Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 27 legal practitioners ordinance

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2016

MR DAVID PERRY QC

Citation

MR DAVID PERRY QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2231/2016

Application refused because the points of law for which certification and admission were sought do not arise on the facts (magistrate found controlling director had full knowledge and acted as directing mind), their resolution is unlikely to substantially develop Hong Kong jurisprudence given existing authorities, and the public interest in protecting the local Bar and competence of local counsel outweighs the applicants' claim to counsel of choice.
16 Feb 2007

RE GEOFFREY CHARLES VOS QC

Citation

RE GEOFFREY CHARLES VOS QC
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV425/2006

The Court held Rogers VP acted within his discretion in refusing ad hoc admission: the case did not present sufficiently complex or novel legal principles likely to impact Hong Kong law, the proposed Pallant v Morgan constructive trust point is of narrow application and did not justify admission in the public interest, and there was no error in the exercise of the discretion.
28 Jun 2001

Re Eldred Tabachnik, Q.C.

Citation

Re Eldred Tabachnik, Q.C.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3244/2001

The application was granted because the applicant is a senior, experienced employment law specialist retained by the Secretary for Justice, his expertise will assist the court in complex employment litigation with significant policy implications, and admission for the particular case is in the public interest under section 27.
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.
3 Apr 2001

Re IAIN MILLIGAN Q.C.

Citation

Re IAIN MILLIGAN Q.C.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1675/2001

Given the applicant's established expertise, detailed involvement in the underlying arbitration, the absence of opposition and the expressed consent of both the Bar and the Secretary for Justice, and having granted abridgment of time for urgency, the court concluded admission under section 27(2) was necessary in the public interest and the applicant met the required standard of quality and standing; therefore admission was granted for the stated purpose.
1 Apr 1999

IN RE J.F. BADENOCH

Citation

IN RE J.F. BADENOCH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1680/1999

Application dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the court that the case was of unusual difficulty and that no local counsel of appropriate skill and experience was available, and there was no adequate evidence that the applicant's retention was justified or that solicitors had attempted to find suitable local counsel; gratuitous Law Society opinions were accorded no weight.
12 Jul 1996

In re v. THOMAS, ROBERT NEVILLE Q.C.

Citation

In re v. THOMAS, ROBERT NEVILLE Q.C.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2063/1996

The application was refused because the appeal did not involve such unusual difficulty or specialist knowledge as to necessitate admission of a London silk, and criticism of local counsel alone is not sufficient justification for admitting overseas counsel.
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.