韦仕博 资深大律师

  • 泰恩河畔新堡大学法学士(荣誉学位)

执业年份

  • 1973 (英国)
  • 1979-1981 (香港律政司署)
  • 1981 (香港)
  • 2001 (香港资深大律师)

个人简历

韦仕博资深大律师在英国及香港的大律师行业拥有超过40年的经验,他在2001年被任命为资深大律师。韦大律师参与过许多领域的案件,主要集中在民事领域的争讼事宜,并且在包括英国枢密院和终审法院在内的各个层级的法庭代表过当事人出庭。在香港司法机构的网站上,韦大律师参与过的诉讼案件超过300余宗。

韦大律师的执业领域主要包括建筑、仲裁、证券法与规管、司法复核、专业疏忽及商事诉讼。他同时也参与有关刑事、家事法、审裁处审理及死因研讯事宜的案件

韦大律师长期被《钱伯斯指南(亚太)》法律指南所推荐。在2012年,他被如此评价道:“韦仕博资深大律师以他稳健的民事及刑事案件处理所闻名,尤其是他在建筑法领域的专长。业界称赞他是一流的盘问者。”

韦大律师还时常担任仲裁员,并曾担任区域法院(1990)和高等法院(2009)的暂委法官。他在 W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v BOOST INVESTMENTS LTD 一案中的判决被收录于[2009] 2 HKLRD 501。

在建筑领域,他曾处理的案件覆盖履约保障、工程量列表重估、打桩工程欠妥、有关延续、算定损害赔偿及延迟费用的申索等领域。他也曾参与过包括因行为失当免任仲裁员在内的仲裁事务,及位于新加坡的两次重要的国际商会仲裁。

韦大律师处理过的证券与规管事宜覆盖灰色市场交易、证监会对保荐人采取的执法行动、内幕交易、股份购回与认购权计划、证监会依照《证券及期货条例》第213条提起的申请等事宜,同时参与过证券及期货事务上诉审裁处及市场失当行为审裁处的案件。

韦大律师参与过的商业案件包括为上市公司因董事欺诈而作出的20亿港币申索做出抗辩,对律师、工程师、医生及估价师等提起的专业疏忽申索,以及一宗私人银行家对舞蹈老师提起的返还亿元预付舞蹈培训收费的著名案件。

韦大律师参与过的审裁案件包括1999年赤腊角机场开幕时的公众咨询,及在香港迄今唯一一起空难事故的审裁问询中担任主要大律师。此外,韦大律师还处理过医生、律师及公务员的纪律审裁案件,死因聆讯案件,以及对于上述审裁案件的司法复核。

  • 区域法院暂委法官(1990)
  • 高等法院暂委法官(2009)

Court of Final Appeal

  • COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE v. CHANDIRAMI FACV 8 of 2002. Court of Appeal reversed. Unmanifested cargo was rightly subject to and liable to forfeiture by C & E Department.
  • AQUA – LEISURE INC v. AQUA SPLASH CACV 175 of 2002. Application for leave to appeal by 2 directors found in contempt of Court in a passing off action.
  • DESMOND YIU v. WILLIAM CHOW and OTHERS FACV 18 of 2004. Solicitor cleared of professional negligence; nor was there any assumption of responsibility under the Hedley Byrne principle.
  • SFC v. TO SHU FAI FAMC 11 of 2008. Defendant convicted of providing false or misleading information to the SFC in a company’s Public Announcement. Appeals dismissed.
  • KOON WING YEE v. SFC FAMV 53 of 2008. The applicant is not entitled to invoke the privilege against self – incrimination and then refuse to answer questions put by the SFC under its SFO powers.
  • PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO. LTD. v. HARMUTTY and OTHERS FAMV 28 of 2009. Order 14 Summary Judgment inappropriate where fraud is a live issue.
  • KULEMESIN YURIY v. HKSAR FAMC 72 of 2011. Prosecution of ship’s captain for endangering life at sea by colliding with a bulk carrier, where 18 crew members drowned. Conviction upheld .
  • WANG RUIYUN v. GEM GLOBAL LTD. FAMV 42 of 2011. Leave granted to appeal Court of Appeal decision on whether damages to be assessed at the date of breach.
  • KWOK CHIN WING v. 21 HOLDINGS LTD. FACV 9 of 2012. Claim by director to recover inter – company loans.
  • MAEDA JV v. HKSAR FAMV 8 of 2013. Correct approach to re – rating items in the Bill of Quantities ; whether a change in quantities renders the original BQ price unreasonable or inapplicable.