Re Alfred John Balcome
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 124/1974 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This is an application under s.27 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance for admission as barrister. The Applicant is in practice as one of Her Majesty's Counsel in England. He previously applied to this Court and was duly admitted on 21st January 1974 but the Order made upon that application was limited to admission for the purpose of two particular cases. He now desires to accept instructions in another case.
|
HCMP000124/1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 124 OF 1974 -----------------
Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 23rd March 1974. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an application under s.27 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance for admission as barrister. The Applicant is in practice as one of Her Majesty's Counsel in England. He previously applied to this Court and was duly admitted on 21st January 1974 but the Order made upon that application was limited to admission for the purpose of two particular cases. He now desires to accept instructions in another case. 2. O.8 r.3(2) requires that a notice of motion shall include a concise statement of the claim made or the relief or remedy required. The notice before me asks for unlimited and unconditional admission, but the affidavit in support states that his application "is as a result of being instructed to appear .... in Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 85 of 1974" and Mr. Wright in moving the Court has stated that only a limited order is sought. In accordance with the provisions of r.8(3) of the Admission and Registration Rules a copy of that affidavit has to be served, together with a copy of the notice of motion, on the Attorney General and on the Secretary to the Bar Committee. There is not before the Court, as in my view there ought to be, an affidavit of such service but there are on the record copies of letters from the Attorney General and from the Secretary to the Bar Committee stating that the Attorney General and the Bar Committee have no objection to this application and do not intend to be represented at today's hearing. It appears from these letters that they were written in reply to a letter from the Applicant's solicitors rather than as a result of service of copies of the necessary papers. I do not have a copy of the solicitors' letter and do not know whether it indicated an intention to apply for limited or unlimited admission. In the circumstances I think I am now rightly asked to make only a limited order. It is important that applications under this section, and the supporting affidavits, should leave no doubt as to the terms of the order which the Court will be asked to make. 23rd March 1974. Representation: |