Ashford Benjamin is a specialist executive search firm, focusing on legal recruitment and compliance recruitment in Hong Kong and Asia-Pacific, with a global reach...
Our expert advisors have a long history of placing lawyers into high-profile legal jobs in Hong Kong and Asia-Pacific, including private practice jobs and legal counsel jobs
Our team place Head of Compliance jobs and Chief Compliance Officer jobs in Hong Kong and Asia-Pacific, into financial services, and multi-national companies...
Our expert advisors are highly-qualified, experienced professionals who have been recognised as industry leaders in both legal and compliance recruitment...
We have a long experience of working with Mohit, and greatly appreciate the support he provides. Mohit continues to source good candidates, and is proactive in seeking to anticipate our needs. He has a good understanding of how we work, and of the profiles we seek. Mohit Savalani does well in striving to exceed our expectations.
European Investment Bank, Hong Kong : General Counsel
Download our 2017 Brochure
The Apology Ordinance (Cap 631) (Ordinance) was passed on 13 July 2017 and will become effective on 1 December 2017. The Ordinance clarifies the legal consequences of a party making an apology by stating that it will generally be inadmissible as evidence against them in the relevant proceedings as an admission of fault. Sometimes, a party may still wish to express their condolences or sympathy, despite genuinely believing that they are not at fault. The Ordinance will give protection to such party by ensuring that such an apology does not constitute an express or implied admission of the party’s fault or liability in connection with the matter and must not be taken into account in determining fault or liability on any other issue in connection with the matter to the prejudice of that party.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has gained huge momentum of late, with governments, companies and lawyers keen to maximise the many opportunities it presents. The resolution of disputes arising from the BRI is no exception. The sheer complexity and scale of BRI projects is prompting a welcome review of dispute resolution processes, with a view to resolving BRI disputes more quickly and amicably, ideally in a confidential and enforcement-friendly environment. Recent developments suggest that the BRI presents an opportunity for less formal procedures, like mediation, to flourish and enter the mainstream. Indeed, three key BRI jurisdictions – China, Singapore and Hong Kong – have recently promoted mediation in the context of BRI disputes.