### Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance 《法律修訂及改革(綜合)條例》

22B. Civil liability to child born disabled
(1) If a child is born disabled as the result of such an occurrence before its birth as is mentioned in subsection (2) and a person (other than the child’s own mother) is under this section answerable to the child in respect of the occurrence, the child’s disabilities are to be regarded as damage resulting from the wrongful act of that person and actionable accordingly at the suit of the child.
(2) An occurrence to which this section applies is one which—
(a) affected either parent of the child in his or her ability to have a normal, healthy child; or
(b) affected the mother during her pregnancy, or affected her or the child in the course of its birth, so that the child is born with disabilities which would not otherwise have been present.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7), a person (here referred to as the defendant) is answerable to the child if he was liable in tort to the parent or would, if sued in due time, have been so; and it is no answer that there could not have been such liability because the parent suffered no actionable injury, if there was a breach of legal duty which, accompanied by injury, would have given rise to liability.
(4) In the case of an occurrence preceding the time of conception, the defendant is not answerable to the child if at that time either or both of the parents knew the risk of their child being born disabled (that is to say, the particular risk created by the occurrence); but should it be the child’s father who is the defendant, this subsection does not apply if he knew of the risk and the mother did not.
(5) The defendant is not answerable to the child, for anything he did or omitted to do when responsible in a professional capacity for treating or advising the parent, if he took reasonable care having due regard to then received professional opinion applicable to the particular class of case; but this does not mean that he is answerable only because he departed from received opinion.
(6) Liability to the child under this section may be treated as having been excluded or limited by contract made with the parent affected, to the same extent and subject to the same restrictions as liability in the parent’s own case; and a contract term which could have been set up by the defendant in an action by the parent, so as to exclude or limit his liability to him or her, operates in the defendant’s favour to the same, but no greater, extent in an action under this section by the child.
(7) If in the child’s action under this section it is shown that the parent affected shared the responsibility for the child being born disabled, the damages are to be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the extent of the parent’s responsibility.
[cf. 1976 c. 28 s. 1 U.K.]

### Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance 《法律修訂及改革(綜合)條例》

22C. Liability to be regarded as liability for personal injuries sustained by child immediately after its birth
Liability to a child under section 22B is to be regarded—
(a) as respects all its incidents and any matters arising or to arise out of it; and 
(b) subject to any contrary context or intention, for the purpose of construing references in enactments and documents to personal or bodily injuries and cognate matters, 
as liability for personal injuries sustained by the child immediately after its birth. 
[cf. 1976 c. 28 s. 4(3) U.K.]

22D. No damages for loss of expectation of life unless child lives for at least 48 hours
No damages shall be recoverable under section 22B in respect of any loss of expectation of life unless the child lives for at least 48 hours.
[cf. 1976 c. 28 s. 4(4) U.K.]

22E. Application to Crown
This Part binds the Crown.

23. Engagements to marry not enforceable at law
(1) An agreement between 2 persons to marry one another shall not have effect as a contract giving rise to legal rights and no action shall lie for breach of such an agreement.
(2) This section shall have effect in relation to agreements entered into before 7 October 1971, except that it shall not affect any action begun before that date.
(35 of 1971 s. 4 incorporated)[cf. 1970 c. 33 s. 1 U.K.]

24. Property of engaged couples
(1) Where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest shall apply, in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
(2) Where an agreement to marry is terminated, sections 6 and 7 of the Married Persons Status Ordinance (Cap. 182) (which sections confer power on a judge to settle disputes between husband and wife about property) shall apply, as if the parties were married, to any dispute between, or claim by, one of them in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force; but an application made by virtue of this section to the judge under the said sections shall be made within 3 years of the termination of the agreement.
(35 of 1971 s. 4 incorporated)[cf. 1970 c. 33 s. 2 U.K.]

### Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance 《法律修訂及改革(綜合)條例》

25. Gifts between engaged couples
(1) A party to an agreement to marry who makes a gift of property to the other party to the agreement on the condition (express or implied) that it shall be returned if the agreement is terminated shall not be prevented from recovering the property by reason only of his having terminated the agreement.
(2) The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.
(35 of 1971 s. 4 incorporated)[cf. 1970 c. 33 s. 3 U.K.]

25A. Definition
(1) In this Part the forfeiture rule (喪失權利規則) means the rule of law relating to public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing.
(2) References in this Part to a person who has unlawfully killed another includes a reference to a person who has unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured the death of that other and references in this Part to unlawful killing shall be construed accordingly.
[cf. 1982 c. 34 s. 1 U.K.]

25B. Power to modify the rule
(1) Where a court determines that the forfeiture rule has precluded a person (in this section referred to as the offender

25C. Application for financial provision not affected by the rule
(1) The forfeiture rule shall not be taken to preclude any person from making any application under a provision mentioned in subsection (2) or the making of any order on any such application.
(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) any provision of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance (Cap. 481);
(b) sections 11 and 16 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192).
[cf. 1982 c. 34 s. 3 U.K.]

25D. Exclusion of murderers
Nothing in this Part or in any order made under section 25B(1) or referred to in section 25C(1) shall affect the application of the forfeiture rule in the case of a person who stands convicted of murder.
[cf. 1982 c. 34 s. 5 U.K.]