Latest by Jennifer Leung

Blog

Hong Kong – General adjournment of court proceedings ends with more guidance for remote hearings

Published on 04 May 2022. By Carmel Green, Partner and Jennifer Leung, Associate

Hong Kong's general adjournment of court proceedings ends with more guidance for remote hearings.

Read more
Blog

Hong Kong – General adjournment of court proceedings given severity of “5th Wave” of COVID-19

Published on 04 April 2022. By Carmel Green, Partner and Jennifer Leung, Associate

Given the severity of the “5th Wave” of the pandemic in Hong Kong, on 4 March 2022 the judiciary announced another “general adjournment of proceedings”; this time to run from 7 March to 11 April 2022.

Read more
Blog

Hong Kong – Appeal case reviews adequacy of regulator’s reasons not to proceed with complaint

Published on 18 February 2022. By Samuel Hung, Partner and Jennifer Leung, Associate

In Ng Shek Wai v HKICPA , the Court of Appeal reviewed the adequacy of the reasons for a regulator's decision that there was no prima facie case of professional misconduct. The issue arose in the context of an application for judicial review.

Read more
Blog

Recent judgment on ad hoc admission of overseas counsel tells of wider COVID-19 story

Published on 10 December 2021. By Samuel Hung, Partner and Jennifer Leung, Associate and James Lee, Associate

Green tint

Applications for ad hoc admission, pursuant to section 27(4) of the Ordinance, are fact dependent and the relevant legal principles are well-established.

Read more
Publication

High Court reviews permission for expert reports and delay after general adjourned period

Published on 07 October 2021. By Antony Sassi, Managing Partner, Asia and Rebecca Wong, Senior Associate and Jennifer Leung, Associate

Purple tint 5

In Redland Precast Concrete Products (China) Ltd v AES Steel Mould (Hong Kong) Ltd1 the Court of Appeal emphasised that it is unlikely to interfere with the exercise of a first instance court’s case management discretion regarding directions for expert reports, unless an applicant can show that the lower court’s decision is plainly wrong. This presents a party seeking to challenge such directions with a high threshold to overcome in order to obtain permission to appeal. In this case, the applicant (the plaintiff) was unable to meet the threshold – therefore, its application for permission to appeal was refused by the court. Had the plaintiff acted more expeditiously, immediately after the general adjourned period (when the courts were generally closed between January and May 2020 because of the pandemic), things may have turned out differently.

Read more
Publication

Witnesses overseas and preparations for trial during a pandemic

Published on 17 September 2021. By Samuel Hung, Partner and Jacky Darsono, Partner and Jennifer Leung, Associate

Purple tint 2

A couple of recent High Court decisions demonstrate some of the issues that arise when a party applies for one or more of their witnesses to give evidence at trial by video conferencing facilities, or seeks an adjournment of a trial, because a witness is overseas and experiencing difficulties in returning to Hong Kong in time for a trial date given the COVID-19 pandemic. In such circumstances, the courts’ ultimate priority is the administration of justice, which involves (among other things) balancing the parties’ competing interests while exercising their case management powers. A trial date (a “milestone date”) is generally sacrosanct and live evidence in person at trial is the norm.

Read more