Temple Chambers

Chambers and Partners Greater China 2025 Edition – Temple Chambers members ranked in multiple practice areas   We are very pleased to see numerous members of Temple Chambers recognised in the newly released Chambers and Partners Greater China Guide 2025 edition as leading practitioners at the Bar. This year’s rankings feature more than 23 silks and 11 juniors individually ranked across a wide range of practice areas.   Chambers and Partners notes that Temple Chambers is “widely regarded as one of the top sets in Hong Kong, drawing on its 40-year history and deep well of experience across its membership of over 60 barristers. The set offers an array of expertise in all manner of commercial disputes, in addition to insights gleaned from its members' roles in the administration of the Bar, as well as in the judiciary”.   𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗿   𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗸𝘀:  Paul W T Shieh SC | Wong Yan-Lung SC | Jat-Sew Tong SC | Rimsky Yuen SC | Eugene Fung SC | Charlie Manzoni QC | Victor Dawes SC | Bernard Man SC | Alexander Stock SC | Abraham Chan SC | Jin Pao SC | Eva Sit SC | Laurence Li SC | Jonathan Chang SC | Law Man-Chung SC | Sara Tong SC | Victor Joffe KC, SC | Anthony Chan SC | Queenie Lau SC | Charles Hollander KC   𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿𝘀: Keith Lam | Tim Parker | Julian Lam | Bonnie Cheng | Justin Ho | Martin Ho | James Man | Byron Chiu | Joshua Chan   𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 & 𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗟𝗮𝘄: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗿 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗸𝘀: Paul W T Shieh SC | Rimsky Yuen SC | Stewart K M Wong SC | Victor Dawes SC | Abraham Chan SC | Jin Pao SC | Anthony Chan SC   𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿𝘀: Tim Parker | Bonnie Cheng | Martin Ho | Geoffrey Yeung   𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆/𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗿 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗸𝘀: Bernard Man SC | Deepak Nagpal KC   𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿𝘀: Bonnie Cheng | Theresa Chow   𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀: 𝗛𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗞𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀    The Hon Geoffrey Ma | Rimsky Yuen SC   𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘀, 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 & 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗿 Eugene Fung SC   See our full rankings with commentary at: https://lnkd.in/gGE5_jgY.

Appellate guidance on letters of request to Mainland courts: the impact on audit negligence cases and beyond In Tenwow International Holdings v PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian LLP and Anor, the Court of Appeal ordered a letter of request be issued to the Shanghai High People's Court for audit working papers held by PwC Zhong Tian. This is an audit negligence claim brought by liquidators of Tenwow International Holdings and its subsidiary against, inter alios, PwC Zhong Tian, an accounting firm in Mainland China. Due to restrictions in the Mainland prohibiting cross-border transfer of audit working papers, PwC Zhong Tian applied for a letter of request to be issued to the Mainland Court under the “Arrangement on Mutual Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters between the Courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” to facilitate the production of its audit working papers. The application was rejected at first instance. Anthony Chan J held that, inter alia, letters of request are normally issued for obtaining evidence from non-parties or for the taking of evidence of a party overseas, rather than for production of documents and discovery. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for the following reasons: 1.   Having reviewed the principles governing the Court’s inherent jurisdiction in issuing letters of request to other judicial authorities, it is not in principle inappropriate for letters of request to be issued in aid of a party’s compliance with its discovery obligation to produce documents in light of legal impediment in the foreign jurisdiction. 2.   Issuing a letter of request is not necessarily tantamount to subjugating the Court’s powers over its procedures to another jurisdiction’s penal law. Even where a request is issued, the court retains full control over its processes. 3.   Interpreting the relevant Chinese regulations, including the 2024 Interim Measures for Data Security Management by Accounting Firms, PwC Zhong Tian had shown a real risk that it would be penalised in the Mainland if it simply handed over the requested documents without prior approval of the Mainland authorities. 4.   There is no reason to read the Mutual Arrangement so restrictively as to exclude the present application for court-to-court approval to produce documents. This arrangement is consistent with the policy of Mainland law for the production of audit working papers. This judgment clarifies the ambit of the court’s jurisdiction to issue letters of request, and is the first successful application (on a contested basis) in Hong Kong for a letter of request made by a party in respect of production of its documents. The full judgment can be viewed here: https://shorturl.at/VpmM3. Charlie Manzoni QC and Jason Karas (Solicitor Advocate), instructed by Karas So LLP, appeared for the Plaintiffs. Benjamin Yu SC, Paul Shieh SC and Astina Au, instructed by RPC, appeared for the 2nd Defendant.

Geoffrey Yeung joins Temple Chambers Temple Chambers is delighted to welcome Geoffrey Yeung as a member of Chambers. Geoffrey was called to the Bar in 2018. He is widely recognised as a standout junior barrister, particularly in the fields of public law and commercial litigation. He is a Bar Scholar and a Rhodes Scholar. Geoffrey is described as “a junior of the highest calibre” by Legal 500, which ranks him as a rising star. Chambers & Partners reports that Geoffrey is “a rapidly rising junior barrister” and “is extremely capable in public and administrative law.” Geoffrey brings further depth to core areas of Chambers’ practice across public and private law. He has appeared in numerous landmark constitutional and administrative law cases in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, including Infinger v Housing Authority [2024] HKCFA 29 and Tam Sze Leung v Commissioner of Police (2024) 27 HKCFAR 288. He is also regularly briefed in major commercial disputes, such as the China Shanshui Cement Group Limited litigation, as well as in regulatory and licensing actions, financial compliance, and competition matters, among others. Read more about Geoffrey’s practice and experience here: https://lnkd.in/gVhMq4r9. 

Court of Appeal on IO Powers to Waive or Acquiesce to DMC Breaches The Court of Appeal in Centre Chase Investment Ltd v The Incorporated Owners of Castle Peak Road International Industrial Building & Another [2024] HKCA 1179 addressed an important question in Hong Kong’s dense urban context: the extent to which a building’s incorporated owners (IO) can waive or acquiesce to an owner’s breach of provisions within a Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC).   The owner of a unit in an industrial building brought proceedings to compel the IO to take action against another unit owner who installed window frames on the building’s external wall for feng shui purposes. The IO’s management committee by resolution approved the existing non-structural installations, including the window frames, until the external walls were repaired in the future.  A key issue in the later legal dispute was whether the IO actually had power to approve breaches of the restrictive covenants in the DMC precluding the erection of signboards etc on the building exterior as well as alterations to the same.    Upholding the Lands Tribunal’s decision below, the Court of Appeal found that neither the IO’s statutory duty to enforce the DMC nor the appellant’s characterisation of the relevant DMC covenants as “total preclusions” prevented the IO from approving breaches of those covenants. The Court held that the questions of waiver and acquiescence should not depend on whether there are consent provisions in the DMC or whether the relevant covenant is qualified or unqualified. The Court affirmed what it described as the “new” approach laid down in Hollywood Shopping Centre Owners Committee Limited v IO of Wing Wah Building Mongkok Kowloon [2011] 4 HKLRD 623 and Freder Centre (IO) v Gringo Ltd [2016] 2 HKLRD 190, which contrasts with the approach in cases such as IO of Hoi Luen Industrial Centre & Anor v Ohashi Chemical Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 11. The “new” approach in Freder Centre emphasises that under s.34I(1)(a) of the Building Management Ordinance (BMO), the IO may give approval to owners who have converted common parts to their own use. The Court of Appeal’s judgment may give rise to further questions for the courts as to whether, as the law now stands, an IO always has the power to waive or acquiesce to a breach of DMC not involving illegality, or whether (and if so when) the IO’s power to waive and acquiesce is constrained by the specific provisions in the DMC. The full judgment can be viewed here: https://lnkd.in/gx_iPNZW.    Abraham Chan SC, Lawrence Ng, Henry Cheng, and John Leung, instructed by C.W. Chan & Co., acted for the applicant.

As a recent guest speaker on the Boase Cohen & Collins Law & More podcast, the Hon. Geoffrey Ma, former Chief Justice of Hong Kong and now an arbitrator member of Temple Chambers, looked back on his life and legal career, from his upbringing and education in the UK to his many years at the Hong Kong Bar and two decades of service with the Judiciary. To listen to the podcast, please click here: https://lnkd.in/eeT4TiR8.

Lord Hoffmann NPJ on Limitation Periods for Constructive Trusts over Secret Profits – “…too much of this damned deeming”! Bringing welcome clarity to a difficult area in the law, the Court of Final Appeal has handed down judgment in Hui Chun Ping v Hui Kau Mo [2024] HKCFA 32, confirming that a 6-year limitation period applies to proprietary claims against fiduciaries for unauthorised profits acquired from third parties. While it has been long recognised that fiduciaries who make unauthorised profits hold these profits on constructive trust for their principals, there have been conflicting authorities as to whether and when such trusts fall within “class 1” (thus not subject to any limitation period by virtue of s.20(1) of the Limitation Ordinance), or “class 2” (to which a 6-year limitation period may be applied). Relying in particular on extrajudicial writings by Lord Millett and academic commentaries, the plaintiff in the present case contended that his proprietary claim against the defendant for unauthorised profits fell within “class 1”. He argued that this trust was consensual in nature, since the law deems the fiduciary as having intended to obtain the profit for his principal. Giving the leading judgment, Lord Hoffmann NPJ explained that the fiction that a fiduciary is deemed to hold the secret profits on behalf of and for his principal should not to be read into the rules on limitation, as the reasons for that rule have nothing to do with limitation. As his Lordship put it, “there is too much of this damned deeming.” The plaintiff’s claim was in fact one for breach of duty and fell outside the scope of “class 1” explained in the English and Hong Kong cases. The trust was subject to a 6-year limitation period under s.20(2), even if that would involve giving the word “trustee” a different meaning in the two subsections of s.20. The Court also held that the plaintiff’s claim for equitable compensation was time-barred as it was in substantially the same form as a claim for breach of trust. Since all the claims were time-barred, the Court held that there is no point for the plaintiff to seek an account. The judgment capped off a notable 2024 in the Court of Final Appeal during which members of Temple Chambers appeared in 10 of the 11 full civil appeals heard by the Court. The full judgment can be viewed here: https://lnkd.in/gYtk-aXy. Paul W T Shieh SC and John Leung (instructed by Iu, Lai & Li) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Benjamin Yu SC, Bonnie Cheng and Jonathan Fung (instructed by Zhong Lun Law Firm LLP 中倫律師事務所有限法律責任合夥) appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Wishing you a wonderful festive season and a prosperous new year from all of us at Temple Chambers!

Developing cross-border arbitration talent and services Jonathan Chang SC was invited to speak at an inaugural national course (全国涉外仲裁人才培训班) organised by the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China at the China University of Political Science and Law (中国政法大学) in Beijing. The intensive two-week programme aims to cultivate capacity and talent with regard to arbitration with an international perspective, a solid understanding of international rules and practices, and the skills to provide high-quality, efficient and professional services in the cross-border legal services market. During the course, Jonathan delivered a presentation titled “Arbitration in Hong Kong: Principles and Practice.” Over 120 participants took part, including senior judges and lawyers from Mainland China, in-house general counsel from major corporations, and university professors. The course concluded with a mock arbitration in which Jonathan played the role of the Presiding Arbitrator.

Guidance on Interpretation of Multi-Party Costs Orders Costs orders are commonly made in favour of or against multiple parties. When faced with such a costs order, questions may arise as to whether the relevant parties’ entitlement or liability for costs is joint and several. In Ng Yiu Chi and Ng Kwok Piu Philip [2024] HKCFI 3552, the Court provided useful guidance on the interpretation of such costs orders. The applicant and the respondent were siblings involved in multiple sets of proceedings between their family members. The respondent later presented a statutory demand against the applicant based on the costs orders made in those proceedings, including two costs orders which were made (i) against the applicant and other unsuccessful parties and (ii) in favour of the respondent and other successful parties. The applicant sought to set aside the statutory demand on the following grounds: (1) Her liability under the costs orders is not joint and several, and she should not be liable for the full amount of the costs awarded under the relevant costs orders (1st ground); and (2) The respondent is only entitled only to claim the costs which he had personally incurred in the proceedings, but not the costs incurred by the other successful parties (2nd ground). Winnie Tsui J dismissed the setting aside application. Regarding the 1st ground, the judge held that: (1) Where a costs order is made against more than one paying party, the general starting point is that the liability is joint and several, except in respect of the separate case or cause raised by one of the losing parties, in which case, the losing party alone is solely liable for the costs incurred by the winning party in meeting the separate case or cause. (2) The starting point is not to be elevated to the status of a hard and fast principle. Rather, it reflects a more general principle of costs, namely, it being at the discretion of the Court taking into consideration all circumstances, including who is the winner and the parties’ conduct. (3) On the facts, the proceedings in question were in substance between two rival camps of family members, and the applicant was in one of the two camps. She had taken up the same position and run the same case as others in her camp and is liable for the costs of the successful camp. Regarding the 2nd ground, the judge held that, where more than one person jointly instruct a solicitor in the same case, then as between them and the solicitor, they are jointly and severally liable for his costs, absent any evidence to the contrary. It is for the applicant to adduce such evidence in the present case, but she has not done so. The full judgement can be viewed here: https://lnkd.in/gWGPZDJ9. Eugene Kwan appeared for the Applicant, instructed by Kenneth Poon & Co.

Opening ceremony of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Beijing Representative Office The opening ceremony of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Beijing Representative Office took place on 16 December 2024, with Rimsky Yuen SC and Victor Dawes SC attending along with other guests including the Secretary for Justice, Paul Lam SC. The HKIAC is the sole appointing authority under the Arbitration Ordinance. It is responsible for appointing arbitrators and determining the number of arbitrators when the parties to a dispute fail to reach agreement. It is also one of the seven designated arbitral institutions under the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. As Co-Chairman of the HKIAC, Rimsky delivered the ceremony opening address, while Victor, as HKIAC Council Member, shared his insights on "The Unique Role of HKSAR’s International Arbitration Regime under the 'One Country, Two Systems' Principle." With 25 arbitrator members and several pioneering Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA)-qualified lawyers, we are dedicated to providing top-notch legal services to businesses and individuals from Hong Kong and mainland China and supporting their growth in the region.