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!

’ in the solicitors’ professional discipline regime, including whether a complainant can personally prosecute a solicitor before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

The case arose from a complaint by ABC, who alleged that a solicitor had acted for ABC’s mother at a time when foreign courts had determined her to lack mental capacity. Dissatisfied with the Law Society’s handling of the complaint, ABC applied to the Chief Judge to compel the Law Society to refer the matter to the SDT. The Law Society then prosecuted the case itself, treating ABC as an outsider to the proceedings under the SDT Rules.

ABC argued in judicial review that he was a ‘party’ to the SDT proceedings and should be entitled to prosecute the matter and exercise other procedural rights.

Coleman J partly allowed the challenge, holding that:

In an earlier decision, Coleman J upheld an anonymity order protecting ABC’s identity. Noting that Hong Kong courts should not ‘

 anonymity orders granted in related foreign proceedings, the Court highlighted the need to balance open justice with the privacy of parties in sensitive regulatory cases. The judgment is significant as one of the first occasions on which the High Court has addressed the extent to which foreign anonymity orders should inform the grant of equivalent protection in domestic proceedings.

, instructed by Howse Williams, acted for the Law Society in the judicial review. 

 and John Cheung also acted for the Law Society in the anonymity application.

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Can a Complainant Also Prosecute in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal?

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