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!

Christine Ruth Ong Chai Hoon v Lam Kin Chung

[2025] HKCFI 3857, the Plaintiffs were 11 investors who decided to invest in the 4

 Defendant, a software company, in anticipation of its proposed IPO on the secondary board of the Singapore Stock Exchange. The investments were made in the form of secured loans subsequently converted into shares, as well as direct share subscriptions. The IPO eventually fell through as the 4

 Defendant ran out of working capital, and the Plaintiffs lost their investments.

The Plaintiffs brought a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation against the Defendants. They alleged various oral and written misrepresentations as to: (1) the 4

 Defendant’s revenue, valuation, and actual and potential business partners and investors; (2) the credentials of the 1

 Defendant, who owned a majority stake in the 4

 Defendant; (3) the security provided for the Plaintiffs’ initial loans; and (4) the prospects of the 4

Following a 27-day trial, Winnie Tsui J dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims against the 1

 Defendant having never appeared in the proceedings). In a 218-page judgment, her Ladyship held that the Plaintiffs’ evidence fell “far short of what is required”. The alleged oral representations were not made. As to the written representations, either they could not be attributed to the 1

 Defendants, or they did not convey the meanings alleged by the Plaintiffs when read in context against the communications between the parties as a whole.

 and Justin Lam, instructed by Haldanes, for the 1

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

High Court Dismisses Misrepresentation Claims in Software IPO Dispute

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