Karen Tsang

Associate
LONDON
Karen Tsang

Karen Tsang is an Associate with Floyd Zadkovich based in the London office.

Karen was called to the Hong Kong Bar in 2020.

Prior to joining the firm, Karen worked as an international arbitration associate at a top-tier US firm in London and as a barrister in Hong Kong.

Karen has experience acting as sole counsel and as junior counsel in international commercial arbitration and litigation. She has acted for clients in multi-billion/million dollar arbitrations under leading institutional rules, including LCIA, UNCITRAL and HKIAC. She has experience in a wide range of matters, including commercial, commodities, trade finance, and public law disputes.

Karen holds a Bachelor of Civil Law (Masters in Law) and a Bachelor of Arts in Jurisprudence from the University of Oxford. She also holds a Postgraduate Certificate of Laws from the University of Hong Kong. She is an awardee of the Hong Kong Bar Scholarship and the Hong Kong Bar Association Charles Ching Memorial Scholarship.

Karen works in English (native), Mandarin (fluent) and Cantonese (fluent).

Latest - Karen Tsang

Karen Tsang
Associate -
London

Focus

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, Litigation & Asset Recovery, Energy, Commercial, Web3, Commodities & Trade

Admission

  • Barrister (Hong Kong)

Highlights of Karen’s work include the following:

  • Acted in a multi-billion dollar LCIA arbitration for an entity in an oil and gas production sharing contract dispute.
  • Acted as junior counsel in a multi-billion dollar HKIAC arbitration for a commodities trader in an international receivables trade financing dispute.
  • Acted as sole counsel in an HKIAC arbitration for an English oil and gas company in a services contract dispute.
  • Acted as junior counsel in an ICC arbitration for a supplier in a goods distribution agreement dispute.
  • Advised as sole counsel on the setting aside of an HKIAC arbitration award.
  • Judgments include:
    – Quaestus Capital Pte Ltd v Everton Associates Ltd [2021] HKCFI 1367
    –  New Century Credit Services Company Limited v Yeung Hung [2020] HKCFI 2651
    – Ng Wing Hung v The Council of the Law Society of Hong Kong [2021] 1 HKLRD 1267
    – Ng Hon Lam Edgar v The Hong Kong Housing Authority [2021] 3 HKLRD 427
    – Ng Hon Lam Edgar v The Hong Kong Housing Authority [2020] HKCFI 2719

Interested in specific aspects of Karen’s recent work? Contact [email protected] for further reference cases.

Professional Experience

  •  Associate, Floyd Zadkovich, London/UK (2024)
  • Associate, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, London/UK (2023)
  • Barrister, Temple Chambers, Hong Kong (2020-2022)
  • Pupil Barrister, Temple Chambers, Hong Kong (2019-2020)
  • Legal Intern, UK Competition and Markets Authority (2018-2019)
  • Legal Intern, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) (2018)

Education

  • University of Hong Kong, Postgraduate Certificate of Laws, Hong Kong (2018)
  • University of Oxford, Bachelor of Civil Law, Oxford/UK (2017)
  • University of Oxford, Bachelor of Arts in Jurisprudence, Oxford/UK (2016)
    – Crystal Prize for Law, Pembroke College
    – Domus Scholarship, Pembroke College
    – Monk Prize for Criminal Law, Pembroke College
  • Don’t Change the Subject… | Case by Case (Ep. 80)

    Don’t Change the Subject… | Case by Case (Ep. 80)

    On this week’s episode join Calum Cheyne and Karen Tsang where they discuss The Aquafreedom [2024] EWHC 255 (Comm) case and whether agreements on “subjects” or “subs” give rise to binding contracts.

    Another subjects case in the charterparty context, following hot on the heels of the Leonidas and the Newcastle Express. Something that we love to discuss on Case by Case.The “subject” of today’s episode is The Aquafreedom [2024] EWHC 255 (Comm) and whether agreements on “subjects” or “subs” give rise to binding contracts.

    The Claimant (“the Owners”) in these proceedings is the owner of the vessel Aquafreedom (“the Vessel”). The Defendant (“Trafigura”) contends that it was the charterer of that vessel. Both claim and counterclaim in these proceedings concern whether a 4 year time charterparty was concluded between the parties during negotiations in late January and early February 2023. The Owners contend that there is no real prospect of Trafigura resisting their claim for a declaration that no binding charterparty was concluded. Trafigura’s case is that there is a real prospect of showing that a binding charterparty was concluded either on 30 January 2023, or 6 February 2023.

    To read the full case – click here