I have over 30 years’ experience of dispute resolution in the corporate, financial and commercial legal areas. I am an enthusiastic believer in mediation as the best method of dispute resolution and can draw on my experience of complex commercial litigation to help parties to reach an economical resolution of the issues that divide them.

Admissions

1999            Barrister, Hong Kong

1994            Barrister, England & Wales

1996 -1999  Solicitor, England & Wales and Hong Kong

Academic

                    BA (Hons)

2010            CEDR and HKMAAL Accredited Mediator

Practice profile

Roger Beresford acts in a wide range of company, financial and commercial litigation, including regulatory practice in securities, listed company representation and competition law matters. Prior to call to the Bar in Hong Kong, Roger was employed by Baker & McKenzie for 20 years (10 years in London and 10 years in Hong Kong), during the course of which he acted in a wide range of international disputes. He is rated by Chambers Asia as a leading lawyer for business.

Roger has acted in international commercial arbitrations administered by CIETAC, LCIA, HKIAC and the Chamber of Commerce of Singapore and in a range of ad hoc references.

Selected cases

Commercial law

Accent Delight International Ltd v Yves Bouvier HCMP 573/2015, 19 June 2015, 23 July 2015 (Saunders J) Injunctions – material non-disclosure – whether injunction to be discharged

Hong Kong Broadband Network Ltd v Hong Kong Cable Television Ltd HCA 9172/2000, 12 May 2015, 26 June 2015 (DHCJ Simon Leung) Striking-out for want of prosecution

Secretary for Justice v HP Enterprise Services (HK) Ltd (HCA 667/2011, 28 August 2012) (arbitration clause)

Re Marszalek [2012] 3 HKLRD 431 (annulment of bankruptcy order)

Re LehmanBrown Ltd [2011] 5 HKLRD 668; [2011] 6 HKC 254 (CA) (inspection of records under s.152FA, Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32))

Re Lehman Brothers Securities Asia Ltd (HCCW 437/2008, 20 April 2011) (determination of beneficial entitlement to shares held by company on trust)

Re Hang Fung Jewellery Co Ltd [2010] 2 HKLRD 1, [2010] 2 HKC 301 (bank’s security interest over goods – whether pledge required to be registered as charge)

Primarius Capital LLC v Jayhawk Capital [2009] 4 HKLRD 58 (letters of request)

Re Alvarez & Marsal Asia Ltd [2009] 4 HKLRD 727 (partnership dispute)

New China Hong Kong Group Ltd v Ernest & Young (HCCL 41/2014, 2/2005, 29 August 2008) (whether plaintiffs’ claims for auditor’s negligence time-barred, Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347) ss 26, 31)

OTC International AG v Perfect Recovery Ltd (HCCL 11/2007, June 2008) (forum non conveniens)

Re Peregrine Investments Holdings Ltd (No6) [2008] 3 HKLRD 145 (post-liquidation interest, rule against double proof)

Huibert Frits Van Delft & Another v Horwath Financial Services Ltd & CMI Financial Management Services Ltd (HCA 898/2006, November 2007) (financial services – pleadings)

Kensington International Ltd v ICS Secretaries Ltd [2007] 3 HKLRD 297

Re Perfect Sense Group Ltd [2007] 2 HKLRD 734

Re Wah Sang Gas Holdings Ltd [2007] 3 HKLRD 531

Jollymex NV v Jollybaby International Ltd [2007] 4 HKC 66

Re Legend International Resorts Ltd [2007] 3 HKC 456

Re Good Success Catering Group Ltd [2007] 1 HKC 453

Liu Yiu Keung v Keen Lloyd Resources Ltd [2006] 3 HKLRD 280

PCCW Global Ltd v Interactive Communications Service Ltd [2007] 1 HKC 327

Far East Drug (BVI) Co Ltd v First Pacific Co Ltd (2006) 9 HKCFAR 224

Re Good Success Catering Group Ltd [2007] 1 HKLRD 453

B+B Construction Co Ltd v Ulrich Weinman [2005] 2 HKLRD 478

Chung Wo Sang Future v Tai Lin Radio Service Ltd [2003] 4 HKC 225

Re Peregrine Investments Holdings Ltd [2008] 3 HKLRD 145

Kwok Shun On v Wong Sai Wing, James [2001] 3 HKLRD 811

Murdock v Dresser-Rand Services Sari [2002] 2 HKC 85

Wong Cheong Fat, Re ex p Lau Yee Lam [2001] 1 HKLRD 806

Administrative and public law

Roger undertakes commercial judicial review. He has appeared regularly before the Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal and the Telecommunications (Competition Provisions) Appeal Board and he accepts appointments as legal adviser to the Takeovers and Mergers Panel. Reported cases include:

PCCW-HKT Telephone Ltd v Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development [2015] 4 HKLRD 415 (Peter Ng J) ; CACV 208/2015, 17 May 2016; FAMV 54/2016, 27 April 2017.

Whether setting licence fees to recover surplus for transfer to general revenue unconstitutional and ultra vires – Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106) s.7(2), 7(6) – Trading Funds Ordinance (Cap. 430) s.10(1)

Secretary for Justice v Hong Kong Cable Television Ltd HCA 2561/2009, 5 May 2015, 2 October 2015 (DHCJ Simon Leung) rvsd [2016] 3 HKRD 369 (leave to appeal refused) FAMV 44/2016, 13 February 2017.

Domestic pay television service licence – provision of Internet Protocol Television service involving non-IP based transmission of analogue signals from set-top box to individual household units in housing estate – whether variable licence fee payable – whether service fell within statutory exception for service provided on Internet under Sch. 3 para.5 – whether use of globally unique IP addresses essential ingredient of Internet – Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) s.2, Sch.3 para 5

Moulin Global Evecare Trading Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2011] 3 HKLRD 216, [2011] 2 HKC 545, revd [2012] 2 HKLRD 911, affd [2014] 17 HKCFAR 218, 13.3.14 (profits tax – tax returns prepared and submitted on behalf of company on basis of accounts fraudulently falsified by directors – claim for refund of excess of tax paid – whether to be disallowed on ground that (a) company failed to object to assessment within time as required under s.64, and (b) no error in tax returns within meaning of s.70A – whether directors’ guilty knowledge attributable to company, so that (a) for purpose of s.64, company not “prevented” from objecting within time but “chose” not to do so; and (b) for purpose of s. 70A, company had no made “error” but had instead told deliberate lie by filing returns – whether fraud exception to principle of attribution applicable – Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) ss.64, 70A)

Smartone Mobile Communications Ltd v Telecommunications (Competition Provisions) Appeal Board (HCAL 22/2014, 4 March 2014) (judicial review – leave to apply for review of decisions of Telecommunications (Cometition Provisions) Appeal Board – refused – application for injunction to restrain use of confidential information – refused)

Secretary for Justice v Rafat Ali Rizvi (HCMP 2557/2010, 30 January 2014) (mutual legal assistance in criminal matters – confiscation order issued by foreign court – registration as external confiscation order pursuant to s.28 – whether order fell within definition under s.2 – whether requirements under s.28(1) satisfied – enforcement of order pursuant to s.27 and Sch.2 – scope of property liable to be comfiscated – meaning of “realizable property” in Sch.2 s.5 – Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (Cap.525) ss.2, 27, 28, Sch.2 s.5)

Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Ltd v Communications Authority (CACV 190/2013, 17 December 2013) (Telecommunications (Competition Provisions) Appeal Board – jurisdiction – letters issued by Communications Authority refusing to issue immediate direction under s.36B and containing statement that there was insufficient information to assess whether appellant’s complaint raised genuine issue of breach of competition provisions – whether involved any decision or opinion by Authority which “truly engaged” s.7K for purposes of s.32N(1)(a)(i) so as to engage jurisdiction of Appeal Board – Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap.106) ss. 7K, 32N(1)(a)(i), 36B)

Securities and Futures Commission v Tiger Asia Management LLC [2011] 6 HKC 149; [2011] 5 HKC 87; revd [2012] 2 HKLRD 281; FACV 10-13/2011, 30 April 2013 (construction of Securities and Futures Ordinance, s.213)

Securities and Futures Commission v Hontex International Holdings Co Ltd (CACV 128/2012, 8 June 2012) (restoration of investors to position they were in before transaction induced by false or misleading information entered into; SFO s.213)

PCCW-HKT Telephone Ltd v Telecommunications Authority [2012] 2 HKLRD 396 (powers of Chairman of Telecommunications (Competition Provisions) Appeal Board)

Tsien Pak Cheong David v Securities and Futures Commission [2011] 3 HKLRD 533; [2011] 4 HKC 410 (powers of the Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal)

Kayden Ltd v Securities and Futures Commission (2010) 13 HKCFAR 696

Re Moulin Global Eyecare Trading Ltd (Proof of Debt: Tax Assessments) [2010] 1 HKLRD 851; affd [2010] 4 HKLRD 283 (whether liquidator permitted to go behind tax assessments)

Re Du Jun HCMP 1407/2007, 12 April 2010 (SFO, s.213)

Re Hang Lung Properties Ltd [2008] 2 HKLRD 196 (amendment of Companies Registry filings)

Official Receiver v Chan Kwok Keung [2008] 5 HKLRD 752 (retrospective discharge)

PCCW-HKT Telephone Ltd v Telecommunications Authority [2008] 2 HKLRD 282 (bias)

Re Chan Wing Hing (2006) 9 HKCFAR 545 (freedom of movement)

PCCW-HKT Telephone Ltd v Telecommunications Authority (2005) 8 HKCFAR 337 (interim relief)

Ngo Kee Construction Co Ltd v Hong Kong Housing Authority [2011] 1 HKC 493 (reviewability)

Criminal Law

HKSAR v Chui, Lam and Egan (2010) 13 HKCFAR 314

HKSAR v Lee Ming Tee (2003) 6 HKCFAR 336

HKSAR v Lee Ming Tee (2001) 4 HKCFAR 133

1. Hourly rate: $7,000

2. One day mediation (9 hours): $70,000

3. Half day mediation (4 hours): $70,000

4. Preparation: $7,000 per hour

5. Perusal of documents: $7,000 per hour

6.Venue: -

7. Other: Overrunning One day Mediation: $7,000 per hour.

Others to be agreed. Professional Mediation Fees (subject to agreement/revision), please inquire with Mr Beresford's clerk for his normal and applicable rates.