Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to choose counsel

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2012

PENG FENGSHENG v. WONG TAK HUNG

Citation

PENG FENGSHENG v. WONG TAK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1336/2009

The application to vacate/adjourn the trial date was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances: the defendant was aware from 29 May 2012 that original senior counsel might be unavailable and had sufficient time to obtain replacements; the defendant limited efforts to one chambers and alternatives (other bilingual senior or capable junior counsel) were available; adjournment would cause serious, uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff; Practice Direction 5.2 and O 25 r 1B restrict variation of milestone dates.
18 Jun 2003

RE ALUN JONES QC

Citation

RE ALUN JONES QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1437/2003

The application was refused because the applicant failed to prove the case involved unusual difficulty or legal issues affecting local jurisprudence and failed to show that reasonable, genuine attempts to instruct available local senior counsel had been exhausted; public interest in maintaining a strong local Bar outweighed the defendant’s preference.
11 Apr 2001

Re Michael Todd Q.C.

Citation

Re Michael Todd Q.C.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP967/2001

Balancing the public interest in maintaining a strong independent local Bar against the specific needs of the heavy and voluminous underlying case, and having accepted the views of experienced local solicitors and counsel that the applicant's specialized expertise and experience in heavy trials would be desirable as part of a three-counsel team including local senior and junior counsel, the court exercised its discretion under section 27 to admit the applicant but limited the admission to specific proceedings in HCCW594/1999.
18 Oct 1984

RE THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

Citation

RE THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2762/1984

The applicant failed to discharge the burden under section 27(2) because local Queen's Counsel were available, the appeal did not present unusual complexity or require specialist knowledge, and therefore admission of the overseas Queen's Counsel was not justified and was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

PENG FENGSHENG v. WONG TAK HUNG

RE ALUN JONES QC

Re Michael Todd Q.C.

RE THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG