Read the full judgment text of CACV 60/2012 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 March 2013 before Stock VP, Kwan JA, Barma JA.
Civil appeal – solicitors' discipline – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – whether the appeal involves questions of great general public importance or otherwise merits leave under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 – whether the privilege against self-incrimination is available to a solicitor under investigation by the Law Society of Hong Kong – whether decisions of the Investigating Committee of the Law Society attract the doctrine of res judicata – whether it is unfair for the Law Society to refrain from making discovery of such Investigating Committee decisions – Tribunal had made adverse findings on 12 December 2011 and ordered penalty and costs on 7 March 2012 – Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive appeal on 11 December 2012 – solicitor applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal – court found arguments on res judicata not reasonably arguable and the associated unfairness ground (premised on res judicata) also failed – arguments on privilege against self-incrimination framed in wrong order and of no merit because the Revised Request would not expose the solicitor to punishment, penalty or forfeiture – no exceptional circumstances to justify exercise of discretion to grant leave on 'or otherwise' limb – proposed amendments to Principle 6.04 of the Hong Kong Solicitors' Guide to Professional Conduct had no bearing on the application – application for leave dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Legal issues: Whether decisions in disciplinary matters by the Investigating Committee attract the doctrine of res judicata · Whether the privilege against self-incrimination is available to a solicitor under investigation by the Law Society
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed; the Solicitor's application to appeal against the Court of Appeal's earlier judgment is refused on all three grounds raised.
Cited by 2 cases