_ AI Issue

New Insolvency Law: Traps and Gaps PhHip Smarl and Charles D Booth argue that poor drafting in

f!ong Kong's new insolvency law leaves many issues open to

d1allenge

C 肘 叩P附o肝r日臼耐tω…c，叫n吋d川叫s

戸a正ctH出ti附on悶c，凶5W川 a日山11be a¥もw刊 "吋e出a川t

o加[1a nu山m巾1巾herof occasions in、日白n叫t

years poor legislative dr悶aftinghas

resu¥ted In defective an問r町mτn叩e引n叶dm、e叩ntss

bc白"叩【n、唱g made t同ot山h、cCompani悶es

0，凶dinanoぽe(C.1p 32). Thi凶sp戸r町ob刷Jemhas

recently r陀刊湾川e町，忙r陀edi山tωshead aga削'"刊，most

n叩o¥ahlyin R恥， 5島"何σ『ρIlJu川w切附eω凶s針仙tれP川川'"川附l“山‘cωf汗"山I

l日1開叫 2HKLRD 236 (Le Pichon]). As

in. previous eX<lmples， the difficulties

rcvealed川 thcSetnffa case were

created hecausc the draftsman， whcn

in effect copying UK Icgislation， did

not do a thorough enough job and

failcd to copy fully the UK legislation

As Le Pichon J noted (at 246)， such an

oversight wauld 'hardly be the first

time thal it will have occurred wh臼1

Hong Kong !cgislation is model!ed on

UK legislation.' Thc pllrpose of this

artidc is thrccfo!d: (1) to nolc the

dccisiol1 in 51!向。九 (2)to identify a

number of other ar~as in the new

insolvency !egis!ation where simi[ar

problems have occurred; <11叶 (3)to

bring 10 practitioners' attenliun a

practical difficulty concerning the

extraterritoriality of the ncw avoidance

powers thllt hllve recenl'ly been

iL1corporatcd il¥to Ihc inso[vency

legislatiol¥

Setafta and Post-Liquidation Interest

ル1ajoramendments to Hong Kong's

insolvency rcgime were made in the

sankruptcy (Amendment) Ordinancc

1996 (Ord No 76 of 1996) (the BAO)， which finlllly c<lme inlo operalion 011

1 April 1998 (LN 158 of 1998). One

if:;5Ue dca[t with in the BAO is inlcrest

011 dcbts in a bankruptcy. Howevcf，

" 嗣鵬回附凶wnR刷''"

陀 fOrmof the law on interesl on debts

in reJati倒、 10a solventliquidation w描

introduced directly into the

Companies Ordinance by the

Companies (Amendment) Ordinancc

1997 (the CAO)， which came into operation on 10 February 1997 (Ord

No 3 of 1997). The CAO introduced a

new s 264A into thc Companies

Ordinance. This section d制 Jsinter alia

with interest on debts， in the po叫-

liquidalion period， owed by a

company that is not insolvent

Subsection (2) provides that '[ajny

surpllls rcmaining after the pi¥yment

of debts provcd in a、¥'indingup' of a

company which is not an insolvent

company

shall， before being applie刊dfor

any other pu中。叫 beapplicd in

paying intcrest 011 th~ dcbts in

respect of thc period d uring

which thc dぜbt has becn

outstanding， in the case of (b) u voluntary winding up， sincc

the comnlcncement of the

winding up

Itg田 swithout帥 yingthat s 264A will

be applicable whe陀 theJiquidation has

commcnced after 10 February 1997

The issue山間din Sr/{/ff{/， however， was whcther thc section (lpcrate刊din

陀 lation¥0 a winding tlp C凹 nmen田 d

prior to that datc

fn Set(lffn the winding up had begun

many years previously (in fact as ¥ong

ago as 1983)， bllt there remained a

substantial sum of money which had

1¥01 bcen distribu陀datthetimes2制A

日 meInto operation. !t was arguecl that

s 264A couJd be given a pMtially

retros伊ctiveoperation by applying it

事題採討 田園

10 distributions taking placc aftcr

10 February 1997. The r印 sonwhy Ihis

argument， however unlikely it m<ly

appear， could even be advanccd is

becausc although s 264A(2) is taken

almost verbatim from the InsoJvency

Act 1986 (UK) (5 189 thereof)， thc

draftsman in !-l(lng Kong faited to c<叩y

the reJcvant tran引 tトO!lalprovisions

Th出 eprovlslo岡田ntain吋 inthe 1時6

Ad， Sch 11， para 4(1)， provide

'!n relalion 10 any winding up

which has commenced， Or is

Ireated as having commenced，

before thc appoinled day， the ne¥¥l

law does not apply， and the former law回 ntinu回 tohave

effect ...'

Clearly， some slIch transitional

provision ought to have been made in

the CAO. Thc failure to do so， which

as Le Pichol、Jsuggested (at 246) may

have been 'attributable to sheer

oversight'， led 10 (what should have

b配(1)qllite unnecessary litigation. On

the facts in St'fllffa， the court rejected the contcntion that s 264̂ had <lny

陀 t，同pectiveeffect. For in the <lbsencc

of any express language or c!eaI indication suggesting陀 troactivity，the sectJ印)on[y applied 10 liqllidations

commenced after 10 February 1997

Transitional Problems and Avoidance Powers

Under s 99 of the BAO (unlike 山e

CAO) there is a generaJ Iransitional

provision which， in effcct， provides that where a bankruptcy日 sehad

already commenced prior to

thc coming into effect of the sAO

(ie I April 1998) the 'old law' wilJ

continuc 10叩 plyto thal臼世 (subject

10 certain important except附旭川

relation to the discharge ofbankrupts)

Thus， if we turn to the avoidance

powers of a trustee in bankruptcy

there can be no dOllbt that if， for

example， the bankruptcyαJmmenced

on 1 March 1998， thcn the old law on

fraudulent preference 、v"ill be

app!icable should the trustce seek to

ー九九九年-J) 'fiÌ!H~瞬

_ AI Issue

set aside a payment madc by the

bankrupt On 1 January 1998. In othcr

words， <lS in Selゆ Ithe new law is not

retrοspcctive. 5ul， one may <lsk， what of the situation wherc the bankruptcy

Is commenced after 1 April 1四8一日

5 99 of the BAO is not applicable -

but the trnnsaction sought 10 bc

impeached was cniered inlo prior 10 that dale? The trap Is to as冶umcthal， bccause the c出 ccommenced afler

1 ApriI1998， the new provisions will

apply τne way this issue was specific<llly

resolvcd in the Ir，so]vency八ct1986

(UK) w'as 10 have a spccial transitional

provision relating 10 avoidanεc

powe隠(日epara 17 in 5ch 11 10 the

1986 Act). That provision stated that a

transaction occurring bcfore the

'ppo川 tedday would only be avoided under the n白vstatutory provisiolls tο

the四 tenlthal such a Iransaction could

have becn avoidcd under the old

legislatioll. The advantage of this

approach is that it puts the focus on

{h~ neも..， provisions but， at the same

time， prevcnts any unfairness by

nol allowing the new provisions 10

apply where the transaction was

unimpeachablc (under the old law) at

the time it was entered inlo ln Hong Kong， however， the

draftsman has not copied p<lra 17. As

a reslIlt'， as with thc Sclaffll ca配， the日

is no expressly applicablc statutory

prov出 onin the amcnding lcgislat剛

Neverthcless， basic principles tell U5

that， in Ihe abscnce of an cxpress

provl針。凶ora c1ear indi四 tion，.the new

avoidan回 powcrscannot bc rcgarded

as applying 10 transactions taking

place prior 10 1 April 1998. Jf it were

other、.vise，a Iransaction Ihal was

perfectly valid and unimpeachable at

the time il was entered into might

subscquently become voidable. 1f， as

suggested here， Ihe new avoidance

powers do not apply， then does Ihe old law continue 10 operate in respect

of such lransactions? ln light of s 23 of

出eInterpretation and Gen~ral Clau錠 S

Qrdinan田 (Cap1)， the ilnswer is in

"。幅削嗣U鴨川R 刷 1柵

thc affirmative. Hence， the old

avoidaJlce provisions， even though

they have been rcpealed by thc BAO，

OluSt continue to be app1icd in relati。、tolra陥 actlo国民curringbefore 1 April

1998 dcspite the facl that thc

bankruptcy proceedings only

commencc ufter Ihal date

ln summary， practitiαlers should

be aware thal thc ncw avoidance

powers in bankruptcy cascs are nol'

retros戸ctiveand， moreover， tnat tl1e

。Idprovisions continue 10 apply

10 events 別、dtransaclions occurring

prior to 1 April1998 eVCll wherc the

bankruptcy was only in fact

commenccd after I April 1998. Thus，

practitioners had better keep copi回 0'

the old provisions for some years 10

come

Our ol1ly ob5ervatiol1 i5

thal the lotal

n叩on-di5町C口u凶附4団55引/0開110ザ11的hiおS

lmpo酢rtωa山仰11叫1吋11ωopic b句Yt仇he

R伊pp叩岬'pr円na悶:ate1臼0仰即 rザφor117body i5 a peculia山rz叩uay/

Oザ1"印:ondu叫ct，吋 alaw rφrm exerClse

Unfair Preferences under the Companics Ordinance Thc BAO 1101 only introduced ncw

avoidance powcrs in bankruptcy， it also addcd a new unfair preference

provision 10 the Comp<lnies Ordinance. S弘企f凶 。n26613 con、t加a剖1叫r'0削。~ollow削ing 1 同 n悶、濁sit刷t附o肘加n、凶叫a叫[p同 v別"訓<on

'(2) Whe同 thewinding up of a

company cmnmenccs bcfore the

amending Ordinan四 come5inlo

operation，. thc prov出 onsof thc

prmαpal Ordinance lthat is， the sankruptcy Ordinancej as it

existed bcfore being amended by

the amcnding Ordinan四 applyin

専M採11圃圃

r田 pecto[ 5Cctions 266 and 266A

of this Ordin..nce:

Hencc， s 2668(2) expressly provid同

that ~vhcre a winding up commenα~

before 1 April1998， the new unfaげ

p~fe問、cc provl凱刷、 doesnot apply

Thc cffect， thcrefore， is thal the old

fraudulent pre{ercn仁eprOvlslon

(found in the old bankruptcy

legislation) remains applic<lble

Se.ction 2668(2) however does nol address the siluation wherc. for

example. thc winding upむommenc吋

on 1 May 1998 bul thc <ll!eged

pref.町朗自前currcd01¥ '1 January 1998

Ncverthelcss， there can bc 110 doubt

that s 2668 h田 nO陀町田pect・veeff，町 twhatSOCver: evenls taking placc bcfore

1 Aprill998 conlinuc to be govcrned

by the old law on fraudulent

preferen田

Extraterritoriality: Amendment of Insolvency Rules Required As has hcen noted， the ncw avoidante

powcrs under the BAO are bascd

largely on the equivalelll English

provisiolls (sce 5S 339 et seq of thc

In501vency Act 1986). In reccnl years

thc English∞urts have印 nsislently

maint剖 nedthat these Eng¥ish

avoidancc powcrs may opcrate

extralcrritorially (see Re Paramoullt Airwlly5 Ltd (ill IIdmill) [1993} Ch 223

and gcnerally， r 5mart， Cross-Dorder 11Iso/11刊 cy(2nd Ed， 1998)， pp 17-27

Notc the same vicw is taken 1n England

in relation to thc public examination

of a di陪doro( an Insolvenl四 mpany

(see Rr Se(lgull M叩 ufllctuTI叩 COLtd

119931 Ch 345). Having regard 10 the

anceslry of the sAO provisions， it is

very 1ikely， if nol incvitablc， lhat the

Court of Fi時 tInslance would takc the

剖 meapproach in rでlation10 the new

HOl¥g Kong avαdance powcrs. This

¥Vollld rep同 senta change to thc pre

Aprill明 8p師 ition，where avoidal¥ce

powers were gcnerally taken 10 be

territorial in naturc (see obiter in

Amrric(I川正xprcssIlIlernatumal Ballking Corpll v lollllsOl1 11984j HKLR 372)

ー九九九年-H 守地tjll)f "

_ AI Issue

Obviously， in Jight of the realities of

globaJ business， there is cvcry reaSQn

10 expect present-day avoidancc

powers 10 be conslrued <lS

extr"terrItorial

It is unforlunate Iha! insolvcncy

p日ctitione四 donot have the bcnefit

of the views of Ihc Hong Kong Law

Reform Comr羽田ionOr ils 1n間 tlvency

Sub-Committee 011 the question of the

extmtcrritoriality of thc new avoidan<.:e

powers. 1I is quile slartling 10 realise

Ih，)!， despitc the obvious sig:n出回n出

of avoidance powcrs in bankruptcy.

nodiscu印 刷 ofavoid.lI四 powers15

lour可din ei!her of the two law reform

documcnts relating 10 bankruptcy. The

Law Reform CommissiOl、andits Sub

Committee on In回 lvency.simply did

not address avoidance凹wersat all in

th田ed町 umcnぬ.Nevcrthel師免 theUK

provisio同 fOllndtheir way into the

Bankruptcy (Amendmenl) Bill 1996

and from there into the BAO. 11、e田commentators are happy 岡田t!new， more powerful avoidancl! powers

conferred upon trustees and

liquidators in Hong Kong i，冶olv巳nd田

Our on!y油田rvationis that the lotal

non-dis叩s.sionof this imporlant topic

by the appropri.1tc law問 forn、bodyis a peculiar way of conducting a law reform excrCIse

It is戸rhapstempting 10 overlook the proc四 sfollowed and rocus on山e

，nd同 sult.Hong Kong trustees and

Ii<)uidators now have stronger

avoidance powers and th田 epowers

are， il seems， extralerritor;aL Howcver，

if whal the draftsmiln was trying 10

achieve (.1S one musl assume) ¥Vas 10

confer the same avoidance jurisdklion

upon a Hong Kong trustec and thc

Hong Kong court 柏崎 pos臼 S世 dby

their English counlcrparts， then that ob戸ctivehas not bccn met. For whcn

thc subslar由 vela¥γwas changed in

England in the mid-1980s， new

P'町宮duralrules were inlroduced in

the form of the Insolvency Rulcs 1986

5ヤe"自ca!ly，r 12.12(3) leaves it entirely

1'0 the discretion of Ihe court as to the

manner in which any process or ordcr

... 冊。幡"附側GLlWTII 舗."鴨

of thc court in in副 lvcncypr.ぽ eedings

is 10 be世 rvedon ，l1¥y person who is

not in England. Thus， the position in

England is thnl: (1) the lnsolvcncy Act

1986 avoidance powers are

exlralerritorial in scope; and (2) a

person OU凶dethe jurisdidion田 nbe

毘 rvedwi出 pm世 話 by陀 lian四 "pon

the exp問 sswording of r 12.12 of thc

Insolvency Rules 1986 (for a recent

illustration involving insolvent

Irading， see Re /-lowfird Holdillgs /nc

/19981 BCC 549 and P Smart， supra

pp 26-27). However， in Hong Kongレalthough the new avoidance powers

".四piedfrom the UK provisions， no cquivalent to r 12.12 has been

ìntrodu四~ ;nto either the Compani国

(Winding-up) Ru陥 orthe Bankruptcy

Rules (even though extensive

amendments were made to the

sankruptcy Rulesas from 1 AprH 1明8

(Bankruptcy (Amendmenl) Rul田 1円8

(LN 71 o( 1998)). The net result is Ihal，

although the new avoidance powers

are exlraterritorial， most practical

benefits thal mighl have flowed from

extraterritorialily have evaporaled

because of whal was presumably an

oversighl in not making appropr;ille

専~探討圃圃

I'focedural provision in the

Bankruptcy Rules and the Cornpanies

lWinding-up) Rules

Condusion Thc Setajjn decision pulS 10 r('51 any

sugg田 tionthal reference 10 this田 ，t

of lcgislative drafting error凶 mere

quibbling. The {ailufC 10 a(h~<)uat l'ly

∞py UK legis[ation cr朗 tesun棺 rt.linly

and invites unnecessary liti広:ation.To

avoid simi!ar confusion as lo the

operation of thc ncw白voidanccpowers， it wou¥d be. hclpful if th ~

Government Printcr were 10 indudc

copie5 of bolh the old and ncw

provisions in the next cdition of the

inserts for the Bankruplcy and

Companies Ordinanas. Finally， it is

also important that amcndments be

m<lde 10 Ihe subsidiary legislation ilS

s∞naspo抽出eto enable trustees and

liquidators 10 benefil frolll the extraterritoriality of thcir new

別 oidan，目 power.;

Philip Smart alld Chnrles D 800lh teach ill田 l聞 ICyImv IIllhc

Llni町内句。ifHo噌 Ko噌

新破産清盤法:I稽隣輿漏洞PhilipSmart及Cha.rlesD 800出認為，寄港新破産消館法之擬制不佳 ，

以致産生了彼争事議鈷

従 州側嚇柵法的側刑制溜

到，以往復常/lJJJ.!lkI立法事雌*lf'之不

佳以激《公司飾例>> (節 32 f.O 的修!I欠

妥 ' l!似 d狐 i誌砥N次 l iI~'物別'(f. R e

fXtaffa 111悶 ImenlsL!d 川崎}2HKLRD236

け 帯ttnz¥尚等法段脱訟法極訪日lIOO紐》 一家'1・尤z・."脈 ・ - ~I以往 ， Selaffa事担掲

示的問題 .Jt 111現的雌凶，経翼手信量子守抱崎合

+ー闘法例-1以説~.字治紙時 ."，波'fìl!l底

抱訟竪法例完全妙治来・在知9写実紹法n剣

山{弘第246J'O 墜於1'1港法例J'J術交.. 際

会主凶法例， l，t雌射砲惚附磁忽.t段級鋭縫

首次IIJJ克・」本文之舗官有三 〈ー}隊101

&taJfo楽的列i!I:(ニ}鍵山新a時 前 留 削s

曽UIl¥!1It似問題的其他地方 及{三 ):lIflt

ilI"回必到すI嗣級位t岐liI入破!li:ii1隆法的2質的廃，1織力的捜外法fft:a11 (f. rr f.IJ J:的関

嫌・

SJltaffa ~民輿消盤値的利息

(l996lJ'舷盆{修gf)降例>> (1996J~w 76

11降例) (以下側婦《般信法修灯鮮側)J

2自慢港町J磁旗泊盤法作了修rI・:lI<働側自本

句l 4nJEI~佐処【見 1核拡8 年寄"58 官民法u<公

的}・《敏康法修u依例'磁場的刷日之

ー ，経{i則敏盆情iI!下1，'務的利.'-t・'il一方

耐，枝桁i脅自民能力ド泊鐙時的問務利息'巴

姐Ie白1押7勾2月 10日生数的 <<1997Jj公司

〈修訂)繰例>> (J 997 If.m J峨鰍例) (以

FIII栂《公司法修訂僚例>>)作了改疏耐巴

一九九1I.1f--1I 智治修飾

国AtIssue

明釘8冷《公河鰭例》・《公司法修:r鱒例B

4巴術的第 264A 保JfI~fイ'f<<公司修IJU .m 264A 修縦範的喝IJIj之ー，足~Nl).ど1-lñ'I償能力

之公司 'fr湖毎役所欠ド的情扇的利息a却

方式 ・ 2肩 (1)."縦泳三 s 公司 {益~)，必然カ償0・公司}約 r仮消鑓'1・!sm司IJfJ市町J.l1之険所網

鈴JY~/1何鎚ö ，

rイF刷於任何J'他 t-j~1之JVI' 須fIIb'守安

H'l.実符 111')1均水#'Ha約期間内銭。Sf(jM"i

的利息 (b)剣1前総崩向j!}ii'J<<l' II~銭期間白開始消G'.'!YWJPI越Jt.J

v2“A隙蝿然組IIJjを在 1997年 2月 10日後

開始的情般羽削キ・(uSctnffa家鈍lli的1吋臨 ，

E談際文Mi'i亦錨111於(f.上経日flJ/JjfOO鋭的

消鍛集作・

在 Setllf!1I築中，釘刷的il'1IlJ;1在 19田 平

巴開始， ill.íl草創 2刷A 線住放B~ ， fJHi-ilf

冨I眼的金額禾償分配.~rl)~殿之 .Z)o Z64A陥百J被':1仲IHIJIJ鈴在 199'年2H 10

日之後進行約分Ii!' ~:iI制令談飾文具調。湖効ノJ・泌治思民n似ィ、太可能 a似例可被鎚111'

li;{ IliI~.使lfJ264A(2) 線111乎足ー字不調補地従

聡合 E闘 <<1986年峰aft1a臨法令>>m189綴

妙lI!*'偲取'医者術1..¥C:fT妙也前則的治渡性

鱒文・引986~般歳前盤法令》附裂 11 節 4

(1 )段的燭穣性際文，作Ut7以下的脱広

r lit lモ ，.，ぞ指定W0l9~e閥N， (或..側

ゐ巴開始〉的泊鎗両首 ，新約法ij!:Jm不

I!Im，耐鱒有掠f債総織観姐sI••• J

《公司法修訂傑例，磁然峰併すf鋪似的処渡

性飾文・起'"飾文司1)1上米有附1Jl'鎗然席

奏超法H鐸ゐ足'.場停師鴎於一時燭漏』

{見第 2461'0 ，{!自愉iJ/W狩致71<<是イり必

艇的訴録的筆生 ・校 Stfllu匂集中 ，法院λ号制医薬

情倹 ，釘絶II!鮒節 26M縦U任何泊湖売を力的

鎗瀦，似i司楚 ，在来il移J飾文字或)1他沼崎

以消費定獅示通O湖妓1JtNm説ド，笥12制A鱒只

組問般tE，円7年 2月 10日後開始的剖際司区

件・

過竃1¥日阻及版止柵力

!I!(公司法修訂悔例》不問的足， <<破療法

修釘能例》術開鱒包括了過渡性隊文，定資

際上初定了， !l於(f.<<厳臣民法修n飾例》鉄

鉱日JUI(" 1998 !r:. 4 H 1日}前巴開始前岐

届提案件耐U' r衡有法tllJ特製鋼巡1fl(除

了ー坐;('1闘解険敏雄的厳要例外情撹} ・依

此 ，1有償趨案受託人的騎止備力而官 ，仰級

3率緩歳家Sそ¥998'10 3 H 1臼開鮪 'をt受託人

持。側GkON' I.AWTr. 刷""

欲f/I.. 土仮絹A'を1998斗 1H 1日1frf1的付

殺，則館千7的11>;字優11<110111終週月1m砲ffl

III・鍛旬訴説， ，刷 Sr/llffa縫 ，漏出陣無

lIliJノJ ・似 I/i，全般~fjや r 998 -'F 4 1'J 1 日鍵開

始{必l!llhH~ <<般窟法修n飾例扱第 99修不

淘Js) ，加欲以廠 "的交扮対決定安，..J1M迎

行， 情況街経知何蝿 '鑓鯉的陥UI，足叡設

締法例組問於治情況，肉1，側諸揺が 1998lf.4

月1日側始 ・

俊彦語草案'*'lI'1tI1 f&

B車止僻カ'jff;f!fjJjJiJJJjJ'

府f!ifTa喜文i/{f!{U!i'/;越IflM

在 19951f4月 18liif

務主主的!jj作反交易

暢合主凶 <<1986'f.1i度魔術甥it令，特別

II!理lu倒問組，方法定hll泡引剛雌"姻力的

処護性俗文{見主義法令附!I~ 1 1 m17段} ・ 2実飾文槻泌， 一苛ミ在指定日期前他行的交易，

只tE銭示交易可眼健百千了隙例被厳止的情III

下，餓ぷ交駒オ百J航機新総例被燐止 ・位倣

法的'1-11'健忘既偲1.'鰍級住精俗文1.'倒

同時紡』上了不公平的情況，"附込"Et.'宅止3有線文被附於(QI/I奮I行法律不能被島民11.:119交易

之上 ・

的 i!l ia~J 法律I，tn医者亦iJ.有妙海上越抗

17r，!・結集氾帥慣例従 SetiljftlJ区得軍司 ，

修(f{傾倒</I.l.T.獲千[II}J雌的趨m健文・白羽J脇

M*K{則，省官級乏明確飾文或滑術的術弓!

時 ，iJift.J峰"槌力不健被捜ぬ姐IIJliHE1998

竿"1'目前虐行的交場，省側一宗佑鐘行期

刷M有効lH益i管制続的交!il1Il後可能曾獲1..1

百J予厳" ・m括的風廃止機力不細川{正知上

文雄UJ) 'llIt底的iJ法格処沓場鍛治則於此

符交易曜'行嘆鈴《縛穂及旭川熊例>> O:(f I

'f?)有~ 23“'答案旭町定的.Jii~理遊説，雌

係官同了的賄，，.傑文巴被《峨康法修育J飾例》

庖除，似言葉箆悔文Hl!IIi白川鈴l'E 1998 't: 4

月 1日前111現的交易，鍍使街閥的般盛ru亨

鈴該臼後オ州始・

書略的根鋭， 1"師例属医技悠刻，破席側羽区中

的稲的噸止機力量撫砲事関カ，両信す飾文ma阪須麹ItJJi令棺:1 998 年 4 円 1 目前号現金的~If件

'*交'1'.使引網般歳於続日後7l.flHt自・結

此.fIt師側股好錨鎖保W箸釘千1的法例保

文 ・

園 事長1採討園田

官公云j飾倒》下的不公 平樋逝

《殴語法修灯鱒例》不但弓l旭了破縦訓区 ， p~育

的膚"憎JJ' JlIi凡~(公可能例》 訓l魅了締約不公平睡怒的傾文 ・第2'"総包析 f以下

的泊謹怜録文

r(2)凡任何公司:(t修irJ鰍例1'1鑑別Jlljlfl

ii~. ' U1J'礎A本総例抗 266ide 26M .豪雨

宮 ，以伽*1-*陽，1僚側修rt脳的以Illt>

鯖的主砲鯵例【即《破蔵保例， )際文

雄m・J

悶此!第，.. 町2)保母j備制定， r.tms君於199'

IfHJl目前開始時 "括的不公平復躯飾文革

1趨JII・同此， '~H.j的破昼.;1，例'/ ' 1!lft的政

:n:慢鹿飾文倒錯製絹ffI.似節2“路(2)帰量産未

UlMJlO.M些情相ぽ』倒知消盤於 1998II' 5月 1

口開始問所m儒'"般車検 '998年 1月 1問機

会一・緩足側此 ，荷量無夜間的姶1s2“B"接金縁

組潮見含カ，前1於 1998年 4月 1F.liiUltl的事

件仙錨鎖Ih鶴有的欺ilI'lI1幽法作所管側 ・

境外法I~地力 (同'1盤盟)11)))須作修訂

正初J文鎚及， ((般耐l"i1:n訂総例》下的続

的腐止徹11，議本 t定例検特1閥的3廷闘法例

飾文{見 <<198611磁員!.:h'IIl:i-1:令》第 339繰

越】 .I!i年来.]定薗法院均組織地盤偶該

些!fi凶的鎗，f憎1J.nイl鴎外法印公文tJ(見

fk Para岡山tAinωys Ltd (in Ildmin) 11993/

日 223一案。I/t.r Smart帯《跨IJ!舷ft:h'/m:)

{第二飯， 1998年 }都"歪 27<<-'廃校級

的Je'策尉!IIiHi胤公胤OH開j緒カ償俄公司

獅1/1例法tt，抱響7拘l問的1I!1R:Q Rr

Srllgllll Mnnujllclur;ng Co Ltd /1993) Ch

3屯s・}・考慮到《緩憲法修前線例>>fr.1来

iOl，持港似1It:i!縫Jlj時2括的勝"幡カ亦"'可

能(斡訓勢必}録取仰向的態度滋立Ijj・必

興 1998q; 4 fJ繭的情配{尚tー鍛諸dJl!川剣E

IJ的it.慣日現般信HH認内 U Awt"ri何 11EXI，r~宮市r"terr11l1ω附 181111killgCorp u 10111/5011 11984)

HKLR3n一集約附I1>n見}将!比鮫，顕示了

舗大約鱒愛 ・刷費質的処，仮説"鍾舞金正事iI!

続的JJ1tl羽嶋下'lI<問先11i新党分坦IhW!盟騨』上陽!J被解縛ゐ.1ln境外法tll微力 ・

J!I憾的処， 従司1敏雄前償法的I lltr~~O'lF不能

符到谷港ittlt政策餐u曾重俊民 F約破夜前盤

附腐1HI曾脱新的同信，1櫛力的境外法tt披力

硲問館所授袋的意見・負債健司医，1僧;J}lf.峨it

法中前持m..地位，但有剛破副隆法的隔例法

律改革文件均来有事t敏明日作佼MWio，iu

継続人婚~"itfolfl宵 1 : • {f上越x件中 ，

'AJI..I!..-II 符趣..・ ‘g

醐AtIssue

法律政指菅II曾及Jt破産約鍵附頒接民禽鰐

燈止他ノ~)ti.史 子不拠 ・男ー方而， ((1996年

倣"'(修百円保例草案》以x於《磁康法修

釘線例》中均包括 f聯合王圃法例的篠文。

語港的被械受託人及j内総人能被誠子更新

班有交交的感止権力，鈎 .t~例儲然感到向

興・ 4定例峨 的な見是， f.j劇的法保改革組

織"'権行政革時刻此m挺Ij'j因究然完号不作

討峰，箔E比較奇怪的。

有倒的liI1M事法例必須鐙侠

1J}ft室:;7'使級E苦受話人及

i首盤人nJ兵正従fJIM!.息苦11:.

磁力的事~ýf.法律五主力中華1.4重

苦虫佐品而不願温程的倣法 ，也詳起訴人

的・浪商上 .j'i稽l陶磁威受託人及消般人mC証機有司巨厳大約局長1t術力 ，而l焔笠峨力似乎

亦民有積外法律滋カ ・然岡';;JI!(干支何弟

須作縄1此思設)1事健省希望通到的同係Jil把

“ 賞。阿G10M& lAWYlR 刷 1閉

制等於英臨1陶磁;;;:受託人&ii百鍛入所擁有的

勝"揃奴 子脊活的破.，受託人及消史実人的

St ' ガ~a際情拘援者並末鰻到主菱自栂・版図M '

U炎図的u鰻i.H/!於八 l年代中WI作UI改費

時， 一委主新的抱序縦則〈即 <<1ヲ86'ド磁盛滑

盤規則>>>亦被弓l入。街中， i:誌'12.12(3)鰍規

川特別双子法院錨到酌筒袖，以決;ι但破麓

消機事l'm中的任川法律粍序文件或?よ嵯命

令送連身"'焚闘喫外人ゴ的方式@凶此.1廷闘的情況足 (ー) <<1986 年破戚消照法

令》ド的廃止俄力具線外法律滋 JJ; 1;え

{二)有闘人1可恨械 (0986年破滋消位脱

州I))~ 12.12俗的附j艦鱒定，抱法律程序文

件等路建身布司法腎麟臨以外的人士(見

Re Hawaru Holdings Il1c [1998] BCC 549 Jk

r Smart 上述帯作第 26 及 17 頁，上姐U~渉及

必然カ的俄下岱商約聞明)・ 9)-ーカ刷，香

港的新的話題 "椛力雄山聯合主閥的法例線X

紗姐郁， ~J!"U 雄第 1 2. "12鋒j~則相同的俗

文，捌米被弓i入《公言1Ui't!i'l)縦則》或

《破彪規則>> (黛使 <<1998年破産 mm規則)) (1998 {I第 7ア披法IJ!公告〉白 199!:!

皐題探討 圃

句 4丹 1 円野《破産規則》作111了大規模鯵

官円。錦的結果是，難然新的廠11権力具有

t郊外法律殺力 .I宣向此可号l仲IIJ的貧際溢

"'.叩四ゐノ、保是忽附了在《破産縦則>>a《公μI ( 消盤)規則》作1lJJ!!~詩的雇IÍ'性保

文而化為鳥n了・

認結

Setaj作:1:的2表決，顕示了封於此実罰法例1;梅街

桜m尚子諭'.~非吹毛求続・千千胸部擬者来初

充分地犯掛合王国法例紗勉来，泡不但窓生

71<色地l1!.而巴更弓l致 rィ、必要約訴訟・

為了継免在新的感止槽ノI)i主体的健作 UHllI.

類似的混嵐 ，li!I.itl印鶴防局長l!!考ほ在 《破

産傑例>>Ik <<公百j傍例》 下ー創的婦頁中岡

崎包術者f鶴岡款僚;<0続後。宥閥的附纏該

例必須I儲快被修訂 s使破産受託人及rIi輸入

可誕lE従新的殿 11:織力的塊外法待効力巾縫

溢・

Philip $rnart lk Charll:'s 0 B∞山

均lt香港大伊教綬般産活躯訟

Use rhe

Consolidated Index to

悲叶常食

潟 !AII Reported Hong Kong Decisions

This is a complele consαidaled index of the Hong Kong La附 Repc目sand Hong Kong

Cases and alsο20 other series of law砲po同swor1dwide， in which Hon岨κ。n9decisions

have been rep。同，d

1...aw r~na市問、，.則的m Hnno I(ond Inl':lud"，

• Hong Kong凶wR，岡市oH側、9KongCases • Hongκω、9Crlminal Law Reports • Hongκω、g町..局ctCourt Law Reports Hong Koog Lands刊 b，"剥LawReports.附，ogKong Public Law Ae岡 市

• Hong K。司 TaxCas関

• Hong Kon9 Conveyancing and Prop創刊yReports

Q血皇E皇霊riesin盛M盛盆iAII England Law Rep。由.W，民klyLaw R叩 orts，Fleet Street Reports and Uoyd's law肉e岡市

From 1999， the consolidaled Index volumes刷 11be kept up-to-dale by way of a 刷 monlhly旧制師時間 e，盆旦盛田佳皇盛也監Volume叩)Table of Cases Re田周回

Volume 1(2) Table 01 Cases Rel町陪dToVolume 2 Sub拘ctIndex and Table of凶 9喝 ationRefen'・dTo

For more inform・-語。"P他a鋪 contaet:Bry喰向 Barrington ・ Edm曲dCheu 竜・ To町 Th~ ・ Ro舗 L.健

ω suHcr叫r!h.

"午 EightCommercial Tower， 8 5un Yip Slreet， Chaiwan， Hong Kong TeI: (852) 2965 14田 Fax:(1凶 2)29760840

一九九九年-n 裕港"師