靳海文

Glenn Haley
  1. People /

靳海文

靳海文

Partner


Hong Kong SAR
Glenn Haley
  1. People /

靳海文

靳海文

Partner


Hong Kong SAR

靳海文

Partner

Hong Kong SAR

合伙人，争议解决与监管

T: +852 3143 8450

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share
中文

Biography

  • 在基础设施、建设和工程领域拥有逾30年的大型项目经验，既包括诉讼也包括非诉项目。
  • 在很多大型基础设施开发中代表政府和准政府机构，包括机场、铁路项目、桥梁、道路、隧道、发电项目和商业结构。
  • 在香港特别行政区生活和工作25年，处理整个亚太地区的项目。

Band 1: Construction: International Firms in China, Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2025

Hall of Fame: Construction in Hong Kong, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2025

Preeminent ranking: Hong Kong Construction & Infrastructure Litigation Lawyers, Doyle’s Guide, 2024

"A real name in the Hong Kong market as a construction lawyer."  Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2024

"He is a commercially sensitive lawyer and a go-to in Hong Kong. He is exceptionally well connected." Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2023

“Insightful and practical advice on construction-related disputes”  Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2022

"Glenn Haley is just incredibly experienced. He is one of the most famous, 'hall of fame'-type lawyers," Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2023

Band 1: Construction: International Firms in China, Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2025

Band 1: Construction in Hong Kong, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2025

I’ve been impressed with Glenn Haley, who I think is top tier in Hong Kong. He is commercially astute and can give practical advice to keep his clients out of disputes. He is one of the best in Hong Kong.

Chambers and Partners Greater China Region, 2025

Spoken Languages

  • English

Admissions

  • ACT
  • New South Wales
  • Northern Territory
  • Queensland
  • Victoria
  • England and Wales (non-practicing)

Related Practice Areas

  • Construction Disputes

  • Infrastructure

  • Sports & Entertainment

  • Data Privacy & Security

  • Energy Transition

  • Real Estate Disputes

  • Corporate

  • Investigations

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • International Arbitration

  • Sports & Entertainment Contract, Endorsement & Celebrity Representation Practice

  • Anti-Doping Practice

  • Sports & Event Venue Real Estate Infrastructure and Operation

  • Naming Rights & Sponsorship Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment M&A Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment Litigation Practice

  • Sports & Entertainment Specialty Counseling Practice

  • Entertainment Industry Practice

  • Sports & Event Financing

  • Collegiate Sports Practice

  • Olympic & National Governing Body Practice

  • Professional Sports Team Practice

  • Data Center & Digital Infrastructure Team

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Real Estate

  • Securities Litigation & Enforcement

Related Insights

Insights
Apr 03, 2025

AI in IA

Ask a trained lawyer what an “LLM” is, and what first will come to mind may be a “Master of Laws”; ask a tech-savvy teenager what an “LLM” is, and they most probably will answer “large language model”. The former may not be a prerequisite to becoming a qualified lawyer, but knowledge of the latter likely will be crucial for legal practitioners in the coming years. LLMs / Generative AI are on the rise. OpenAI ChatGPT. Microsoft Copilot. Anthropic Claude. Meta AI Llama. Perplexity. Google Gemini. xAI Grok. Quora Poe. DeepSeek. And bespoke legal AI tools, of course, also are on the rise. Harvey. Thomson Reuters CoCounsel. LexisNexis Lexis+ AI. Just to name a few.   It is timely that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has launched the Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) (the “Ciarb AI Guideline”). Issued by the leading arbitration certification organisation in the world, the Ciarb AI Guideline provides welcome guidance to arbitrators, parties, representatives and other arbitration participants alike, while at the same time supporting the arbitration sector’s practical efforts to “… mitigate some of the risk to the integrity of the process, any party’s procedural rights, and the enforceability of any ensuing award or settlement agreement”.
Insights
Mar 07, 2025

“Dividing Line” in Public Policy – Insolvency and Arbitration

A creditor commences winding-up proceedings against a debtor company on the basis that the company is insolvent. The petition debt relates to a dispute within the ambit of the arbitration agreement between the creditor and the debtor. Should the Court either:- Uphold the parties’ agreement to arbitrate (and stay / dismiss the winding-up); or Allow the creditor to continue to pursue the debt in winding-up proceedings? In our previous article on the topic in August 2020, we discussed Lasmos approach and the inter-relationship between arbitration and insolvency proceedings through the cases of: (1) the HKCFI case Lasmos (Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426), (2) the English CA case Salford Estates(Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altormart Ltd (No 2) [2015] Ch 589), (3) the two HK CA cases But Ka Chon (But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873) and Sit Kwong Lam (Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220), and (4) the HKCFI case of Dayang (Dayang (HK) Marine Shipping Co., Limited v Asia Master Logistic Limited [2020] HKCFI 311). The common law position has now been further developed in a number of important Court decisions, including judgments from the highest Courts in HK and the UK, i.e. the HKCFA and the UK Privy Council hearing an appeal from the BVI Courts. In the HKCFA case of Re Guy Lam (Re Guy Kwok Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9), the traditional English position in Salford Estates is largely followed. By contrast, in the Privy Council case of Sian (Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16), the traditional English position in Salford Estates was held to be wrong in principle. This article seeks to re-visit and distil, at a very high level, the contrasting positions between the HK and the UK Courts, and explores two post-Sian HK cases reaffirming the Re Guy Lam approach through the principle of stare decisis (instead of following the Privy Council approach in Sian). These two recent HK decisions are – HKCFI case of Re Mega Gold (Re Mega Gold and Re Man Chun Sing Matthew, heard together in [2024] HKCFI 2286) and CA case of Re Inversion (Re Inversion Productions Ltd [2024] HKCA 884).
Insights
Mar 06, 2025

Getting the ball rolling: sports disputes resolution in Hong Kong SAR

These are exciting times for sports in Hong Kong. With the Hong Kong team’s success at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics and Summer Paralympics, the opening of the Kai Tak Sports Park and the 15thNational Games (which Hong Kong is co-hosting together with Guangdong and Macao) in 2025, it is expected that interest in sports and the sports industry in Hong Kong will continue to grow. From the selection of athletes by sports clubs to the determination of the outcome of a game, anti-doping tests and sports-related commercial deals, disputes can arise at many stages along the sports industry chain. Some observers and commentators have suggested that Hong Kong would be assisted by having a comprehensive dispute resolution system to resolve the sports-related disputes which unavoidably arise from the growing sports industry.
Insights
Feb 27, 2025

Government issues Model Adjudication Documents

On 10 February 2025, the Development Bureau (“DEVB”) issued a suite of model adjudication documents (“Model Documents”), including a set of model adjudication rules (“Model Rules”). This suite of Model Documents is not issued so as to be binding or operative in their own right. Rather, they are issued as guidance (perhaps strong guidance) for the various entities who will apply to Government to be recognised as approved adjudicator nominating bodies, “ANBs”, for the purposes of the Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance (Cap. 652) (“Ordinance”). Although it remains uncertain to what extent the Model Documents will be adopted by nominating bodies, the Model Documents offer a preview of how the Ordinance might function when it comes into operation on 28 August 2025.
Insights
Feb 27, 2025

HK Security of Payment Ordinance: what difference might it make in practice?

In Wang & Lee Contracting Ltd v Young Kwong Pui Trading as In Tech Engineering [2025] HKDC 66 (Date of Decision: 3 January 2025), the District Court ordered the court proceedings to be stayed and that the plaintiff’s claims be referred to arbitration. The court’s decision to grant a stay in favour of arbitration is entirely unsurprising and is consistent with Hong Kong courts’ pro-arbitration stance. What this article will explore is how this dispute might have proceeded along a different trajectory if the newly enacted Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance (Cap 652) (“Ordinance”) had been in force and applied to this dispute and the facts leading up to it.
Insights
Feb 14, 2025

Adjudication and insolvency: interface of two statutory regimes affecting the construction industry

Adjudication has become a key tool in the construction industry, helping employers and contractors resolve disputes quickly and keep cash flowing on projects. But when insolvency enters the picture, things can get tricky — especially when it comes to enforcing adjudication decisions or allowing insolvent parties to take part in the process. In this insight, we take a closer look at the legal approach to the interaction between adjudication and insolvency in England & Wales and Singapore, and what to look forward to in Hong Kong SAR as the Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance was gazetted on 27 December 2024 and will come to effect fully on 28 August 2025.

Related Insights

News
Apr 16, 2025
BCLP recognized in Global Arbitration Review 100 2025
Insights
Apr 03, 2025
AI in IA
Ask a trained lawyer what an “LLM” is, and what first will come to mind may be a “Master of Laws”; ask a tech-savvy teenager what an “LLM” is, and they most probably will answer “large language model”. The former may not be a prerequisite to becoming a qualified lawyer, but knowledge of the latter likely will be crucial for legal practitioners in the coming years. LLMs / Generative AI are on the rise. OpenAI ChatGPT. Microsoft Copilot. Anthropic Claude. Meta AI Llama. Perplexity. Google Gemini. xAI Grok. Quora Poe. DeepSeek. And bespoke legal AI tools, of course, also are on the rise. Harvey. Thomson Reuters CoCounsel. LexisNexis Lexis+ AI. Just to name a few.   It is timely that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has launched the Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) (the “Ciarb AI Guideline”). Issued by the leading arbitration certification organisation in the world, the Ciarb AI Guideline provides welcome guidance to arbitrators, parties, representatives and other arbitration participants alike, while at the same time supporting the arbitration sector’s practical efforts to “… mitigate some of the risk to the integrity of the process, any party’s procedural rights, and the enforceability of any ensuing award or settlement agreement”.
Insights
Mar 19, 2025
HK Court relies on deemed service clause to dismiss a setting-aside application to enforce an arbitral award
Insights
Mar 18, 2025
HK court rules that gig delivery driver was not an employee
Insights
Mar 07, 2025
“Dividing Line” in Public Policy – Insolvency and Arbitration
A creditor commences winding-up proceedings against a debtor company on the basis that the company is insolvent. The petition debt relates to a dispute within the ambit of the arbitration agreement between the creditor and the debtor. Should the Court either:- Uphold the parties’ agreement to arbitrate (and stay / dismiss the winding-up); or Allow the creditor to continue to pursue the debt in winding-up proceedings? In our previous article on the topic in August 2020, we discussed Lasmos approach and the inter-relationship between arbitration and insolvency proceedings through the cases of: (1) the HKCFI case Lasmos (Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426), (2) the English CA case Salford Estates(Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altormart Ltd (No 2) [2015] Ch 589), (3) the two HK CA cases But Ka Chon (But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873) and Sit Kwong Lam (Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220), and (4) the HKCFI case of Dayang (Dayang (HK) Marine Shipping Co., Limited v Asia Master Logistic Limited [2020] HKCFI 311). The common law position has now been further developed in a number of important Court decisions, including judgments from the highest Courts in HK and the UK, i.e. the HKCFA and the UK Privy Council hearing an appeal from the BVI Courts. In the HKCFA case of Re Guy Lam (Re Guy Kwok Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9), the traditional English position in Salford Estates is largely followed. By contrast, in the Privy Council case of Sian (Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16), the traditional English position in Salford Estates was held to be wrong in principle. This article seeks to re-visit and distil, at a very high level, the contrasting positions between the HK and the UK Courts, and explores two post-Sian HK cases reaffirming the Re Guy Lam approach through the principle of stare decisis (instead of following the Privy Council approach in Sian). These two recent HK decisions are – HKCFI case of Re Mega Gold (Re Mega Gold and Re Man Chun Sing Matthew, heard together in [2024] HKCFI 2286) and CA case of Re Inversion (Re Inversion Productions Ltd [2024] HKCA 884).
Insights
Mar 06, 2025
Getting the ball rolling: sports disputes resolution in Hong Kong SAR
These are exciting times for sports in Hong Kong. With the Hong Kong team’s success at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics and Summer Paralympics, the opening of the Kai Tak Sports Park and the 15thNational Games (which Hong Kong is co-hosting together with Guangdong and Macao) in 2025, it is expected that interest in sports and the sports industry in Hong Kong will continue to grow. From the selection of athletes by sports clubs to the determination of the outcome of a game, anti-doping tests and sports-related commercial deals, disputes can arise at many stages along the sports industry chain. Some observers and commentators have suggested that Hong Kong would be assisted by having a comprehensive dispute resolution system to resolve the sports-related disputes which unavoidably arise from the growing sports industry.
Insights
Feb 27, 2025
Government issues Model Adjudication Documents
On 10 February 2025, the Development Bureau (“DEVB”) issued a suite of model adjudication documents (“Model Documents”), including a set of model adjudication rules (“Model Rules”). This suite of Model Documents is not issued so as to be binding or operative in their own right. Rather, they are issued as guidance (perhaps strong guidance) for the various entities who will apply to Government to be recognised as approved adjudicator nominating bodies, “ANBs”, for the purposes of the Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance (Cap. 652) (“Ordinance”). Although it remains uncertain to what extent the Model Documents will be adopted by nominating bodies, the Model Documents offer a preview of how the Ordinance might function when it comes into operation on 28 August 2025.
Insights
Feb 27, 2025
HK Security of Payment Ordinance: what difference might it make in practice?
In Wang & Lee Contracting Ltd v Young Kwong Pui Trading as In Tech Engineering [2025] HKDC 66 (Date of Decision: 3 January 2025), the District Court ordered the court proceedings to be stayed and that the plaintiff’s claims be referred to arbitration. The court’s decision to grant a stay in favour of arbitration is entirely unsurprising and is consistent with Hong Kong courts’ pro-arbitration stance. What this article will explore is how this dispute might have proceeded along a different trajectory if the newly enacted Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance (Cap 652) (“Ordinance”) had been in force and applied to this dispute and the facts leading up to it.
Insights
Feb 14, 2025
Adjudication and insolvency: interface of two statutory regimes affecting the construction industry
Adjudication has become a key tool in the construction industry, helping employers and contractors resolve disputes quickly and keep cash flowing on projects. But when insolvency enters the picture, things can get tricky — especially when it comes to enforcing adjudication decisions or allowing insolvent parties to take part in the process. In this insight, we take a closer look at the legal approach to the interaction between adjudication and insolvency in England & Wales and Singapore, and what to look forward to in Hong Kong SAR as the Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance was gazetted on 27 December 2024 and will come to effect fully on 28 August 2025.