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!

 [2025] HKCFI 4941, P, a victim of cryptocurrency theft, sought and was granted 

 and unknown person(s) with control over wallet addresses of the traced cryptocurrencies 

P sought to join and obtain discovery against the operators of the cryptocurrency exchange platform, Binance, described as “Binance Operators”. The application was contested by Binance Holdings Ltd and later Nest Services Ltd, both of whom operate Binance.

At the first substantive hearing, DHCJ MC Law SC held 

that P could not seek interim relief against “Binance Operators” as “persons unknown” because the identity of at least one entity was known: 

[2020] 1 WLR 2802. Further, concerns were raised that the formulation of “unknown persons” was too wide, potentially encompassing innocent persons: 

 was discharged and the hearing adjourned for further argument.

At the second substantive hearing, notwithstanding that there was a serious question to be tried, the proprietary injunction was discharged:

, there was no justification to proceed on an 

basis against Binance. The fact that P wished to proceed 

against D1 on the ground that D1 was allegedly the thief did not justify P’s lack of notice to Binance.

, there was material non-disclosure. P failed to disclose (1) relevant pre-injunction correspondence with Binance on the fact that one of the frozen addresses consisted of pooled funds from various users of Binance and (2) the potential defences of Binance (e.g. relating to the nature of the address as a pooled fund).

, the application for re-grant was dismissed: because (1) the Court cannot allow considerations of P’s case being an alleged theft by D1 to undermine the public interest/policy objectives in requiring full and frank disclosure, (2) the material non-disclosure was not innocent, and (3) P was a foreign plaintiff such that it was unclear that he could satisfy the undertaking as to damages.

, instructed by Henry Yu & Associates, for P (first substantive hearing only). 

 and Sharon Yuen, instructed by HSF, for the 3

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

CFI Applies Established Principles on Ex Parte Applications in Cryptocurrency Theft and Discharges Worldwide Mareva and Proprietary Injunctions

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