Despite Hong Kong’s active entertainment industry, there is a scarcity of local case law relating to disputes between artists and their management as such cases are frequently settled before trial.

The recent judgment by the Court of First Instance in Hummingbird Music Ltd v Dino Acconci and Giulio Acconci [2009] HKCU 105 (HCA 836/2007, 22 January 2009) is therefore welcome as it is indicative of the courts’ approach to various underlying principles governing entertainment contracts.

In Hummingbird, Dino Acconci and Giulio Acconci (the pop duo ‘Soler’) decided to terminate agreements with their manager (Hummingbird) by issuing a press release and sending a letter to Hummingbird. Hummingbird then sued Soler for breach of various agreements. The CFI examined a range of issues which commonly arise in artist/management disputes.

Restraint of trade

In principle, a covenant in restraint of trade is unenforceable unless it is reasonable as between the parties and reasonable with reference to the public interest. Soler entered into agreements containing certain restraint clauses (based on standard forms used by Sony Taiwan) in the context of an otherwise friendly and informal relationship with Hummingbird. The commercial reality was that Hummingbird bore financial risks in signing and developing the public profile of Soler. As such, Carlson DHCJ considered the deal between Soler and Hummingbird to be analogous to a joint venture or a joint investment.

In considering the authorities submitted by the parties, Carlson DHCJ noted that the cited cases were between promoters with ‘considerable presence and influence’ in the industry and inexperienced artists. By contrast, in this case, Hummingbird was a novice manager (albeit in a much more advantageous financial position) and Soler had some industry experience (including a previous recording contract with EMI Italy). Accordingly, the relative position of the parties was very different from that found in A Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay [1974] 3 All ER 616 (HL) and Clifford Davis Management Ltd v WEA Records Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 237 (CA). It was more akin to that of Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment Ltd [1994] Ch 142 (the George Michael case).

Once Carlson DHCJ was satisfied that there was no inequality of bargaining power between Hummingbird and Soler, their commercial arrangement was found to be fair and unobjectionable. Accordingly, it was found that the agreements were not in restraint of trade and were not voidable as being contrary to public policy.

Unconscionable bargain

An unfair or oppressive contract may be voidable as an unconscionable bargain if it is a result of one party taking advantage of another’s weakness or necessity. In Lord Brightman’s words, an unconscionable bargain is ‘a bargain of an improvident character made by a poor or ignorant person acting without independent advice which cannot be shown to be a fair and reasonable transaction’: Hart v Connor [1985] AC 1000 (PC). There must not only be inequality of bargaining power between the parties, but the stronger party must have knowingly abused that inequality and acted in a morally reprehensible manner that affected its conscience.

It does not appear this point was argued in detail in Hummingbird. Nevertheless, Carlson DHCJ considered the issue of unconscionable bargain in conjunction with restraint of trade and dismissed it on the grounds that there was no inequality of bargaining power between the parties and the arrangements were not unconscionable.

Undue influence and fiduciary relationship

Although undue influence and fiduciary duties are frequently established by the same set of facts, they are two separate concepts. Undue influence renders a transaction voidable if the parties are in a relationship of influence and the nature of the transaction is of manifest disadvantage to the party being influenced. In general, the relationship between manager and artist does not qualify for Class 2A (presumed influence/recognised category) under Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien [1993] 1 AC 180 (HL). Therefore an artist wishing to free itself must show that there were circumstances satisfying the requirements of Class 1 (actual influence) or Class 2B (presumed influence/unrecognised category).

Fiduciary duties arise when one person is in a relationship with another which gives rise to a legitimate expectation, which equity will recognise, that the fiduciary will not utilise his or her position in such a way that is adverse to the interests of the principal. It is well recognised (as will be seen below) that the relationship between a manager and an artist is one of trust and confidence, and it has been held that under certain circumstances fiduciary duties will arise, for example, where a young and inexperienced artist reposes trust and confidence in the manager: Elton John v James [1991] FSR 397 (Ch D); or when an artist enters into a new agreement with its existing manager: Armatrading v Stone (unreported, QBD, 17 September 1984).

In Hummingbird, Soler claimed that there was a relationship of trust and confidence between the parties and that Hummingbird was in a position of dominating influence. On that basis, Soler sought to set aside the second set of agreements (entered into while Soler was already under the management of Hummingbird) citing O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music Ltd [1985] 1 QB 428 (CA). Carlson DHCJ was not convinced that O’Sullivan could be compared to Hummingbird. The operators of Hummingbird were novices in the music industry while Soler was ‘[two men] in their
mid-thirties who were well able to decide what was best for them’. Therefore Hummingbird could not be said to be a fiduciary of or in a position of influence over Soler in relation to the entering of the second set of agreements.

Soler also pleaded that Hummingbird had breached fiduciary duties by failing to give proper accounts and misappropriating their income. Carlson DHCJ found on the facts that Hummingbird has acted conscientiously in its duties.

An agent owes fiduciary duties or the obligation of loyalty to its principal. This applies where a manager is acting as the agent of an artist negotiating with third parties and in collection of related proceeds. However, a manager is not a fiduciary in all aspects of the affairs of the artist. As illustrated by the different rulings in Armatrading and Hummingbird, a manager may or may not owe fiduciary duties to an artist under its current management scheme when new agreements are entered into. Another example is that a manager who manages more than one artist will not be able to act in the best interest of all artists when it has to decide the apportionment of budgets or job assignments between the artists.

Repudiatory breach

In Hummingbird, Soler pleaded that their manager had repudiated the agreements because Soler was subject to constant pressure and verbal abuse. Carlson DHCJ found that Soler’s claims were amplified and unparticularised, and that Hummingbird was not in repudiatory breach of the subject agreements. It is trite law that the failure to maintain mutual trust and confidence may constitute repudiatory breach of an implied term for contracts such as entertainment or sports talent management agreements: Denmark Productions Ltd v Boscobel Productions Ltd [1969] 1 QB 699 (CA), Warren v Mendy [1989] 3 All ER 103 (CA) and Page One Records Ltd v Britton [1967] 3 All ER 822 (Ch D). A notable Hong Kong case in this area is Mimi Monica Wong v Mirko Saccani [2006] HKCU 1493, in which Muttrie DHCJ held that it was an ‘implied term that the parties would act towards one another in a manner consistent with the maintenance of the mutual trust, confidence and respect necessary for the proper functioning of the teacher and student and dancing partner relationship’.

In another entertainment case, Worth Achieve Associates Ltd v Huang Sheng Yi [2007] 3 HKC 7, Huang (of the fame of Stephen Chow’s ‘Kung Fu Hustle’) claimed that the conduct of the manager had destroyed the basis for cooperation between the parties, informing Worth Achieve that the agreement would be terminated. Unfortunately, there was no judicial decision in that case as it was settled before trial.

The prior authorities are not clear on whether a manager is required to maintain the working relationship by an objective standard or by the subjective standard of the artist. Hummingbird was not decided on this point. However, Carlson DHCJ’s choice of wording such as ‘exaggerated’ and ‘elevated’ to describe Soler’s reaction may imply that the objective standard in breakdown of cooperation must be satisfied to establish repudiatory breach by the manager.

Unlawful interference

Soler claimed against Hummingbird for lost income from potential employers on the basis that Hummingbird caused such loss by issuing press releases stating that it was still the manager of Soler. Hummingbird also sent letters to third parties in the industry warning them of legal consequences of dealing with Soler.

In an interlocutory judgment in the Hummingbird case reported at [2007] 4 HKLRD 79, A Cheung J held that although the court will not grant specific performance or injunction to compel Soler to work for Hummingbird, Hummingbird was entitled to assert and enforce its right to ‘sue not only the defendants for damages for breach of contract, but also any third party who may see fit to deal with the defendants in disregard of the defendants’ contractual commitments to the plaintiff for wrongful interference with contractual obligations or inducing a breach of contract – provided that the necessary knowledge and intention are present’. This was confirmed by Carlson DHCJ, who said that ‘it was perfectly in order’ for Hummingbird to point out that it might take legal action against third parties who chose to deal with Soler.

The recent cases of OBG Ltd v Allan; Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3); Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young [2008] 1 AC 1 (HL) clarified the law in this area, stating that ‘the unified theory which treated causing loss by unlawful means as an extension of the tort of inducing a breach of contract’ encompassed two separate torts, being (i) causing loss by unlawful means and (ii) inducing breach of contract.

A manager stating to the public that the existing agreements are still in force would not be liable for (i) unless its act is unlawful (for example, if it amounts to defamation or intimidation), whereas third parties dealing with an artist knowing that the artist is in breach of existing arrangements may be liable for (ii). As a manager is allowed to convey the above to relevant people in the industry, this may have the practical effect of an injunction to prevent the artist from securing jobs. A Cheung J justified the freedom of Hummingbird to alert the industry by referring to the fact that ‘[Soler is] free to tell the whole world that they are at full liberty to take up engagements from anyone they like without reference to [Hummingbird]’, and that any consequential damage to Soler’s career was ‘adequately addressed by ordering a speedy trial of the action’.

Specific performance

In his interlocutory judgment, A Cheung J agreed with English authorities such as Warren v Mendy and Page One v Britton that specific performance and injunction are not available in situations such as artist agreement disputes. A Cheung J also agreed with Lam J’s comments in Worth Achieve that specific performance cannot be granted for ‘a contract of personal services on both sides involving mutual trust and confidence’. In the entertainment industry, this has additional relevance as artists are required to maintain psychological and material well-being. This is notwithstanding judicial awareness that in some cases the plaintiff may have done nothing wrong at all: Subaru Technica International Inc v Burns [2001] All ER (D) 195 (Dec) (Ch D); and that damages as a remedy for breach of the agreement may not be complete or adequate: Nichols Advanced Vehicle Systems Inc v Rees [1979] RPC 127 (Ch D).

In Worth Achieve, Lam J astutely observed the commercial realities and rejected the plaintiff ’s argument that a dual manager arrangement (with the plaintiff being the head manager supervising another manager chosen by the defendant) was ‘impracticable and a potential recipe for disaster’. Lam J also noted that the terms of the agreement did not require Worth Achieve to answer for any liability arising from damages suffered by Huang from loss of promotion, which meant that if an injunction was granted, Huang may be subject to so-called ‘freezing’ treatment in the entertainment industry without remedies.

In both Hummingbird and Worth Achieve, the court found that there was no realistic prospect of the manager obtaining a permanent injunction (or no serious issue to be tried under the American Cyanamid principles) and accordingly there was no basis to grant an interlocutory injunction. To protect the interests of the manager, Lam J in Worth Achieve ordered Huang to keep and file monthly accounts, while A Cheung J in Hummingbird accepted Soler’s proposal to pay into court what would have been Hummingbird’s entitlement as manager if the agreements were subsisting.

It is noted that the freedom of a manager to interact with third parties (discussed above) may estrange an artist from the industry until the rights and obligations of the artist under any existing agreement are decided in court or settled with the manager. Accordingly, an artist in this situation would need to take prompt and appropriate actions to clarify its rights in order to avoid being shunned from job opportunities. This may include challenging the validity of the agreement with the manager, issuing press releases to clarify whether the artist is free for job appointments, and/or seeking judicial interpretation on the agreement.

Mediation and confidentiality

In Worth Achieve, Lam J commented that, as the issue of injunctive relief was decided, the case was ‘eminently suitable for mediation’. The parties then reached settlement and requested the court to withhold the interlocutory judgment. Lam J was not convinced that there was any basis to withhold the judgment, as settlement was reached after the judgment was handed down (although before its publication).

In light of the above and also Practice Direction 31 (effective from 1 January 2010) under Civil Justice Reform, managers and artists in dispute may prefer mediation over litigation because the process and result of mediation are confidential and a resolution may be reached in a shorter time and more economically.

Conclusion

A manager should encourage an artist to seek independent legal advice before signing any agreements to reduce the risk of the arrangements being challenged by invoking the doctrines of restraint of trade, unconscionable bargain, undue influence or breach of fiduciary duties.

In the course of performing the agreements, an artist could expect its manager to act conscientiously, keep proper accounts and seek to maintain mutual trust and confidence with the artist.

When relationships turn sour, a manager is free to state its stance to third parties by any lawful means and may have remedies against third parties for inducement of breach of contract. The artist, on the other hand, should also state its side of the story and seek to settle the dispute with the manager in or out of court as soon as possible to prevent being deprived of job opportunities.

If an artist was found to be in breach of agreements, a manager would in a typical case only be awarded damages, and it is highly unlikely for the court to compel the artist to work for the manager.

The manager and the artist should attempt mediation as opposed to litigation, which may come to a satisfactory solution for all parties in a confidential manner, in less time and with lower fees.

David Ma
Associate Solicitor
Woo, Kwan Lee & Lo
david.ma@wkll.com

The author is grateful for the comments provided by his supervising partner Mr Cheung Wai Hing, but all errors are his own.

Soler案件及藝人與 經理人的合約糾紛中常見問題
馬兆威律師探討香港法院在藝人與經理人的關係破裂情況下如何運用合約及受信原則。

儘管香港擁有活躍的娛樂事業，但涉及藝人和經理人之間糾紛的本港判例法卻相當匱乏，原因是該類案件往往在審訊前便已達成和解。因此，原訟法庭近期在Hummingbird Music Ltd v Dino Acconci and Giulio Acconci ([2009] HKCU 105 (HCA 836/2007，2009年1月22日)一案中的判決惹人關注，因為它顯示了法庭對規管娛樂合約的各項相關原則的取態。

在Hummingbird案件中，Dino Acconci和Giulio Acconci(流行樂組合Soler)決定通過發佈新聞公告，並向Hummingbird發送信函的方式，終止與其經理人(Hummingbird)的協定。Hummingbird隨後起訴Soler違反多項協定。原訟法庭審視了藝人／管理層糾紛中經常出現的一系列問題。

從業限制

原則上， 從業限制契諾不可強制執行，除非它在雙方之間及公共利益方面均屬合理。Soler與Hummingbird在友好、非正式關係的情況下，訂立了包含某些限制條款的協定(以臺灣新力所使用的標準格式合約為依據)。從商業現實來看，Hummingbird在簽約和提高Soler的公眾知名度方面所涉及的財務風險。因而，高等法院暫委法官郭靄誠認為，Soler與Hummingbird之間的交易類似於合資經營或合作投資。

高等法院暫委法官郭靄誠考慮了雙方呈交的典據後指出，所引述的案件，是一方在業界具有「相當實力與影響力」的推廣宣傳機構，而另一方則是初出道的藝人。相反，在本案中，Hummingbird是一個新入行的經理人(儘管其在財務狀況方面具有很大優勢)，而Soler則具備一定的行業經驗(包括先前曾與義大利百代簽定錄製合約)。因此，雙方的相對地位
與A Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay ([1974] 3 All ER 616 (HL))及Clifford Davis Management Ltd v WEA Records Ltd ([1975] 1 All ER 237 (CA))案件中的情況大不相同，而更接近於Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment Ltd [1994] Ch 142 (George Michael案件)。

郭靄誠法官在信納Hummingbird與Soler之間並無談判能力不對等的情況後，裁定雙方的商業安排公平且並無不當。因此法院裁定有關協定並不構成從業限制，不能以違反公共利益為由宣告無效。

不合情理的協定

倘若一方利用另一方的弱點或需要而與之訂立不公平或壓迫性的合約，該合約可能因屬於不合情理協定而無效 。正如Lord Brightman所說的，不合情理的協定是指「由行事未得到獨立意見提供的窮困或缺少教育的人士所訂立的，具有魯莽性質，無法證明為公平合理之交易的協定」：Hart v Connor ([1985] AC 1000 (PC))。雙方之間不僅必須存在議價能力方面的不均等，而且處於強勢的一方必須是有意濫用這種不均等，並以道德上應受指摘和昧於良知的方式行事。

這一點似乎未在Hummingbird案件中詳加探討。不過，郭靄誠法官結合從業限制，考慮了不合情理協定的問題，但最終將其駁回，理由是雙方之間並不存在議價能力方面的不均等，並且所作的相關安排並非不合情理。

不當影響和受信關係

雖然不當影響和受信責任經常通過同一系列的事實而得以確立，但它們卻是兩個不同的概念。如果雙方處於一方能對另一方產生影響的關係，而交易的性質明顯不利於受影響方，則不當影響可使該交易成為無效。一般而言，經理人和藝人之間的關係並不符合Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien ([1993] 1 AC 180 (HL))一案所指的2A類(推定影響／認可類別)。因此，尋求擺脫約束的藝人必須證明存在符合類別1(實際影響)或類別2B(推定影響／未認可類別)規定的情況。

假如某人與另一人所處的關係，導致衡平法認可的合法期望產生，即是：受信人不會通過某種方式利用其地位，對委託人的權益造成不利，則會產生受信責任。業已確認(如下文所示)，經理人和藝人之間的關係是信任和信賴關係，而法庭亦確認，在某些情況下將會產生受信責任，例如：初出茅廬的年輕藝人對經理人寄與信任和信賴：Elton John v James [1991] FSR 397 (Ch D)；或者藝人與其原有的經理人訂立新協定：Armatrading v Stone (未經報導，QBD，1984年9月17日)。在Hummingbird案件中，Soler聲稱雙方之間存在信任和信賴關係，並且Hummingbird處於支配性影響的地位。鑒於這一點，Soler尋求取消第二套協定(在Hummingbird作為Soler經理人之時已訂立)，並援引了O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music Ltd ([1985] 1 QB 428 (CA))一案。郭靄誠法官並不認為O’Sullivan判例可以與Hummingbird一案相提並論。Hummingbird的經營者是音樂行業新手，而Soler是「兩名三十居中的[男士]，完全有能力確定什麼對自己最為有利」。因此，在訂立第二套協定方面，不能認為Hummingbird是Soler的受信人，或者處於對Soler施加影響的地位。

Soler亦辯稱，Hummingbird並未能提供適當的賬目，以及侵吞了他們的收入，因而違反了受信責任。郭靄誠法官根據案情裁定，Hummingbird已盡力履行其責任。

代理人對其委託人負有受信責任或忠誠義務。倘若經理人以藝人代理人的身份行事， 與第三方談判，並收取相關收益，便適用上述原則。然而，經理人並非在該藝人的所有事務上都擔當受信人。正如Armatrading和Hummingbird案件的不同裁決所表明，在訂立新協定後，經理人不一定按照現行的管理方案對一名藝人負有受信責任。另一個例子是，管理多名藝人的經理人在藝人之間決定預算的分配或工作安排時，實無法以所有藝人的最佳利益行事。

悔約性違約

在Hummingbird案件中，Soler辯稱其經理人已經廢除了協定，因為Soler時常遭受壓力和言語辱罵。郭靄誠法官裁定，Soler的申訴屬誇大其辭，且缺乏具體內容，而Hummingbird並未悔約性地違反標的協定。

法律上向來的規定是，未能保持相互信任和信賴，可能對合約(例如娛樂或體育人才管理協定)的隱含條款構成悔約性違約：Denmark Productions Ltd v Boscobel Productions Ltd ([1969] 1 QB 699 (CA))、Warren v Mendy ([1989] 3 All ER 103 (CA))及Page One Records Ltd v Britton ([1967] 3 All ER 822 (Ch D))。香港在這方面較為觸目的一宗案件是Mimi Monica Wong v Mirko Saccani ([2006] HKCU 1493)。在該案中，高等法院暫委法官麥卓智認為，「隱含條款在於，雙方均會以合乎保持相互信任、信賴及尊重的方式彼此對待，而這正是師生與舞蹈夥伴關係的正常運作所必須的」。

另一宗娛樂界的案件Worth Achieve Associates Ltd v Huang Sheng Yi [2007] 3 HKC 7中，黃聖依(因周星馳的電影《功夫》而成名)聲稱，經理人的行為破壞了雙方合作的基礎，並告知Worth Achieve將會終止雙方之間的協定。然而，由於該案件在審訊前便已和解，因而並無相關的法庭判決。

先前的典據，並未明確經理人是否須依照客觀標準，抑或是藝人的主觀標準來維持工作關係。Hummingbird一案亦未對此作出定論。然而，郭靄誠法官選擇諸如「誇大」和「虛浮」等措辭來描述Soler的反應，這可能意味，要證明經理人是悔約性違約，便必須符合合作崩潰的客觀標準。

非法侵擾

S o l e r 就其損失了來自潛在僱主的收入， 向Hummingbird 提出申索，理由是Hummingbird發佈新聞公告，聲稱自己仍是Soler的經理人，從而造成該等損失。Hummingbird亦向業內第三方發送函件，警告他們注意與Soler進行交易的法律後果。

在Hummingbird案件的非正審判決中(報導於[2007] 4 HKLRD 79)，張舉能法官認為，雖然法院不會准予發出強制履行令或禁制令，強迫Soler為Hummingbird工作，但Hummingbird有權主張和強制執行其權利，「不僅就違約的損害起訴被告人，並且還可起訴無視被告人對原告人的合約承諾，認為可以與被告人進行業務往來的任何第三方，理由是他們不當地侵擾合約義務的履行或誘使違約–前提條件是須有必要的知情和意圖」。郭靄誠法官確認了這一觀點，同意Hummingbird對決意與Soler進行業務往來的第三方採取法律行動是「完全可以」的。

OBG Ltd v Allan、Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3); Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young ([2008] 1 AC 1 (HL))等若干近期案例澄清了這方面的法例，並指出「視該等以非法手段造成損失的行為，等同於誘使違約的侵權法被延伸，而這一合併理論」包含了兩項不同的侵權，分別是(i)通過非法手段造成損失；(ii)誘使違約。

假如經理人向公眾聲稱現有協定依然有效，將不會因而(i)承擔法律責任，除非其行為違法（例如：構成誹謗或恐嚇），而第三方明知藝人違反現有協定，卻依然與其進行交易，則可能因(ii)而須承擔法律責任。由於允許經理人將上述情況傳達給相關業內人士，這可能起到禁制令的實際效果，使得藝人無法獲取工作。張舉能法官支持Hummingbird有向業界提出警告的自由，他提述這樣的事實：「[Soler]可以隨意告訴別人，他們有充分的自由，可無須透過 [Hummingbird] 而接受任何自己喜歡的人聘用」，而對Soler事業的任何相應損害，可以藉「命令對有關訴訟加速審理而得以充分解決」。

強制履行

張舉能法官在其非正審判決中，贊同Warren v Mendy 及Page One v Britton等英國典據，認為在藝人協定糾紛之類的情形中，無法頒發強制履行令和禁制令。張舉能法官亦同意林文瀚法官在Worth Achieve案件中的看法，即是：「在涉及相互信任和信賴的個人服務合約中」，無法對雙方下達強制履行令。在娛樂界，這一點尤為重要，因為藝人必須在身心兩方面均保持安康，即使法庭意識到在某些情況中，原告人也許完全沒有做錯：Subaru Technica International Inc v Burns ([2001] All ER (D) 195 (Dec) (Ch D))；以及以損害賠償作為違反協定的補救方法，可能並不完全或充分：Nichols Advanced Vehicle Systems Inc v Rees ([1979] RPC 127 (Ch D))。

在Worth Achieve案件中，林文瀚法官敏銳地理解到商業世界中的現實，拒絕接受原告人的論點，即是：雙重經理人安排 (原告人為主經理人，監督被告選擇的另一個經理人)「不切實際，並可能招致嚴重的後果」。林文瀚法官還指出，協定的條款並不要求Worth Achieve須為黃聖依因喪失宣傳推廣所遭受的損失而承擔法律責任。這意味著，如果准予頒發禁制令，黃聖依可能在娛樂圈中遭受所謂的「封殺」對待而沒有任何補救方法。

在Hummingbird和Worth Achieve兩宗案件中，法院裁定並不存在經理人取得永久性禁制令的真實可能（或是根據American Cyanamid一案的原則，並無嚴重問題需要審理），因此並不存在准予頒發非正審禁制令的理據。為保障經理人的權益，林文瀚法官在Worth Achieve案件中命令黃聖依保留和提交每月賬目，而張舉能法官在Hummingbird案件中則接受Soler 的提議，即是假如有關協定仍存在，便將Hummingbird作為經理人而有權享有的收益繳存於法院。

有一點值得注意的是，經理人可自由地與第三方往來互動(上文已討論)，這可能會令藝人被業界疏離，直至其在任何現有協定下的權利和義務獲得法庭裁定，或者與經理人達成和解為止。因此在這種情況下，藝人必須採取迅速而恰當的行動明確自身的權利，以避免喪失工作機會。這可能包括：質疑其與經理人之間的協定的效力；發佈新聞公告，澄清其是否可以自由接受工作；及／或尋求對有關協定的司法闡釋。

調解與保密

在Worth Achieve案件中，林文瀚法官指出，由於關乎禁制令濟助的問題已得到裁決，因此該案件「非常適合進行調解」。雙方其後達成和解，並請求法院暫緩作出非正審判決。林文瀚法官並不認為存在任何暫緩作出判決的理由，因為和解是在判決作出之後(但在公佈前)才達成。

鑒於上述的裁決以及民事司法制度改革下的《實務指示31》(2010年1月1日起生效)，發生糾紛的經理人和藝人可以考慮運用調解而非訴訟來解決其爭議，因為調解的過程和結果均保密，並可以在更短時間內，以更為經濟的方式解決雙方之間的爭議。

結論

經理人應當鼓勵藝人在簽署任何協定前尋求獨立的法律意見，以減少引用從業限制、不合情理協定、不當影響或違反受信責任等原則而令協議受到質疑的風險。

在履行協定的過程中，藝人可期望其經理人盡職盡責地行事，保留適當的賬目，並盡力保持與藝人的相互信任和信賴。

假如關係惡化，經理人可通過合法途徑自由向第三方陳述自己的立場，並可以誘使違約為由，向第三方作出索償。另一方面，藝人亦應當說明自己的理由，謀求盡快與經理人在法庭內、外化解糾紛，以免喪失工作機會。

假如裁定藝人違反協定，在一般情況下經理人僅可獲判損害賠償，法庭極不可能強迫藝人為經理人工作。

經理人和藝人應當嘗試尋求調解而非訴訟，如此，各方均可以在保密的情況下，耗用較少的時間和費用而達致令人滿意的解決方案。

馬兆威
助理律師
胡關李羅律師行
david.ma@wkll.com

作者感謝其監督合伙人張惠慶律師所提供之意見，而文責由作者本人自負。