RE HER MAJESTY\'S COUNSEL AND A BARRISTER

RE HER MAJESTY\'S COUNSEL AND A BARRISTER

The amended sub‑paragraph (a) of r.8(3) (Legal Notice 11/86) removes the requirement that applicants must file all documents formerly required; consequently there is no need to apply for dispensation from filing those documents and it was unnecessary in this case to apply by summons for dispensation from filing a Certificate of Call or an Affidavit of Identity, but the affidavit prescribed by r.8(3)(a) remains mandatory.

Citation
RE HER MAJESTY\'S COUNSEL AND A BARRISTER
Parties
Applicant: Robert Anthony Kent Wright Q.C.; Legislation: Legal Practitioners Ordinance Cap. 159 s.27
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Case Number
HCMP1727/1986
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings / Ruling
Outcome
Application for dispensation unnecessary; affidavit under r.8(3)(a) required.
Legal Topics
Admission to the Bar, Admissions and Registration Rules R.8(3), Dispensation From Filing Documents, Affidavit Requirements
Source Language
EN
Legal Profession Civil Procedure Administrative Law Admission to the Bar Admissions and Registration Rules R.8(3) Dispensation From Filing Documents Affidavit Requirements

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Anthony Kent Wright Q.C.

Applicant

Legal Practitioners Ordinance Cap. 159 s.27

Legislation

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants under r.8(3) must file all documents formerly required including Certificate of Call and Affidavit of Identity
  2. 2 Whether an application for dispensation from filing those documents is necessary
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit prescribed by r.8(3)(a) is mandatory

Ratio Decidendi

The amended sub‑paragraph (a) of r.8(3) (Legal Notice 11/86) removes the requirement that applicants must file all documents formerly required; consequently there is no need to apply for dispensation from filing those documents and it was unnecessary in this case to apply by summons for dispensation from filing a Certificate of Call or an Affidavit of Identity, but the affidavit prescribed by r.8(3)(a) remains mandatory.

Court Disposition

Application for dispensation unnecessary; affidavit under r.8(3)(a) required.

Orders

  • No summons for dispensation from filing Certificate of Call or Affidavit of Identity is necessary in this case.
  • Applicants under r.8(3) must file the affidavit prescribed by r.8(3)(a).