken Lee. 
L-R: K Lee, R Cheung, A Fung, J Ma,
F Chan
    During the group stages, the Team came in 6th overall and later defeated both the National University of Singapore and University of Malaya to advance into the grand finals held in the Federal Court of Australia in Brisbane. Our heartfelt thanks go to Professor Anselmo Reyes, Dr Felix Chan, Mr. Winky So and the previous award-winning team for their comments in various practice sessions; and Mr. Ken Lee, our team coach, for his unwavering support throughout the year. 
HKU Competition Law Team Captured Best Written Pleadings Award 
The HKU Competition Law Team won the Best Written Pleadings Award for the written round on route to the semi-finals of the annual Herbert Smith Freehills Competition Law Moot from 15 to 16 June 2018. Guided by Mr. Thomas Cheng and Mr. Kelvin Kwok, the 2018 Competition Law Moot Team comprised of 4 PCLL students –Yuet Yi Cheng, Law Wai Tsun Hazel, Ng Chun Wai Jonathan and Karen Tsang Nga Yue. The Team advanced to the oral rounds hosted by King’s College London based on the strength of its written memorandum. 
L-R: J Ng, H Law, T Cheng, YY Chen,
K Tsang
     After winning all its moots in the preliminary stage with Wai Tsun Hazel capturing an oralist award, the Team subsequently lost in the semi-finals to KCL which was ultimately the winner of this year’s competition. The Faculty is grateful for the valuable support from team coaches Thomas Cheng and Kelvin Kwok and various practitioners and ex-mooters including Mr. Sunny Chan, Ms. Tiffany Chan, Ms. Jasmine Cheung, Mr. Tommy Cheung, Mr. Byron Chiu, Mr. Joshua Kanjanapas, Mr. Kevin Lau, Mr. Joe Lee, Ms. Rosa Lee, Ms. Allison Wong, and Ms. Stephanie Wong for their kind assistance. 

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Hong Kong Team Wins at the Global Legal Hackathon (NYC, 21 April 2018)

L-R: Alison Li, Edelweiss Kwok, Sally Yiu
@DecodingLawHK #GLH2018 @hkuniversity
Congratulations to the winning Hong Kong team, Decoding Law, at the Global Legal Hackathon, held in New York City, 21 April 2018.  Fourteen teams competed on the stage and only four winners were recognised.  The Hong Kong team won in the public service category for their innovative project that uses machine learning and AI technologies to make reading legislation easier for the ordinary person including unrepresented litigants.  
The team comprises of HKU and CUHK law students, software developers and data scientists. The three HKU team members, Alison Li, Edelweiss Kwok, and Sally Yiu are currently studying in Year III of the combined law and business degree programme (BBA(Law) & LLB).  In her interview for the ABA Journal, Ms Yiu said she was "impressed to see so many talented minds collaborate and come up with feasible solutions to solve certain legal problems in society."  For other news stories of the event, see New York Law Journal and Artificial Lawyer.  This was the first ever Global Legal Hackathon to be held.  The other three winners were from the United States and Hungary.  The official press release can be viewed here.

Monday, April 4, 2016

HKU Clinical Legal Education Centre Helps Another Realise Justice in Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal

Gill Singh has worked in the insurance industry since the mid 1970s.  In late 2006, he met his former colleague and friend, Mr Wong, to discuss future opportunities.  Wong was the Chief Executive Officer of Dah Sing, an insurance company.  Eventually Singh was appointed a senior district manager of Dah Sing in January 2007. However, things did not go as well as expected and he was terminated in August the same year.  
      The insurance company then sued Singh in the District Court to try to recover back a $150,000 sign-on fee and two monthly allowances of $50,000 each.  The contract which Singh signed stated that the sign-on fee was repayable in full if Singh was terminated within three years of his appointment.  However it did not say anything about recovering monthly allowances that were paid.  With the assistance of legal aid, Singh counterclaimed for losses he suffered as a result of the company's failure to report his termination to the Insurance Agents Registration Board (IARB); he could not work for another insurance company as a technical representative or insurance agent until such termination had been registered.  He also counterclaimed for losses arising from the company's failure to report his continuing professional development (CPD) certificate to the  IARB, thereby resulting in his suspension from registration as an insurance agent for three months.  The company argued that it was not in breach of any duty owed to Singh and there was no right of action under the law for any of these breaches.
     On 18 May 2012, the District Court ruled in Singh's favour and held that the two months of paid monthly allowances were not recoverable and that Singh was entitled to damages for the company's breaches of duty in respect of the non-reporting to IARB of Singh's termination and his CPD certificate.  But the company appealed to the Court of Appeal, and on 23 December 2013 the Court of Appeal reversed the District Court's decision.  The Court of Appeal found that the legislation did not create a private right of action for the alleged breaches and the company did not owe a duty of care to Singh.  It also found that even if there was a breach, Singh did not suffer any losses.  After being advised by senior counsel that there was no merit in an appeal, it seemed like this was the end of the road for Singh.
      It was at this point that the HKU Clinical Legal Education Centre became involved when Singh made an appointment to seek legal advice from the Centre.  After an initial meeting in January 2014 with the two law students assigned to the case, Phoebe Suen (then Gov't & Laws 5) and Joel Lee (then LLB 3), the two students diligently researched and prepared a 17-page memo pointing out the likely errors of the Court of Appeal for the advising lawyer, Eric Cheung, principal lecturer and director of clinical legal education.  Cheung read the memo and immediately thought there was a case to take up to the Court of Final Appeal (CFA).  To confirm his beliefs, he sought the advice of the tort law experts in the Faculty of Law.  Eventually, after advising the client and obtaining his instructions, Cheung wrote to the Legal Aid Department and convinced them to change their decision and to fund the appeal to the apex court.  At this stage, Audrey Eu SC leading Kelvin Leung, took over the case but with the continued assistance of various law students up until the case was argued before the CFA in February 2016.  
     On 31 March 2016, the CFA unanimously allowed Singh's appeal and restored the District Court's decision (Dah Sing Insurance Services Limited v Gill Gurbux Singh, FACV18/2015).  Writing for the Court, Mr Justice Tang held that the company had a common law duty of care to make timely reports of termination and CPD certificates to the IARB so as to avoid foreseeable loss to representatives and agents like Singh.  The duties were found in the Code of Practice for the Administration of Insurance Agents.  The decision is an important precedent on the tort liability of insurance companies to their agents and representatives in respect of duties under the Code of Practice.
      This was not the first time for a client of the HKU Clinical Legal Education Centre to win a case in the CFA.  In October 2015, the CFA allowed the appeal in HKSAR v Law Yat Ting [2015] HKCFA 71, a case concerned with whether closing a car door constituted tampering with a motor vehicle.  The injustice had been so obvious that the Department of Justice conceded the appeal and the CFA decided the matter without an oral hearing.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The Scope of Legal Advice Privilege in Hong Kong (CLWR)

"The scope of legal advice privilege in Hong Kong"
Hin Ting Liu (LLB student) and Howard Wong
Common Law World Review
March 2016, Vol. 45, No. 1, 68-75
Abstract: This article considers the recent Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision of Citic Pacific Limited v Secretary for Justice and Commissioner of Police, concerning the scope of legal advice privilege. In departing from the UK position, it was held that all documents gathered or brought into existence for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice are protected by legal advice privilege. This is to be welcomed for three reasons. Firstly, the dominant purpose test sits in line with the normative rationale of legal advice privilege. Secondly, the UK position is flawed as a matter of authority. Thirdly, although the ‘dominant purpose’ test appears difficult to apply, it is preferable to the competing alternatives of the sole purpose test and the substantial purpose test. In terms of the practical application of the privilege, it is submitted that the Court of Appeal should have set out a list of guidelines to supplement the dominant purpose test.  

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Defending Due Deference (Francis Chung (LLB 2015))

"Defending Due Deference: Probing Procedural Propriety in Proportionality"
Francis Chung (LLB 2015)
Statute Law Review
September 2015, Advance Access
Abstract: Two problems plague the proportionality test under the Human Rights Act 1998. The first is the tension between substantive and process review. Another is potential judicial fallibility. This article aims to pull these seemingly unrelated issues together to provide the court with some useful guidance on calibrating a suitable intensity of review in the application of proportionality test and interpretation of the Human Rights Act. When the court is uncertain about the cogency of the substance of the case, judges are required to examine the second-order reasoning to determine the level of deference, if any, to be accorded to the government. The author argues that adoption of a thorough and consci- entious legislative or policy-making procedure can increase the democratic and institu- tional legitimacy of the parliament or administration under the second order reasoning. In this premise, the author proposes a comprehensive process-oriented review whereby procedural evidence leading up to the consultation documents, select committee reports and Hansard should be admissible to prove the propriety of the decision-making pro- cess. The higher quality the procedure is, the more persuasive the second-order reasoning is. Courts should thus ascribe more weight to these types of evidence to strengthen the substantive merits of the case in applying the proportionality review under the Human Rights Act. Click here to download the full article.