Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
HCMP 1304/2016
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
C
D
_______________
and
H
I
J
K
L
BETWEEN
Appellant
and
THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Respondent
Q
R
S
T
U
V
I
J
K
M
N
O
P
O
P
Q
AND
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
HCMP 1305/2016
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
-4-
A
B
C
C
D
_______________
H
I
J
BETWEEN
CHUNG SZE YUEN
Appellant
O
P
T
U
V
and
F
G
and
Q
R
S
J U D G M E N T (NO. 2)
T
U
V
-5-
B
C
D
A.
1
INTRODUCTION
This judgment should be read together with the judgment
I found that the Law Societys view that the appellants were responsible
principal basis for the Law Society making the Decisions had not been
90.
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
E
F
H
I
was not borne out sufficiently by evidence. I therefore held that the
for supervision and management of the TST Office and the YMT Office
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
-6-
91.
B
C
D
E
I
J
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
dispose of the outstanding matters on paper. The parties have duly placed
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
B.
B1.
Parties stance
O
(b)
(c)
S
T
F
G
Q
R
S
T
U
V
-7-
A
B
Both the Law Society and the appellants take the view that
the interests of justice militate against the court remitting the matters back
C
D
H
I
J
K
Q
R
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
B2.
N
O
P
Q
R
S
-8-
C
D
H
I
J
K
disciplinary matters.
professional practice rather than the court : Miller v Law Society of Hong
Kong [2014] 3 HKLRD 1, per Lam VP at [29]. Although both parties
materials are required, it remains the case that the Law Society had not
approached the matters in accordance with what I consider to be the
the Decisions. Mr Chan submitted that his submissions as summarized at
[90] of the Main Judgment represent the current view of the Law Society.
appellants arguments as set out in Mr Dengs written submissions. (Both
Mr Chans and Mr Dengs written submissions are dated 2 November
in fairness, the appellants should be given the opportunity to present to
the Law Society, who is the primary decision maker, their case as per Mr
Dengs written submissions or any further necessary submissions as to
R
S
U
V
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
accept that all the relevant evidence is before the court and no further new
2016 and Mr Chan has not made any submissions on Mr Dengs.) I think
P
However, the Law Society has apparently not taken into account the
N
correct basis as set out at [90]-[91] of the Main Judgment when it made
L
F
G
by way of the Decisions without remitting the matters back to the Law
I am of the view that I should remit the matters back to the Law Society,
S
T
U
V
-9-
full case in mind and determine if and, if so, what conditions should be
imposed on their practising certificates. I have considered the option of
C
D
holding a further oral hearing. Eventually I decided that the better course
there are good reasons why the legislation entrusted the Law Society with
that primary task to the Law Society and will only review its decisions on
appeal, if necessary.
B3.
10
(1)
U
V
C.
11
(2)
(3)
M
N
O
P
Orders
appeals :
COSTS
event. The point is this. In the Main Judgment, I identified two main
issues for determination.
And
S
T
U
V
- 10 -
eventually it was resolved in favour of the Law Society. That being the
case, the appellants are not entitled to have their costs in full. Rather,
C
D
(Jeremy Poon)
Justice of Appeal
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
Mr Earl Deng, instructed by Tang, Wong & Chow, for the appellants
K
they should have 50% only. I therefore order the Law Society to pay the
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V