RE COLIN JOHN WRIGHT

RE COLIN JOHN WRIGHT

The application was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessary to exercise the Court's discretion under s.27(2); the evidence did not establish that he possessed the specialist admiralty expertise relied upon and therefore admission was not justified in the public interest.

Citation
RE COLIN JOHN WRIGHT
Parties
Applicant: Colin John Wright; Opponent: Bar Council; Intervener: Attorney General's Chambers
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 January 1993
Case Number
HCMP3023/1992
Procedural Posture
Admission as a Barrister Under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance / Judgment
Outcome
Application for admission as a barrister refused.
Legal Topics
Admission Under Section 27, Practice as Solicitor Restriction (s.27(1)(c)), UK Practice Requirement (s.27(1 A)), Court Discretion to Admit Under S.27(2), Shortage of Specialised Counsel
Source Language
EN
Admissions Professional Regulation Admiralty and Maritime Law Public Interest Admission Under Section 27 Practice as Solicitor Restriction (s.27(1)(c)) UK Practice Requirement (s.27(1 A)) Court Discretion to Admit Under S.27(2) +1 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin John Wright

Applicant

Bar Council

Opponent

Attorney General's Chambers

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Admission as a Barrister Under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in practice as a solicitor within s.27(1)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant met the s.27(1A) requirement of three years' UK practice or otherwise qualified for admission
  3. 3 Whether the applicant possesses specialist admiralty/maritime expertise sufficient to justify exceptional admission under s.27(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessary to exercise the Court's discretion under s.27(2); the evidence did not establish that he possessed the specialist admiralty expertise relied upon and therefore admission was not justified in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Application for admission as a barrister refused.

Orders

  • Application for admission as a barrister refused.