Editor's Note

Almost 130 years ago, Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren observed: “[t]hat the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection.”

In May of this year, the UK Supreme Court recently found such necessity to exist in the PJS case, in which a claimant obtained an anonymised privacy injunction that prohibits the UK media from publishing details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people. The Court held that individuals may obtain injunctions against intrusions into their privacy even when the information they are seeking to injunct is well known to many or can be very easily ascertained from the internet. In doing so, it separated the protection of privacy from its roots in the law of confidence. The Torts feature examines this landmark decision and advocates for the Hong Kong courts to follow suit.

Elsewhere in our September issue, is an article on Moving In-House that highlights some of the major personal and professional factors that lawyers should carefully consider before moving into an in-house legal position. Also included is a Regulatory piece that examines US prosecutors and regulatory bodies’ use of deferred prosecution agreements to reach an arrangement with financial institutions when wrongdoing is identified. In it, the author explores the potential impact for financial institutions in Hong Kong and the likelihood of local law enforcement adopting a similar approach in the future.

Also be sure to check out the Book Review of Gunboat Justice: British and American Law Courts in China and Japan (1842–1943) and the Practice Management article that highlights some of the pitfalls law firms may face when integrating traditional and non-traditional media and reflects on what this means for clients in how they perceive firms and buy legal services.

Editor, Hong Kong Lawyer
Legal Media Group
Thomson Reuters