靳海文

  1. People /

靳海文

靳海文

Partner


Hong Kong SAR
  1. People /

靳海文

靳海文

Partner


Hong Kong SAR

靳海文

Partner

Hong Kong SAR

合伙人，争议解决与监管

T: +852 3143 8450

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share
中文

Biography

  • 在基础设施、建设和工程领域拥有逾30年的大型项目经验，既包括诉讼也包括非诉项目。
  • 在很多大型基础设施开发中代表政府和准政府机构，包括机场、铁路项目、桥梁、道路、隧道、发电项目和商业结构。
  • 在香港特别行政区生活和工作25年，处理整个亚太地区的项目。

Band 1: Construction: International Firms in China, Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2024

Hall of Fame: Construction in Hong Kong, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2024

"A real name in the Hong Kong market as a construction lawyer."  Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2024

"He is a commercially sensitive lawyer and a go-to in Hong Kong. He is exceptionally well connected." Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2023

“Insightful and practical advice on construction-related disputes”  Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2022

"Glenn Haley is just incredibly experienced. He is one of the most famous, 'hall of fame'-type lawyers," Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2023

Band 1: Construction: International Firms in China, Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2024

Band 1: Construction in Hong Kong, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2024

He is a commercially sensitive lawyer and a go-to in Hong Kong. He is exceptionally well connected.

Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2023

Spoken Languages

  • English

Admissions

  • ACT
  • New South Wales
  • Northern Territory
  • Queensland
  • Victoria
  • England and Wales (non-practicing)

Related Practice Areas

  • Construction Disputes

  • Infrastructure

  • Sports & Entertainment

  • Data Privacy & Security

  • Energy & Natural Resources

  • Real Estate Disputes

  • Corporate

  • Investigations

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • Sports & Entertainment Contract, Endorsement & Celebrity Representation Practice

  • Anti-Doping Practice

  • Sports & Event Venue Real Estate Infrastructure and Operation

  • Naming Rights & Sponsorship Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment M&A Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment Litigation Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment Specialty Counseling Practice

  • Entertainment Industry Practice

  • Sports & Event Financing

  • Collegiate Sports Practice

  • Olympic & National Governing Body Practice

  • Professional Sports Team Practice

  • Data Center & Digital Infrastructure Team

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Real Estate

  • Securities Litigation and Enforcement

Related Insights

View All Related Insights

Insights
May 10, 2023

Limitation periods and concurrent duty in tort and contract

In Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust v Hadfield Healthcare Partnership Ltd and others, the Technology and Construction Court provides helpful guidance about the use of standstill agreements to pause limitation periods, and the existence or otherwise of concurrent liabilities in tort and contract in the construction industry.
Awards
Jan 13, 2023

Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2023

Insights
Sep 21, 2022

Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision on cartel fines imposed on entities within the same undertaking

Competition Commission v W. Hing Construction & others [2022] HKCA 786 (judgment date: 2 June 2022) concerned an appeal from the first Hong Kong judgments concerning pecuniary penalties for contraventions of competition rules. The Court of Appeal held that pecuniary penalties for contraventions of competition rules are to be assessed based on the economic activities and conduct of the undertakings who are answerable for the contraventions, and that the legal or natural persons (entities) constituting such undertakings jointly and severally are liable for the pecuniary penalties. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals by the Competition Commission (Commission) against two judgments in which the Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) reduced the pecuniary penalties ordered against the respondents in recognition of the respondents’ limited participation in the anti-competitive conduct because they had passed down various obligations through subcontracting and partnership arrangements in return for a portion of the value of sales related to the contravention.
Insights
Aug 02, 2022

Hong Kong court provided guidance on the approach to granting Mareva injunctions in support of enforcement proceedings for arbitral awards

Hong Kong court continued the validity of a Mareva injunction granted in connection with the enforcement proceedings of a CIETAC award, and dismissed an application for security or fortification in support of the cross-undertaking as to damages. This case confirms the Hong Kong courts’ pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement approach. G v X highlights that Hong Kong courts generally are more prepared to grant Mareva injunctions and other relevant orders in aid of enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards, in comparison with similar applications made at the interlocutory stage in court litigation. The judgment also illustrates how Hong Kong courts will apply the usual tests, and exercise its discretions, in respect of the grant of Mareva injunctions in the context of enforcement proceedings. The confirmation that parties may seek simultaneous enforcement in both the Mainland and Hong Kong under the Supplemental Arrangement is welcomed as a recognition of the continuous development of judicial cooperation and mutual legal assistance between Hong Kong and Mainland China, an important factor contributing to Hong Kong’s rightful place as an attractive seat of arbitration, particularly for cross-border disputes with elements relating to Mainland China.
Insights
Jul 29, 2022

Hong Kong court rules that it has no power to extend the time to challenge an arbitral award under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law

In AW and others v PY and another [2022] HKCFI 1397 (judgment date: 13 May 2022), a Hong Kong court held that it has no power to extend the time to challenge an arbitral award under Article 34 of the Model Law, as adopted by Section 81 of the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong. The present case is important in establishing that Hong Kong courts do not have the power to extend the time for making a setting-aside application under Article 34 of the Model Law. This serves as a reminder to parties seeking to challenge an award under the Article to act in a prompt and timely manner.

Related Insights

Insights
Mar 18, 2024
NEC ECC Hong Kong Edition: 5 Key Features
Awards
Jan 24, 2024
Chambers Greater China Region 2024
Insights
May 10, 2023
Limitation periods and concurrent duty in tort and contract
In Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust v Hadfield Healthcare Partnership Ltd and others, the Technology and Construction Court provides helpful guidance about the use of standstill agreements to pause limitation periods, and the existence or otherwise of concurrent liabilities in tort and contract in the construction industry.
Awards
Jan 13, 2023
Chambers Asia Pacific & Greater China Region 2023
Awards
Jan 13, 2023
Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2023
Insights
Sep 21, 2022
Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision on cartel fines imposed on entities within the same undertaking
Competition Commission v W. Hing Construction & others [2022] HKCA 786 (judgment date: 2 June 2022) concerned an appeal from the first Hong Kong judgments concerning pecuniary penalties for contraventions of competition rules. The Court of Appeal held that pecuniary penalties for contraventions of competition rules are to be assessed based on the economic activities and conduct of the undertakings who are answerable for the contraventions, and that the legal or natural persons (entities) constituting such undertakings jointly and severally are liable for the pecuniary penalties. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals by the Competition Commission (Commission) against two judgments in which the Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) reduced the pecuniary penalties ordered against the respondents in recognition of the respondents’ limited participation in the anti-competitive conduct because they had passed down various obligations through subcontracting and partnership arrangements in return for a portion of the value of sales related to the contravention.
Insights
Aug 02, 2022
Hong Kong court provided guidance on the approach to granting Mareva injunctions in support of enforcement proceedings for arbitral awards
Hong Kong court continued the validity of a Mareva injunction granted in connection with the enforcement proceedings of a CIETAC award, and dismissed an application for security or fortification in support of the cross-undertaking as to damages. This case confirms the Hong Kong courts’ pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement approach. G v X highlights that Hong Kong courts generally are more prepared to grant Mareva injunctions and other relevant orders in aid of enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards, in comparison with similar applications made at the interlocutory stage in court litigation. The judgment also illustrates how Hong Kong courts will apply the usual tests, and exercise its discretions, in respect of the grant of Mareva injunctions in the context of enforcement proceedings. The confirmation that parties may seek simultaneous enforcement in both the Mainland and Hong Kong under the Supplemental Arrangement is welcomed as a recognition of the continuous development of judicial cooperation and mutual legal assistance between Hong Kong and Mainland China, an important factor contributing to Hong Kong’s rightful place as an attractive seat of arbitration, particularly for cross-border disputes with elements relating to Mainland China.
Insights
Jul 29, 2022
Hong Kong court rules that it has no power to extend the time to challenge an arbitral award under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law
In AW and others v PY and another [2022] HKCFI 1397 (judgment date: 13 May 2022), a Hong Kong court held that it has no power to extend the time to challenge an arbitral award under Article 34 of the Model Law, as adopted by Section 81 of the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong. The present case is important in establishing that Hong Kong courts do not have the power to extend the time for making a setting-aside application under Article 34 of the Model Law. This serves as a reminder to parties seeking to challenge an award under the Article to act in a prompt and timely manner.
Insights
May 24, 2022
Recent decision on enforcing a South Korean judgement in Hong Kong: Application of common law principles