Re Her Majesty's Counsel and A Barrister
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1727/1986 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. A practice has recently grown up in relation to applications under r.8(3) of the Admissions and Registration Rules (made under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance) to omit from the supporting affidavit any reference to the requirement of s.27(1)(b) of the Ordinance. I draw attention to the provisions of the amended sub-para. (a) of r.8(3), which was promulgated by Legal Notice 11/86. It is not now necessary that applicants under r.8(3) should, unless specifically required so to do under sub-par
|
HCMP001727/1986
Coram: Huggins, Acting C. J Date of Judgment: ________ RULING ________ Huggins, Acting C. J.: 1. A practice has recently grown up in relation to applications under r.8(3) of the Admissions and Registration Rules (made under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance) to omit from the supporting affidavit any reference to the requirement of s.27(1)(b) of the Ordinance. I draw attention to the provisions of the amended sub-para. (a) of r.8(3), which was promulgated by Legal Notice 11/86. It is not now necessary that applicants under r.8(3) should, unless specifically required so to do under sub-para. (b)(i), file all the documents which were formerly required. It follows that there is never any need to apply for dispensation from filing such documents and that it was unnecessary, in the present case, to apply by summons for dispensation from filing a Certificate of Call to the English Bar or an Affidavit of Identity. However, the affidavit prescribed by sub-para. (3)(a) is required in respect of all such applicants. |