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 4796, Anthony Chan JA answered this in the affirmative and provided helpful guidance on the Hong Kong court’s jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions (

The Plaintiff is the General Partner of a limited partnership registered under the laws of the BVI (

). The Defendant is Z’s limited partner and commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court of the BVI against Z (

) to have Z wound up on the just and equitable ground (

). The Defendant also applied to the BVI Court for the appointment of joint provisional liquidators over Z (

The Plaintiff sought an ASI to restrain the BVI Proceedings on the basis that their continuation constituted a breach of the arbitration agreement contained in the partnership agreement in respect of Z and the subscription agreement whereby the Defendant became Z’s limited partner (

In response, the Defendant argued that (1) there was no valid arbitration agreement because he had not consented to it; (2) the arbitration agreement did not cover the BVI Proceedings; (3) considerations of comity and public policy leaned against granting the ASI; and (4) in any event, the Plaintiff had by conduct waived its right to arbitrate.

[2024] 5 HKLRD 250, Anthony Chan JA ordered an ASI to restrain the WU Application. His Lordship held that:

As to the JPL Application, no ASI was ordered because it did not require the resolution of the underlying disputes in the WU Application.

, instructed by Jones Day, appeared for the Plaintiff.

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Can an Anti-Suit Injunction Be Granted to Restrain Foreign Just and Equitable Winding-Up Proceedings?

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