Tse Wai Chun Paul v. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and Another

CACV003174/2001

CACV 3174/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3174 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 636/2001)

_______________________

_______________________

Coram: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J in Court

Date of Hearing: 25 July 2002

Date of Ruling: 25 July 2002

______________

R U L I N G

______________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This hearing is finished. It was originally scheduled to take place in February. At the request of the Law Society in January, it was put off. That request was not objected to by the appellant. The request was made on the basis that leading counsel who had appeared in the court below would appear on the appeal.

2.Because matters were left so late to try to fix a date, by the time the original date for hearing in February had arrived, it had suddenly dawned on everybody that the original counsel would not be available on dates when everybody else would be available, before September of this year, and therefore other counsel were instructed. It is regrettable that the proceedings were adjourned because they could easily have taken place in February had proper inquiries been made at the time, and the fault of that must lie at least with those representing the party requesting the adjournment.

3.Before the hearing this week, this court drew the attention of the parties to the fact that it was unlikely that this case would finish within a day. We were assured by counsel that it would finish within a day. Counsel for the appellant finished within his estimated time, counsel for the respondent did not.

4.We are now faced with the fact that proceedings in this court have been delayed. We have had to sit this morning. This has inconvenienced other parties and we have a lengthy case to hear now with the long vacation looming. It is very unlikely that this court can produce its judgment before the beginning of the long vacation and what happens after the long vacation may entail that it will be a lengthy time before we can give our judgment.

5.There have been more than 50 authorities cited on behalf of the appellant and probably about 30 on behalf of the respondent. These require considerable work on the part of the court. This hearing has been expedited by the parties to such an extent that the court has a large amount of work to do as a result. We cannot be sure that we can produce our judgments by 20 September when the Disciplinary Tribunal is scheduled to hear the complaints. In those circumstances, a request was made that an undertaking would be given through the Law Society, who could represent the Tribunal for those purposes alone, but that undertaking has not been forthcoming.

6.This court is faced with no alternative then, but to grant an injunction enjoining the Disciplinary Tribunal from proceeding with the hearing until four weeks after this court delivers its judgment. Since the Disciplinary Tribunal has not appeared in this court, although it is a party, it is of course at liberty to apply to set aside that injunction. We must leave it to them to take whatever course they see fit.

Le Pichon JA:

I agree.

Sakhrani J:

I agree.

Representation:

Mr Philip Dykes SC and Mr Hectar Pun, instructed by Messrs Paul W. Tse, for the Applicant/Appellant

Mr Ambrose Ho SC and Mr Johannes Chan, instructed by Messrs Lo, Wong & Tsui, for the 2nd Respondent