evidence of liability in other ways, is open to debate. However, the policy driver, namely to encourage settlement of disputes, was regarded as the more pressing priority, and the protection of partial apologies, too limited to have any tangible and positive effect. Statements of fact also inadmissible in evidence The Apology Law goes further than all other jurisdictions with apology legislation, in that statements of fact included in an apology will also be inadmissible in evidence against the apology maker (clause 8). The intention behind this is to encourage full and burden-free apologies to prompt amicable settlement. LegCo was keen to avoid situations where parts of an apology (eg the surrounding statements of fact) were admissible, but the accompanying apology/admission was not. Of course, a claimant may still separately obtain evidence related to a statement of liability or fact by other independent means, for example, during discovery or during cross-examination. But this may impose on a claimant an additional evidential burden. In response to this concern, a late amendment to the bill was introduced such that, in exceptional cases (the only example cited is where there is no other evidence available for determining an issue), a statement of fact contained in an apology may be admitted as evidence at the discretion of the decision maker. It may be admitted only if he/she is satisfied that it is “just and equitable” to do so, having regard to “the public interest or interests of administration of justice”. Whilst these are well defined legal terms, the decision maker burdened with this call may not have a legal background in the case of certain tribunals/disciplinary boards. The scope for satellite litigation on this point is possible, which would counter the intention of the law to reduce, not increase, recourse to the courts. Jurisdiction Clause 6 states that the Apology Law applies to all civil (not criminal) disputes subject to litigation, arbitration, and almost all disciplinary and regulatory proceedings. Only proceedings under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap 86), the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap 390) and the Coroners Ordinance (Cap 504) are specifically exempted further to consultation requests by interested parties. There is scope for the Chief Executive to exempt other proceedings over time and it will be interesting to see whether this happens. Given the wide number of authorities and industry organisations, including the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers, who participated in the consultation process, it is unlikely that a significant number of proceedings will be added to the exemption list. The Apology Law expressly applies to proceedings involving the government (clause 13).