CAMP 50/2023

[2024] HKCA 759

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 50 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM THE DECISION AND ORDERS
OF THE BARRISTERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MADE ON
10 OCTOBER 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. This is the appellant’s application, by summons filed on 7 February 2023 (and amended on 27 June 2023), for extension of time to appeal against the decision and orders of the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal (“ the Tribunal ”) dated 10 October 2022 and for stay of execution of the Tribunal’s order.

2. On 2 August 2022, the Tribunal handed down the Statement of Findings (“ Statement of Findings ”) against the appellant in which it was found that the following complaints of professional misconduct have been proved:

(1) failure to act competently in discharging his professional duties ( Complaint 1 );

(2) in his professional capacity as barrister attended the residence of X, a practising solicitor, and held a conference with her on a matter in relation to his professional practice without any or any good reason ( Complaint 2 );

(3) engaged in conduct dishonest or discreditable to a barrister by knowingly furnishing untrue and/or inaccurate information to the Standing Committee on Discipline of the Bar Association (“ Standing Committee ”) ( Complaint 3 ).

3. In gist, under Complaint 1, the Tribunal found the appellant guilty of misconduct on his own admissions that he failed to plead properly the elements of the causes of action of “unlawful means conspiracy” and “dishonest assistance”, and the prayer for relief is defective. The Tribunal further found the appellant failed to render new advice to his lay client after the exchange of witness statements. In respect of Complaint 2, the Tribunal held that a solicitor’s residence constituted her “office” for the purpose of rule 91 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar (“ the Code ”) and found on the evidence that the appellant attended the solicitor’s residence for a conference on a matter in relation to his professional practice. Under Complaint 3, the Tribunal found that the appellant’s reply to the Standing Committee’s request for explanation for his attendance at the solicitor’s residence “starkly inverted” his evidence given under oath during the trial of HCCC 30/2018, which the Tribunal found is truthful. The Tribunal found the appellant knowingly furnished untrue information to the Standing Committee in his reply.

4. On 10 October 2022, the Tribunal handed down the Decision and Orders (“ the Decision ”), which was redacted for publication on 9 November 2022. The Tri