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

主控官周天行俾法官葉佐文串爆咗 Mr Anthony CHAU Mocked By His Honour Judge Eddie Yip

Mr Anthony Tin Hang CHAU Mocked By His Honour Judge Eddie Yip 主控官周天行俾法官葉佐文串爆咗  https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20210222/B2U237DT7RF3ZKACHNQKEF5YLI/ 控方由主理國安法案件的高級助理刑事檢控專員周天行代表。甫開庭，辯方投訴，直至上星期五黃昏5時至6時才收到控方傳真修訂版本案情。法官葉佐文質問主控官周天行為何這麼遲。周稱修改純粹涉及「少少字眼」，法官反駁謂：「我哋唔係所有嘢都係字嚟㗎咩？」葉官又質疑控方在上周工作時間後才發送修改文件，問他知否辯方收到文件後仍要與證人開會，又質疑周謂：「你有冇做過辯方㗎？」、「你唔會收埋喺床下底自己改㗎嘛？」。法官亦透露，書記已多次催促控方，但就連法官本人也是到上周很遲時間才收到修訂文件，要犧牲放假私人時間處理，需要改動私人事務安排。周向法庭致歉，承認確是遲交文件。案件編號：DCCC888/19、11、734/20
Read more

主控大律師伍家聰 Prosecuting Counsel Simon K C Ng (Barrister) 俾法官沈小民寸 - 『共謀者原則』唔係咁解你返去自己諗清楚【案件編號：DCCC908、918/19】

主控大律師伍家聰 Prosecuting Counsel Simon K C Ng (Barrister) 俾法官沈小民寸 https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20210219/JOB3V7RYRJDLLFQZQF3LWRMN4E/ 沈官更一度向主控大律師伍家聰稱：「『共謀者原則』唔係咁解你返去自己諗清楚。」【案件編號：DCCC908、918/19】10.1串謀暴動案六男女全部脫罪
Read more

Chung & Kwan Solicitors Got the Law Completely Wrong

Hong Kong Law Firm Chung & Kwan Solicitors Got the Law Completely Wrong [2021] HKLdT 37 - LDBM 56/2020 -  https://legalref.judiciary.hk/ doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/ 2020/LDBM000056_2020.doc //On 11 May 2020 the respondent’s then solicitors, Messrs Chung & Kwan, gave a reply letter and refused to convene such a meeting on the ground, inter alia, that convening such meeting is not an exemption under the Regulation as the IO is not a statutory body.  The same contention was repeated in paragraph 8(d) of the respondent’s Notice of Opposition filed on 22 July 2020... ... the Secretary for Food and Health has clarified and confirmed that the requested meeting would be an exempted group gathering under Schedule 1 of the Regulation, and in particular paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 1 of the Regulation is applicable to the requested meeting as contended by the applicant. ... It is clear that paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 1 would be able to give an exemption for the respondent to c...
Read more