A Solicitor v. The Law Society of Hong Kong

CACV 5/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2007

(On Appeal from the Order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
of 12 December 2006)

_________________________

BETWEEN

_________________________

Before : Hon Ma CJHC, Stone & Lam JJ in Court

Date of Hearing   :   20 March 2009

Date of Judgment  :   20 March 2009

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Ma CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.The Respondent in this appeal accepts that the relevant orders of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal must be set aside. The relevant orders are (as stated in the Supplemental Notice of Appeal) :

“(a) the 3rd, 4th and 5th Complaints were found proved against the Appellant;

(b) the Appellant be censured for the 3rd, 4th and 5th Complaints;

(c) in respect of the 3rd and 4th Complaints, a condition be imposed upon the Appellant’s practice that he may not practise as sole proprietor or partner of a solicitors’ firm for a period of 2 years;

(d) in relation to each of the 3rd and 4th Complaints, the Appellant be fined HK$30,000;

(e) in relation to the 5th Complaint, the Appellant be fined HK$15,000; and

(f) the Appellant doth pay the 50% of the following costs the proceedings herein : ‑

(i) $100,000 for the costs of the investigation and disbursements of the Respondent;

(ii) $400,000 for the costs of the solicitors for the Respondent;

(iii) $400,000 for the costs of Counsel for the Respondent; and

(iv) $200,000 for the costs of clerk to the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal.”

2.It was said by the Appellant that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to inquire into, investigate and ultimately make findings on the 3rd, 4th and 5th Complaints. The Respondent agrees.

3.It is not necessary for this Court to make a finding on the question of jurisdiction. It is sufficient merely to say that we are satisfied that the findings in relation to the three Complaints were erroneously made.

4.In these circumstances, we allow the appeal and order that the said orders of the Tribunal be set aside and that as to costs, we also order (this reflecting the agreement between the parties) :

(1) that the Respondent shall pay to the Appellant 70% of his costs and disbursements incurred at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on a party and party basis, such costs to be taxed if not agreed;

(2) the Respondent shall pay to the Appellant 70% of his costs and disbursements incurred in this appeal up to and inclusive of the hearing on 10 October 2007 on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not agreed;

(3) there should be no order as to costs subsequent to the hearing on 10 October 2007, including for the avoidance of doubt the costs of today’s hearing.

Mr P C Lee, instructed by Messrs Lee & Co for the Appellant

Mr Russell Coleman SC, instructed by Messrs K F Chan & Co for the Respondent