Search

Abstract Over a 6.5-year period, 5,848 patients who had ingested a foreign body were admitted to the ENT unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong. Potentially serious [...]

In 2015/2016 the United Kingdom (UK) became the first country to implement the People with Significant Control (PSC) regime which requires disclosure of beneficial ownership of companies. With relative success in the implementation of such regime, the UK authorities have decided to further enhance it by making the identity verification of PSC compulsory and placing the responsibility on PSCs themselves to verify their identity with Companies House. This article examines the background of introducing such a regime in the UK and explores the recent proposal in its further enhancement. It is ultimately argued that it was correct for the UK to enact such a regime back in 2016 and why making the identity verification of PSC compulsory is the right step in enhancing corporate transparency and is beneficial to its economic competitiveness.

ABSTRACTIn March 2015, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of Hong Kong launched a consultation to examine whether the financial market of Hong Kong should implement the Principles of Responsible Ownership, based on the Stewardship Code which was first introduced into the United Kingdom’s (UK) financial market in 2010. One year later, in March 2016, the SFC announced in its consultation conclusions that it would adopt the Principles subject to some amendments. This article examines as to whether the implementation of such Principles would be effective in encouraging shareholder activism and engagement in the corporate governance of Hong Kong. Contrary to the SFC’s conclusions, it is argued here that due to the nature and characteristics of Hong Kong’s financial market, the Principles are unlikely to foster greater shareholder involvement. The article will suggest alternative legal and institutional mechanisms that can better enhance investor engagement.

This article argues that each of the US, the UK and Australia could take inspiration from Hong Kong's Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund (POWIF) because it has the makings of a world-leading model for the protection of employee entitlements in circumstances of business failure. In particular, it is argued that although POWIF is open to fraud by unscrupulous employers it does not unduly increase moral hazard because its coverage provides only a modest safety net, it is funded by a mandatory private sector levy and it operates on a self-sustaining basis.

AbstractSince 2001, a number of common law jurisdictions have initiated reforms to their charity law and the United Kingdom has taken the lead. This article examines what Hong Kong and Australia can learn from the United Kingdom in reforming their own outdated and fragmented charity laws. It is contended that the lessons and experiences of the United Kingdom provide good insights for Hong Kong and Australia as each jurisdiction anticipates implementing a broadly similar regime to the United Kingdom's to modernize regulation of their charity sectors. This article contends that there is no need to make a choice between retaining judicial decision-making over charities (inconsistent as it is) and establishing a type of charity commission which makes determining charitable status akin to a decision of a government department. Instead, Hong Kong and Australia can have charity commissions with missions that are sensitive to their own legal terrains but which are subject to judicial review.

Section 172 of the UK Companies Act 2006 is arguably one of the most controversial provisions that has been introduced into the company law of the UK. It incorporates the concept of enlightened shareholder value, together with a list of non-exhaustive factors that directors ought to take into account in promoting the success of the company. The discussion focuses on a recent review undertaken by the Hong Kong Standing Committee on Company Law Reform (SCCLR) as to whether Hong Kong should follow the UK by incorporating a similar provision to section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 in its Companies Bill. Contrary to the SCCLR recommendation, the primary conclusion drawn is that it makes commercial sense for a similar provision to be introduced in Hong Kong. A careful examination of section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 shows that it simply reflects existing law and modern business practices. Therefore, the purpose of implementing such duty on directors does no more than reinstate the practical reality.

This review was carried out to assess the effectiveness of our protocol designed for the management of ingested foreign bodies. It was a retrospective review of 5240 patients with ingested foreign bodies admitted over a five-year period to the Ear Nose and Throat Unit. These patients were managed according to a standardized protocol which was adopted and modified from our previous study.Under his management protocol, the mean hospital stay was 1.6 days. Flexible oesophagoscopy under local anaesthesia, and rigid oesophagoscopy under general anaesthesia, were performed in 1.5 per cent and 7.7 per cent of cases respectively. Major complications including oesophageal perforation and deep neck abscesses occurred in 0.19 per cent of patients. There was no mortality.This management protocol for ingested foreign bodies was both safe and cost-effective when compared to similar studies reported in the literature.