18 Nov 2013
The Court held that a practising barrister who entered into agreements with lay clients to take a share of litigation proceeds committed the criminal offence of champerty; on the facts none of the recognised exceptions applied and the arrangements posed a real and obvious risk to the integrity of the judicial process, justifying conviction and imprisonment.
23 Nov 2012
The applications were allowed because, applying the public interest test, the underlying prosecution is unusually complex and sensitive, the Department of Justice's choice of counsel is entitled to weight, and admitting the overseas silks (together with local counsel) will best serve the public interest and ensure fairness and parity between prosecution and defence.
23 Dec 2011
The court exercised its discretion to admit the overseas silk because the action raises sufficiently complex and novel legal and factual issues of significance and high monetary value such that the applicant's expertise would assist the correct determination of issues likely to affect local jurisprudence and possibly proceed to the Court of Final Appeal; admission was granted but restricted to the trial and applications or proceedings incidental thereto, and no order as to costs was made.
12 May 2009
The court held that, under ss.58,60,63 and 66 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, the plaintiff (Raymond Chu & Co.) is precluded from recovering fees on the basis of an alleged oral fixed fee agreement and must first deliver properly itemised bills which the defendant may have taxed; Order 14A was an appropriate procedure to determine that legal question and the court consequently made directions for delivery of documents and bills and awarded costs of the summons to the defendant.