“Stay”: Grant a stay in favor of D
“中止执行”：准予对被告的中止执行申请
权威Q1 CHOICE OF JURISDICTION - Type 1：Stay; 在香港的NEJC诉讼
权威 Q1 司法管辖权选择 - 类型 1：中止；在香港的 NEJC 诉讼
Chung Enterprises Limited (‘Chung’) a Hong Kong incorporated company, entered into a contract with Tarlac Philippines Incorporated, a Philippines incorporated company (‘Tarlac’) under which Tarlac was to manufacture some components for a new rice cooker that Chung has designed. The rest of the components are to be made in the Mainland and the finished product will be assembled in Hong Kong. The contract was signed in Manila after lengthy negotiations in Hong Kong with the payments to be made in Hong Kong dollars. Chung has signed contracts with a number of distributors around the world to sell them the rice cooker.
中企有限公司（“中企”）是一家在香港注册成立的公司，与菲律宾注册成立的 Tarlac Philippines Incorporated（“Tarlac”）签订了一份合同，根据该合同，Tarlac 将为中企设计的一款新型电饭煲制造部分零部件。其余零部件将在中国大陆制造，成品将在香港组装。合同在马尼拉签署，此前双方在香港进行了长时间的谈判，付款将以港币进行。中企已与全球多家分销商签订合同，向其销售该电饭煲。
A dispute has now arisen between Chung and Tarlac over the quality of the components supplied. Chung wishes to commence legal proceedings against Tarlac in Hong Kong. Amongst the reasons it has for doing so are:
目前，中企与 Tarlac 之间因所供应零部件的质量产生了争议。中企希望在香港对 Tarlac 提起法律诉讼。其理由包括：
Advise Chung on each of the following:
请就以下各项向 Chung 提供建议：
Sample Answer: 示范答案：
a) Tarlac's Application for a Stay of Proceedings
a) Tarlac 申请中止诉讼程序
Chung should be advised that Tarlac's application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings will be determined by the three-stage forum non conveniens (FNC) test. The question specifies that the Hong Kong court's jurisdiction is founded under Order 11, r.1(d)(iii), which is a form of "long arm" jurisdiction. Consequently, the legal burden is on Chung, as the plaintiff, to demonstrate that Hong Kong is clearly the appropriate forum for the trial of the action.
应告知 Chung，Tarlac 申请中止香港诉讼程序将依据三阶段的便利管辖权（forum non conveniens，FNC）测试来裁定。题目指出香港法院的管辖权依据《第 11 号令》第 1 条(d)(iii)项，该项属于“长臂”管辖权的一种。因此，作为原告的 Chung 负有法律责任，须证明香港显然是审理本案的适当法院。
Stage 1: The Appropriate Forum
第一阶段：适当的法院
Chung must discharge its burden of proving that Hong Kong is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum. This involves weighing the connecting factors.
钟必须承担证明香港明显且明确是更适当法院的举证责任。这涉及权衡相关联系因素。
Factors pointing to the Philippines: The defendant, Tarlac, is a Philippines incorporated company. The contract was signed in Manila. Crucially, the characteristic performance of the contract—the manufacture of the components by Tarlac—takes place in the Philippines.
指向菲律宾的因素：被告 Tarlac 是一家菲律宾注册公司。合同在马尼拉签署。关键的是，合同的特征性履行——由 Tarlac 制造组件——发生在菲律宾。
Factors pointing to Hong Kong: The plaintiff, Chung, is a Hong Kong company. Lengthy negotiations took place in Hong Kong , payments were to be made in Hong Kong dollars , and the final product was assembled in Hong Kong. Furthermore, the basis for jurisdiction assumes the contract is governed by Hong Kong law, which is a strong connecting factor.
指向香港的因素：原告钟是一家香港公司。长时间的谈判在香港进行，付款以港币结算，最终产品在香港组装。此外，管辖权的基础假定合同受香港法律管辖，这是一项强有力的联系因素。
Weighing Stage 1: The connecting factors are split between the two jurisdictions. While the place of performance points strongly to the Philippines, the governing law, place of payment, and plaintiff's base point to Hong Kong. As the factors are not clearly weighted in Hong Kong's favour, it is likely that Chung would fail to discharge its burden of proving that Hong Kong is clearly the more appropriate forum. The court would likely find the Philippines to be the more appropriate forum at this stage.
权衡第一阶段：连接因素在两个司法管辖区之间分散。虽然履行地点强烈指向菲律宾，但适用法律、付款地点和原告所在地则指向香港。由于这些因素并未明显偏向香港，钟氏公司很可能无法证明香港显然是更适当的审理地。法院在此阶段很可能认定菲律宾是更适当的审理地。
Stage 2: Loss of a Legitimate Juridical Advantage
第二阶段：合法司法利益的丧失
Since Chung is likely to fail at Stage 1, the analysis proceeds to whether Chung would be deprived of a legitimate juridical advantage if forced to litigate in the Philippines. Chung has three potential arguments.
鉴于钟氏公司在第一阶段可能失败，分析将继续探讨如果被迫在菲律宾诉讼，钟氏公司是否会丧失合法的司法利益。钟氏公司有三种潜在论点。
1) Higher Damages: The fact that compensation would be greater under Hong Kong law is a strong argument. Hong Kong courts have recognized that a significant difference in the amount of damages recoverable is a legitimate juridical advantage.
1）更高的赔偿金额：赔偿金额在香港法律下更高，这一事实是一个有力的论据。香港法院已承认，赔偿金额显著差异构成合法的司法利益。
2) Superior Discovery Rules: The ability to more easily obtain necessary documents under Hong Kong's civil procedure rules is also a powerful and recognized juridical advantage.
2) 优越的证据开示规则：根据香港民事诉讼规则，更容易获取必要文件的能力也是一项强大且公认的司法优势。
3) Fair Trial: Chung's concerns about the inefficiency of the Filipino legal system and susceptibility of judges to bribery are the weakest arguments. To succeed, Chung would need to provide "cogent evidence" of a real risk of injustice, not just reliance on a general index or rumours. This argument would likely fail.
3) 公平审判：钟对菲律宾法律体系效率低下及法官易受贿赂影响的担忧是最薄弱的论点。要成功，钟需提供“令人信服的证据”证明存在真实的不公风险，而非仅依赖一般性指标或传闻。此论点很可能会失败。
Stage 3: The Final Balancing Act
第三阶段：最终权衡
The court must balance the Stage 1 finding (that the Philippines is the more appropriate forum) against the powerful Stage 2 advantages for Chung (higher damages and better discovery). The inability to obtain necessary evidence and a substantially lower damages award are serious disadvantages that go to the heart of achieving substantial justice. It is therefore likely that a Hong Kong court would exercise its discretion to refuse Tarlac's application for a stay.
法院必须将第一阶段的裁定（菲律宾为更适当的审理地）与第二阶段钟所享有的强大优势（更高的赔偿和更好的证据开示）进行权衡。无法获取必要证据及赔偿金额显著较低是严重的不利因素，关系到实现实质正义的核心。因此，香港法院很可能会行使自由裁量权，拒绝塔尔拉克提出的中止诉讼申请。
b) The Effect of Parallel Proceedings
b) 平行诉讼的影响
The advice in (a) would not substantially differ. The fact that Tarlac has commenced proceedings in the Philippines constitutes
(a)项中的建议不会有实质性差异。Tarlac 在菲律宾提起诉讼的事实构成
lis alibi pendens. This is only one of the relevant factors that a court will take into account at Stage 1. As the foreign proceedings were commenced only very recently, they would not be given significant weight unless they caused "unusual hardship" to the defendant. The existence of the parallel proceedings slightly strengthens Tarlac's case for a stay but is unlikely to be decisive or to outweigh the strong juridical advantages available to Chung in Hong Kong.
诉讼地点待决原则（lis alibi pendens）。这只是法院在第一阶段考虑的相关因素之一。由于外国诉讼刚刚开始，因此除非对被告造成“异常困难”，否则不会被赋予重大权重。平行诉讼的存在略微增强了 Tarlac 请求中止诉讼的理由，但不太可能成为决定性因素，也不太可能超过 Chung 在香港享有的强有力的司法优势。
c) The Effect of a Hong Kong Jurisdiction Clause
c) 香港管辖条款的影响
The advice would differ fundamentally. The clause "the parties agree to submit their dispute to the Hong Kong courts" is a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause (NEJC) in favour of Hong Kong.
建议将有根本性的不同。“双方同意将争议提交香港法院”条款是有利于香港的非专属管辖权条款（NEJC）。
When proceedings are brought in Hong Kong pursuant to a Hong Kong NEJC, the FNC test is displaced. The clause will be upheld unless Tarlac can show exceptional, unforeseeable reasons for a stay. The standard FNC factors of convenience are irrelevant. Tarlac has no such exceptional reasons. Therefore, the court would refuse to grant a stay.
当根据香港 NEJC 在香港提起诉讼时，FNC 测试将不适用。除非 Tarlac 能证明有例外且不可预见的理由要求中止诉讼，否则该条款将被支持。FNC 的便利性标准因素不相关。Tarlac 没有此类例外理由。因此，法院将拒绝批准中止诉讼。
d) The Effect of a Philippines Jurisdiction Clause
d) 菲律宾管辖权条款的效力
The advice would also differ fundamentally. A clause submitting disputes to the Philippines courts would make Tarlac’s case for a stay overwhelmingly strong.
建议也将有根本性的不同。提交争议至菲律宾法院的条款将使 Tarlac 要求中止诉讼的理由极为充分。
While this clause is also an NEJC, it points away from Hong Kong. This becomes a powerful factor in the Stage 1 FNC analysis. It would be very difficult for Chung to discharge its burden of proving that Hong Kong is clearly more appropriate when it has contractually agreed that the Philippines is a suitable forum for disputes. Therefore, the stay application would almost certainly be granted in favour of the Philippines.
虽然本条款也是一个 NEJC，但其指向香港之外。这在第一阶段 FNC 分析中成为一个有力因素。当钟方已在合同中同意菲律宾是适合解决争议的法院时，他将很难证明香港明显更为适当。因此，暂停诉讼的申请几乎肯定会被批准，支持菲律宾。
权威Q2 CHOICE OF LAW in Contract & Tort - Type 1: illegality
权威 Q2 合同与侵权中的法律选择 - 类型 1：非法性
Ronaldo Limited (‘Ronaldo’), a Macanese incorporated company, operates a consultancy in Macau which provides advice on setting up businesses there and procuring the necessary business permits on behalf of its clients. Limo Limited (‘Limo’), a Hong Kong incorporated company, who wished to set up a limousine hire business in Macau, signed a contract with Ronaldo in Hong Kong after negotiations in Macau.
Ronaldo Limited（“Ronaldo”），一家澳门注册成立的公司，在澳门经营咨询业务，提供设立企业及代客户办理必要营业许可的建议。Limo Limited（“Limo”），一家香港注册成立的公司，欲在澳门设立豪华轿车租赁业务，经澳门谈判后，于香港与 Ronaldo 签订合同。
Under the terms of the contract, it was agreed that Ronaldo would receive HK $100,000 for its services payable into its HK bank account and that the necessary permits would be obtained within nine months.
根据合同条款，双方同意 Ronaldo 将获得港币 100,000 元的服务费，支付至其香港银行账户，且必要的许可将在九个月内取得。
However, it took two years to obtain the necessary permits because of mistakes made by Ronaldo in completing and submitting the relevant forms. This delay has caused Limo a loss of HK$1,000,000.
然而，由于罗纳尔多在填写和提交相关表格时的错误，获得必要许可花费了两年时间。这一延误导致 Limo 损失了 100 万港元。
Limo now intends to take legal proceedings against Ronaldo in Hong Kong for the losses suffered. It wishes to sue for breach of contract and also in tort for negligence.
Limo 现打算在香港对罗纳尔多提起法律诉讼，追讨所遭受的损失。其希望以违约和侵权中的过失为由提起诉讼。
Advise Limo on each of the following:
请就以下各项为 Limo 提供法律意见：
Sample Answer: 示范答案：
Introduction 引言
This advice will address the potential claims Limo Limited (“Limo”) may bring against Ronaldo Ltd (“Ronaldo”) in the Hong Kong courts. Limo has potential claims in both contract and tort. Each claim must be analysed separately using the relevant choice of law rules.
本意见将讨论 Limo Limited（“Limo”）可能在香港法院对 Ronaldo Ltd（“Ronaldo”）提出的潜在诉讼请求。Limo 在合同和侵权两方面均有潜在诉讼请求。每项诉讼请求均须依据相关的法律适用规则分别进行分析。
Part I: The Claim in Contract
第一部分：合同诉讼请求
(a) The Proper Law of the Contract
（一）合同的适用法律
The contract does not contain a choice of law clause. Therefore, to determine whether Macanese or Hong Kong law applies, the court must ascertain the proper law by objectively finding the law of the country with which the contract has the closest and most real connection.
合同中未包含适用法律条款。因此，为确定适用澳门法还是香港法，法院必须通过客观查明合同与之具有最密切和最真实联系的国家的法律来确定适用法律。
The connecting factors are as follows:
连接因素如下：
In weighing these factors, Hong Kong courts give the greatest weight to the place of performance. The commercial centre of gravity of this contract is Macau, where the essential services were to be rendered.
在权衡这些因素时，香港法院最重视履行地点。该合同的商业重心在澳门，关键服务应在该地提供。
Conclusion: It is highly likely that a Hong Kong court would conclude that Macanese law is the proper law of the contract.
结论：香港法院极有可能认定澳门法律为该合同的适用法律。
(b) The Effect of Illegality under Macanese Law
（二）澳门法律下违法行为的效力
The advice would differ fundamentally if the agreement is a criminal offence and void under Macanese law.
如果协议在澳门法律下构成刑事犯罪并且无效，法律意见将根本不同。
Applicable Principle: A contract is unenforceable if it is illegal under its proper law.
适用原则：如果合同根据其适用法律属于非法合同，则该合同不可强制执行。
Application: Having established in (a) that the proper law is Macanese law, if the contract is void under that law, it is rendered unenforceable in Hong Kong. The fact that it constitutes a criminal offence, rather than a minor infringement, means the qualification from Ryder Industries would not apply.
适用：在（a）中已确定适用法律为澳门法律，若该合同根据该法律无效，则在香港亦不可强制执行。鉴于该行为构成刑事犯罪，而非轻微违法，Ryder Industries 案中的限定不适用。
Conclusion: In this scenario, Limo's claim for breach of contract would fail.
结论：在此情形下，Limo 的违约索赔将失败。
Part II: The Claim in Tort
第二部分：侵权索赔
(c) The Applicable Law for the Tort Claim
(c) 侵权诉讼的适用法律
Place of the Tort (Lex Loci Delicti): Ronaldo's negligent acts—making mistakes in completing and submitting forms—occurred in Macau. The "substance" of the tort is therefore in Macau. As this is a foreign tort, the Hong Kong court will apply the Double Actionability (DA) rule.
侵权发生地（Lex Loci Delicti）：罗纳尔多在澳门完成和提交表格时的疏忽行为构成侵权行为，因此侵权的“实质”发生在澳门。由于这是一起外国侵权案件，香港法院将适用双重可诉性（Double Actionability，简称 DA）规则。
Application of the DA Rule: The rule requires that the act is actionable as a tort in Hong Kong and gives rise to civil liability in the place where it was done.
DA 规则的适用：该规则要求该行为在香港构成可诉的侵权行为，并且在行为发生地也产生民事责任。
Conclusion: As the DA rule is satisfied, the Hong Kong court will apply Hong Kong substantive law (lex fori) to determine liability.
结论：由于 DA 规则得到满足，香港法院将适用香港实体法（lex fori）来确定责任。
(d) The Effect of a Damages Cap in Macau
（四）澳门赔偿上限的影响
The advice on the applicable substantive law does not change, but the practical outcome on quantum is clarified
适用实体法的建议不变，但对赔偿金额的实际结果进行了澄清。
Characterisation of the Rule: A statutory cap on the amount of damages that can be claimed is a rule of procedure, not substance, according to the traditional test applied in Hong Kong.
规则的性质：根据香港传统适用的测试，法定的赔偿金额上限属于程序规则，而非实体规则。
Application: Matters of procedure are governed by the law of the forum (lex fori). Therefore, the Macanese cap of HK$500,000 will be ignored by the Hong Kong court.
适用范围：程序事项受审理法院法律（lex fori）管辖。因此，澳门设定的 50 万港元上限将被香港法院忽视。
Conclusion: Limo can claim its full proven loss of HK$1,000,000, as the assessment of damages is governed by Hong Kong law.
结论：Limo 可以主张其经证实的全部损失 100 万港元，因为损害赔偿的评估适用香港法律。
(e) The Effect of an Exclusion Clause
(e) 免责条款的效力
The advice would differ dramatically in this scenario.
在这种情况下，建议将大不相同。
Characterisation of the Rule: An exclusion clause that negates liability for negligence is a substantive defence.
规则的性质界定：排除过失责任的免责条款是一种实质性抗辩。
Re-application of the DA Rule:
DA 规则的重新适用：
The Flexible Exception: 灵活例外：
Conclusion: As the DA rule fails and the flexible exception does not apply, Limo's claim in tort would be dismissed.
结论：由于直接适用规则未通过且灵活例外不适用，Limo 的侵权主张将被驳回。
权威Q3 CHOICE OF LAW in Contract - Type 1: 多个合同履行地
权威 Q3 合同适用法律选择 - 类型 1：多个合同履行地
David is a Hong Kong based celebrity chef. He entered into a contract with Food Limited (‘Food’), a Philippines incorporated company, which planned to open new restaurants in Hong Kong and the Philippines. The contract required David to provide advice on location, staffing, type of food, menu and sourcing of supplies. Food planned to locate one of its new restaurants in Hong Kong and the other two in the Philippines. The contract further provided that David would also supervise the opening of each restaurant to ensure there were no teething troubles. The agreement was negotiated in the Philippines but signed in Hong Kong. David was to be paid a total of 5 million Philippine pesos for his services.
大卫是一位常驻香港的名厨。他与一家菲律宾注册公司 Food Limited（“Food”）签订了一份合同，该公司计划在香港和菲律宾开设新餐厅。合同要求大卫就选址、人员配置、食品种类、菜单及供应采购提供建议。Food 计划在香港开设一家新餐厅，另外两家设在菲律宾。合同还规定，大卫将监督每家餐厅的开业，确保开业初期无重大问题。该协议在菲律宾谈判，但在香港签署。大卫将因其服务获得共计 500 万菲律宾比索的报酬。
In order to promote the new Hong Kong restaurant David entered into a contract with a Hong Kong television company to participate in six cooking programmes. This contract specified it is governed by Hong Kong law.
为了推广新的香港餐厅，大卫与一家香港电视公司签订合同，参与六期烹饪节目。该合同明确规定适用香港法律。
Shortly after the contract between David and Food was made a dispute arose between them concerning the interpretation of a term in the agreement. Food wishes to rely on what was said during pre-contractual negotiations between the parties. The use of such negotiations to interpret the contract is allowed under Philippine law but not under Hong Kong law.
大卫与 Food 签订合同后不久，双方就合同条款的解释产生了争议。Food 希望依赖双方在合同前谈判中所说的话。根据菲律宾法律，允许使用此类谈判内容来解释合同，但根据香港法律则不允许。
Which law, Hong Kong or Philippine law, would the Hong Kong Courts apply to the dispute?
香港法院将适用哪一法律，即香港法还是菲律宾法，来处理该争议？
Sample Answer: 示范答案：
Introduction: The Legal Issue and Applicable Test
引言：法律问题及适用标准
The dispute between David and Food Limited concerns the interpretation of a contractual term, specifically whether pre-contractual negotiations are admissible as evidence. The admissibility of such evidence is a matter of substantive law, not procedure. Therefore, the issue will be determined by the proper law of the contract.
大卫与食品有限公司之间的争议涉及合同条款的解释，具体是前合同谈判是否可作为证据。此类证据的可采性属于实体法问题，而非程序问题。因此，该问题将由合同的适用法律决定。
As the contract contains no express choice of law clause, the Hong Kong court must determine the proper law by applying the objective test of the law of the country with which the contract has the closest and most real connection. This involves identifying and weighing the various factors connecting the transaction to the potential legal systems, namely Hong Kong and the Philippines.
由于合同中未明确选择适用法律条款，香港法院必须通过适用客观测试，确定与合同具有最密切和最真实联系的国家的法律作为适用法律。这涉及识别并权衡将交易与潜在法律体系（即香港和菲律宾）联系起来的各种因素。
Analysis of the Connecting Factors
联系因素分析
The connecting factors in this case are finely balanced and point towards both jurisdictions.
本案中的联系因素较为均衡，指向两个司法管辖区。
Weighing the Factors and Conclusion
权衡因素与结论
This is a finely balanced case where a court must weigh competing factors to find the contract's "centre of gravity."
这是一个需要法院权衡相互竞争因素以确定合同“重心”的微妙案件。
The argument for Philippine law as the proper law is strong. It is the place where the majority of the contractual performance is to occur. Given the significant weight that courts place on the place of performance, this factor is highly persuasive. This is supported by the fact that Food Ltd is a Philippine company and the currency of payment is the Philippine peso.
菲律宾法律作为适用法律的论点很有力。合同履行的大部分地点就在菲律宾。鉴于法院对履行地点赋予的重要权重，这一因素极具说服力。此观点还得到了 Food Ltd 为菲律宾公司且支付货币为菲律宾比索这一事实的支持。
However, a compelling argument can also be made for Hong Kong law. David, the party providing the characteristic performance, is based in Hong Kong. The contract was concluded in Hong Kong , and a substantial part of the project is located there. The existence of the related TV contract, which is expressly governed by Hong Kong law, further strengthens the connection to Hong Kong.
然而，香港法律也有令人信服的论据。提供主要履约义务的一方 David 位于香港。合同在香港签订，项目的很大一部分也位于香港。相关电视合同明确适用香港法律，这进一步加强了与香港的联系。
While the outcome is not certain, a court is most likely to give decisive weight to the fact that the quantitative majority of the performance is located in the Philippines.
虽然结果尚不确定，但法院很可能会对履行数量大多数位于菲律宾这一事实给予决定性权重。
Therefore, the Hong Kong court would most likely apply Philippine law to resolve the dispute, which would permit Food Limited to rely on pre-contractual negotiations to interpret the contract.
因此，香港法院很可能适用菲律宾法律解决争议，这将允许 Food Limited 依赖合同前谈判来解释合同。
Q1: No FNC if EJC; Tort in HK; EJC > Place of performance
问题 1：如存在欧洲司法协助公约（EJC），则无反诉令（FNC）；侵权行为发生在香港；EJC 优先于履行地
InnovateHK Ltd (“Innovate”) 是一家在香港注册成立的科技公司，专注于设计高端智能家居设备。Precision GmbH (“Precision”) 是一家德国知名的工程公司，专门制造高精密度电子元件。
2023年3月，Innovate 与 Precision 签订了一份合同。根据合同，Precision 将为其最新设计的智能恒温器，独家设计和制造一款核心处理器。合同经过数周的线上会议（双方分别在香港和德国）协商，最终通过电子邮件交换签署。合同中包含了以下条款：
该合同没有明确选择管辖法律 (governing law)。合同规定，所有处理器将在 Precision 位于德国斯图加特的工厂制造，然后运往香港。Innovate 将从其香港的银行账户以欧元支付全部款项。
2024年5月，第一批处理器运抵香港。在 Innovate 的香港测试实验室进行最终测试时，一个处理器因存在设计缺陷而突然过热，引发爆炸。爆炸不仅摧毁了价值500万港币的测试设备，还导致 Innovate 的一名工程师，Chan先生，严重烧伤。
事故发生后，双方关系迅速恶化。2024年6月，Precision 为了占据主动，率先在德国斯图加特法院对 Innovate 提起诉讼，请求德国法院宣告其提供的处理器不存在设计缺陷，且其对爆炸事件不承担任何责任。
Innovate 的管理层对此非常愤怒，他们希望在香港追究 Precision 的全部责任
You are a Hong Kong lawyer. Advise InnovateHK on all of the following issues:
您是一名香港律师。请就以下所有问题向 InnovateHK 提供建议：
Sample Answer: 示范答案：
Introduction 引言
This advice will address the series of legal issues faced by InnovateHK Ltd (“Innovate”) following the dispute with Precision GmbH (“Precision”). The analysis will cover the immediate jurisdictional strategy Innovate should adopt in response to the German proceedings, the likely outcome of any challenge to the Hong Kong court’s jurisdiction, and the applicable laws for its potential claims in contract and tort.
本意见将针对 InnovateHK 有限公司（“Innovate”）与 Precision GmbH（“Precision”）之间的争议所面临的一系列法律问题进行分析。分析内容包括 Innovate 应对德国诉讼所应采取的即时管辖权策略、对香港法院管辖权的任何挑战的可能结果，以及其潜在合同和侵权索赔所适用的法律。
(a) Jurisdictional Strategy: Anti-Suit Injunction
(a) 管辖权策略：反诉讼禁令
Innovate’s immediate legal action in the Hong Kong courts should be to apply for an Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) to restrain Precision from continuing with the proceedings in Germany. The prospects of success for this application are very high.
Innovate 应立即在香港法院采取法律行动，申请反诉讼禁令（ASI），以制止 Precision 继续在德国进行诉讼。该申请的成功前景非常高。
The Legal Basis for the ASI: The application is founded on the contractual ground. Clause 30 of the contract is a clear and unambiguous Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause (EJC) in favour of the Hong Kong courts. By commencing proceedings in Germany, Precision is in clear breach of its contractual promise to litigate exclusively in Hong Kong.
反诉讼禁令的法律依据：该申请基于合同理由。合同第 30 条是明确且无歧义的专属管辖条款（EJC），支持香港法院。Precision 在德国提起诉讼，明显违反了其仅在香港诉讼的合同承诺。
The Court's Approach: According to established Hong Kong legal principles, where foreign proceedings are brought in breach of a Hong Kong EJC, the court will grant an ASI almost as a matter of course. The court’s primary function is not to engage in a complex balancing act of convenience, but to uphold the contractual bargain freely entered into by the parties. The burden is on the breaching party (Precision) to show “strong reasons” why the injunction should not be granted.
法院的处理方式：根据香港既定法律原则，若外国诉讼违反香港的专属管辖条款，法院几乎会例行批准反诉讼禁令。法院的主要职责不是进行复杂的便利权衡，而是维护双方自由订立的合同约定。违约方（Precision）负有举证责任，须证明有“充分理由”反对禁令的颁发。
Conclusion: Precision has no apparent "strong reasons" to resist the injunction. The fact that its factory and engineers are in Germany relates to convenience, which is not a sufficient reason to override a clear EJC. As Innovate is acting promptly, there are no procedural bars. Therefore, the Hong Kong court is highly likely to grant the ASI, compelling Precision to halt its German lawsuit.
结论：Precision 没有明显的“充分理由”反对禁令。其工厂和工程师位于德国仅涉及便利性，这不足以推翻明确的 EJC。鉴于 Innovate 行动迅速，程序上不存在障碍。因此，香港法院极有可能批准临时禁令，强制 Precision 停止其在德国的诉讼。
(b) Potential Challenge by Precision: Forum Non Conveniens (FNC)
（二）Precision 可能提出的挑战：便利管辖权异议（FNC）
If Innovate commences its own proceedings in Hong Kong, Precision's application to stay those proceedings on FNC grounds is almost certain to fail.
如果 Innovate 在香港提起诉讼，Precision 基于便利管辖权异议申请中止诉讼几乎必然失败。
The Effect of the EJC: The presence of the Hong Kong EJC in Clause 30 is the decisive factor. According to the legal principles consistently applied by Hong Kong courts, where parties have agreed to an EJC in favour of Hong Kong, the forum non conveniens test is displaced and no longer relevant.
EJC 的效力：第 30 条中的香港 EJC 是决定性因素。根据香港法院一贯适用的法律原则，当事人已同意以香港为 EJC 时，便利管辖权异议测试被排除，不再适用。
The Correct Legal Test: The court will not conduct the Spiliada three-stage balancing test. Instead, it will start from the position that it must enforce the parties' contractual agreement. The burden shifts entirely to Precision to demonstrate "strong cause" or "exceptional, unforeseeable reasons" why the Hong Kong court should decline the jurisdiction that Precision itself agreed to.
正确的法律标准：法院不会进行 Spiliada 三阶段平衡测试。相反，法院将从必须执行双方合同协议的立场出发。举证责任完全转移到 Precision，要求其证明为何香港法院应放弃其自身同意的管辖权，必须有“充分理由”或“例外的、不可预见的原因”。
Analysis of Precision's Arguments: Precision's arguments—that Germany is the place of manufacture and the location of its key witnesses—are standard factors of convenience. These factors fall far short of the high threshold required to show "strong cause" and do not constitute exceptional or unforeseeable circumstances.
对 Precision 论点的分析：Precision 提出德国是制造地且关键证人所在地的论点属于便利因素的常规考虑。这些因素远未达到证明“充分理由”的高门槛，也不构成例外或不可预见的情况。
Conclusion: The Hong Kong court will uphold the EJC. Precision’s application for a stay of proceedings will be dismissed.
结论：香港法院将支持 EJC。Precision 关于中止诉讼程序的申请将被驳回。
(c) Choice of Law - Contract Claim
（三）法律选择——合同诉讼请求
Assuming the case proceeds in Hong Kong, the court will likely apply Hong Kong law to determine Innovate's breach of contract claim.
假设案件在香港进行，法院很可能适用香港法律来裁定 Innovate 的违约索赔。
The Applicable Test: The contract does not contain an express choice of law clause. Therefore, the court must determine the proper law by applying the objective test of the law of the country with which the contract has the closest and most real connection.
适用的测试标准：合同中未包含明确的法律选择条款。因此，法院必须通过适用合同与之具有最密切和最真实联系的国家法律的客观测试来确定适用法律。
Weighing the Connecting Factors:
权衡联系因素：
Conclusion: While the place of performance points to Germany, the presence of a Hong Kong EJC is an extremely powerful indicator of the parties' intentions. It strongly suggests that the parties intended to subject their entire legal relationship, including the substance of any dispute, to the Hong Kong legal system. A court is very likely to give this factor decisive weight and conclude that the contract's "centre of gravity" is in Hong Kong. Therefore, Hong Kong law will be applied as the proper law of the contract.
结论：虽然履行地点指向德国，但香港 EJC 的存在是双方意图的极强指示。它强烈表明双方意图将其整个法律关系，包括任何争议的实质内容，置于香港法律体系之下。法院很可能会对此因素赋予决定性权重，并认定合同的“重心”在香港。因此，香港法律将作为合同的适用法律。
(d) Choice of Law - Tort Claim
(d) 法律选择——侵权索赔
The Hong Kong court will apply Hong Kong law to the negligence claim brought on behalf of Mr. Chan.
香港法院将适用香港法律审理代表陈先生提出的过失索赔。
The Applicable Test: The first step in a choice of law analysis for tort is to determine the "place in substance" where the tort was committed.
适用标准：侵权行为法律选择分析的第一步是确定侵权行为发生的“实质地点”。
Application: While the negligent act (defective design/manufacture) may have originated in Germany, the damage occurred entirely in Hong Kong. The processor exploded in Hong Kong, the equipment was destroyed in Hong Kong, and Mr. Chan suffered his injuries in Hong Kong.
适用情况：虽然过失行为（设计/制造缺陷）可能起源于德国，但损害完全发生在香港。处理器在香港爆炸，设备在香港被毁，陈先生在香港受伤。
Conclusion: The "place in substance" of the tort is Hong Kong. This makes it a domestic tort, not a foreign one. The complex Double Actionability rule is not applicable. The Hong Kong court must apply Hong Kong law (lex fori) to determine all aspects of the negligence claim.
结论：侵权行为的“实质地点”为香港。这使其成为国内侵权行为，而非外国侵权行为。复杂的双重可诉性规则不适用。香港法院必须适用香港法律（lex fori）来确定过失索赔的所有方面。
Q2: Asymmetrical Jurisdiction
问题 2：不对称管辖权
QuantumLeap Ltd (“Quantum”) 是一家在香港注册成立的初创公司，致力于研发下一代量子计算芯片。Helvetia Precision SA (“Helvetia”) 是一家位于瑞士苏黎世的、全球领先的精密制造公司。
2022年5月，Quantum 与 Helvetia 签订了一份研发与制造合同。根据合同，Helvetia 将利用其专有技术，为 Quantum 设计和生产一款用于量子计算机的、极其敏感的冷却模块。合同的谈判过程长达数月，Quantum 的团队曾多次飞往苏黎世进行技术讨论。合同最终在香港签署，并规定所有款项均以瑞士法郎支付到 Helvetia 在苏黎世的银行账户。
合同中没有明确选择管辖法律 (governing law)，但包含了以下条款：
2024年1月，首批冷却模块运抵 Quantum 位于香港数码港的实验室。在一次关键的低温测试中，一个由 Helvetia 制造的模块因存在微小的设计缺陷，未能承受极低温环境，导致其内部的冷却剂发生泄漏。泄漏的冷却剂迅速气化，不仅直接导致价值800万港币的量子芯片原型被永久性损坏，还触发了实验室的消防系统，喷洒的化学灭火剂对另外价值200万港币的测试设备造成了腐蚀性损害。
Quantum 准备就此提出索赔。然而，在2025年6月，Helvetia 抢先一步，在瑞士苏黎世法院对 Quantum 提起诉讼，请求法院宣告其提供的冷却模块符合合同的所有技术规范。
Quantum 的管理层现在向你寻求全面的法律意见，他们希望能在香港追究 Helvetia 的全部责任。
You are a Hong Kong lawyer. Advise QuantumLeap Ltd on a comprehensive legal strategy, addressing all of the following issues:
作为香港律师，针对 QuantumLeap 有限公司，提出一套全面的法律策略，涵盖以下所有问题：
(a) Immediate Response to the Zurich Proceedings: What is Quantum's best strategy regarding the proceedings Helvetia has initiated in Zurich? Specifically, should Quantum apply for an Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) in Hong Kong, and what are the legal arguments for and against granting it, considering the nature of the jurisdiction clause?
（一）对苏黎世诉讼的即时应对：针对 Helvetia 在苏黎世发起的诉讼，Quantum 的最佳策略是什么？具体而言，Quantum 是否应在香港申请反诉讼禁令（Anti-Suit Injunction，ASI）？请分析支持和反对授予 ASI 的法律理由，特别考虑管辖条款的性质。
(b) Commencing Proceedings in Hong Kong: If Quantum ignores the Zurich proceedings and files its own lawsuit against Helvetia in Hong Kong, how would a Hong Kong court likely resolve a forum non conveniens (FNC) application brought by Helvetia to stay the Hong Kong proceedings? Your analysis must incorporate the effect of the asymmetrical jurisdiction clause.
（二）在香港提起诉讼：如果 Quantum 忽视苏黎世诉讼，转而在香港对 Helvetia 提起诉讼，香港法院在 Helvetia 提出的以便利管辖地原则（forum non conveniens，FNC）申请中，可能如何裁定以中止香港诉讼？请结合不对称管辖条款的效力进行分析。
(c) The Breach of Contract Claim: Assuming the case proceeds in Hong Kong, which law—Hong Kong law or Swiss law—will the court apply to determine Quantum's claim for breach of contract (e.g., for the cost of the damaged quantum chip prototype)?
(c) 违约索赔：假设案件在香港审理，法院将适用哪一法律——香港法还是瑞士法——来确定 Quantum 的违约索赔（例如，因损坏的量子芯片原型所产生的费用）？
(d) The Negligence Claim: Quantum also wishes to bring a claim in tort for the damage to its other testing equipment caused by the negligent design of the module. Swiss law has a strict one-year prescriptive period (statute of limitations) for tort claims, which has now expired. Hong Kong's limitation period has not. Which law will the Hong Kong court apply to this tort claim, and will the Swiss limitation period prevent Quantum from succeeding?
(d) 过失索赔：Quantum 还希望就模块设计过失导致其其他测试设备损坏提起侵权索赔。瑞士法对侵权索赔设有严格的一年诉讼时效期限，该期限现已届满。香港的诉讼时效期限尚未届满。香港法院将适用哪一法律处理该侵权索赔？瑞士的诉讼时效期限是否会阻止 Quantum 获得成功？
Sample Answer: 示范答案：
Introduction 引言
This advice will address the complex and interconnected legal issues faced by QuantumLeap Ltd (“Quantum”) in its dispute with Helvetia Precision SA (“Helvetia”). A comprehensive legal strategy requires a careful analysis of four key areas: (a) the appropriate immediate response to the proceedings initiated by Helvetia in Zurich; (b) the likely outcome of any jurisdictional challenge if Quantum commences its own proceedings in Hong Kong; (c) the governing law for Quantum’s breach of contract claim; and (d) the governing law for its claim in tort, with special attention to the issue of a foreign limitation period.
本建议将针对 QuantumLeap Ltd（“Quantum”）与 Helvetia Precision SA（“Helvetia”）之间争议中所面临的复杂且相互关联的法律问题进行分析。制定全面的法律策略需要对四个关键领域进行细致分析：（a）对 Helvetia 在苏黎世提起诉讼的适当即时应对措施；（b）如果 Quantum 在香港提起诉讼，管辖权异议的可能结果；（c）Quantum 违约索赔的适用法律；以及（d）其侵权索赔的适用法律，特别关注外国诉讼时效问题。
(a) Immediate Response: The Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) Strategy
（一）即时应对：反诉讼禁令（ASI）策略
Quantum’s best strategy is not to apply for an Anti-Suit Injunction, as such an application is almost certain to fail.
Quantum 的最佳策略是不申请反诉讼禁令，因为此类申请几乎肯定会失败。
The Legal Basis for an ASI: An ASI is primarily granted on a contractual ground, i.e., where the foreign proceedings are in breach of an Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause (EJC). The question is whether Helvetia, by suing in Zurich, has breached Clause 42.
反诉讼禁令的法律依据：反诉讼禁令主要基于合同理由授予，即当外国诉讼违反了排他性管辖条款（EJC）时。问题在于 Helvetia 通过在苏黎世提起诉讼是否违反了第 42 条款。
Analysis of the Asymmetrical Jurisdiction Clause: Clause 42 is an asymmetrical jurisdiction clause. It imposes a clear and exclusive obligation on Quantum to sue only in Zurich. However, it imposes no such obligation on Helvetia. Instead, it explicitly "reserves the right" for Helvetia to sue in "any other court of competent jurisdiction." While not explicitly stating Helvetia can sue in Zurich, the most reasonable interpretation is that Zurich is one of the competent courts available to it, and it is certainly not prohibited from suing there.
关于不对称管辖条款的分析：第 42 条是不对称管辖条款。该条款明确且排他性地要求 Quantum 仅能在苏黎世提起诉讼。然而，该条款并未对 Helvetia 施加类似义务。相反，它明确“保留 Helvetia 在任何其他有管辖权法院提起诉讼的权利”。虽然未明确说明 Helvetia 可以在苏黎世提起诉讼，但最合理的解释是苏黎世是其可选择的有管辖权法院之一，且绝对不禁止其在该地提起诉讼。
Conclusion on ASI Application: Since Helvetia's action of suing in Zurich is not a breach of the jurisdiction clause, the strong contractual ground for an ASI is unavailable to Quantum. Quantum would have to rely on the "unconscionable ground," which requires proving that the Zurich proceedings are vexatious or oppressive. This is an impossible argument to make, as Zurich is Helvetia's home jurisdiction and a forum Quantum itself agreed to submit to. Therefore, applying for an ASI would be a futile and costly exercise. Quantum's best course of action is to decide whether to defend the Zurich proceedings or initiate its own action in Hong Kong.
关于 ASI 申请的结论：由于 Helvetia 在苏黎世提起诉讼的行为并不违反管辖条款，Quantum 无法基于强有力的合同理由申请 ASI。Quantum 只能依赖“显失公平理由”，这需要证明苏黎世的诉讼程序具有骚扰性或压迫性。然而，这一论点无法成立，因为苏黎世是 Helvetia 的本地管辖区，且 Quantum 本身也同意接受该地法院的管辖。因此，申请 ASI 将是徒劳且代价高昂的行为。Quantum 的最佳行动方案是决定是应诉苏黎世的诉讼，还是在香港自行提起诉讼。
(b) Commencing Proceedings in Hong Kong & the FNC Challenge
（二）在香港提起诉讼及 FNC 抗辩
If Quantum commences its own lawsuit in Hong Kong, an application by Helvetia to stay those proceedings on forum non conveniens (FNC) grounds is highly likely to succeed.
如果 Quantum 在香港提起诉讼，Helvetia 基于便利管辖权抗辩（forum non conveniens，简称 FNC）申请中止诉讼程序极有可能获得成功。
Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof: Quantum would have to seek leave to serve proceedings on Helvetia in Switzerland under RHC Order 11 (long-arm jurisdiction). In this scenario, the burden of proof is on Quantum to persuade the Hong Kong court that Hong Kong is clearly the more appropriate forum for the trial.
管辖权及举证责任：Quantum 须根据《香港高等法院规则》第 11 条（长臂管辖权）申请许可，将诉讼文书送达 Helvetia 在瑞士的地址。在此情形下，举证责任在于 Quantum，需说服香港法院香港显然是审理本案更为适当的法庭。
The FNC Three-Stage Test:
FNC 三阶段测试：
Conclusion on FNC: The Hong Kong court will almost certainly find that Switzerland is the more appropriate forum and will grant the stay of the Hong Kong proceedings.
关于便利管辖权的结论：香港法院几乎肯定会认定瑞士是更适当的审判地，并将批准暂停香港诉讼程序。
(c) The Breach of Contract Claim: Choice of Law
（三）违约索赔：法律适用
Assuming, against the odds, that the case proceeds in Hong Kong, the court would likely apply Swiss law to determine Quantum's breach of contract claim.
假设案件逆境中在香港审理，法院很可能适用瑞士法律来确定 Quantum 的违约索赔。
The Applicable Test: As there is no express choice of law clause, the court will apply the "closest and most real connection" test.
适用的标准：由于没有明确的法律选择条款，法院将适用“最密切和最真实联系”标准。
Weighing the Connecting Factors: As analysed in the FNC section, the contract’s "centre of gravity" is in Switzerland. It is the place of the characteristic performance, the defendant's home, and the currency of payment. The jurisdiction clause, while asymmetrical, also points towards the Swiss legal system as being central to the parties' intentions.
权衡联系因素：如在专属管辖权部分所分析，合同的“重心”在瑞士。该地是合同特征性履行地、被告住所地及支付货币地。管辖条款虽不对称，但也指向瑞士法律体系为双方意图的核心。
Conclusion: The connections to Switzerland are far more substantial than those to Hong Kong. Therefore, Swiss law would be applied as the proper law of the contract.
结论：与香港相比，与瑞士的联系更为密切。因此，应适用瑞士法作为合同的适用法。
(d) The Negligence Claim: Choice of Law and Limitation Period
(d) 过失索赔：适用法律及时效期间
The Hong Kong court will apply Hong Kong law to the tort claim, and the Swiss limitation period will not prevent Quantum from succeeding on this point.
香港法院将适用香港法处理侵权索赔，瑞士的时效期间不会阻止 Quantum 在此点上获得成功。
Place of the Tort (Lex Loci Delicti): The first step is to determine where the tort was committed. While the negligent design occurred in Switzerland, the tort was not complete until damage occurred. The cooling agent leaked, the explosion happened, and all the property damage was sustained in Quantum's laboratory in Hong Kong. Therefore, the "place in substance" of the tort is Hong Kong, making it a domestic tort.
侵权发生地（Lex Loci Delicti）：第一步是确定侵权行为发生地。虽然过失设计发生在瑞士，但侵权行为直到损害发生时才完成。冷却剂泄漏、爆炸发生，所有财产损失均发生在 Quantum 位于香港的实验室。因此，侵权的“实质地点”为香港，构成国内侵权。
Applicable Law: As this is a domestic tort, the complex Double Actionability rule for foreign torts is irrelevant. The Hong Kong court must apply Hong Kong law (lex fori).
适用法律：由于这是一起国内侵权案件，适用于外国侵权的复杂双重可诉性规则不适用。香港法院必须适用香港法律（lex fori）。
The Effect of the Swiss Limitation Period: The issue of the Swiss one-year prescriptive period requires a characterisation of that rule as either substantive or procedural.
瑞士诉讼时效的效力：瑞士一年诉讼时效的问题需要将该规则定性为实体法还是程序法。
Conclusion: The tort claim is governed by Hong Kong law. The claim will be subject to Hong Kong's own limitation period and is therefore not time-barred.
结论：侵权索赔适用香港法律。该索赔将受香港自身的诉讼时效限制，因此不属于时效已过。
Q3: 问题 3：
ArtAsia Fund (“ArtAsia”) 是一家在香港注册成立、专注于投资亚洲艺术品的投资基金。Dr. Bellini 是一位世界知名的意大利艺术品修复专家，其居籍在意大利米兰，并在那里拥有一个设备先进的修复工作室。
2022年，ArtAsia 成功拍得一幅价值约2亿港币的宋代丝绸古画。为修复画作上的一些轻微瑕疵，ArtAsia 与 Dr. Bellini 签订了一份修复合同。合同的谈判通过电子邮件在香港和米兰之间进行。合同由 ArtAsia 在香港盖章，而 Dr. Bellini 则是在伦敦参加一个行业会议期间签署的。
合同中没有选择任何特定国家的法律作为管辖法律，但包含以下两个条款：
Clause 15 (Standard of Care): "Dr. Bellini shall perform the restoration services with the highest degree of professional skill and care, conforming to the best international museum standards."
第 15 条（注意义务标准）：“贝里尼博士应以最高的专业技能和谨慎程度执行修复服务，符合国际最佳博物馆标准。”
Clause 16 (Disputes): "Any legal action by ArtAsia Fund against Dr. Bellini in connection with this Agreement must be brought in the courts of Hong Kong. Any legal action by Dr. Bellini against ArtAsia Fund must be brought in the courts of Milan, Italy."
第 16 条（争议解决）：“ArtAsia 基金会针对贝里尼博士因本协议产生的任何法律诉讼，必须在香港法院提起。贝里尼博士针对 ArtAsia 基金会的任何法律诉讼，必须在意大利米兰法院提起。”
2023年，Dr. Bellini 在其米兰工作室对画作进行修复。在操作过程中，他疏忽地使用了一种未经充分测试的化学溶剂，导致画作上的古老丝绸纤维发生不可逆的化学反应，画作的色彩和细节被严重破坏，其市场价值几乎归零。
ArtAsia 在得知此事后准备采取法律行动。在 ArtAsia 在香港提起诉讼之前，Dr. Bellini 抢先一步，在意大利米兰法院对 ArtAsia 提起诉讼，请求法院宣告其修复工作已符合合同约定的标准，且其对画作的损坏不承担任何法律责任。
一周后，ArtAsia 的律师得知 Dr. Bellini 将在香港国际机场短暂停留转机前往东京。他们成功地在机场内向 Dr. Bellini 本人送达了香港高等法院的传票，就违约和侵权两个诉因向他索赔2亿港币。
Dr. Bellini 的香港律师团队立即作出反应，向香港法院申请中止 (stay) 香港的诉讼程序。与此同时，ArtAsia 的管理层非常担心在米兰的诉讼会对其不利，希望能阻止该诉讼的进行。
你需要了解的相关外国法： 意大利侵权法中有一条特殊规定，对于因专业服务（包括艺术品修复）中的“一般疏忽 (ordinary negligence)”对物品造成的损害，赔偿金额以收取的服务费为上限。只有在能够证明存在“重大过失 (colpa grave)”的情况下，才能索赔物品的全部价值。
需要你提供法律意见的部分 (Required Advice)
ArtAsia Fund 的董事会现在向你寻求一份全面的法律策略备忘录。他们想知道：他们是否应该以及如何在香港起诉 Dr. Bellini？他们面临哪些主要的司法管辖权障碍，以及胜算如何？如果案件在香港审理，法院会分别适用什么法律来裁定他们的合同和侵权索赔？
请准备一份备忘录，全面分析上述问题，并就下一步的法律行动提出你的建议。
Sample Answer: 示范答案：
Part A: Responding to the Milan Proceedings – Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI)
第一部分：应对米兰诉讼程序——反诉讼禁令（ASI）
An immediate concern is the pre-emptive lawsuit filed by Dr. Bellini in Milan. While an Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) is the tool to restrain foreign proceedings, an application by ArtAsia for an ASI is not recommended as it would fail.
当前的紧迫问题是贝里尼博士在米兰提起的先发制人诉讼。虽然反诉讼禁令（ASI）是限制外国诉讼程序的工具，但不建议 ArtAsia 申请 ASI，因为该申请将难以成功。
The strongest basis for an ASI is the contractual ground, which requires proving that the foreign proceedings are in breach of an Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause (EJC). Clause 16 is an asymmetrical EJC. It requires any action
申请 ASI 最有力的依据是合同基础，即需证明外国诉讼程序违反了排他性管辖条款（EJC）。第 16 条款为不对称排他性管辖条款，要求任何诉讼行为
by ArtAsia to be brought in Hong Kong, but it conversely requires any action by Dr. Bellini to be brought in Milan.
由 ArtAsia 在香港提起，但反过来要求贝里尼博士的任何诉讼均须在米兰提起。
By suing ArtAsia in Milan, Dr. Bellini is not breaching the clause; he is acting in compliance with it. As there is no breach of contract, the contractual ground for an ASI is unavailable. The alternative “unconscionable conduct” ground would also fail, as it cannot be considered oppressive for a party to sue in the very forum stipulated for them in the contract.
贝里尼博士在米兰起诉 ArtAsia，并未违反该条款；他是在遵守该条款。由于不存在合同违约，故无法以合同为由申请 ASI。替代的“显失公平行为”理由也将失败，因为在合同中明确规定的法院提起诉讼，不能被视为对一方的压迫。
Part B: The Hong Kong Proceedings – The Stay Application
第二部分：香港诉讼程序——中止申请
ArtAsia has correctly established jurisdiction as of right by personally serving Dr. Bellini while he was present in Hong Kong. This provides a significant strategic advantage. In any application by Dr. Bellini to stay the proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens (FNC), the burden of proof is on him to establish that Milan is “clearly or distinctly more appropriate”. This is a "very high burden" to discharge. Dr. Bellini's application is likely to fail.
ArtAsia 通过在贝里尼博士身处香港时亲自送达，正确确立了管辖权。这提供了重要的战略优势。在贝里尼博士基于便利管辖地原则（forum non conveniens，FNC）申请中止诉讼时，举证责任在于他，需证明米兰“明显或显著更为适当”。这是一个“非常高的举证标准”。贝里尼博士的申请很可能会失败。
The analysis follows the three-stage FNC test:
分析遵循三阶段 FNC 测试：
Conclusion on Jurisdiction: Dr. Bellini’s stay application will be dismissed. The Hong Kong proceedings should continue.
管辖权结论：贝里尼博士的中止申请将被驳回。香港诉讼应继续进行。
Part C: Choice of Law for the Contract Claim
C 部分：合同诉讼的法律选择
Assuming the case proceeds in Hong Kong, the court must determine the proper law of the contract. The contract is silent as to its governing law. The reference to lex mercatoria would likely be disregarded as it is not a national system of law. The court will therefore apply the "closest and most real connection" test.
假设案件在香港审理，法院必须确定合同的适用法律。合同未明确规定适用法律。对 lex mercatoria 的引用可能会被忽视，因为它不是国家法律体系。因此，法院将适用“最密切和最真实联系”原则。
The connecting factors are split. However, the place of characteristic performance—the highly specialised restoration work—is the most significant factor, and this took place entirely in Milan. This points strongly towards Italian law being the proper law of the contract.
连接因素存在分歧。然而，特征性履行地点——高度专业化的修复工作——是最重要的因素，该工作完全在米兰进行。这强烈指向意大利法为合同的适用法律。
Part D: Choice of Law for the Tort Claim
D 部分：侵权诉讼的法律选择
Step 1: Place of the Tort
第一步：侵权行为发生地
The negligent act (use of the solvent) and the physical damage to the scroll occurred in Milan. Therefore, the lex loci delicti is Italy. This is a foreign tort, and the Double Actionability (DA) rule applies. The act is civilly actionable under both Hong Kong and Italian law, so the rule is prima facie satisfied.
过失行为（使用溶剂）及对卷轴的物理损害均发生在米兰。因此，侵权行为地法为意大利法。这是一起外国侵权案件，适用双重可诉性（DA）规则。该行为在香港法和意大利法下均可提起民事诉讼，因此该规则表面上已满足。
Step 2: The Italian Limitation Period
第二步：意大利的诉讼时效期限
The Italian one-year limitation period is a key issue. Following Hong Kong's traditional classification rules, a limitation period that merely bars the remedy is considered a matter of procedure. Procedural matters are governed by the lex fori (Hong Kong law). Therefore, the Italian limitation period will be disregarded, and the claim will be subject to Hong Kong's own, longer limitation period.
意大利的一年诉讼时效期限是关键问题。根据香港传统的分类规则，仅仅限制救济的诉讼时效被视为程序性事项。程序性事项适用诉讼地法（香港法）。因此，意大利的诉讼时效期限将被忽略，诉讼将适用香港自身较长的诉讼时效期限。
Step 3: The Italian Damages Limitation
步骤三：意大利损害赔偿限制
The rule limiting liability to the service fee is a substantive defence. Applied strictly under the second limb of the DA rule, this would mean ArtAsia could not recover the full value of the painting in tort.
将责任限制在服务费范围内的规则是一项实体抗辩。根据 DA 规则的第二部分严格适用，这意味着 ArtAsia 无法在侵权行为中追回画作的全部价值。
Step 4: The Flexible Exception
步骤四：灵活例外
This is where ArtAsia has a powerful argument. The application of the DA rule incorporating the Italian substantive defence would lead to a manifest injustice. The court can invoke the flexible exception to displace the foreign rule and apply the law with the "most significant relationship" to the issue.
这正是 ArtAsia 拥有有力论点的地方。适用包含意大利实体抗辩的 DA 规则将导致明显的不公正。法院可以援引灵活例外，排除外国规则，适用与该问题“最具重大关系”的法律。
Here, the parties are from Hong Kong and Italy, but ArtAsia, the party who suffered the loss, is based in Hong Kong. The contract itself designated Hong Kong as the forum for ArtAsia's claims. These factors create a strong connection to Hong Kong. A court would likely find that there are "clear and satisfying grounds" to apply the flexible exception, displace the Italian substantive defence on damages, and apply Hong Kong law to allow for full recovery.
这里，当事方来自香港和意大利，但遭受损失的一方 ArtAsia 总部设在香港。合同本身指定香港为 ArtAsia 提出索赔的管辖地。这些因素与香港有着密切联系。法院很可能会认定存在“明确且令人满意的理由”适用灵活例外，排除意大利关于损害赔偿的实体抗辩，并适用香港法律以实现全面赔偿。
Overall Strategic Recommendation
总体战略建议
ArtAsia should: ArtAsia 应当：