Hugill & Ip

Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance recognizes the parental rights of same-sex couples, challenging outdated laws and prioritizing equality and children’s rights  A recent judgment from the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has ignited significant discussion, not just within legal circles but across society, regarding the evolving definitions of family and parenthood. This ruling, centered on the legal recognition of a child born to a same-sex couple through assisted reproductive technology, stands as a compelling testament to the dynamic interplay between law, societal norms, and individual rights. It prompts us to reflect on how legal frameworks adapt to modern family structures and the profound implications for equality and human dignity. At the heart of this case is K, a young child born to a female same-sex couple, R and B. Their journey to parenthood involved reciprocal in-vitro fertilisation (RIVF) in South Africa, a process where R, the genetic mother, provided the egg, and B, the gestational mother, carried the pregnancy to term. Despite their marriage in South Africa and their shared commitment to raising K and the declaration by Her Madam Justice Au Yeung that R is a parent in common law, The Hong Kong Government only recognized B as K's legal parent on the birth certificate. R, the biological and social parent, found herself without legal recognition, a situation that led to significant practical and emotional challenges for the family. This legal vacuum prompted K, through R as his next friend, to seek judicial review, challenging the existing legal framework's failure to acknowledge diverse family structures. This challenge comes in the wake of the landmark Sham Tsz Kit case, which established a constitutional requirement for appropriate recognition of same-sex partnerships in Hong Kong, acknowledging their various potential consequences, including breakdown. As Mr. Justice Coleman noted in paragraph 15 of the judgment, while the government emphasized that the South African marriage was not recognized in Hong Kong, their position is at least analogous and comparable to the position of opposite-sex married couples in Hong Kong. The legal battle: Arguments and judicial scrutiny The legal challenge mounted by K centered on the alleged unconstitutionality of key provisions within the Parent and Child Ordinance (PCO) and the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance (BDRO). The core contention was that these laws, together with the decision by the HK Government not to provide for the registration K in the birth certificate of her own gentically related child, violated fundamental rights enshrined in Hong Kong's Bill of Rights (BOR, Cap. 383) and Basic Law (BL). Specifically, the arguments invoked the right to privacy and family life (BOR 14 & 19), the rights of children (BOR 20), and the right to equality (BOR 22, BL 25). Mr. Justice Coleman's decision and reasoning Mr. Justice Coleman's judgment meticulously dissected the parties' arguments, ultimately siding with K that there is encroachment on or infringement of the BORs engaged and that the constitutional challenge is made good.  Below are a few key findings/reasons from the learned Justice : Rejection of 'Parent at Common Law' Declaration: While acknowledging the previous declaration by Au Yeung J that R was a 'parent at common law', Mr. Justice Coleman found this declaration to be of no practical legal effect. He reasoned that if the PCO explicitly taken out common law rights, then there can be no parent at common law. Unconstitutionality of PCO and BDRO: The court found that the existing provisions of the PCO and BDRO were unconstitutional as they discriminated against children born to same-sex parents and interfered with their privacy and family rights. The judge emphasized that K's identity and well-being were negatively impacted by the lack of legal recognition for R. Rejection of Government's Justifications: The judge systematically dismissed the government's arguments. He found no legitimate aim for the discriminatory treatment and concluded that the measures were disproportionate. He particularly rejected the idea that guardianship orders were a sufficient alternative, stating that they do not confer the same status or rights as legal parenthood. He also dismissed the government's reliance on 'social consensus,' asserting that the will of the majority cannot dictate the court's function in upholding constitutional rights. He emphasized that 'a parent is a parent,' regardless of the circumstances of their child's birth or the parents' sexual orientation. (See Judgment, e.g., paras. 121-168.) A step forward for equality and modern family recognition This judgment marks a significant stride towards a more inclusive and equitable legal landscape in Hong Kong. It underscores several critical points that resonate far beyond the immediate parties involved: Affirmation of Diverse Family Structures: The ruling acknowledges the reality of modern families, moving beyond traditional definitions to embrace the complexities of assisted reproduction and same-sex partnerships. It sends a powerful message that love, commitment, and biological connection, rather than outdated legal constructs, should define parenthood. Child-Centric Approach: At its core, the decision prioritizes the best interests of the child. The court recognized the profound impact of legal non-recognition on a child's identity, well-being, and practical interactions with society. By ensuring that both parents are legally acknowledged, the judgment provides children with stability, security, and a complete sense of their family unit. The Importance of Legal Recognition: The case highlights the critical role of official documents, like birth certificates, in a person's identity and legal standing. It demonstrates that the absence of legal recognition can lead to tangible disadvantages and emotional distress, reinforcing the need for legal frameworks to accurately reflect social realities. Judicial Activism in Protecting Rights: this case stands is a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights. This approach ensures that laws evolve with societal values and constitutional guarantees, even in the absence of direct legislative reform. This development in Hong Kong aligns with a global trend towards greater recognition of LGBTQ+ rights and diverse family forms. Jurisdictions worldwide are grappling with similar questions, and many have already moved to grant legal recognition to same-sex parents. This Judgement also prompts further consideration of how other areas of law might need to adapt to fully reflect and protect the rights of all families. The conversation now shifts to how these principles will be implemented and how society will continue to embrace and support all its members, regardless of their family structure. This ruling is not just a legal precedent; it is a societal milestone, urging us to reflect on what truly constitutes a family in the 21st century and how our laws can best serve the interests of every child. The ongoing struggle for equality: A reality check Despite this landmark judicial victory on human rights, the path to full equality for same-sex couples in Hong Kong remains fraught with challenges. This was starkly illustrated by the recent news that legislation to create a separate legal framework for same-sex relationships failed to pass, with many voter rejecting the bill on the basis that it does not accord with traditional value.   This development underscores the persistent difficulty of achieving legislative reform in this area and highlights the crucial role the judiciary plays in protecting fundamental rights when the political process stalls. This is where Mr. Justice Coleman's postscript in his judgment becomes particularly poignant. He wisely noted that when an 'inexorable event' occurs — such as the reality of same-sex couples forming families and having children — society and its legal frameworks must adapt. His words serve as a powerful reminder that while legislative change may be slow, the courts can and must step in to provide for and accommodate the lived realities of all members of society, ensuring that the law does not lag too far behind the inevitable march of social progress. This judgment, therefore, is not just a victory for one family, but a beacon of hope and a call to action for a more inclusive and just future. Author: Raphael Wong

Independent Hong Kong law firm Hugill & Ip is delighted to announce the promotion of Raphael Wong to Partner, effective from 1st June. This well-deserved advancement recognises Raphael's exceptional contributions to the firm's family law and private client practices, where he has distinguished himself as an advocate for clients and a specialist in navigating complex matrimonial and children matters. A trusted expert in Family Law With extensive experience in high-conflict family disputes, Raphael Wong has developed a reputation as a capable and strategic family lawyer – often recognised as future star in many international legal directories. His practice encompasses all aspects of family law, with particular expertise in high-net-worth and complex financial proceedings, cross-border and custody disputes. Raphael is known for his insightful approach to sensitive matters, regularly advising on cases involving multijurisdictional assets, inheritance provisions for financial dependants, guardianship and mental capacity. His deep understanding of Hong Kong's family law framework, combined with his tactical negotiation skills, enables him to secure optimal outcomes whether through litigation or settlement. Beyond financial disputes, Raphael has built a robust practice in children law, handling contentious relocation applications, and cases involving parental alienation and adoption. His nuanced understanding of child welfare principles and his ability to navigate emotionally charged situations have made him a sought-after advisor for parents and guardians. Recognition from firm leadership Senior partners at Hugill & Ip have warmly endorsed Raphael's promotion, highlighting his legal prowess and dedication to clients. Caroline McNally, Partner & Head of Family Law highlighted: "Raphael's promotion is richly deserved. He combines razor-sharp legal analysis with genuine empathy for clients during what is often the most challenging period of their lives. His ability to distil complex financial scenarios into clear legal strategies is exceptional, and he has been at the centre of some of our most high-profile family cases." Alfred Ip, Partner & Head of Private Client added: "Raphael stands out as a lawyer who truly understands the human element behind every legal dispute. His promotion reflects not just his technical mastery of family law, but his ability to guide clients through emotionally fraught situations with wisdom and discretion." Adam Hugill, Managing Partner concluded: "Raphael embodies everything we value at Hugill & Ip – creative problem-solving, an unwavering commitment to client service and compelling advocacy. His elevation to partner strengthens our position as one of Hong Kong's premier family law and private client practices." Professional standing and community engagement Raphael Wong's expertise is frequently sought by media outlets commenting on developments in Hong Kong family law. He has been quoted in publications, such as Hong Kong Economic Times and Ming Pao Daily, on issues ranging from prenuptial agreements to the recognition of foreign divorces in Hong Kong courts. An active member of the legal community, Raphael regularly contributes to professional development initiatives and pro bono work. His thought leadership extends to writing on emerging trends in cross-border family disputes and children matters. What sets Raphael apart is his ability to balance robust advocacy with practical solutions. Clients appreciate his straightforward advice, calm approach and his commitment to achieving resolutions that protect both their legal rights and personal wellbeing. His promotion reflects the firm's confidence in his ability to continue delivering this high standard of representation. As Hugill & Ip continues to expand its family law practice, Raphael's promotion ensures the firm remains at the forefront of Hong Kong's family law landscape. His combination of technical expertise and client-focused service perfectly aligns with the firm's commitment to providing practical and compassionate legal solutions for complex family matters.

It’s thrilling to share some exciting news – Hugill & Ip is moving! A new week, a new day: everyone at the firm be settling into our new home on an entire floor of Six Pacific Place, part of the Swire Properties portfolio. This move represents more than just a change of address. It's about creating a space that truly reflects who Hugill & Ip is as a firm – one that blends professional excellence with personal connections. A space designed with purpose Hugill & Ip partnered with Area-17 Architecture & Interiors, the renowned Italian design studio founded in Florence, to craft an office that tells our story. With their international perspective (from their roots in Italy to projects across Asia) and keen understanding of how spaces shape interactions, they've helped the firm create something unique. The design subtly weaves together: Italian elegance with Hong Kong's dynamic energy of its icons Warm, approachable materials that feel both professional and welcoming Smart, sustainable solutions that align with Swire Properties' commitments to ESG standards "It's been fascinating to see how Area-17 translated our firm's personality into physical space," shares Adam Hugill. "They understood immediately that we wanted somewhere that would feel both impressive and inviting – where serious work happens but never feels stuffy. The move isn’t just about aesthetics: it’s a strategic step forward. With room for expanding teams, advanced tech integrations, and client-friendly meeting spaces, the new office is designed to support Hugill & Ip’s next phase of growth." Why this matters For those who've worked with the firm before, you'll find the same Hugill & Ip approach – just in a space that better supports how they serve clients and their own workforce: Thoughtful meeting areas designed for real conversation, not just formal presentations Spaces that adapt to how you want to work – whether that's a quiet discussion or a collaborative session All the little touches (yes, including proper coffee) that make working together a pleasure As Caroline McNally puts it: "The best legal solutions come from really understanding people – and now we'll have a space that helps those connections happen naturally. The design team and   contractors that lead the project helped us create somewhere that's unmistakably professional but doesn't take itself too seriously." The Hugill & Ip approach  As Alfred Ip expressed: “What sets us apart? For years, we've built lasting relationships through our work in both corporate and private client matters - not by offering cookie-cutter solutions, but by truly understanding what each client needs. Our team thrives on tackling challenges with creativity and collaboration, always putting relationships first. This move is the natural next step in that journey - a space designed to reflect how we work best: intelligently, personally, and with genuine care for every case.” A new place to foster collaboration! Rather than a traditional grand opening, Hugill & Ip will be hosting a series of small personal gatherings in the coming months. Because after all, that's how the best relationships are built – through real conversations in comfortable spaces. Watch this space for upcoming events the firm is planning to host in the next few months – the whole team can't wait to welcome everyone to their new home and show you the new Hugill & Ip Dragon Gate!

Estate administration can be a complex and time-consuming process, particularly when a beneficiary is missing. Executors, Administrators, and trustees have a legal duty to distribute an Estate according to the deceased’s Will or intestacy laws, but when an heir cannot be found, the process may be stalled indefinitely. To address this issue, courts in Hong Kong, like those in other common law jurisdictions, may grant a Benjamin Order, a legal mechanism that allows Estate Administrators to proceed with distribution on the assumption that certain events have or have not happened, such as the missing beneficiary is deceased. The recent case of HCMP 1750/2024 in the estate of LIN FAT WONG also known as WONG LIN FAT (黃連發)[1], illustrates how Benjamin Orders are applied in Hong Kong. What is a Benjamin Order? A Benjamin Order is a court order that permits the distribution of an Estate on the assumption that certain events have or have not happened, such as the missing beneficiary is deceased. The name originates from the English case Re Benjamin [1902], in which a beneficiary could not be found, and the court allowed the estate to be distributed as if he had died. This order does not extinguish the missing beneficiary’s rights – if they later reappear, they may still have a claim, but it protects executors and trustees from liability, ensuring that they are not personally responsible for distributing the estate based on reasonable assumptions. Benjamin Orders are particularly useful in situations where a beneficiary has been missing for many years, and exhaustive searches have failed to locate them. They ensure that estates do not remain indefinitely frozen due to unresolved uncertainties. However, courts do not grant such orders lightly; executors must demonstrate that they have made reasonable and diligent efforts to locate the missing beneficiary before seeking legal relief. How HCMP 1750/2024 illustrates the application of Benjamin Orders in Hong Kong The case of HCMP 1750/2024 provides a recent example of how Hong Kong courts approach estate distribution when a beneficiary is missing. Wong Lin Fat passed away in 1999, leaving behind a will that provided for his second wife, Man Mei Kam (文美金) (“MMK”). Under the will, MMK was entitled to receive rental income from the Deceased’s properties for the rest of her life. However, since Deceased’s passing, she had seemingly vanished, and no one had been able to locate her for over 25 years. The co-administrators of the Estate undertook extensive efforts to trace her whereabouts. They searched official probate and death records in both Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, placed advertisements in multiple newspapers, and even visited her last known residence in London. Despite these comprehensive efforts, they were unable to obtain any information about her whereabouts or confirm whether she was still alive. Given that MMK would have been 82 years old if alive and had made no claims on the estate in the decades since Wong’s passing, the administrators applied for a Benjamin Order, requesting permission to distribute the Estate on the assumption that she had passed away without heirs. After reviewing the evidence, the Court granted the Benjamin Order, allowing the Estate to be distributed accordingly. The ruling acknowledged that the administrators had made sufficient and reasonable efforts to locate MMK and that, given the passage of time, it was reasonable to assume that she was deceased. The decision finally brought an end to 25 years of uncertainty, ensuring that the Estate could be settled and distributed to the remaining beneficiaries. Other perspectives on Benjamin Orders While the Wong Lin Fat case demonstrates how Benjamin Orders work in Hong Kong, courts do not grant such orders automatically. Two other cases, Yu Yee Luen & Another v So Yu Lung & others [2022][2] and HSBC Trustee (Hong Kong) Limited, the sole executor and trustee of the Deceased's Estate v Lam Moon Wing & others [2023][3], provide further insights into the legal and practical factors courts consider when assessing whether to grant a Benjamin Order. In Yu Yee Luen & Another v So Yu Lung & others [2022] HKCFI 2403, the Court emphasized the importance of due diligence in searching for a missing beneficiary. The case involved an Estate where one of the beneficiaries had not been seen or heard from in many years and the executors had undertaken extensive efforts to locate the individual. The Court ruled that executors must demonstrate that they have exhausted all reasonable avenues and no evidence shows that further efforts will yield positive results. It also highlighted that the passage of time is a critical factor, as courts are more inclined to grant such an order when a beneficiary has been missing for an extended period. Furthermore, the Court recognized that the cost of further searches must be weighed against the likelihood of success. If additional searches would be disproportionately expensive with little chance of yielding results, the court may approve estate distribution. Similarly, in HSBC Trustee (Hong Kong) Limited, the sole executor and trustee of the Deceased's Estate v Lam Moon Wing & others [2023] HKCFI 199, the court reinforced the principle that trustees must balance the rights of missing beneficiaries with the interests of other heirs. The Court ruled that investigations should be proportionate, meaning that if a beneficiary has been missing for decades and further searches are unlikely to succeed, courts are inclined to grant relief. Together, these cases establish that while courts require thorough and well-documented searches before granting a Benjamin Order, they also recognize that estate matters must eventually be resolved. Tips for Executors or Administrators applying for a Benjamin Order For executors or trustees seeking a Benjamin Order, thorough documentation and diligent efforts are key. Courts will only grant such an order if they are convinced that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate the missing beneficiary. These steps typically include but not limited to: Conducting comprehensive searches of government records, probate registries, and financial institutions; Contacting family members, known associates, and legal representatives who may have information on the missing beneficiary’s whereabouts; Placing advertisements in newspapers or online to invite the missing beneficiary to come forward; Engaging professional investigators if the case warrants more extensive searches; and Maintaining detailed records of all steps taken, as courts will scrutinize these efforts before granting relief. Executors should also consider seeking legal advice early in the process to ensure compliance with court requirements. If all reasonable efforts have been exhausted and the beneficiary remains untraceable, an application for a Benjamin Order may be the best course of action to resolve the estate efficiently and fairly. Final Thoughts Benjamin Orders play a crucial role in estate administration by providing a legal pathway for distributing assets when a beneficiary is missing. The Wong Lin Fat case (HCMP 1750/2024) illustrates how Hong Kong courts apply this principle, ensuring that executors act responsibly while preventing Estates from being indefinitely stalled. The Yu Yee Luen and Lam Moon Wing cases further clarify the due diligence required before such an order is granted and emphasize the balance between fairness and practicality. For executors and trustees, these cases underscore the importance of thorough searches, meticulous documentation, and legal guidance. Courts will not grant a Benjamin Order lightly, but they recognize that estate matters must eventually be settled. By following established legal principles, estate administrators can navigate these challenges while ensuring that the deceased’s wishes are fulfilled and beneficiaries receive their rightful inheritance. Author: Alfred Ip [1] [2024] HKCFI 2686 [2] [2022] HKCFI 2403 [3] [2023] HKCFI 199

March is a special month dedicated to honouring the remarkable contributions of women across various fields. Hugill & Ip’s commitment to celebrating women empowerment is a testament to the invaluable contributions of women in various fields. Through the "Bridges to Empowerment" programme, the initiative aims to share stories of resilience, mentorship, and community support, honouring these leaders while inspiring future generations to strive for greatness. As we celebrate women this month, we are reminded of the power of female leadership and the importance of supporting one another in the pursuit of our goals. A month of insights and inspiration The "Bridges to Empowerment" programme will showcase interviews with women from diverse backgrounds and industries who have excelled in their careers while making significant impacts in their communities. These conversations will delve into the personal stories behind their successes, the challenges they've faced, and the lessons they've learned along the way. The series will spotlight trailblazers in business, featuring women who have shattered glass ceilings in the business and non-profit world. Their insights on resilience and innovation will serve as valuable guidance for aspiring professionals. Additionally, the initiative will highlight advocates for change, showcasing women leading social movements and championing causes such as artistic development, gender equality and professional excellence. Their dedication emphasizes the power of community engagement and illustrates how action can drive meaningful change. Empowering stories will be represented, with discussions featuring women in the arts, social and professional services. These leaders will share how they balance their personal and professional pursuits with business acumen, illustrating the intersection of creativity and passion. By showcasing diverse narratives, Hugill & Ip aims to demonstrate that empowerment comes in many forms. Empowering conversations The format of these discussions will foster engaging and interactive exchanges, allowing for rich dialogue around personal achievements and broader themes of empowerment. Resilience will be a central focus, as many of the featured women have overcome significant obstacles in their careers. Their stories of perseverance are sure to inspire others to pursue their passions. Mentorship will play a crucial role in the series, with interviewees discussing the importance of supporting the next generation of female leaders. The "Bridges to Empowerment" programme aims also to facilitate mentorship opportunities, connecting emerging talents with seasoned professionals. By sharing how mentorship has influenced their own journeys, the featured women will encourage a culture of giving back and fostering growth within the community. Furthermore, the series will emphasize the significance of building supportive networks among women. The power of collaboration and collective strength will be highlighted as essential components of empowerment. The perfect time to celebrate International Women's Day – celebrated every year on 8 March – serves as a vital reminder of the ongoing struggle for gender equality and the remarkable achievements of women worldwide. This day not only honours the contributions of women across all sectors but also highlights the challenges they continue to face, including discrimination, inequality, and violence. By coming together on this day, individuals and organizations can raise awareness, advocate for policy changes, and foster discussions that promote women's rights and empowerment. Celebrating International Women's Day encourages a collective commitment to creating a more equitable world, inspiring future generations to challenge societal norms and pursue their aspirations without barriers.   Join Hugill & Ip in this celebration and be inspired by the incredible women who are leading the way!

A case currently on my desk crystallises the legal challenges highlighted by the recent Court of Final Appeal decision in Lui Ming Lok v Ng Im Fong Loretta (FACV 1/2024). Three adult children discovered their father's second marriage only at his funeral, when a woman they'd never met identified herself as their father's wife. Their father, aged 89 at death, had remarried just eight months before his passing. The children maintained regular contact with their father throughout his final years, yet the marriage remained concealed. More troublingly, after the children filed a caveat against any grant being sealed, the second wife produced a Will allegedly executed three months after their marriage, leaving his entire Estate to her. This case exemplifies the "capacity-marriage paradox" at the heart of Lui Ming Lok, where the legal framework creates an exploitable vulnerability in Estate Planning. The fundamental issue lies in the disparity between capacity standards: while someone may lack testamentary capacity, they can still enter into a potentially valid marriage that automatically revokes their previous Will. Modern protection vs historical rules: the role of the Inheritance Ordinance The historical justification for marriage revoking a Will – protecting the new spouse from unintended disinheritance – appears increasingly anachronistic given modern legislative protections. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Ordinance (Cap. 481) provides a robust mechanism for surviving spouses to claim reasonable financial provision from the deceased's estate, regardless of the Will's contents. This raises a pressing question: why maintain an automatic revocation rule that can facilitate predatory marriages when the original protective purpose is already served by dedicated legislation? The continued existence of this rule seems particularly difficult to justify when it can be weaponized to override carefully considered testamentary intentions, while the spouse's financial interests could be adequately protected through the Ordinance's provisions. Even in cases where a marriage's circumstances appear suspicious, but the new spouse has genuinely contributed to the deceased's welfare – perhaps through caregiving or emotional support – the Court retains discretionary jurisdiction under the Ordinance to award appropriate financial provision that reflects these contributions. This flexible, merit-based approach through the Ordinance stands in stark contrast to the rigid, all-or-nothing consequences of intestacy rules triggered by will revocation. It allows the Courts to craft nuanced solutions that balance protecting vulnerable elderly individuals from exploitation while ensuring genuine spousal contributions are fairly recognized. This disconnect between historical rationale and modern reality suggests an urgent need for legislative reform to align these intersecting areas of law. Void vs Voidable Marriage The legal distinction between void and voidable marriages creates what I term the "temporal trap." Unless challenged during the deceased's lifetime, a potentially invalid marriage remains legally effective, with all its consequences – including a Will revocation. This creates particularly painful situations for families. Challenging the marriage's validity is impossible after death. Even success challenging the Will made subsequent to the marriage would still see the second wife benefit significantly under intestacy rules. The post-mortem paradox: legal limitations after death The inability to challenge voidable marriages after death stems from fundamental principles of matrimonial law and creates what could be defined as a "post-mortem paradox." The legal rationale holds that a voidable marriage, unlike a void marriage, is valid until declared invalid by court order. The right to petition for nullity of a voidable marriage is personal to the parties of the marriage – it dies with them. This principle, rooted in historical matrimonial jurisprudence, rests on the assumption that only the parties themselves should have standing to challenge the validity of their marriage during their lifetime. The law presumes that if a party capable of challenging the marriage chooses not to do so while alive, that inaction represents acquiescence to the marriage's validity. However, this presumption becomes problematic in cases involving cognitive decline. In the matter in question, the deceased's compromised mental state likely prevented him from recognizing the need to challenge the marriage's validity. His children, despite their concerns, had no legal standing to petition for nullity during his lifetime without first obtaining wardship orders – a high threshold that requires extensive evidence and legal proceedings. By the time clear evidence of exploitation emerged, the deceased's passing had permanently barred any challenge to the marriage's validity. This creates an exploitable loophole: potential predators can simply wait out any risk period, knowing the marriage becomes unchallengeable upon death. The law thus inadvertently incentivizes those with improper motives to conceal suspicious marriages until the elderly spouse's death. This limitation particularly frustrates the deceased's family members, who must watch their inheritance rights be fundamentally altered by a marriage they believe was invalid but can no longer challenge. The charitable beneficiary conundrum The complexity deepens when considering scenarios involving charitable beneficiaries. If a testator had executed a Will benefiting a charity, which is then revoked by a subsequent marriage, the charity faces nearly insurmountable obstacles in challenging the marriage. Beyond the fundamental question of locus standi, charities typically lack access to crucial information about the testator's mental state at the time of marriage. Even in the rare circumstance where a marriage might be successfully challenged as voidable, this creates a peculiar legal outcome: setting aside the marriage would not reinstate the revoked Will. Instead, the testator would die intestate, resulting in the Estate passing to family members – precisely the outcome the testator had explicitly chosen to avoid through their original Will benefiting the charity. This creates a perverse situation where successfully challenging a potentially predatory marriage could still frustrate the testamentary intentions clearly expressed by the testator. A global concern: international perspectives Recent UK jurisprudence, including a case reported by the Financial Times involving a 94-year-old man who married his much younger carer, demonstrates this isn't merely a local concern but a growing global issue in aging societies. The Financial Times case mirrors my current matter – in both instances, families found themselves blindsided by marriages that fundamentally altered carefully planned inheritance arrangements. Preventive measures: the importance of timely intervention For family members who suspect a loved one has fallen victim to a predatory marriage, the crucial window for legal intervention is while the victim is still alive. Seeking a committee order to wrest financial control from a potentially predatory spouse, while challenging, represents a vital protective measure. Though the spouse will likely contest such attempts vigorously, this approach offers a critical advantage: the marriage can still be challenged with the benefit of contemporary medical examinations of the victim's mental capacity, rather than relying on retrospective expert opinions post-mortem. This real-time assessment of capacity provides significantly stronger evidence than posthumous evaluations and keeps all legal remedies available, including the possibility of setting aside the marriage itself. Best practices in Estate Planning Early implementation of Estate Planning, coupled with meticulous documentation of the Will-making process, proves crucial in safeguarding testamentary intentions. In our practice, we have observed that Wills drafted while capacity is unquestionable, supported by comprehensive attendance notes detailing the testator's clear reasoning and independent wishes, significantly strengthen the position of beneficiaries in subsequent Will challenges. Always observe the “Golden Rule" when dealing with vulnerable clients. When defending earlier Wills against later versions executed during periods of questioned capacity, such detailed contemporaneous notes often prove invaluable. They provide concrete evidence of the testator's true wishes when their cognitive function was intact and help establish a pattern of consistent Estate Planning intentions that may have been later subverted. We therefore advise practitioners to maintain exhaustive records of client meetings, including details of any family dynamics discussed, reasoning behind distribution decisions, and explicit capacity observations. The role of Marriage Celebrants: a critical point of intervention A critical point of intervention lies with marriage celebrants, who are uniquely positioned to identify potentially predatory marriages. The celebrants should be legally required to conduct enhanced due diligence when one party is above a certain age. This enhanced process would include mandatory inquiries about existing family relationships, previous marriages, and current living arrangements. The celebrant should also be obligated to document any signs of cognitive impairment or undue influence, perhaps through a standardized assessment checklist. This could include noting whether the elderly party can independently articulate reasons for the marriage, demonstrate awareness of their assets and the marriage's legal implications, and show clear understanding of how the marriage might affect existing family relationships. While such requirements might be viewed by some as overly paternalistic or as infringing on personal autonomy, the devastating consequences of predatory marriages (as illustrated in the ongoing matter) justify these protective measures. The celebrant's role should evolve from being a mere officiator to serving as a crucial gatekeeper in protecting vulnerable elderly. The need for reform The Lui Ming Lok decision – viewed alongside cases like the current matter – serves as both warning and catalyst for change. As Hong Kong's population ages, we'll likely see more such cases. The balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and respecting their autonomy remains delicate, but the current framework clearly requires recalibration. Author: Alfred Ip

Family law is a very complex area of law and we are dealing with highly sensitive issues concerning family relationships. If one traditionally looks at the skills required to be a good family lawyer they would probably include (1) excellent communication skills, (2) good EQ and interpersonal skills, (3) empathy and (4) conflict resolution and negotiation skills. These are skills that do not immediately lend themselves to being assisted by AI. However, there are also several other skills that do, such as drafting and research skills. AI tools can automate repetitive tasks like document review, case analysis, and research, allowing family law professionals to focus on more complex and strategic aspects of their cases. This can lead to increased efficiency and productivity. Automation and AI tools can help reduce overhead costs associated with legal research, document preparation, and administrative tasks, making legal services more affordable for clients. Hong Kong Law Society: Position Paper on The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Legal Profession 2024 was an important year with the Hong Kong Law Society publishing a Position Paper on the Impact of AI on the Legal Profession. The paper highlights that a tipping point had been reached and acknowledges that the profession needs to get on board with how AI is going to affect us. The Law Society has committed to a roadmap which consists of a three-phased approach in helping its members to navigate this transformative landscape. The paper makes it clear that it is the responsibility of solicitors to have a good understanding of new technologies, and it is not acceptable to take a “head in the sand” approach. The paper states that “Keeping up to speed on technology is thus becoming an additional component of competence required of a solicitor” and that if a solicitor is going to reply on new technologies “He must know the capabilities and limitations of the tools and consider the risks and benefits of the products generated by those tools in the context of the specific case that he is working on”. The Law Society is telling us loud and clear that we must educate ourselves to use this new technology as part and parcel of our work as legal professionals.   Judges and Judicial Officers and Support Staff: Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence In July 2024 Guidelines were published with the intention of bringing Hong Kong in line with other jurisdictions such as Canada, England, New Zealand and China. In response to news in other jurisdictions about AI being used by Judges, lawyers and litigants in person, the Guidelines highlight are that the Judiciary (1) must not delegate their judicial functions and (2) must be aware of the use of Generative AI by Court Users. The Guidelines set out 4 potential uses of AI as follows: Summarising information Writing of presentations Legal translation Administrative tasks Family Law cases highlighting potential issues with AI So far, we do not have any Hong Kong reported family law cases but it is only a matter of time and the authorities from other jurisdictions concerning the misuse of AI in family law cases highlight issues that family lawyers must stay vigilant about. England & Wales The case of Harber v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 highlights the potential dangers of using generative AI inappropriately.   Mrs Harber was a litigant in person, and she used generative AI to create summaries of nine cases which she submitted to the FTT in an appeal against a penalty for failure to notify a CGT liability on the sale of a rented property. Following checks carried out by counsel for HMRC it turned out that none of the authorities were genuine. Although the FTT accepted that the mistake was innocent, it issued a stern warning of the dangers of litigants using AI hallucinations in litigation. Although Mrs Harber was given the benefit of the doubt lawyers will be held to a higher standard by the tribunals and courts and it is important, therefore, that the uses (and limitations) of such AI tools are properly understood, including the use of clear and specific instructions and prompts to ensure appropriate responses from the AI. Another reported case serves as a salutary warning to family lawyers involved in financial proceedings not to accept information at face value. In X v Y [2022] EWFC 95 the husband was a technology entrepreneur and had persuaded his wife and family to move to London in 2014. He told her that a company wished to buy his business for GB£80,000,000 and produced a draft sale contract at that price, as well as a bank statement purporting to show that the buyer had made a down-payment of GB£8,000,000. On the basis of those documents, the wife agreed to move and subsequently, in 2018 the husband ceased paying the rent on the family home and the children’s school fees. By the time of the hearing the wife was dependent on benefits and the children (now 15 and 18) had serious medical problems, worsened by stress, and were no longer in any education. The husband maintained in the proceedings that the 2014 documents were genuine but that the deal had unravelled. However, the wife had obtained from the bank a genuine bank statement for the account from the period, which did not show the transaction. HHJ Hess found that the husband had dishonestly and falsely manufactured the presented 2014 bank statements to mislead the wife into moving to London. In a post-script to his judgment HHJ Hess explained his decision to publish it on his wish to draw wider attention to the ability of dishonest parties to manufacture bank statements (and other documents) which, for all practical purposes, look genuine, but which are in reality falsified for ulterior moves. The role of the lawyer in issues concerning falsified documents was highlighted in the case of Filatona Trading Limited & Anor v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan [2024] EWHC 2573. The decision is a rare example of the Court granting Norwich Pharmacal relief against a firm of solicitors who were (unwittingly) caught up in the forgery of evidence. In the case, the Deripaska Parties sought an order that the law firm disclose the identity of an apparently well-known London based Business Intelligence Consultancy which obtained a Russian language report, from an alleged wrongdoer which is said by the Deripaska Parties to be a forgery. The report was passed on to the law firm and subsequently used in proceedings.  Mr. Justice Calver ordered the firm to disclose the identity of the “middleman” and rejected the argument that the law firm had been a mere onlooker or witness, but were actively involved in the verification and deployment of evidence in proceedings – albeit without knowledge of the wrong-doing. Australia In the recent case of Handa & Mallick (2024) FedCFamC2F 957 Judge Amanda Humphreys of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dealt with an enforcement issue. The husband’s lawyer provided a list of authorities none of which could be verified. Her Honour permitted the lawyer time to file a submission to show cause why he should not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner. Limitations of AI in replacing Family Lawyers While AI can enhance certain aspects of legal practice, it cannot replace the essential human qualities that family lawyers bring to their work. AI lacks emotional intelligence and the ability to empathize, which are crucial in navigating the complex and often painful issues that arise in family law. Decision-making in family law often requires nuanced judgment, considering unique personal circumstances and the best interests of children. AI – driven by algorithms and historical data – may not adequately evaluate these complexities. Furthermore, effective advocacy and negotiation require interpersonal communication skills that at the current stage AI cannot simply replicate or substitute. Lawyers are bound by ethical considerations that extend beyond legal advice, making human judgment indispensable when dealing with family law issues. Final thoughts The integration of AI into family law presents significant opportunities for enhancing efficiency and access to justice in the Hong Kong Family Court. As the overall legal market continues to adopt AI technologies, it is essential for family lawyers to become familiar with the strengths and limitations of AI to allow us to reap its potential benefits. Author: Caroline McNally

A year on from our previous article, “What Does the Future Hold for Family Offices in Hong Kong?”, our fourth instalment in our series in exploring the development and opportunities of family offices in Hong Kong in 2025. Hong Kong is definitely stepping up its drive forward in attracting more single-family offices (“SFO”), with a renewed promise of new incentives in the 2024-25 budget as proposed by the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. This follows hot on the tails of the increase of tax benefits and other initiatives implemented since 2023 to encourage more private clients to manage their wealth in Hong Kong. Comparing Hong Kong and Singapore, both cities have implemented specific measures to attract family offices, offering exclusive incentives and advantages that differ from traditional ‘Non-Dom’ regimes and stand out as leading destinations for ultra-high net worth individuals seeking favourable tax regimes and robust business environments.  Recent success and market growth in Hong Kong – what makes Hong Kong stand out? The momentum behind Hong Kong's family office sector is evident in recent market data. According to InvestHK, the city has attracted over 50 new family offices in the past year alone, managing combined assets exceeding US$100 billion. Major financial institutions, including HSBC, UBS, and Credit Suisse, have significantly expanded their family office services in Hong Kong, demonstrating strong confidence in the market. SFOs in Hong Kong can benefit from the city's territorial tax system, where only income generated within Hong Kong is subject to taxation. Hong Kong does not impose capital gains tax or inheritance tax, further enhancing the appeal of setting up a family office in the region. However, it's crucial for SFOs to adhere to local regulations and engage with tax advisors to ensure compliance and optimize tax efficiency. Unlike other jurisdictions, there is no specific licensing regime for family offices, allowing for more straightforward operations without complex regulatory approvals.  Application can be made to the Inland Revenue Department for tax concession after the family office is set up. Hong Kong offers various immigration schemes that provide flexibility for individuals looking to establish residency in the region – this includes the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, which allows skilled individuals to settle in Hong Kong without a job offer. Moreover, the eligibility criteria of 7 years for obtaining permanent residency in Hong Kong are straightforward compared to other jurisdictions, attracting high-net-worth individuals seeking to establish a presence in Asia with minimal residency requirements.  How do Family Offices in Hong Kong benefit from the 2024-25 Budget? Family Offices in Hong Kong look forward to development of previously implemented benefits provided by the Government of the HKSAR. As set out in the 2024-25 Budget, the Government have stated three key points: Attracting global family offices and asset owners to Hong Kong will help bring in more capital and drive ancillary economic activities. The Government have implemented a number of measures, including providing tax concessions for qualifying transactions of family‑owned investment holding vehicles managed by single family offices in Hong Kong, and streamlining the suitability assessment when dealing with sophisticated professional investors.   The new Capital Investment Entrant Scheme (new CIES) opened for applications on 1 March 2024. Eligible investors who invest HK$27 million or more in qualifying assets and place HK$3 million into a new CIES Investment Portfolio may apply to reside in and pursue development in Hong Kong.  The new CIES will help strengthen Hong Kong’s advantages in developing the asset and wealth management industry and related professional service sectors in Hong Kong, while supporting the I&T sector's development. Starting from March 2025, investments through an eligible privately held company owned entirely by the applicant will also qualify. InvestHK received more than 5,000 enquiries and over 500 applications as of 13 September 2024.   The Government are setting the stage for the second Wealth for Good in Hong Kong Summit in end‑March 2025 in a bid to showcase Hong Kong's unique advantages to global family offices and asset owners. In addition, the Government will further enhance the preferential tax regimes for related funds, single family offices and carried interest, including reviewing the scope of the tax concession regimes, increasing the types of qualifying transactions and enhancing flexibility in handling incidental transactions, all to attract more funds and family offices with potential to establish a presence in Hong Kong. We are indeed entering into a 2025 filled with opportunities and support from the Government in terms of cementing Hong Kong as a ‘favoured’ family office hub. Hong Kong has created a robust and competitive regulatory environment, and there is strong support from the Government in terms of immigration and tax incentives. Keeping a close eye on Singapore As discussed in our series, Singapore has emerged as a leading family office hub in Asia in recent years, in heated competition with Hong Kong. As of 2023, more than 59% of the family offices in Asia are located in Singapore. Singapore has become a favoured destination in the region for establishing family offices due to the ease of doing business, political and economic stability, strategic location and an attractive tax and regulatory regime. Successful fund tax incentives for family offices in Singapore are articulated in section 13O and section 13U of the Income Tax Act 1947 in Singapore. Section 13O and Section 13U provide exemption on specified income derived from designated investments (“DIs”). The list of DIs covers a wide range of investments. Section 13O and Section 13U also provide a significant GST recovery rate and WHT exemption on interest payments to non-residents. A SFO which manages the funds of one family and the Singapore fund vehicle of the SFO forms part of the same group of companies, the Singapore SFO should automatically benefit from the exemption from holding fund management license. Singapore has emerged as a competitive family office hub in Asia, primarily due to its stable family office ecosystem. The Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Singapore Economic Development Board jointly established the Family Office Development Team to continue developing Singapore’s competitiveness as a global wealth and family office hub. However, Singapore imposes a higher corporate tax rate compared to Hong Kong, which may affect the after-tax returns for family offices. Moreover, the cost of living and operating a family office in Singapore can be relatively high, impacting overall operational expenses. Competition from Dubai It is hard to ignore the competitiveness of Dubai - Dubai’s financial hub is now home to family offices that control more than US$1 trillion in assets, driven by the influx of high-net worth individuals over the past few years. Arif, Amiri, the chief executive officer of Dubai International Financial Centre Authority has reaffirmed that “Family businesses contribute significantly to Dubai’s economy. The DIFC is home to over 120 families and 800 family-related structures and entities who manage more than $1.2 trillion in assets”. The United Arab Emirate’s appeal for the ultra-wealthy and their investment companies has grown in recent years primarily due to a favourable tax-regime, low crime rate and a convenient location at the juncture of multiple continents and time zones. However, some challenges exist for establishing a family office in Dubai, including limited regulatory clarity surrounding family office structures and succession planning. Additionally, the legal framework for wealth management and family governance in Dubai may not be as developed as in other established financial centres, posing potential risks for family offices operating in the region. Stepping into 2025 – what lies ahead? The family office landscapes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai offer a vast array of opportunities and challenges for high-net-worth individuals and families. As these financial hubs continue to evolve, it is anticipated that commercial, employment and tax aspects will continue to be hot topics for family offices going into 2025. The family office landscape in Hong Kong is entering a golden era of development. The city's position as China's international financial centre provides distinct advantages that complement rather than compete with other jurisdictions. Hong Kong's deep capital markets, sophisticated financial infrastructure, and cultural understanding of Asian family businesses create a unique value proposition that continues to attract ultra-high-net-worth families. As we move into 2025, Hong Kong's family office ecosystem continues to strengthen through enhanced Greater Bay Area connectivity, innovation in financial technology, and expansion of green and sustainable investment opportunities. The deepening of professional services capabilities and continued regulatory refinement demonstrate Hong Kong's commitment to meeting evolving family office needs. Hong Kong may see a 43% increase in family offices in 2025 thanks to new government measures to entice wealthy individuals to set up shop in the city as stated by Mr. Alpha Lau, director-general of investment promotion at InvestHK, in an interview with local television station Now TV – this reflects not just the success of government initiatives, but also Hong Kong's enduring strengths as a global financial centre. With its unique position as the gateway to China's vast opportunities and its comprehensive support for family offices, Hong Kong is well-positioned to remain Asia's premier family office hub for generations to come. Our observations We have witnessed Hong Kong becoming a magnet for the mega-wealthy in the past years, and these are the most common reasons for them to move to Hong Kong: The China Factor Wealthy Western entrepreneurs are looking for a change of scenery, and many are choosing Hong Kong as their new home due to its proximity to China, providing huge business opportunities for their start-up. Best of both worlds Many consider Hong Kong as a vibrant melting pot where East meets West, offering the perfect blend of Asian business connections and Western-style freedoms. Living the High-Life World-class healthcare, top-notch schools, fantastic food scene, and some of the most impressive urban infrastructure anywhere, combined with the proximity between urban jungle and the nature – Hong Kong offers the kind of vibrant lifestyle that makes the ultra-wealthy feel right at home. Author: Alfred Ip

The aim of the Social Welfare Department’s Adoption Service is to “find a suitable and permanent home for illegitimate children or children whose parents are deceased, deserted the family, or unable to take care of them”. The paramount consideration in choosing the right home for the child is the best interests of the child. This has been forcefully reiterated in the recent High Court judgement of B v. B & another [2024] HKCFI 3356. The case of “B” was transferred from the Family Court to the High Court for the purposes of obtaining guidance given that this was a sole applicant adoption “with same sex orientation, who had registered his marriage overseas with his life partner.” Background The Child was placed into the care of the Director of Social Welfare (“DSW”) when he was only 3 months old. After a year, a suitable placement for the Child was found with the Applicant. The Child was placed under his care in June 2023. The Applicant is a working professional who had entered into same-sex marriage with his husband in Scotland in 2013. The Applicant and his husband wished to adopt a child.  Despite being lawfully married overseas, in 2016 the Applicant applied as a sole applicant for adoption and was later approved as a suitable prospective adoptive parent. The rationale - at the time (which was before the decided judgments in QT v. Director of Immigration and the cases that followed) - was that the definition of “spouse” in the Adoption Ordinance (“AO”) would not apply to a couple in a same-sex marriage. Since being placed with the Applicant, the Child - a happy toddler - bonded well and made great improvements and developments in his adoptive home. The placement was a success. The DSW recommended granting the adoption order as being in the best interests of the Child. Family Court: Application for Adoption In October 2023 the Applicant made the usual application to the Family Court for an adoption order.  An adoption hearing was fixed on 20 December 2023. However, only two days before the adoption hearing, the Family Court Judge (the “Judge”) vacated the hearing and raised certain questions to the DSW concerning, among other things, the impact that the Applicant’s homosexual orientation and relationship with his husband would have on the Child and whether it would be in the Child’s best interests for the adoption order to be made. On 20 December 2023, the Applicant promptly filed a response to the questions raised by the Judge, which was supported by Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and Court of Appeal authorities along with academic works. The Judge ordered the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to assist the Court in giving its views on the Applicant’s response. The DSW filed a further report on 30 January 2024 explaining why she maintained that the proposed adoption arrangements were in the best interest of the Child. This did not, however, answer the Judge’s questions regarding the impact that the Applicant’s homosexual orientation and same-sex marriage would have on the Child. On 9 February 2024 the DOJ replied to the Judge saying that it expressed no views on the Applicant’s response and supporting materials. On 24 April 2024, without following any due process, the Judge transferred the case to the High Court. At the High Court call-over hearing on 5 June 2024, the Court ordered that the Official Solicitor be appointed as the Child’s guardian ad litem in place of the DSW and that DSW be added as second respondent.  The case was then listed for substantive argument on 15 October 2024. High Court Hearing Hon H. Au-Yeung J took the view that not only was it in the best interest of the Child for an adoption order to be made, but that it should be made forthwith without further delay. A final adoption order was, therefore, made at the end of the hearing with his reasons to follow. In his judgment, Hon H. Au-Yeung J commented that the suitability assessment of the partner of the applicant is irrespective of the sexual orientation of the applicant and his/her partner and whether they are registered as civil partners or as married in a foreign jurisdiction. While a number of authorities were referred to dating back to S v. S [1980] – where a lesbian mother was unsuccessful in applying for custody of her two children, Hon H. Au-Yeung J emphasized that it is essential that Hong Kong law shall keep pace with social realities. He referred to the English case of Re M (Children) (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) (Stonewall Equality Ltd & Anor intervening) [2018], where he applied and endorsed the findings herein that welfare is to be judged by reference to the changing views, as years go by, of reasonable men and women as of today, and therefore there is a need to have regard to the ever changing nature of the world including changes in social standards and changes in social attitudes. On the question of the impact of the Applicant’s homosexual orientation and same-sex marriage, Hon H. Au-Yeung J concluded: “Whether an applicant's application for an adoption order should be accepted should depend on the ultimate question of whether it is in the best interests of the child concerned for the order to be made rather than solely on the basis of the applicant's sexual orientation which should only be one of the factors to be considered. Indeed, in the present case, no evidence has been adduced to show that the fact that the parents are homosexual would have any negative impact on the sexual orientation development of the Child. Further, in the last 20 years since W v W, our society norm regarding same sex orientation and marriage have evidently moved on. These serve to reinforce the appropriateness of the approach adopted.” The question that then remained for the Court was whether the same-sex marriage would have any impact on the adoption application. Hon H. Au-Yeung J recognized that while the DSW has always treated the term “spouse” to mean somebody of the opposite sex, it does not necessarily mean that, for the purpose of the AO, it cannot be interpreted to include a same-sex partner who married in a jurisdiction where it was legal to do so. However, this question did not have to be determined in the present case since it was a sole applicant adoption and the husband had filed Form 4 (giving consent to the application) in order to play safe. He, however, went on to say: “… I am given to understand that even though the applicant has applied as a sole applicant, given his relationship with the Husband, the Director had taken such a relationship into account when deciding whether the applicant is a suitable adopter of the Child. The Director had also considered the relationship between the Child and the Husband, and in this regard, the Husband's attitude towards the application must be a relevant matter to be considered. Viewed in this light, whether the Husband should be regarded as the applicant's "spouse" under the Ordinance would only affect the application procedurally but not in substance, and I cannot see why (and no one has suggested otherwise) the current practice of the Director should change, as I hold the view that the best interests of the prospective adopted child can still be sufficiently protected.” Post-Script Hon H. Au-Yeung J concluded his judgment criticizing the Judge for the manner in which the case was transferred from the Family Court to the High Court without asking the parties to make representations or to have a hearing on the matter in the first place. He went on to criticize the DOJ for disregarding the Judge’s request for assistance by expressing no views on the response to the Judge’s questions that was provided by the Applicant, opining that if the DOJ had acceded to the Judge's request, it was possible that the Judge would be satisfied that the transfer was not necessary and the adoption order could have been made much earlier. The Outcome The Court held that: The ultimate question to be asked is whether it is in the best interests of the child concerned for an adoption order to be made. The applicant’s sexual orientation is just one of the factors to be considered. No evidence was adduced to show that homosexual parents would have any negative impact on the sexual orientation development of the child. In the case of sole applicant adoptions, where the applicant is married, the DSW should take into consideration the applicant’s relationship with their partner and the partner’s relationship with the child. The partner should be involved in the process of the assessment. An adoption order should be made forthwith without delay. In this regard, in most Social Welfare Department adoptions, the adoption order is made around six months after the child is first placed under the care of its new parents.  In this case, it took 16 months - more than twice as long. Final considerations This judgment highlights the ever-changing nature of families in Hong Kong and reinforces that the paramount consideration in an adoption application is whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to have the care and control of the child.  It is hoped that this judgment will allow other adoption orders involving same-sex partners, where the DSW has recommended granting an adoption order, to be made without unnecessary and unjustified delay.   Author:   Raphael Wong

Hugill & Ip is excited to announce the launch of “Bridges to Empowerment”, a new initiative designed to empower minorities and underrepresented communities in Hong Kong.The programme marks a significant step towards fostering a more inclusive and just society, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their background, have equal access to legal resources and opportunities. Empowering through knowledge “Bridges to Empowerment” aims to break down barriers by raising legal knowledge, providing educational resources, and enhancing education support. By establishing legal aid networks and fostering community engagement, all of us need to strive to create an environment where everyone can participate fully in society. Programme goals The key objectives of the “Bridges to Empowerment” programme include: Creating Resources: Developing tools and resources on legal issues specifically tailored for minority groups, NGOs, and social workers. Building Relationships: Establishing connections with community leaders and connectors to educate target beneficiaries about their legal rights and resources. Promoting Participation: Connecting sports and minority communities through events that drive participation and raise awareness of social and legal issues. Encouraging Diversity: Promoting greater diversity and representation within Hong Kong. Upcoming events The first event is a legal training to Equal Justice on Domestic Violence, empowering participants with the knowledge necessary to understand the complexities of domestic violence and the legal frameworks that govern responses to it. Collaboration between lawyers and NGO workers is essential in addressing the multifaceted needs of clients affected by domestic violence. By working together, lawyers and NGO personnel can create a robust support network that empowers clients and enhances their chances of securing justice and safety. Hugill & Ip is also excited to support the 16th anniversary gala of PathFinders, an organization dedicated to supporting migrant women and their children in Hong Kong. This year, Hugill & Ip proudly stands as one of the key supporters of this event, reflecting its commitment to social responsibility and community engagement. Moreover, in the next few months, the firm will support HELP for Domestic Workers with a dedicated team from Hugill & Ip budding up with several domestic workers to participate in the Standard Chartered Marathon. This initiative aims to raise vital funds and donations to support HELP’s mission in advocating for the rights and welfare of domestic workers. As part of the fundraising effort, the firm will match all donations, doubling the impact of our supporters’ generosity. Additionally, between 1 January and 9 February, Hugill & Ip will donate the amount generated from Estate Planning work directly to HELP, further amplifying the contribution to this important cause. A Commitment to inclusion “At Hugill & Ip, we believe in the importance of equal access to legal knowledge and resources,” said Alfred Ip. “The programme is our commitment to breaking down barriers and fostering a community where everyone can thrive. We invite our partners, clients, peers and community members to join us in this vital mission.” Caroline McNally continued: “We encourage everyone to engage with the “Bridges to Empowerment” initiative. Whether through volunteering, collaborating, or sharing information, every effort counts in making a difference.” For more information about the initiative and how to participate, you can visit the dedicated section on our website at or contact us at [email protected]  

Earlier this week, Wedlake Bell and Hugill & Ip hosted an event in Hong Kong, focusing on the upcoming abolition of the non-domicile tax regime in the UK, the residency-based system proposed in its place and the future taxation of offshore trusts. Matthew Braithwaite, Partner and Head of Offshore Wedlake Bell and Alfred Ip, Partner of Hugill & Ip, provided a comprehensive overview of the reforms, their implications for wealth holders and their families, and the evolving landscape for international investors considering the UK as a destination. The discussion highlighted several key topics: Tax implications for trusts established outside the UK: Attendees gained insights into how offshore trusts will be affected by the new tax regulations, including potential liabilities and compliance requirements. Tax implications for individuals moving to the UK: The speakers addressed critical changes for expatriates and those relocating to the UK, shedding light on how these reforms could impact their financial planning. Tax implications for those already living in the UK: For current residents, the discussion provided clarity on the transitional provisions and what to expect moving forward. Action steps to be taken before the April 2025 deadline: Participants were equipped with potential strategies to navigate the impending changes, ensuring they are prepared ahead of the April deadline. Matthew Braithwaite remarked, “These reforms mark a significant shift in the UK’s approach to taxation, particularly for international investors. Understanding these changes and planning accordingly is crucial for effective wealth management.” Alfred Ip added, “As the UK positions itself in the global market, it’s vital for individuals and families to reassess their tax strategies in light of these new regulations – especially considering the strong links between Hong Kong and the UK. Such changes will impact both jurisdictions, the general trust regime and Hong Kong which is increasingly attracting Family Offices from overseas.” At the end of the presentation, they went through some practical considerations and case studies. The event concluded with a Q&A session with the audience. The event attracted a diverse audience of financial professionals, wealth managers, and individuals interested in understanding the implications of these significant tax reforms. Implications for the Non-Domicile Tax Regime The UK’s budget announcement on 30 October 2024 has introduced pivotal changes that will significantly affect the non-domicile tax regime. These reforms are especially relevant for wealth holders, their families, and the future of the UK as a destination for international investors. The budget reform signifies a transformative shift in the UK’s non-domicile tax regime, with far-reaching implications for wealth holders and their families, particularly those wishing to mitigate their tax exposure. Understanding these changes is essential for effective tax planning and maintaining the UK’s status as an attractive destination for international investors. By taking proactive steps, individuals can navigate the new regulatory environment and safeguard their financial interests. Impact on Offshore Trusts The proposed changes will enhance the tax obligations for offshore trusts established by non-domiciled individuals. If a settlor has been resident in the UK for at least four years, their offshore trust will be subject to UK taxation on worldwide income and gains. This marks a shift from previous treatments where such trusts were protected from UK tax on an arising basis (tax instead being charged on distribution to UK resident beneficiaries). Moreover, the new reporting requirements necessitate comprehensive disclosures regarding trust income and distributions. This heightened scrutiny could lead to increased compliance costs for trustees and necessitate more sophisticated financial management strategies. Consequences for existing residents For individuals already residing in the UK during the past 10 years, the budget necessitates a critical reassessment of their tax status.  This change could significantly alter their financial planning and estate management strategies. If they consider relocation, they should act fast to explore their options. The implications of the UK’s reform to the non-domicile tax regime are particularly significant for Hong Kong residents who have already relocated to the UK. Many individuals from Hong Kong have previously benefited from non-domicile status, allowing them to minimize their UK tax liabilities on foreign income and gains at least for their first seven years of UK tax residence. However, with the new rules, existing residents may face increased tax obligations on the foreign income and gains sooner than expected. This change necessitates a thorough re-evaluation of their financial planning strategies, including investment structures and potential tax liabilities associated with their global wealth. Existing residents should consider potentially restructuring their investments or revising their estate plans to accommodate the new rules. The implications of becoming deemed domiciled extend beyond immediate tax liabilities, affecting long-term financial strategies and wealth transfer. Implications for new residents For those considering relocating to the UK to may be attracted by the four-year tax-free period on foreign income and gains but will need to be mindful of their UK tax position if their intention is to obtain a British passport.  Under the new rules, after a period of ten years they will be subject to IHT on their worldwide assets, whereas before they may have considered settling their assets outside of the UK into a trust to minimise their IHT exposure, such trusts are to be brought fully into the scope of IHT, necessitating consideration of other estate planning options. Strategic considerations before the April 2025 deadline As the April deadline approaches, wealth holders and their advisors must take immediate action. Engaging with professionals who specializes estate planning for international wealth holders will be critical for navigating the complexities of the new regime. A thorough review of existing trust structures and investment portfolios is essential to ensure compliance and minimize tax exposure. Additionally, staying informed about developments from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will be crucial as the government consults and finalises the implementation of the budget changes. By preparing now, individuals can better position themselves to adapt to the evolving tax landscape in the UK. Eventual impact on Hong Kong Family Offices The reforms may catalyse a potential outflow of family wealth from the UK to Hong Kong, particularly as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government has been actively promoting the establishment of family offices. With attractive tax incentives and a favourable regulatory framework for family offices, Hong Kong presents a compelling alternative for high-net-worth families seeking to preserve and manage their wealth. The combination of robust financial infrastructure, potential tax benefits, and a business-friendly environment may encourage families to relocate their wealth management operations back to Hong Kong. This trend could be further amplified as families reassess their long-term financial strategies in light of the UK’s tightening tax regime, leading to a significant relocation of assets and family wealth to Hong Kong. More about Wedlake Bell Offshore Private Client Services The Wedlake Bell Private Client Group includes specialists in tax and estate planning, residential property, matrimonial and family law, art and luxury assets, and dispute resolution. They advise UK based private clients and those based overseas who require English law advice. With support from experts in related practice areas, such as immigration, property, corporate and disputes, the team are able to provide a seamless service that encompasses every issue a private client, and particularly the foreign investor, is likely to face; be it tax efficient investment, asset purchase and registration, or coordinating global estate planning and asset protection structures across multiple jurisdictions. For those coming to the UK, Wedlake Bell can assist with pre-arrival planning from a UK tax and succession planning perspective. For those looking to leave the UK, they can help with relocation planning to review UK tax affairs, global asset structures and succession plans. Such advice incorporates the major changes to the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals that the UK government proposes to introduce from April 2025. All advice is tailored to meet the client's specific requirements and dovetail with any local advice provided by advisors in their home jurisdiction. More about Hugill & Ip Cross-border Asset Management and Estate Planning Internationalisation of both Asian and non-Asian clients and a cross-jurisdictional spread of family assets means much more complex succession and tax issues. Hugill & Ip take a broad and independent view and are better placed to understand the structure well before the investment strategy. Large returns on assets are immaterial if swallowed up by unforeseen taxes, legal liabilities or inadequate succession planning. The focus of estate planning nowadays has shifted to the efficiency of cross-border asset management, and to alleviate the pain and trouble of the often-cumbersome bureaucratic process, which in most cases will be dealt with by the most beloved one simultaneously with the grief of the loss. Estate planning is accordingly quintessential to a complete autonomous future. Hugill & Ip assist clients of diversity to achieve their objectives by assessing their needs and concerns and providing practical legal solutions to meet the above objectives. They provide professional advice on estate planning for singles or for married couples, as well as for expats in Hong Kong or for individuals who hold assets in a foreign jurisdiction (including pre-migration planning).  

Hugill & Ip, a dynamic law firm in Hong Kong, is pleased to announce the recent promotion of Caroline McNally to Equity Partner. This promotion recognizes Caroline's outstanding contributions to the firm and commitment to delivering exceptional legal services to clients. Hugill & Ip provide expert advice across a variety of dedicated practice areas both contentious and non-contentious and outstanding team of solicitors who have achieved exceptional results and recognition in the areas of Dispute Resolution, Trusts & Estates, Family, Corporate & Commercial and Employment. The firm applies modern thinking to legal services, uses technology in a contemporary office environment and is fully committed to giving back to the community. Caroline – who has joined the firm last year – has played a pivotal role in expanding the firm's Family practice and successfully representing clients. With over 25 years of experience in Family and Matrimonial, Caroline is described as having “unparalleled experience and tactical brilliance” and commentators say: “She is the lawyer to turn to for matrimonial matters”. Her clients describe her as “the balance that was needed in the mayhem. Thank goodness you offer this stability and reason for Hong Kong families”. Although Caroline has extensive experience in contentious matters, she is well-known for taking a pragmatic approach and for guiding clients sensitively through one of the most difficult times of their lives. She is a trained mediator and collaborative lawyer and uses these skills to find tailor-made and creative solutions for clients. "Promoting Caroline McNally to Equity Partner is a testament to her hard work and dedication," said Adam Hugill, Managing Partner of Hugill & Ip. "We are confident that she will continue to play a crucial role in our growth and in providing top-notch legal services to our clients." Alfred Ip added: “As Equity Partner, Caroline will play a key role in the firm's strategic direction and continue to mentor other lawyers, ensuring the next generation of legal professionals is well-equipped to meet the challenges of the evolving legal landscape”. Caroline McNally expressed gratitude for the opportunity, stating, "I am honoured to take on this new role and look forward to contributing even more to the success of Hugill & Ip and our clients."