Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unauthorised practice of law

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2026

NGUYEN VAN HUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1380/2020

Extension of time refused because the 51‑day delay was inordinate and unjustified despite applicant's detention, service to the applicant's known address was regular, the intended appeal had no real prospect of success (applicant had not read the Decision and relied solely on lack of representation), and therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time.
16 Mar 2018

WU (or U) SHING KWONG TSO or SHING KWONG TSO (胡成光祖或成光祖) with WU LUK CHUEN (胡祿全), WOO CHAI FONG (胡齊芳) and WU WAI YIN (胡偉賢) as managers 對歐以文及另一人

Citation

[2018] HKDC 281
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1443/2015

The application was refused because the defendant's son is not a qualified barrister or solicitor and the governing authorities and rules (including CACV 14/2011, Hong Kong authorities, Cap.159 ss44-45 and District Court Rules Order 80(2)(3)) prohibit non‑lawyers from representing parties or acting as next friend except by solicitor; illness does not create an exception to these requirements.
15 Mar 2018

WU (or U) SHING KWONG TSO or SHING KWONG TSO (胡成光祖或成光祖) with WU LUK CHUEN (胡祿全), WOO CHAI FONG (胡齊芳) and WU WAI YIN (胡偉賢) as managers 對歐以文及另一人

Citation

[2018] HKDC 276
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1443/2015

Refusal of the application because established authority and statute prohibit unqualified persons from exercising a right of audience and because the application was a duplicative procedural attempt where there was no material change from a prior order which allowed assistance but not substitution.
22 Aug 2007

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LI KAM CHUEN

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LI KAM CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA328/2007

The court found the plaintiff had repeatedly initiated hopeless, duplicative and oppressive proceedings, including conduct akin to unauthorised practice of law and issuing self-serving debit notes; such conduct justified dismissal of claims and the imposition of an extensive Restricted Proceedings Order and Restricted Application Order requiring prior written leave of the designated judge for fresh proceedings or applications to prevent further abuse while balancing the plaintiff's right of access to court; costs were awarded to defendants under Order 62, rule 9(4)(b).
8 Aug 2007

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. ROBERT LAM

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. ROBERT LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2742/2006

The court struck out and dismissed the three actions where the pleaded causes were without reasonable cause (either because no agreement was pleaded, the alleged oral agreement was inconsistent, the publication was privileged, or vicarious liability lacked any arguable basis), but refused to strike out the claim against Robert Lam where disputed factual issues over services, basis of remuneration and credibility required trial; because of repeated abusive and vexatious conduct the court made RAO/RPO measures and ordered costs nisi with taxation where appropriate.
8 Aug 2007

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. PHOTOBITION HONG KONG LTD

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. PHOTOBITION HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2831/2006

The court struck out and dismissed three of the four related actions brought by the plaintiff as they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious (claims were legally unsustainable or barred by litigation privilege); the claim against Robert Lam (HCA 2742/2006) was not struck out because, on the material, the plaintiff had arguable issues warranting a trial and limited leave to amend was granted; the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to impose a RAO and RPO against the plaintiff to prevent further abuse of process and made costs orders nisi against the pla…
11 Jan 2002

HKSAR v. TO CHUNG HANG JEFFREY

Citation

HKSAR v. TO CHUNG HANG JEFFREY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1330/2001

The original fine was disproportionate as it amounted to nearly five times the fees received; a fine set at a premium of between two and three times the benefit properly balances deterrence and mitigation. Accordingly the imposed fine of $20,000 was excessive and was reduced to $9,500.
28 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. STEPHEN DARYL BARNES

Citation

HKSAR v. STEPHEN DARYL BARNES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA124/2000

Where the statute requires conduct to be 'wilful', recklessness (awareness of risk and proceeding regardless or total indifference) can constitute the necessary mens rea; the magistrate properly found recklessness on the facts and the appellate court upheld the convictions under s46(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance.
24 Jun 1996

EX PARTE THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ABOVE NAMED BANKRUPTS, THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. SPRINGBOK SHIPPING (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

EX PARTE THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ABOVE NAMED BANKRUPTS, THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. SPRINGBOK SHIPPING (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB71/1992

The court discharged the 15 December 1995 order because it risked usurping the Governor's statutory appointment power under s75, constituted an impermissible blanket permission contrary to the specificity required by s61, and created a real risk of enabling an unqualified person to act as a solicitor contrary to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance; however the Official Receiver may consult the former solicitor for factual information without reinstituting the improper order and costs, if any, are for taxation.
24 Jun 1996

EX PARTE THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ABOVE NAMED BANKRUPTS, THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. SPRINGBOK SHIPPING (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

EX PARTE THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ABOVE NAMED BANKRUPTS, THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. SPRINGBOK SHIPPING (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB69/1992

The December 15, 1995 order is discharged because it granted impermissibly broad authority that risked usurping the Governor's appointment powers under s.75, constituted a blanket permission contrary to the specificity required by s.61, and risked permitting an unqualified person to act as a solicitor in breach of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance; the Official Receiver may nonetheless consult the former solicitor for factual knowledge but cannot authorise him to act as solicitor pursuant to the discharged order.