The Temple Chambers Moot 2025 was held on Saturday, 9 August 2025. This year’s moot problem centred on the “legitimate interest” test set out in 

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor 

[1962] AC 413. Set in the context of a fictional dispute concerning a commercial rental agreement, teams addressed the question of whether liability in misrepresentation can arise if a statement of present intention as to future action is made negligently.

Teams from Hong Kong and UK universities presented arguments across three rounds. Judges praised the high standard of competition shown by all teams. We extend our heartfelt congratulations to all participants for their contributions to this memorable event.

The winning team – Ryan Li Hok Yu (who was also awarded Best Speaker) and Alric Wong Tung Fai – edged out Maurice Yim Man Leung and Timothy Chow Hoi Yan in the Grand Final, appearing before a panel comprising the Hon Mr Justice Thomas Au, Justice of Appeal (a former member of Chambers), 

Special thanks go to Mr Justice Au JA for graciously presiding over the final and sharing invaluable insights on advocacy in court proceedings. We would also like to thank 

 for judging the preliminary rounds of the Moot.

We look forward to welcoming another group of talented law students for the 2026 edition!

Xue Xiaoyun v Susan Yung & BOCI Securities Limited

 [2025] HKCFI 4183 clarifies the principles governing negligent misstatement in the context of informal information imparted by a relationship manager of a securities firm.

The Plaintiff sought to transfer funds from Mainland China to Hong Kong to finance his partner’s investment under the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme (

 Defendant, a relationship manager of a securities firm (the 2

 Defendant), knew of any money exchangers. In response, the 1

 Defendant relayed information about exchange rates and details of two Mainland bank accounts. After the Plaintiff remitted funds through these channels, the money was lost.

Recorder Rachel Lam SC dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, holding that the 1

 Defendant did not owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff when providing information about remittance channels.

The decision reinforces the distinction between providing information and giving advice, and underscores the importance of contractual disclaimers and the characteristics of a plaintiff in determining whether a duty of care arises.

, instructed by Boase, Cohen & Collins, acted for the 1

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

When Does Helping a Client Cross the Line?

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Team from the University of Hong Kong and University College London (UCL) Crowned Winners of the Temple Chambers Moot 2025

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New