News

Cross-border Enforcement: Robin D’Souza, Flora Lam and Valerie Tang share insights at seminar for Stevenson, Wong & Co.

In Re Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) of the Laws of Hong Kong [2020] HKCA 766, Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal rejected the Applicants’ request for the examination of certain witnesses to enforce a US judgment. Recently, Robin D’Souza, Counsel for the successful Respondents, along with Flora Lam and Valerie Tang were invited by Stevenson, Wong & Co. to speak on the key takeaways from the case as well as other notable issues in cross-border enforcement of judgments.

Pictured (L-R): Ms. Rainbow Ip, Senior Associate; Valerie Tang; Flora Lam; Robin D’Souza; Mr. Dominic Lau, Partner; Mr. Kyle Lo, Senior Associate; Mr. Wilfred Cheng, Associate

 

In addition to examining the Re Evidence Ordinance case, our three speakers delved into the intricacies of cross-border enforcement and recognition in two specialist areas – arbitration and insolvency.

It has been our pleasure to meet with members of Stevenson, Wong & Co. again since our matrimonial law seminar in March. We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to everyone at the firm for inviting barristers of Denis Chang’s Chambers to conduct this seminar on cross-border disputes.

 


Robin D’Souza


Robin was called to the Bar in 2006.  He practices in civil and commercial litigation with experience in areas of company and shareholder disputes, insolvency, contracts, property, trust, probate, civil fraud, and asset recovery.  He regularly acts for and against multinationals, listed companies, investor funds, and high net worth individuals.


Robin acted for the succes
sful Respondents in Re Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) of the Laws of Hong Kong [2020] HKCA 766, where the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside an order granted pursuant to the US Federal Court’s request to examine non-party witnesses in Hong Kong. Robin also represented the successful 1st and 2nd Defendants (with Ted Chan) in To Hu Sing v Cheung Kwai Chuen and Others (HCA 1930/2015), in which the Court allowed their counterclaim for specific performance of a provisional sale and purchase agreement that was entered into almost 10 years ago.

A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Robin also accepts instructions to act as arbitration counsel.


Flora Lam

Flora joined Denis Chang’s Chambers in 2018 and is developing a broad civil and criminal practice. She has experience in areas such as company law, commercial disputes, criminal law, defamation, probate, trusts, adverse possession, personal injuries, and public law. She is also regularly instructed to handle legal aid appeals.


Highlights of Flora’s experience include:
HKSAR v Cheung Ling Chu Sally and Another (DCCC 920/2019), where she acted as junior counsel for the 1st Defendant, a bank branch manager, who was acquitted of conspiracy for an agent to accept advantages; and Liu Ken Wing & Anor v Chan Chor Har Ivy , HCA 3039/2017, in which she successfully resisted the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment for a dishonoured cheque (with Mr. Robin D’Souza).


Valerie Tang

 

Valerie was called to the Bar in 2019. She obtained her law degree from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and read International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science prior to her legal studies. She also served as a Legislative Council assistant from 2015 to 2018.


Since joining Chambers, Valerie has established a broad civil practice with an emphasis on commercial and company law. In Atkins China Limited v China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited [2020] HKCFI 2092, Valerie successfully contested an application for an interim injunction to stay arbitration proceedings; the dispute concerned the design of certain sections of the Hong Kong Zhuhai-Macau Bridge. 

Apart from commercial matters, Valerie also has experience and regularly acts as sole advocate in matrimonial, land and probate cases. Recently, she succeeded in obtaining maintenance pending suit for the Respondent wife in KKSR v. CLH (FCMC13299/2019) [2020] HKFC 94.