A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

FAMV No. 54 of 2007

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 54 OF 2007 (Civil)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM

CACV No. 246 of 2004)

_______________________

_______________________

__________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

__________________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1.      The background to this application is set out in the judgment of Bokhary PJ in Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong (2006) 9 HKCFAR 175. 

2.      The applicant, a solicitor, sought to challenge the decision rendered against him by a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of his failure to produce documents required by Law Society inspectors.  His challenge failed both in the Court of Appeal and in this Court, whose decision was delivered on 22 March 2006.

3.      When furnished with the Law Society’s bill of costs, the applicant noticed that the solicitor acting as clerk to the Tribunal was in the same firm as the chairman of the Tribunal.  He contends that this meant that the chairman somehow had a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings.  He also contends that the clerk participated improperly in the decision-making process.  On 25 November 2006, he issued a motion seeking leave from the Court of Appeal to vary the order it had made on the basis of the matters he has discovered. 

4.      The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.  He now applies for leave to appeal against that decision of the Court of Appeal.  In our view, the Court of Appeal’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction to re-open a matter which had already proceeded to a determination by this Court was correct and gives no basis for an appeal. 

5.      The applicant also applies to this Court to re-open the matter on the basis of its inherent jurisdiction.  However, the underlying issues and merits do not justify such a course, which is one which could only be contemplated in wholly exceptional circumstances.  There was in any event in our view no question of the Chairman having a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings.  The clerk would have been paid whatever the outcome.  Allegations about fact-specific procedural irregularities which are strongly contested give no basis for leave, let alone any basis for re-opening a matter already decided by this Court.

6.      Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.

7.      It was ordered that the applicant pays the respondent its costs of and incidental to this application in the sum of $120,000, that being the sum proposed by the respondent and not opposed by the applicant.