Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Basic law implications

Legal area

Court

29 Oct 1998

RE MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH, QC

Citation

RE MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH, QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4641/1998

The court reaffirmed that public interest is the paramount consideration under s27(2) and held that guidelines should be modified to permit admission of overseas counsel only where the applicant shows the case may involve determination of legal principles likely to impact development of local jurisprudence (and potentially reach the Court of Final Appeal) and the overseas counsel is of sufficiently high quality and standing; admission should ordinarily be accompanied by active early involvement of local counsel and applicants must discharge the evidential burden with specified materials and t…
29 Oct 1998

RE MARK JEREMY HERBERT, QC

Citation

RE MARK JEREMY HERBERT, QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4875/1998

The court reaffirmed that public interest is paramount under s27(2) and held that, in light of the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal, the public interest includes developing Hong Kong jurisprudence with international recognition; accordingly the existing guidelines (Re Coles and Re Goldblatt) are affirmed but modified to require that overseas counsel be of sufficiently high quality and standing for cases likely to impact local jurisprudence, that applicants bear the burden of proof and must file detailed supporting materials, and that admissions will be rare absent active early invol…
29 Oct 1998

RE MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH, QC

Citation

RE MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH, QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4561/1998

The court held that public interest remains the paramount consideration under s.27(2); the existing 1985 guidelines are reaffirmed and modified to allow admission of overseas counsel of sufficiently high quality and standing where a case involves legal principles likely to affect the development of local jurisprudence (and may go to the Court of Final Appeal); the applicant bears the burden to satisfy the court and must file specified supporting materials; procedural timing limits (normally no applications less than two weeks before hearing) are imposed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH, QC

RE MARK JEREMY HERBERT, QC

RE MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH, QC