• St. John Rigby Grammar School, Wigan, Lancashire
• Lincoln College, Oxford (BA, English Language & Literature)

• Chairman, the Hong Kong Bar Association (2005 – 2006, 2018 – 2019)
• Vice Chairman, the Hong Kong Bar Association (1999 – 2000, 2003 – 2004)

England & Wales

• Gilham v. Breidenbach [1982] RTR (DC) 328

Crime-Road Traffic Law-Powers of Arrest – Whether coarse language could revoke implied licence to enter private property.

• Hussein v. Hussein [1983] Fam 26 (CA)

Conflict of Laws – Matrimonial – Potentially Polygamous Marriages – Circumstances in which a person with English domicile could contract a potentially polygamous marriage.

Hong Kong

• Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Sham Chuen [1986] AC 887 (PC)

Criminal law – Offence of loitering under s. 160(1) Crimes Ordinance- ingredients of offence-giving loiterer an opportunity to explain suspicious conduct.

• Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Lo Chak Man [1993] AC 951 (PC)

Criminal law – Presumption of innocence – Whether s. 25 (1)(a) Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance consistent with article 11(1) Bill of Rights Ordinance.

• Kailey Enterprises Ltd v. Obscene Articles Tribunal [1995] 2 HKLR 132 (High Ct.)

Indecency – Jurisdiction of Obscene Articles Tribunal – Whether legislation could extend to a statue on private property.

• Nguyen Tuan Cuong v. Director of Immigration [1997] 1 W.L.R. 68 (PC)

Immigration – Vietnamese asylum seekers – coming to Hong Kong after residing in Mainland – whether entitled to be treated as asylum seekers or whether Director of Immigration could refuse permission to land.

• Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd. v. Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (1997-1998) 1 HKCFAR 279 (CFA)

Media – Obscene and Indecent Articles Tribunal – whether under an obligation to give reasons for finding article obscene or indecent.

• Matteograssi spa v. The Airport Authority [1998] 2 HKLRD 213 (CA)

Judicial review – decision to award contract – disappointed tenderer disputes decision – amenability of commercial decision to judicial review.

• Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4 (CFA)

Constitutional law – Right of Abode – children of permanent residents born in Mainland – restrictions on entry – whether immigration legislation consistent with Article 24 Basic Law.

• Uniglobe Telecom (Far East) Ltd. v.  HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 214

Telecommunications – construction of criminal offences – strict liability.

• Secretary of Justice v. Chan Wah (2000) 3 HKCFAR 459 (CFA)

Judicial review – Elections – Restrictions on eligibility to vote in village elections in New Territories – Sexual discrimination – Arrangements not compatible with article 21 Bill of Rights Ordinance.

• Helen Tsang v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. [2002] 2 HKLRD 677 (CA)

Sex discrimination – Different retirement ages for male and female cabin crew – No justification for difference.

• Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing v.  Amusement Game Centres Appeal Board [2004] 1 HKLRD 765 (CA)

Judicial review – Procedure-Calculation of time for O. 53 r. 4 purposes when decision made on one date but reasons given on a later date.

• Sakthvel Prabakar v. Secretary for Security (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 (CFA)

Immigration – Director of Immigration not complying with promise to undertake a review of all claims for protection under UN Convention on Torture – Not able to rely on non-justiciable refugee determination by UNHCR office.

• So Wai Lun v. HKSAR (2006) 9 HKCFAR 530 (CFA)

Criminal – Offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with female under 16- Whether an offence of absolute liability.

• Secretary of Justice v. Yau Yuk Lung, Zigo (2007) 10 HKCFAR 335 (CFA)

Criminal – constitutionality of homosexual buggery offence under Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

• Qamar Sheraz v. HKSAR (2007) 10 HKCFAR 696 (CFA)

Criminal – Costs – Whether appeal judge could impeach an acquittal by a magistrate in appeal by defendant against refusal by magistrate to grant costs of defence.

• Mandy Tam v. Hong Kong Institute of Certified Accountants [2008] 1 HKLRD 238 (CFI)

Judicial review – Whether legislative councillor for functional constituency could be prevented from communicating with constituents by decision of professional body.

• A & ors. [2008] 4 HKLRD (CA)

Judicial review – Immigration-Administrative detention – Whether open-ended detention made unlawful by lack of accessible detention policy.

• Philip KH Wong, Kennedy YH Wong & CO v Commissioner of Independent Commission Against Corruption [2009] 5 HKLRD 379 (CA)

Judicial Review – Validity of search warrant issued under Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance – Search warrant could not be issued for material subject to legal professional privilege.

• Chu Yee Wah v Director of Environmental Protection [2011] 5 HKLRD 469 (CA)

Judicial review – Environmental permit for Hong Kong section of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge project – whether a stand-alone assessment of projected environmental conditions without project is required by relevant technical memorandum or study briefs.

• Ghulam Rbani v Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of the Director of Immigration (2014) 17 HKCFAR 138 (CFA)

Immigration – Power of detention under the Immigration Ordinance pending decision whether to make removal order – Excessive period of detention – Claim for false imprisonment succeeded.

• BI & BH v. Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520 (CA)

Immigration — Director of Immigration — Dependant visa policy — Whether Director misapplied policy — Whether requirement that there was no known record to the detriment of applicant a necessary condition — Whether Director obliged to consider family rights — Proper interpretation — Context of overall immigration control policy.

• Law Chi Yuen v. Secretary for Education [2016] 5 HKLRD 302 (CFI)

Education – Disability discrimination-allocation of Native English-speaking teachers to schools – whether content of English language courses in some schools for intellectually disabled different from courses in other schools – unlawful discrimination in allocation of resources.

• Leung Sze Ho Albert v. Bar Council of The Hong Kong Bar Association [2016] 5 HKLRD 542 (CA)

Human Rights — Freedom of choice of occupation — Barristers — Bar Council refused permission to practising barrister to work part-time as neuro-beautologist — Judicial review — Whether para 23 of the Code of Conduct of the Hong Kong Bar requiring permission before engaging in supplemental occupation infringed art 33 of Basic Law — Adequacy of reasons for refusal — Basic Law of the HKSAR art 33.

• Chief Executive of HKSAR v. President of the Legislative Council [2017] 1 HKLRD 460 (CA)

Judicial review – Legislative Council Oaths – Oaths and Declarations Ordinance – whether the Courts should decide on the validity of oaths taken by Legislative Council members considering the principle of non-intervention of the Legislative Council’s internal business.

• Chief Executive of HKSAR v. President of Legislative Council [2017] 4 HKLRD 115 (CFI)

Oath-taking – whether the Court should inquire into whether the oath taker genuinely and faithfully believe in the obligations pledged in the oath – whether infringement of the allegiance obligations – whether subjective explanation of the oath taker relevant – whether the action should be stayed due to abuse of process.

• Y v. Law Society of Hong Kong (HCAL 39/2016, 28 April 2017, Au-Yeung J) (CFI)

Publication by Law Society of details of offence of dishonesty-information supplied by person making inquiry about eligibility to join profession-whether Rehabilitation of Offences Ordinance, Cap. 297 applied – whether information supplied to Law Society covered by Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, Cap 486

• S v. J (HCMP 1857/2016, 8 September 2017, Au-Yeung J) (CFI)

Family Law — Parental order — Children conceived using gametes of husband and wife — Two surrogate mothers — Wife refusing to join in application — effect of Chinese Nationality law on children born under such arrangements-Application for parental order by a single application incompetent — Parent and Child Ordinance (Cap 429) s 12.