WONG KIN-KEUNG v. LEE WOON (OR WAN) SUN AND OTHERS

HCA000445/1973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

 

ACTION NO. 445 OF 1973.

-----------------

 

BETWEEN
	WONG KIN KEUNG otherwise known as WONG KEUNG	Plaintiff
	and
	LEE WOON (or WAN) SUN	1st Defendant
	LEE LUM TING	2nd Defendant
	SANG HING HONG CO. LTD.	3rd Defendant

-----------------

Coram: Cons, J.

Date of Judgment: 26 July 1973

 

-----------------

RULING

-----------------

 

1. At the hearing of an inter parte summons in this action a lady appeared before me in chambers seeking to represent a firm of solicitors on behalf of one of the parties. Solicitors for the other parties immediately raised objection to her presence not on personal grounds but on the ground that she was not qualified within ss. 4 and 7 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, She is, however, I understand, qualified as a solicitor in Australia. In order to dispose of the business then before me it was agreed that I should accept her appearance for the time being and reserve until later my decision as to whether that appearance had been by right or by courtesy. But before I do so I wish to make it clear that the matter was not properly argued before me and my decision is based solely upon such researches as I myself have been able to make.

2. Cordery On Solicitors 6th Edition at p.39 states:

"In chambers the solicitor has a right to be heard in person or by a clerk before a judge or official referee as well as before the master or registrar".

The authority quoted in support, that is In re Bethlehem and Bridewell Hospitals⁽¹⁾ does not lay down that proposition as a matter of law but indicates that at that time it was common practice to send clerks into chambers rather than qualified persons. The matter, however, was dealt with directly in a later case: Vimbos (Ltd.) v. Meddlecroft⁽²⁾. Objection had been taken to an unqualified person appearing to cross-examine before an examiner of the court. The objection was upheld by the examiner, but on a summons to the judge Cousins-Hardy, J. dismissed the objection, saying:

"The judge in chambers habitually hears not only counsel and the solicitors of the parties but also any responsible representative of the solicitors sent from their office. Business could not be conducted satisfactorily unless managing clerks were allowed to represent their principals in chambers. So far as I have been able to ascertain, no such objection has ever before been taken and I am not willing to introduce a novel practice. I think the proceedings before an examiner should follow the analogy of proceedings before the judge in chambers. I may add that I have consulted my colleagues".

3. In Hong Kong the practice has not been the same. The Registrar informs me that he is willing to entertain appearances by articled clerks who are responsible and fully conversant with the facts in the particular matter in question. The judges, however, have been willing to accept only qualified solicitors. Circumstances in Hong Kong are not the same as those pertaining in England and I am not prepared to depart from the existing practice. There may be exceptional circumstances in which the strictness of this practice may be relaxed but that will be a matter of application to the individual judge concerned. I may add that I, too, have consulted such of my colleagues as are at the moment in the Colony.

 

Representation:

(1) 1885 30 Ch. D. 541

(2) (1901) 46 Sol. J. p.2