AU LEUNG SHUET HUNG AND OTHERS v.AU WING LUN AND ANOTHER

AU LEUNG SHUET HUNG AND OTHERS v.AU WING LUN AND ANOTHER

Because the client (Sarah Au) had full knowledge of the alleged conflicts and expressly chose the 1st and 2nd defendants, that informed choice negated the basis for restraining representation; the 1st defendant would not act as advocate at trial and section 42 prevented him acting as executor pending administration, so there was no real risk to the administration of justice warranting exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain.

Citation
AU LEUNG SHUET HUNG AND OTHERS v.AU WING LUN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Au Leung Shuet-hung (Madam Au); 2nd Plaintiff: Choy Po-chun (Madam Choy); 3rd Plaintiff: Au Chadwick; 1st Defendant: Au Wing-lun William (William Au); 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant (law firm); Interested Party/client: Sarah Au
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Case Number
HCA1954/2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction to Restrain Legal Representation / Hearing and Decision at First Instance (deputy High Court Judge)
Outcome
Application and action dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Conflict of Interest, Advocate as Witness, Informed Consent to Representation, Restraint of Advocates, Probate Will Disputes, Maintenance Claim
Source Language
EN
Professional Conduct Conflict of Interest Probate Civil Procedure Inherent Jurisdiction Solicitor Conflict of Interest Advocate as Witness Informed Consent to Representation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Au Leung Shuet-hung (Madam Au)

1st Plaintiff

Choy Po-chun (Madam Choy)

2nd Plaintiff

Au Chadwick

3rd Plaintiff

Au Wing-lun William (William Au)

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant (law firm)

2nd Defendant

Sarah Au

Interested Party/client

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunction to Restrain Legal Representation / Hearing and Decision at First Instance (deputy High Court Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be restrained from acting for Sarah Au because of a conflict of interest arising from the 1st defendant's position in competing wills and potential personal interest
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant is likely to be a witness at the DC proceedings and whether that disqualifies continued representation
  3. 3 Whether client informed consent negates the need for restraint under the court's inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Because the client (Sarah Au) had full knowledge of the alleged conflicts and expressly chose the 1st and 2nd defendants, that informed choice negated the basis for restraining representation; the 1st defendant would not act as advocate at trial and section 42 prevented him acting as executor pending administration, so there was no real risk to the administration of justice warranting exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain.

Court Disposition

Application and action dismissed

Orders

  • Application and action dismissed
  • Costs order nisi: plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of the action including this application