 was recently invited to lead a session at the Hong Kong Common Law & Dispute Resolution Practical Training Course in Xi’an – a leading city in the “One Belt, One Road” initiative.

Co-organised by the Hong Kong International Legal Talents Training Academy and Shannxi Province Lawyers Association and bringing together 80 legal professionals from across Mainland China, the course introduced practical and operational aspects of the Hong Kong common law system and international arbitration.

During his presentation, Jonathan discussed the rules of evidence in Hong Kong and common law advocacy skills, and delivered an interactive demonstration with the audience on examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses.

Special thanks to the Hong Kong International Legal Talents Training Academy for the invitation and Shannxi Province Lawyers Association for their hospitality and arrangement throughout the event.

John Wiley & Sons UK2 LLP & Wiley International LLC v The Collector of Stamp Revenue 

[2025] HKCFA 11, the CFA dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal and held that a UK LLP does not have “issued share capital” for the purpose of claiming stamp duty relief under s.45 of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).

This is a landmark case not only in Hong Kong (being the first to consider s.45 relief), but also in the common law world (being the first to consider whether an LLP has “issued share capital”).

Under s.45, the transaction is entitled to stamp duty relief if the transfer is between associated bodies corporate, where one is beneficial owner of not less than 90% of the “issued share capital” of the other. The relevant transaction involved the transfer of the entire issued share capital of a HK company by a UK LLP to its indirect owner, a company incorporated in Delaware, USA.

The CFA agreed with the definition of “issued share capital” provided by the Court of Appeal below, namely the total monetary value of the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the shareholders in return for shares of a company as have been issued. It being undisputed that an LLP cannot issue and allot share capital, the Appellants could not satisfy the association criterion of s.45.

The CFA dismissed the Appellants’ definition of “share capital” (as a “taxonomic class” looking to features of an LLP “materially analogous” to “share capital”) as vague and uncertain with no support in the historical context of s.45.

Finally, the CFA held that the term “issued share capital” is to be read in the same way regardless of whether foreign corporations are involved. Whether s.45 should be rectified to account for cases such as the present is a matter for the legislature.

, instructed by the Department of Justice, appeared for the Respondent.

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Court of Final Appeal Rules on Whether LLPs have “Issued Share Capital” for Stamp Duty Relief Purposes

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Enhancing Common Law Understanding and Advocacy Skills in Xi’an

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New