Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of s.15 district court ordinance

Legal area

Court

28 Dec 1973

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3166/1973

The ex parte application was refused because the District Court will not permit an unqualified person (including a foreign-qualified solicitor not yet admitted locally) to appear professionally under s.15 absent exceptional circumstances; existing local practice and binding precedent confine right of audience to those qualified under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance or authorised by legislation.
28 Dec 1973

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3308/1973

Leave was denied because s.15(1)(d) and s.15(2) of the District Court Ordinance, taken with the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and established District Court practice, do not permit an unqualified foreign solicitor to appear professionally on behalf of a firm which is not itself a party; no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and a conflicting prior ruling was binding on the court.
28 Dec 1973

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3125/1973

Section 15 read as a whole and established local practice restricts right of audience to those qualified under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance or authorised; an unqualified person cannot be permitted to appear professionally on behalf of a firm that is not a party, and no exceptional circumstances were shown, therefore the ex parte application must be refused.
28 Dec 1973

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3089/1973

The ex parte application was denied because statutory provisions and established District Court practice restrict right of audience to persons qualified under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify allowing an Australian qualified but not locally admitted solicitor to appear professionally on behalf of a firm; the Court is bound by the existing ruling of Cons. J. and would have notified the Law Society before departing from local practice.
28 Dec 1973

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3672/1973

The ex parte application was refused because under s.15 the Court's discretion does not extend to permitting an unqualified person to appear professionally for a firm that is not a party, there were no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from established local practice and binding authority, and notification to the Law Society would be required before any departure.

Hong Kong Case Law

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

TAIKOO SWIRE LTD v. AU WAI HUNG AND OTHERS