

Priscilia Lam SC and Kasper Fan Represented the Law Society of Hong Kong in Disciplinary Proceedings against Solicitor, Yam Kin Fung aka Kevin Yam
In the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the “ Tribunal ”) case of Re Yam Kin Fung, also known as Kevin Yam (the “ Respondent ”), Priscilia Lam SC, leading Kasper Fan were instructed by the Law Society of Hong Kong as to act as Prosecutors for the Law Society to prove the complaint made against the Respondent. The Law Society’s complaint alleged that the Respondent’s conduct namely, his testimony made at the United States Congress’ Congressional-Executive Committee on China
Sep 12, 2025


Ronny Leung Represented the 3rd Defendant in High Court Bombing Trial
In HKSAR v. Ho Cheuk-wai & 7 Others (HCCC 186/2022), Ronny Leung and Ms Denise Or acted for the 3 rd Defendant, who was charged with conspiracy to commit bombing of prescribed objects under section 11B of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Cap. 575) (“ UNATMO ”) and, as an alternative charge, conspiracy to cause an explosion. This case was one of the first cases brought under the UNATMO to go to trial. The Defendants were accused of conspiring to comm
Sep 12, 2025


Priscilia Lam SC Represented the Prosecution in High Court Bombing Trial
In HKSAR v. Ho Cheuk-wai & 7 Others (HCCC 186/2022), Priscilia Lam SC was instructed on fiat for the Prosecution, leading Mr Pierre Lui SPP, Ms Maureen Kong PP, and Ms. Mathilda Kwong in a case of conspiracy to commit the bombing of prescribed objects under section 11B of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Cap. 575) (“ UNATMO ”); with conspiracy to cause an explosion as an alternative charge. This case was one of the first cases brought under the UNATM
Sep 12, 2025


High Court Considers Scope of Protection of Trading Interests Ordinance
In Hayward Industries Inc v Ningbo CF Electronic Tech Co Ltd [2025] HKCFI 2350; [2025] 3 HKLRD 383, the Court considered a novel question regarding the interpretation of section 7 of the Protection of Trading Interests Ordinance (Cap. 471) (“ PTIO ”). This was in the context of an application to discharge a Mareva injunction given that the relevant provisions of the PTIO were not drawn to the Court’s attention at the ex parte stage. The Plaintiff was seeking to enforce a Nort
Sep 2, 2025



