RE GEOFFREY CHARLES VOS QC

HCMP 1980/2006

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS no. 1980 of 2006

______________________

______________________

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1.  This is an application for admission of overseas counsel, who is undoubtedly a very experienced and well-reputed counsel and nothing can be said about that.  The application is made under section 27 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap. 159.

2.  The case for which the counsel is sought to be admitted is a case which was heard in the court below.  The trial took, I understand, some 20 days.  The facts are involved but not particularly complex, and are set out in the judgment.  On appeal the case is sought to be argued, as is wont on many appeals, on a slightly different basis from the way it was below.

3.  The application is put on the basis that there is an equity which arises, it is a form of constructive trust.  The case which is relied on is an old case, it is Pallant v Morgan it is a decision of Harman J and it is to be found in [1953] 1 Ch 43.  The case itself did not appear to attract much interest until more recently.  There was a case in the Court of Appeal in 1999, Banner Homes Group PLC v Luff Developments Limited [2000] Ch 372 where Chadwick J expanded upon the circumstances upon which this constructive trust would be held to exist.

4.  Although this case does involve a question of analysis of facts and the question of analysis of whether a constructive trust exists, I do not see that this is not a case which can be perfectly properly handled by Hong Kong counsel and I see no reason on this occasion to admit an overseas counsel to argue a case such as this, which has been perfectly competently argued up to now and I see that the circumstances do not arise.  It is said that this case may or may not go to the Court of Final Appeal, well, so be it, but not every case that goes to the Court of Final Appeal merits an overseas counsel. 

5.  Despite the fact that there is now no opposition by the Bar and they are prepared to consent, as is the Secretary for Justice, I do not see that the circumstances of this case merit the admission of an overseas counsel.