梁國堅律師行要求禁制僱員撬客但客人反要求過檔 - Joseph Leung & Associates (the Solicitors' Firm) Sought to Prohibit Its Former Employees From Taking Its Clients' Data, But Its Clients Joined the Action and Asked That They Be Allowed to Use the Former Employees of Joseph Leung & Associates (the Law Firm) Instead of the Firm

 

https://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.com/2014/04/Joesph-Leung-and-Associates-the-Law-Firm.html


梁國堅律師行要求禁制僱員撬客但客人反要求過檔

Joseph Leung & Associates (the Solicitors' Firm) Sought to Prohibit Its Former Employees From Taking Its Clients' Data, But Its Clients Joined the Action and Asked That They Be Allowed to Use the Former Employees of Joseph Leung & Associates (the Law Firm) Instead of the Firm.
 
梁國堅律師行去年入稟高等法院，申請禁制令禁止4名過檔的前僱員及1名律師「撬客」及使用客戶資料，後獲法庭頒下臨時禁制令。惟有25名原屬梁律師行的客戶，早前向法庭申請加入訴訟，更指希望跟隨4被告「過檔」，讓4人繼續負責他們的案件。

法庭今頒下判詞，指若拒絕25名申請人，可能會帶來的不公義是難以彌補，相反地若讓被告繼續處理該25名客戶的案件，為原告帶來的後果卻可以控制，故最終批准該25名客戶的申請。

法庭下令5被告可繼續代表該25名客戶，但要向原告交出有關文件，而有關禁制令亦繼續有效，5被告不能處理2005年3月至2013年3月原屬梁律師行的案件。
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal Complaint Against Barrister Sakinah Sat (薩忻琪大律師) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K.

Formal Complaint Against Barrister Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K. I am lodging a formal complaint, as a member of the public, against Hong Kong Barrister Ms Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K., for her blatant breach of  paragraphs 10.29 & 10.30 of the Bar Code , in that she has failed to act with candour and independence in the interests of justice, and  knowingly deceived or misled the Court , in her ex parte Court Application before David Lok J on 22 August 2020 (Saturday).   The material facts had been set out in  [2020] HKCFI 2288 (HCMP 1282/2020)  -  https://legalref. judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ search/search_result_detail_ frame.jsp?DIS=130716&QS=%2B& TP=JU  - where Linda Chan J said these about Hong Kong Barrister Ms Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers: -   12.  Indeed, although the contemporaneous documents referred to i
Read more

Convicted Criminal Candy Fong (the Barrister) Lost Her Appeal - 已被定罪罪犯方也方大律師上訴失敗

Convicted Criminal Candy Fong (the Barrister) Lost Her Appeal - 已被定罪罪犯方也方大律師上訴失敗 HKSAR v. FONG E-FONG CANDY -  HCMA 108/2020 - ​[2020] HKCFI 3133 //The appellant was convicted after trial of one charge of Common Assault and fined HK$3,000.  The appellant appeals against her conviction.// //On appeal, the appellant made this court sit through repeated viewing of the CCTV footage alleging that she had been kicked.  I could not see that she was kicked.// //... my observation from having viewed the CCTV footage many times was that it can be seen from the footage that the appellant had intentionally grabbed hold of PW2 by putting her arm around the neck of PW2 in order to stop the wheelchair from moving and in order to get close to him in order to speak to him.  I therefore find that the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and therefore the appeal is dismissed.// https://legalref.judiciary.hk/ doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/ 2020/HCMA000108_2020.doc 方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格 - Barrister Can
Read more

Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction - 方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格

方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格 - Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20081222/egn200812223579.pdf In accordance with section 37A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Chapter 159), I hereby give notice that on 15 April 2008 a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found FONG E-fong, Candy (‘the Barrister’) guilty of 3 complaints of misconduct, namely:— (i) engaging in conduct which brought the profession of barristers into disrepute contrary to paragraph 6(b) of the Bar Code; (ii) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice contrary to paragraph 6(b) of the Bar Code; (iii) acting without due courtesy to the Court. The Tribunal ordered, amongst others, that the Barrister be suspended from practising as a barrister for 9 months, 6 months and 3 months for the respective complaints, to run concurrently. The Tribunal also ordered that such period of suspension should commence after the appeal period, which appeal period was to run from 29 Ap
Read more