Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitors disciplinary tribunal

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2025

ABC v. LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4151
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1215/2023

The Court held that the Applicant remained a party to the SDT proceedings because he initiated a rule 3(1) complaint and rule 4 requires the Council to transmit documents received under rule 3(1) rather than convert the complaint into a rule 3(2) matter to deprive party status; accordingly the Applicant is entitled to the procedural rights under SDT Rules 8,10,12,14,15,17 and 30; however the Applicant does not have a right to appoint or replace the Prosecutor and the Court will not interfere with prosecutorial discretion absent exceptional circumstances; the Law Society's denial of party stat…
23 Aug 2007

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV274/2006

In Hong Kong s.25 LPO permits public reimbursement of the Law Society's expenses; consequently the English Baxendale Walker approach does not apply here as a general rule. Absent good reason, costs should generally follow the event in disciplinary proceedings and a successful solicitor is ordinarily entitled to costs; the Tribunal retains broad discretion to consider regulator conduct and case-specific factors.
28 Nov 2005

A SOLICITOR AND ANOTHER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR AND ANOTHER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV269/2004

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because no valid ground of appeal was demonstrated and the issues did not raise a matter of great general or public importance; the Court held the Tribunal's costs orders were wrong in principle and emphasized that the Tribunal must draft its own decisions.
3 Nov 2005

A SOLICITOR v. LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR v. LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV372/2004

Court of Appeal held that although misconduct was proved, the appellant had acted honestly, reasonably and in reliance on leading counsel's advice and had cooperated; such misconduct was at the lowest end of culpability and therefore the Tribunal's fine and fixed costs contribution were disproportionate. Appeal allowed in part: fine reduced from $100,000 to $5,000 and costs contribution reduced from $400,000 to $75,000; appeal allowed with costs.
9 Aug 2005

RE NIE KIN KWOK KEVIN AND OTHERS

Citation

RE NIE KIN KWOK KEVIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2577/2004

No fair‑minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real danger of bias: the Registrar's former presidency ended almost eight years earlier, there was no evidence of continuing connection or financial interest, the contested nature of the taxation explained the conduct, and any erroneous remark did not amount to bias; therefore recusal unjustified and appeal dismissed.
22 Jun 2005

A SOLICITOR AND ANOTHER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR AND ANOTHER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV269/2004

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the final costs order because the Tribunal erred in law by (1) imposing costs against the 2nd respondent despite his status as a trainee/newly qualified solicitor acting under the supervision of the 1st respondent, (2) depriving the 1st respondent of costs for alleged shortcomings that were not charged, and (3) allowing a Clerk to draft findings/orders in a manner that created a real or apparent breach of natural justice; consequently the costs order could not stand.

Hong Kong Case Law

ABC v. LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

A SOLICITOR AND ANOTHER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

A SOLICITOR v. LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

RE NIE KIN KWOK KEVIN AND OTHERS

A SOLICITOR AND ANOTHER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG