Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, and its legal system is based on English law. Following Hong Kong’s handover to China on 1 July 1997, the Basic Law of Hong Kong is the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Article 8 of the Basic Law provides that: “laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene [the Basic Law], and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
Recent news reports have highlighted that the number of corporate insolvencies has continued to rise during 2022 and 2023, with the retail sector being particularly affected. Many companies are struggling to meet the demands of repaying government support provided during lockdown, increased running costs and high wages coupled with lower demand due to the cost of living crisis.
Hong Kong is the only common law jurisdiction within the People’s Republic of China and one of the few financial centres in the world without a formal rescue mechanism in its legislation. Hong Kong has not enacted legislation to recognise corporate rescue over simple liquidation.
As we reported in April, the Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers facing insolvency. The Government has been seeking views on how well the requirements work both before an insolvency practitioner has been appointed to the failing company and after a formal appointment has been made.
The Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers faced with insolvency.
The Court of Appeal judgment in Crystal Palace FC Ltd v Kavanagh and others brings welcome news for administrators and businesses in administration. The Court of Appeal has overturned the EAT and held that the dismissals of some of the football club’s staff were made for an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason and so liability did not pass under TUPE to the new owners of the Club, making it easier for them to operate it as a going concern.
At this time of year, sports pages are normally rife with transfer speculation before the new domestic seasons begin across the UK. This summer is different however, due to increased interest in Glasgow Rangers and the effect of “TUPE transfers” of players to the Rangers Newco.
The Court of Appeal has held in the recent case of Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine and another (2011) that a dismissal can be for “a reason connected with the transfer” under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) even if there is no particular transfer or transferee in existence or contemplation at the time of the dismissal. In the case Mr Baillavoine, the Chief Executive of Ultralon Holdings Ltd (“Ultralon”), was dismissed on the day Ultralon was placed into administration.