Commonwealth of Nations: Privy Council Judgment in Owners of the Ship “Philippine Admiral” (Philippine Flag) v. Wallem Shipping (Hong Kong) Limited (Sovereign Immunity; State-owned Ship in Commercial Operations)

1976 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-145
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Commonwealth Of Nations

The Politics of the Debate over the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong

2000 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. 221-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lo Shiu Hing
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Special Administrative Region ◽  
State Council ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Standing Committee ◽  
Legal Scholar ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Set Up ◽  
People's Congress

Before the transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty from Britain to the People's Republic of China (PRC) on 1 July 1997, the politics of interpreting the Basic Law had already become apparent. This article aims to use the debate over the Court of Final Appeal (COFA), which was set up in July 1997 to replace the Privy Council in Britain as the court of final adjudication in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), to analyse how the Basic Law had already been interpreted by PRC officials, their British counterparts and the Hong Kong people. The interpretation of the Basic Law involves many people from both Hong Kong and China. As one legal scholar writes: “In one sense all kinds of people [in the HKSAR] will have to interpret the Basic Law: civil servants and other administrators and lawyers in their day-today work, legislators to ensure that their legislation and motions are consistent with it, the State Council [in the PRC], the National People's Congress Standing Committee, even private parties since some provisions affect private acts.” The debate over the COFA may also help towards an understanding of the ongoing interpretation of various provisions of the Basic Law, which serves as the mini-constitution of the HKSAR.

scholarly journals Reasonable Reliance and Apparent Authority: East Asia Company Ltd v PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo [2019] UKPC 30

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 184-190
Author(s):  
Mark Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party

The Privy Council in East Asia Company Ltd v PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo (a case on appeal from Bermuda) has provided clarification on the correct approach to the reliance aspect of apparent authority. Reliance can be of particular importance where the third party has been put on notice as to the agent’s lack of authority: for example, when the transaction is unusual or especially onerous for the principal. The Privy Council concluded, albeit obiter, that the correct test is one of reasonable reliance by the third party. In doing so, it has rejected the approach adopted by Lord Neuberger NPJ in the Hong Kong case of Akai Holdings and subsequently followed in a number of English decisions: that is, reliance by the third party is presumed in the absence of dishonesty or irrationality.

scholarly journals Extending The Scope Of Proprietary Remedies To Recovery Of Pure Profits From Successful Investment Of Bribes: The Endgame In Lister V Stubbs

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aiman Nariman Mohd Sulaiman ◽  
Mohsin Hingun
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Harsh Reality

For more than a century Lister v Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch D 1 stood as authoritative Court of Appeal judgment denying the recovery of profits acquired from the successful investment of gains obtained in breach of fiduciary duties. The rule was rationalized on the basis that while the claimant was entitled to the proceeds so unlawfully obtained, he lacked any form of proprietary title to the profits accumulated by the defaulting fiduciary. The harsh reality of the rule produced an unfair outcome to the claimant and the Privy Council refused to apply it in Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 AC 324. The rule also fell out of favour in other leading commonwealth jurisdictions and recently the English courts at all levels had the opportunity to reassess its relevance when the Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] 4 All ER 79 consigned it to oblivion. The objective of this paper is to analyse the merits and the deficiencies of the rule and show how the judges of the English courts were prepared to act on policy ground, in comity with other common law jurisdictions in upholding justice in a borderless world. Keywords: breach of Fiduciary duty; Accounts of profits; Proprietary interests; Recovery of pure profits.

Ho-Chi-Minh In Hong Kong, 1931–32

1974 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 84-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis J. Duncanson
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Solicitor General ◽  
The World ◽  
Defence Counsel ◽  
The Times

It has long been known that, after superintending the secret foundation of the Indochina Communist Party (ICP) in Hong Kong on behalf of the Comintern, between February and October 1930, Ho-chi-Minh stayed on in disguise and was eventually detected and detained by the colonial authorities. What happened to him whilst in custody, and how long he so remained, has often been related but, unfortunately, this has never been done accurately and has sometimes been done fancifully. Indeed, in part because of Ho's own lifelong efforts to mislead the rest of the world about his identity, movements and purposes, error has persisted over the Hong Kong episode, including the version of the late Bernard Fall. To cite but one of many examples, when Ho died in 1969, The Times published an obituary in which the story of his detention in Hong Kong, and of the subsequent appeal on his behalf to the Privy Council on a suit for writ of habeas corpus, was highlighted and accompanied by the gloss that he had been defended by no less a luminary than Sir Stafford Cripps. At once, the late Mr D. N. Pritt, the communist Q.C., (senior attorney) wrote to correct this error, explaining that he himself had been retained as counsel for Ho, while Cripps had acted on behalf of the Hong Kong Government, in his capacity of United Kingdom Solicitor-General. But Pritt fell into error himself here: not only would it have been inappropriate for the Solicitor-General to plead on behalf of the Hong Kong Government, but at the time in question (June 1932) Cripps had been out of office for 10 months. As we shall see below, Cripps's true standing in the matter was as defence counsel retained by the Hong Kong Government's London solicitors, Messrs Burchells. In his version of the story, Pritt's memory had betrayed him into misdating the whole episode from 1931–32 to 1930–31; and, indeed, even J. H. Brimmel, usually such a careful author, had made the same mistake 10 years before.

scholarly journals Reconceptualising the Relationship between the Mainland Chinese Legal System and the Hong Kong Legal System

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Chan
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Mainland Chinese ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIt has been more than a decade since China began her experiment of “One Country, Two Systems” in Hong Kong (HK). It is now generally assumed that the relationship between the legal systems of these two jurisdictions is monistic. Analysing post-Handover constitutional case law in HK, including a recent landmark decision on sovereign immunity, FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo, this article challenges this assumption and argues that the relationship between the two legal systems is best conceptualized as a form of legal pluralism found in the European Union.

Proprietary Claims and Their Priority in Insolvency

1995 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 377-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Oakley
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
The Public ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The Government ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Two recent successful appeals to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand have once again emphasised the importance of proprietary claims in conferring priority in insolvency over the claims of the general creditors of a bankrupt. Attorney-General for Hong Kong v. Reid1 concerned land in New Zealand purchased with the proceeds of bribes accepted by a Hong Kong Public Prosecutor as an inducement to exploit his official position to obstruct the prosecution of certain criminals. The Privy Council imposed a constructive trust where the Court of Appeal of New Zealand had, in accordance with precedent,2 denied one and thus enabled the Government of Hong Kong to recover the land in priority to any other creditors of the Public Prosecutor. In Re Goldcorp Exchange3 concerned the liquidation of a gold-dealer which had offered its purchasers the option of leaving their gold in its custody as “non-allocated bullion”.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document