Barrister Kerby Lau of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC) “unhelpful”, says [2018] HKCA 403 (Cheung, Yuen and Kwan JJA)

Barrister Kerby Lau of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC) “unhelpful”, says [2018] HKCA 403 (Cheung, Yuen and Kwan JJA)


https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=116701&currpage=T

8.  The defendant’s counsel cited a total of 38 cases in this application.  As stated in Practice Direction 2.1 §3(e), the skeleton submissions “should direct at helping the Court to determine whether grounds have been made out for the appeal to be heard by the Court of Final Appeal”.  It is unhelpful to load the submissions with copious authorities making more or less the same point in a number of instances.

Written submissions by Barristers Mr Chua Guan Hock SC and Mr Kerby Lau, instructed by K B Chau & Co Solicitors, for the Defendant (Applicant)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wasted Costs Order Against Hong Kong Barrister James H M McGowan of Admiralty Chambers - HKSAR v Apelete [2019] 5 HKLRD 574 [2019] HKCA 1189

Wasted Costs Order Against Hong Kong Barrister James H M McGowan of Admiralty Chambers - HKSAR v Apelete [2019] 5 HKLRD 574 [2019] HKCA 1189 https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=125051&currpage=T https://disgustingbarristers.blogspot.com/2021/05/hong-kong-barrister-james-h-m-mcgowan-of-admitalty-chambers-ordered-to-pay-wasted-costs.html 36. Before us, Mr McGowan candidly admitted that his actions (or lack thereof) were such as to bring him within the meaning of s.18 of the CCCO. In particular, he accepted that on his part there had been undue delay as well as a repeated failure to comply with the Court's directions, which amounted to serious professional misconduct. 47.  Whatever the position may have been in respect of funding, the applicant was legally aided as from 17 August 2018. There can be no excuse for either Mr Mohnani or Mr McGowan failing to comply with the Court's directions thereafter and no conceivable justification for allowing 7 mont...
Read more

Solicitor Au Wing Lun William - Nonsensical, Defies Common Sense, The Most Absurd Submission Ever Heard, Appalling, Abuse of Process - 區穎麟律師知唔知醜㗎！

Solicitor Au Wing Lun William - N onsensical, Defies Common Sense, The Most Absurd Submission Ever Heard. Appalling.  Abuse of Process - 區穎麟律師知唔知醜㗎！ http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2007/719.html AU WING LUN v. TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS [2007] HKCFI 719; HCA 811/2007 (13 July 2007) Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers Plainly, the relationship between Mr Au and the Mother, together with the requisite trust and confidence which is essential to the relationship, has completely collapsed. In my view, the rent in the parties’ relationship is so deep that it is simply impossible for the Mother to continue to place any trust or confidence in Mr Au. When that very basis is gone, how can Mr Au continue to act for the Mother in the Probate Action? Mr Au suggested that he can do so and protect her interests without taking instructions from her and despite her objection. This is simply nonsensical. It defies common sense, rocks the very foundation of a solicitor-client relationship and des...
Read more

Too Ka Man (杜家文) "Dishonest, Evasive, Recklessly Irresponsible and Wholly Unreliable" - Says Court - [2019] HKDC 971

Too Ka Man (杜家文) "Dishonest, Evasive, Recklessly Irresponsible and Wholly Unreliable" - Says Court - [2019] HKDC 971 CHAN CHAM PONG CEDRIC (陳湛邦) v TOO KA MAN (杜家文) & MANSON WATER AND ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED (文信水電裝修工程有限公司) - [2019] HKDC 971 - Date of Judgment - 26 July 2019 https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=123352&currpage=T The Evidence of D1 (the 3rd Witness) 15.  The 3rd witness was D1.  He struck me as a dishonest, evasive, recklessly irresponsible and wholly unreliable witness.  I find the following non-exhaustive features in D1’s evidence wholly unacceptable: - (1)  D1’s witness statement, dated 13 December 2017, was professionally prepared with the assistance of lawyers.  D1 signed a statement of truth verifying its contents as true.  During D1’s examination-in-chief, D1 corrected just one word in this witness statement and confirmed the rest of its contents as true.  When cross-examine...
Read more