RE MR ROBERT HILDYARD, QC

RE MR ROBERT HILDYARD, QC

The application to admit Mr Robert Hildyard QC was dismissed because the appeal did not raise a live jurisdictional question on quasi‑interest, the issues were not of sufficient novelty or complexity to require overseas counsel, the application was made late causing potential prejudice and insufficient efforts were made to instruct local counsel; these factors cumulatively did not justify admission.

Citation
RE MR ROBERT HILDYARD, QC
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner; First Respondent: First Respondent; Second Respondent: Second Respondent; Third Respondent: Advance Wise Development Limited; Fourth Respondent: Wise Apex Enterprises Limited; Fifth Respondent: Active Team International Limited; Sixth Respondent: Richmond Properties and Trading Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2010
Case Number
HCMP1890/2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Admission of Overseas Counsel Arising From Appeal Under Section 168 a Companies Ordinance / Application to Admit Mr Robert Hildyard QC for Hearing in the Court of Final Appeal (appeal Listed 7 January 2011)
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 168 a Companies Ordinance, Quasi‑interest, Admission of Overseas Counsel, Corporate Veil, Double Counting/compensation
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Appeal Procedure Legal Profession Admission Remedies and Equitable Relief Section 168 a Companies Ordinance Quasi‑interest Admission of Overseas Counsel Corporate Veil +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner

Petitioner

First Respondent

First Respondent

Second Respondent

Second Respondent

Advance Wise Development Limited

Third Respondent

Wise Apex Enterprises Limited

Fourth Respondent

Active Team International Limited

Fifth Respondent

Richmond Properties and Trading Company Limited

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Admission of Overseas Counsel Arising From Appeal Under Section 168 a Companies Ordinance / Application to Admit Mr Robert Hildyard QC for Hearing in the Court of Final Appeal (appeal Listed 7 January 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction under section 168A to award quasi‑interest
  2. 2 Whether the application to admit overseas counsel (Mr Robert Hildyard QC) should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the appeal raises matters of sufficient difficulty, importance or complexity to justify admission of overseas counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The application to admit Mr Robert Hildyard QC was dismissed because the appeal did not raise a live jurisdictional question on quasi‑interest, the issues were not of sufficient novelty or complexity to require overseas counsel, the application was made late causing potential prejudice and insufficient efforts were made to instruct local counsel; these factors cumulatively did not justify admission.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for the admission of Mr Robert Hildyard QC to appear on behalf of the petitioner dismissed