暂无结果。

德辅成员大律师

许其昌  大律师

牛津大学法学硕士
香港大学法学士
香港大学工商管理学学士(法学)

个人简历

个人简历

许其昌大律师于2008年加入德辅大律师事务所。许大律师拥有广泛的执业经验,他的执业范围涉及德辅大律师事务所的各个主要业务领域,包括行政及宪法、商法及公司法。他曾为一系列的商业事宜提供咨询意见,包括广播、电讯、金融与证券、保险、船舶、民事欺诈、法律冲突与法律管辖权等。

许大律师在其牛津大学法学硕士的竞争法课程中成绩优异。他正积极地在香港开展竞争法的执业。在2015年,许大律师代表香港通讯事务管理局(协助伦敦 Brick Court 大律师事务所的 Mark Hoskins 御用大律师以及张健利资深大律师事务所的陈文敏资深大律师)参与司法复核,林云浩法官颁布此案判决书 Television Broadcasts Limited v Communications Authority & The Chief Executive in Council [2016] 2 HKLRD 41,此案为香港竞争法基本原则及例如举证责任等的重要问题奠下重要基础。在2016年1月,许大律师被任命为香港 竞争事务委员会外部法律顾问。在2016年10月,他被香港大律师公会推荐至伦敦以竞争法闻名 的Brick Court大律师事务所实习竞争法。

许大律师参与过许多著名的案件,例如霸王诽谤案,有关电视广播行业的一系列司法复核案件以及在一宗高价值的资产冻结令申请中成功冻结了价值超过3.35亿欧元的资产。

除了法庭诉讼外,许大律师也经常依照香港国际仲裁中心及联合国国际贸易法委员会规则参与国际仲裁。

职务及任命

  • 竞争事务委员会外部法律顾问(2016)
  • 香港大律师公会出版委员会成员(2012)

重要案件

Administrative and Public Law

  • Television Broadcasts Limited v The Communications Authority & The Chief Executive in Council [2016] 2 HKLRD 41 (CFI) (Junior Counsel for Communications Authority) – Judicial review concerning (i) whether a finding of breach of the competition provisions in the Broadcasting Ordinance engages Articles 10 and 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and (ii) the Communications Authority’s substantive findings on competition law issues.
  • Asia Television Limited v Communications Authority FAMV 23/2013 (CFA), [2013] 3 HKLRD 618 (CA), HCAL 77/2012 (CFI) (Junior Counsel for Communications Authority) – successfully defended a judicial review against the Communications Authority in relation to a report publishing its investigation against the Applicant. The Court of Appeal’s judgment in [2013] 2 HKLRD 354 is the leading authority on hearing in camera.
  • Asia Television Limited v Chief Executive in Council [2012] 3 HKLRD 1 (CFI) (Junior Counsel for the Interested Party) – Leave application concerning the recommendation for granting new television licenses.
  • Sanyuan Group Limited v The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited FAMV 52/2009 (CFA), [2009] 5 HKC 124 (CA), [2008] 4 HKC 367 (CFI) (Junior Counsel for the Hong Kong Stock Exchange) – successfully defended a judicial review against the Stock Exchange’s decision to delist a company listed on the main board.
  • Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association v The Director-General of Civil Aviation HCAL 96/2008 (CFI) (Junior Counsel for the Applicant) – judicial review against the Director-General for allowing a dispensation of the three-pilot requirement for a long haul flight

Company Law and Corporate Insolvency

  • Re Da Yu Financial Holdings Ltd HCMP 2196/2018 – Leading authority on schemes of arrangement dealing with professional fees and outmoding the practice of parallel schemes
  • Re China Taifeng Beddings Holdings Ltd HCCW 199/2018, Re China Fiber Optic Network System Group Limited HCCW 93/2017, Re Anxin-China Holdings Limited HCCW 317/2015, Re China Solar Energy Holdings Limited HCCW 108/2015, Re K Vision International Investment (H.K.) LimitedHCCW 282/2011, Re Unisign Limited HCCW 325/2010 Re Silver Yield Industries Limited HCCW 353/2009, Re CASSIS Limited HCCW 560/2008 – Applications for appointment of provisional liquidators
  • Re Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited [2020] 1 HKLRD 316 (CA) – leading appellate authority on the anti-deprivation principle and pari passu principle in insolvency law
  • Re China Solar Energy Holdings Limited [2018] 2 HKLRD 338 – leading authority on whether provisional liquidators can be appointed for the purpose of pursuing a corporate debt restructuring
  • Re China Fishery Group Limited – acted as expert in Hong Kong law in provisional liquidators proceedings in the Cayman Islands
  • Re Matrix Distribution Limited HCCW 113/2012 – represented the respondents in the liquidators’ claim for fraudulent preference brought pursuant to section 266 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32)
  • Re China Agrotech Holdings Limited HCCW 325/2014, Re First Natural Foods Holdings Limited HCMP 350/2012 – Schemes of arrangement for insolvent listed companies
  • Re Dayuan International Development Ltd HCCW 103/2015, Re Dong Yick Chemical Company Limited HCCW 60/2015, Re Polywell Pacific Limited HCMP 440/2015, Re Jing Jin Travelling Bags Manufactory Limited HCCW 359/2011, Re Globe Industrial Technology Company Limited HCMP 189/2011, Re 2I Dental Centre Limited HCMP 712/2009 – unfair prejudice / just and equitable winding-up petitions
  • Fountain II Limited v Ping An Securities Group (Holdings) Ltd [2020] 1 HKLRD 429, Re Greentech Technology International Limited HCA 2415/2019 – injunctions restraining allotment of new shares in listed companies
  • Re Win Star Toys Manufactory Limited HCMP 1403/2015, Re Hub Global Freight Solutions (HK) Limited HCMP 670/2012 – applications for disclosure of corporate books and records pursuant to section 740 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622)
  • Li Xiao Yun v China Gas Holdings Limited [2015] 5 HKLRD 845 (CA), HCCL 18/2011 (CFI) (Junior Counsel for the Defendant) – claim by former directors pursuant to the company’s share option scheme
  • Re Hong Kong Wise Park Property Development Limited HCA 2273/2016, Re Creative China Limited [2014] 1 HKLRD 1108 (CFI) – leave requirements for commencing derivative actions concerning BVI companies
  • Re Grand Field Group Holdings Limited [2009] 5 HKLRD 105 (Junior Counsel for the Defendants) – leading authority on the proper purpose doctrine in directors’ exercise of power
  • Re OASIS Hong Kong Airlines Limited HCCW 133/2008 (Junior Counsel for HK Aircraft Engineering Co Ltd) – claim in common law possessory lien over aircrafts of an insolvent airline company
  • Re Seamless Green China (Holdings) Limited HCA 2114/2009, HCA 2441/2009 – injunction against the voting rights of shares in a listed company

Commercial, Financial and Regulatory Law

  • PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Citibank N.A. [2018] 5 HKLRD 277 (Junior Counsel for the bank) – successfully defended a claim against the bank for breach of duty of care as paying agent. This case also explored the rules of attribution of directors’ knowledge to their company in the context of section 26 of the Limitation Ordinance
  • LIXIL Corporation v Cai Jianshe HCMP 1860/2015 – Mareva injunction under section 21M of the High Court Ordinance, freezing over €335 million worth of assets in Hong Kong
  • Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A. v Hin-Pro International Logistics Limited [2015] 2 HKLRD 458 (CA), HCMP 1449/2014 (CFI) – Mareva injunction under section 21M of the High Court Ordinance in aid of an English legal action for breach of jurisdictional agreement, Mareva injunction against non-parties, appointment of interim receivers
  • Re Mayer Holdings Limited (Junior Counsel for the SFC) – Represented the SFC in the Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings brought against a listed company and its officers pursuant to Part XIVA of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571)
  • Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd v Fu Sheng HCA 1637/2011 – litigation concerning share option benefits in a listed company
  • Dexia SA/NV v Epic Investments SA HCMP 1859/2013 – successfully discharged a Mareva injunction obtained pursuant to section 21M of the High Court Ordinance which sought to freeze over €62 million worth of assets
  • Convoy Collateral Limited v Roy Cho Kwai Chee & Ors CACV 197/2020, HCA 399/2018, Primus Pacific Partner (GP1) LP v Li Wenlei HCA 3373/2016, Husqvarna AB (Publ) v Freyer Power Technology Limited HCA 529/2016, Labuan INS International Trust Limited v Achiever Shanghai Limited HCA 941/2014, Johann Young v Vermont Silicon Inc. HCA 1886/2012, Hextronik Limited v Sky RC Model Mfg. Limited HCA 1384/2012, Valetal Global Communications, Inc. v Chinacomm Ltd.HCA 1978/2011, Sino Resources Group Limited v Hung Chen Richael HCA 2477/2009 – Mareva injunction applications
  • China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited v Chun Chi Wai & Others HCA 1412/2013 – represented one of the defendants in a claim over HK$1.2 billion commenced as a result of the SFC’s investigation of a listed company
  • Basab Inc. v Superb Glory Holdings Limited HCA 6/2014 – represented the receivers appointed under a debenture in a claim for selling the security at an undervalue
  • Re China Best Group Holding Limited HCMP 745/2013, Re First China Financial Network Holdings Limited HCMP 2502/2012 – directors’ disqualification proceedings under section 214 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571)

Insurance

  • HK Space Shuttle Ltd v HCC Specialty Underwriters HCA 2611/2008 – represented the insurers and underwriters in a claim for event cancellation insurance
  • Chubb Life Insurance Co. Ltd v So Sheung Hin Ben HCA 1975/2018 – represented the insurance agent in a dispute concerning the claw-back provisions for the agent’s remuneration

Other Notable Cases

  • Taching Petroleum Co Ltd v Meyer Aluminium Limited [2018] 2 HKLRD 1284 – leading authority dealing with setting up breach of competition law as a defence in civil proceedings
  • Bawang International (Group) Holding Limited v Next Magazine Publishing Limited HCA 1109/2010 (Junior Counsel for the Plaintiffs) – Defamation claim of over RMB500 million in loss of business profits
  • Super Worth International Limited v ICAC [2016] 1 HKLRD 281 (CA) HCMP1320/2012 (CFI) – leading Hong Kong authority on (i) the applicable law of legal professional privilege and (ii) whether legal professional privilege should be extended to accountants advising on tax law
  • Wong Kam Fung v Smart Profit Enterprises Ltd [2014] 5 HKLRD 853 (CA), HCMP346/2014 – Purchaser’s lien in conveyancing transactions
  • Tullet Prebon (Hong Kong) Limited v Chan Yeung Fong Nick & Others HCA 2197/2009 (Junior Counsel for the Plaintiff) – represented an international brokerage group in a claim totalling over HK$10 million for wrongful termination of employment agreement and poaching of employees by competitors
  • Tadjudin Sunny v Bank of America [2009] 4 HKLRD 662 (Junior Counsel for the Defendant) – represented the bank in a claim involving a novel issue of whether an anti-avoidance provision can be implied into an employment contract

出版物及讲座

  • John regularly lectures at CPD Courses for solicitors in Hong Kong

奖学金及奖项

  • The Middle Temple Scholarship (2008)
  • Peter Vine Postgraduate Law Scholarship (2006)
  • Baker & McKenzie Prize in Company Law (2005)
  • Johnson, Stokes and Master Scholarship (2004)

具体专业领域

Regulatory Law,行政复核,商业司法复核,以律师身份参与仲裁,仲裁裁决的执行,银行责任,金融产品不当销售,证券法,证监会执法行动,合同,法律冲突,衡平法,侵权,可转让票据,货物销售,公司治理,上市及其他监管规则合规事务,衍生诉讼,不公平损害呈请,强制执行,调查,破产,重组,债务偿还安排,清盘,核数师的疏忽,纪律处分程序,律师的疏忽行为,强制令,文件披露,资产追回,容许查察济助,第三方披露令,银行账簿令

荣誉及奖项

业界认可给予许其昌  大律师

许其昌大律师荣登《钱伯斯大中华区指南》香港大律师榜单商事争议解决领域:德辅大律师事务所的许其昌大律师在公司法、清盘法、保险法以及金融监管领域非常活跃。他因其专业精湛,处理案件的灵活技巧,经常获得客户和同行的极高评价。

受访者称赞道:“「许大律师平易近人,为人友善。他工作态度一丝不苟,随时准备为复杂的法律问题提供切实可行的解决方案 ”。

— 《钱伯斯大中华区指南》(2024年)

许其昌大律师荣登2024年度《法律500强》亚太地区榜单,获评为商事争议解决领域之领先大律师

— 《法律500强》亚太地区:香港大律师(2024年)

许其昌大律师荣登《钱伯斯大中华区指南》香港大律师榜单商事争议解决领域:

德辅大律师事务所的许其昌大律师在公司法、清盘法、保险法以及金融监管领域非常活跃。他因其专业精湛,处理案件的灵活技巧,经常获得客户和同行的极高评价。

受访者称赞道:“「许大律师给我留下了深刻的印象。他是一名强有力的辩护律师,法律知识渊博。他为人友善,反应迅速。他还具有杰出的商业头脑」”,“「非常乐于助人,并尽力减少争论。他是一个非常通情达理和优雅的对手」”,“「他是我的首选大律师之一。他在商业纠纷的各个领域都非常可靠和扎实,而且非常容易合作。他能很好地与非专业客户打交道」”。

— 《钱伯斯大中华区指南》(2023年)

许其昌大律师荣登2023年度《法律500强》亚太地区榜单,获评为商事争议解决领域之第一级别领先大律师

— 《法律500强》亚太地区:香港大律师(2023年)

许其昌大律师荣登2022年度《钱伯斯大中华区指南》商事争议解决榜单:

许其昌大律师是「一位非常勤奋,非常优秀的大律师,他思维敏捷,总是能够提出非常好的论点……你很快就会看到他在榜单中名列前茅」。许其昌大律师在公司法、清盘、保险和金融监管领域尤为活跃,他因丰富专业知识和对案件的灵巧处理而经常广受赞誉。

— 《钱伯斯大中华区指南》(2022年)

许其昌大律师荣登2022年度《法律500强》亚太地区榜单,获评为商事争议解决领域之领先大律师

受访者称赞许其昌大律师为“一位行事慎重、发挥稳定的大律师。他是一位出色的讼辩人,才思敏捷,反应迅速,对于出乎意料的论点能够即时提出解决方案。

— 《法律500强》亚太地区:香港大律师(2022年)

许其昌大律师荣登2021年度《钱伯斯指南》亚太地区榜单之商事争议解决:

受访者称赞许其昌大律师:“在业内被誉为「一位极具能力的大律师」和「非常全能且平易近人的大律师」。他善于处理公司法、清盘、保险法以及金融规管领域案件,以其卓越的专业知识和灵活处理案件的能力获得广泛赞誉。他被评价为「能力出色,响应迅速,总能为法律为题给出深入浅出的细致分析”。

— 《钱伯斯指南(亚太)》(2021)

许其昌大律师荣登2021年度《法律500强》亚太地区榜单,获评为商事争议解决领域之领先大律师

受访者称赞他:“对法律掌握程度堪称精湛,更擅长解决实际问题。在讼辩方面,他展现出自信且恰到好处的技巧,因此赢得了业内尊重。值得一提的是,他曾独自代表客户就平安证券的拟供股提起诉讼”。

— 《法律500强》亚太地区:香港大律师(2021年)

德辅大律师事务所的许其昌大律师在受访者中因其在广泛的各个领域中均衡的表现而广受赞誉,例如在竞争、诽谤和清盘等领域。受访者进一步指出许大律师是一位“很容易相处且友好”的大律师,并“正处在其上升的道路上”,且已经发展了一个稳定的客户群体。

— 《钱伯斯指南(亚太)》(2020)

德辅大律师事务所的许其昌大律师执业领域非常广泛。他在清盘、董事责任以及竞争法事宜的执业经验丰富,并且善于处理金融服务、证券以及电讯广播领域的事宜。事务律师们对于他总能提出『新颖的解决方法』而印象深刻,一位评论者认为他不仅能够在『证据杂乱』的情况下解决问题,并且还能够『非常有效地向客户阐明他聪明的想法』。同业者称赞许大律师『谨慎而实际』的诉讼技巧以及其在法庭中『迅敏的反应速度』。

— 《钱伯斯指南(亚太)》(2019)

}