Tam Kam Tong v. The Law Society of Hong Kong

HCMP 736/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 736 OF 2025

____________________

____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

1.By a decision dated 9 May 2025, the Law Society decided to impose conditions on the appellant’s practising certificate pursuant to section 6(5)(e) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (“the Ordinance”[1]) and section 3(i) of the Practising Certificate (Special Conditions) Rules (“the Rules”[2]). The conditions are conditions 2 to 5 in Schedule 1 of the Rules, namely:

(1)  The appellant may only practise in an employment that has been approved by the Council of the Law Society (“the Council”). (Condition 2)

(2)  The appellant may only practise in a partnership that has been approved by the Council. (Condition 3)

(3)  The appellant may only practise on his own account with the approval of the Council. (Condition 4)

(4)  The appellant shall not sign cheques on a client account. (Condition 5)

2.Aggrieved, the appellant appeals to this Court under section 6(9) of the Ordinance.

3.Since the decision, certain matters pertaining to the appellant’s conduct have come to the attention of the Law Society which, both parties accept, are highly relevant and may be considered by the Law Society in deciding whether to affirm the decision. When new evidence emerges after an impugned decision by the Law Society which is relevant to the issues at hand, the court has a discretion to remit the matter back to the Law Society for reconsideration under section 6(11)(c) of the Ordinance: see Roderick Miller v Law Society of Hong Kong [2014] 3 HKLRD 1, per Lam VP (as he then was), at [27] – [31]. Having considered all the materials, including the new ones, I conclude that the best course to take is to remit the matter to the Law Society for reconsideration. As I understand the Law Society’s position, it is open to this course as well.

4.For this reason, I will make an order under section 6(11)(c) of the Ordinance with costs reserved.

K.T. Tam & Co, for the Appellant

Mr Richard Hudson, Solicitor Advocate of Deacons, for the Respondent