Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to appear

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2012

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD

Citation

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2010

Defendant demonstrated impecuniosity and did not show sufficiently strong merits to counterbalance the special circumstances; accordingly it is just to order security for costs of $50,000 with proceedings stayed until provided. The leave granted to the director to represent the company was not revoked because there was no clear basis to conclude the Registrar lacked jurisdiction or that the director was deliberately abusing process or incapable of fairly conducting the appeal.
27 Feb 2002

Re HKSTC Warrington Fire Research Ltd.

Citation

Re HKSTC Warrington Fire Research Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW684/2001

Leave was granted because the ordinary entitlement of a creditor-shareholder to be heard outweighed the unexplained delay; although the court rejected the applicant's explanation for delay, the Petitioner failed to show any prejudice from allowing the opposing major creditor and shareholder to appear, and the Cooperation Agreement may be relevant to the Petition's debt claim.
8 Aug 2000

CHEUNG KAM CHUEN v. CHAN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG KAM CHUEN v. CHAN WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV13/2000

The Court granted the EOC leave to provide the services of counsel who will make submissions as an amicus curiae; counsel will act impartially to assist the Court; and the EOC will neither be entitled to costs against any party nor liable in costs to any party.
8 Aug 2000

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2000

Leave was granted for the Equal Opportunities Commission to provide the Court with the services of counsel who will act as amicus curiae; counsel will be the amicus provided to the Court by the EOC, and the EOC is neither entitled to costs against any party nor liable in costs to any party.
17 Nov 1993

In re Colin Reese, QC,

Citation

In re Colin Reese, QC,
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3698/1993

The court was not satisfied the issues were of such unusual complexity or difficulty as to require an overseas leader; given the availability and competence of local counsel the motion for leave was dismissed.
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

DCCJ3158/1973

The ex parte application was denied because the District Court’s statutory framework and established local practice confine right of audience to those qualified under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance Cap.159; s.15(1)(d) does not authorize deputizing unqualified persons, s.15(2) implies the Court will not permit professional appearances by unqualified persons, and no exceptional circumstances justified departing from binding precedent and 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

DCCJ3102/1973

The ex parte application was refused because, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the District Court will not permit an unqualified foreign solicitor to appear professionally for a firm that is not a party; established local practice and a recent ruling of Cons. J. bind the court and s.15(2) and the Legal Practitioners Ordinance support refusal.
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

DCCJ3106/1973

Absent exceptional circumstances and having regard to s.15(1)(d) and s.15(2) of the District Court Ordinance, established local practice and a binding prior ruling, the Court will not grant leave for an unadmitted or unqualified person to appear professionally in Chambers for a firm that is not a party.
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

DCCJ3162/1973

The ex parte application was denied because District Court practice and statutory interpretation of s.15 restrict right of audience to qualified persons or those authorised by law, s.15(2) discourages permitting unqualified persons to appear professionally, no exceptional circumstances existed, and a recent binding ruling supported refusal.