Inside The Ability Bridges Seminar:
Know Your Rights, Protect Your Family
From the DDO to child custody and special needs trusts, a seminar delivering the legal knowledge every family in Hong Kong deserves
For families raising a child or caring for a family member with different abilities in Hong Kong, the law can feel like a maze — full of critical protections and planning tools that are rarely explained in plain terms. Too often, parents, guardians and carers discover their rights only when a crisis has already arrived. That is precisely the gap that The Ability Bridges was designed to help close.
Launched in late 2025 as a six-month pro bono initiative, The Ability Bridges is a collaborative campaign dedicated to bringing accessible, practical legal knowledge to individuals with disabilities and their families across Hong Kong. The campaign is run in partnership with three community organisations at the heart of the special needs sector — the Love21 Foundation, The Nesbitt Centre, and Sensational Foundation — and reflects the firm’s deep commitment to ensuring that access to justice is a right, not a privilege.
The campaign has already made a tangible difference. In March 2026, Hugill & Ip hosted an intimate evening at its offices, gathering families, carers, and NGO workers for a focused session on estate planning for families with special needs. Led by Alfred Ip, the discussion tackled the questions that keep parents and carers awake at night — from structuring discretionary trusts to understanding guardianship.
Today, the campaign has taken a broader step with a free, community-facing seminar at Café 8 in Hong Kong. Three of the firm’s leading practitioners — Adam Hugill, Raphael Wong, and Polly Chu — addressed a distinct area of law that directly affects families living with disability: anti-discrimination protections, divorce and child arrangements, and long-term housing and estate planning.
Defending Equality: Legal Rights and Protections under the DDO
Adam Hugill, specialising in employment and discrimination law, opened the seminar with what is arguably the most foundational topic of the day: the legal protections that every person with a disability in Hong Kong is entitled to, and how to enforce them.
At the centre of his presentation is the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 487) — the primary piece of legislation that renders it unlawful to discriminate against, harass, or vilify a person on the ground of disability. The DDO’s reach is deliberately broad. It covers a wide spectrum of conditions, from physical and intellectual impairments to learning difficulties, mental illness, and chronic illness. Importantly, Adam highlighted two features of the law that many families are unaware of. First, the protection extends to associates of persons with disabilities — meaning a parent, spouse, carer, or relative can also bring a complaint if they have been treated less favourably because of their connection to a disabled person. Second, the DDO covers imputed disability: discrimination based on a mistaken belief that someone has a disability is equally unlawful.
In practical terms, the DDO governs a wide range of everyday situations — from employment and education to the provision of goods and services, access to premises, and even club membership. In the workplace, employers are legally required to consider providing reasonable accommodation to enable an employee with a disability to perform the inherent requirements of their role. Refusing to do so, or making recruitment, promotion, or dismissal decisions on the ground of disability, exposes an employer to a formal complaint and civil liability. As Adam noted in his recent article on redefining inclusivity in the legal profession, the conversation around disability in the workplace is shifting — but legal enforcement remains essential.
When rights are violated, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) is the first port of call. Complaints must be filed in writing within 12 months of the discriminatory act. If the complaint is accepted, the EOC will investigate and attempt to resolve the matter through conciliation. If that process fails, the complainant may apply to the EOC for legal assistance to pursue civil proceedings in the District Court, where available remedies include a declaration that discrimination occurred, damages — including for injury to feelings — and, in certain circumstances, an injunction to stop the conduct from continuing. Crucially, victimisation — any retaliation against a person for having made a complaint — is itself unlawful under the DDO.
Navigating Family Transitions: Divorce, Custody, and Access
Raphael Wong, a partner in the firm’s Family & Divorce practice, took the floor next to address one of the most emotionally charged legal processes a family can face — and one that carries particular weight when a child with special needs is involved.
Raphael began by establishing the court’s jurisdictional footing. Under the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap. 179), the Hong Kong family court can only deal with a divorce petition or application where at least one party is, at the time of the petition or application, domiciled in Hong Kong, has been habitually resident here for a continuous period of three years, or has a substantial connection with Hong Kong. These three gateways are important for families with cross-border ties, and understanding which applies can determine whether proceedings are brought here or elsewhere.
On the question of who counts as a “child of the family” Raphael is clear: the definition goes well beyond biological parentage. Any child who has been treated by both parties as a child of their family — including surrogated children — falls within the court’s protective jurisdiction. This matters enormously for families in the special needs community, where the legal status of the child should never be assumed.
The heart of Raphael’s intervention concerns the orders a court can make regarding children: custody (the right to make major decisions about the child’s upbringing), care and control (day-to-day physical care), and access (the right to spend time with the non-resident parent). He is emphatic on one point that is often misunderstood: access is a right that belongs to the child, not to the parent. It exists to preserve the child’s relationship with both parents, and the court will protect it on that basis. As he explores in his previous article on care and control and the best interests of the child, the court’s paramount consideration in all children matters is the welfare and best interests of the child — a principle that shapes every aspect of the proceedings.
For children with special needs, this principle takes on additional dimensions. Social investigation reports, prepared by social welfare officers, play a significant role in helping the court understand the child’s circumstances and needs. The court will generally resist splitting siblings, and will place considerable weight on stability — consistency of care, schooling, and routine — as a core component of the child’s welfare. On the question of maintenance, Raphael explains that the obligation is calibrated to the child’s reasonable needs and the parent’s ability to pay, and continues until the child turns 18 or completes full-time education, whichever is later. Both care arrangement orders and maintenance orders can be varied at any time if there is good reason to do so, which is particularly relevant for families whose child’s needs may change significantly over time.
For those who cannot afford legal representation, Raphael also discussed the availability of Legal Aid. Applicants must satisfy both a merits test — demonstrating reasonable grounds for bringing or defending proceedings — and a means test, with the current financial eligibility limit for matrimonial cases set at HK$452,320. It is important to keep in mind that Legal Aid does not mean free legal service, and that unreasonable acts or request will cause the merits test to fail or grant of Legal Aid being revoked.
Securing the Future: Real Estate and Estate Planning for Special Needs Families
The final presentation was delivered by Polly Chu, who leads the firm’s Real Estate and Conveyancing practice and brings deep expertise in private client and trust matters. Her session addresses the question that underlies every conversation in the special needs community: what happens to my child when I am no longer here?
Polly began with the Will — the non-negotiable foundation of any estate plan. Without one, the rules of intestacy apply, which can result in assets vesting directly in a child who may lack the capacity to manage them. Even a straightforward Will requires careful thought when a special needs beneficiary is involved. Polly outlines three approaches to dealing with the family home: outright sale by the executor, direct transfer to the beneficiary (which carries capacity risks for future conveyancing), and the creation of a life interest, granting the child the right to reside in the property for the duration of their life. Notably, there is no stamp duty payable on real property that vests by succession under a Will — a meaningful cost advantage compared to lifetime transfers. As the firm’s estate planning FAQ makes clear, a Will is only one piece of a comprehensive plan.
To address the gap between incapacity and death, Polly introduced the Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA) — a document that authorises one or more than one trusted individual(s) to manage the donor’s financial affairs in the event of mental incapacity in Hong Kong. As the firm has explored in depth in its article on practical considerations for EPOAs, the EPOA is a powerful but limited instrument: it ceases upon the donor’s death and cannot extend to housing or medical decisions for the beneficiary. It is, however, an essential bridge between a parent’s active years and the longer-term structures that must be in place for after their passing.
For lasting protection, Polly turned to private discretionary trusts — structures in which a trustee holds and manages assets for the benefit of a defined class of beneficiaries, with full discretion over the timing and amount of distributions. Real estate can be placed directly into such a trust, providing the special needs beneficiary with a guaranteed home, professional management of the property, and continuity of care arrangements that bypass the probate process entirely. Assets held in a properly structured discretionary trust are generally protected from creditors and, critically, do not affect the beneficiary’s eligibility for the Disability Allowance. As noted in a previously published article on property holding trusts for family wealth preservation, the perpetuity restrictions that once limited trust duration were largely abolished in 2013, meaning a well-drafted trust can now provide protection across generations.
For families seeking a more affordable option, Polly also explained the Government Special Needs Trust (SNT), established in December 2018 and managed by the Director of Social Welfare Incorporated. The SNT accepts Hong Kong Dollar cash only — meaning any real estate must first be liquidated — and carries an annual fee of HK$20,000 (subject to adjustment annually). Its key advantage is cost accessibility and the involvement of a registered social worker as case manager. Its principal risk is the possibility of trust termination if funds are exhausted before the executor injects additional assets following probate. Families considering either route must also be mindful of how trust distributions interact with eligibility for Public Rental Housing and other subsidised schemes — a point that underscores, as Polly emphasises throughout, the absolute necessity of professional advice before any structure is put in place.
A Community Effort: Why The Ability Bridges Matters
The three presentations at the seminar covered distinct areas of law, but they share a common thread: the families in the room are not there out of academic interest. They are there because the stakes are real, and the answers matter. The open Q&A session that followed the presentations proved to be one of the most valuable parts of the morning — with panellists from across the firm fielding questions that brought the legal principles to life through real-life scenarios, from navigating access disputes involving a non-verbal child to understanding whether a trust would affect a family’s place on the public housing waiting list. It was a vivid reminder that legal knowledge, delivered in the right setting, can genuinely change outcomes for families.
That is what The Ability Bridges is about. The campaign reflects a recognition that the disability community in Hong Kong faces systemic barriers that go well beyond individual legal problems — barriers rooted in a lack of information, a shortage of accessible professional advice, and a broader social environment that has not always been designed with different abilities in mind. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which also applies to Hong Kong, is unequivocal: persons with disabilities are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights. Translating that principle into lived reality requires effort from every part of the community.
Employers can start by moving beyond minimum legal compliance and genuinely embedding reasonable accommodation into their workplace culture. Schools, service providers, and housing authorities can examine whether their policies and physical environments truly serve people of all abilities. And the wider public can challenge the assumptions and unconscious biases that too often determine how individuals with disabilities are treated in daily life. Inclusion is not a box to be ticked — it is a standard to be maintained, every day, across every institution and interaction.
