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.
12. Indeed, although the contemporaneous documents referred to in §11 above were exhibited to Liu 1st and, therefore, must have been known to P’s counsel, Ms Sat did not refer to any of these documents in her ex parte Skeleton and at the hearing before the Judge. When this matter is raised by this Court, Ms Sat confirms that she has read these documents before making the ex parte application. Regrettably, other than her assertion that such documents were contained in the exhibits to Liu 1st, she has not been able to articulate any reason as to why she did not draw such salient documents to the attention of the Judge and, instead, saw fit to contend that the Judgments had been obtained by D dishonestly and fraudulently.
13. Third, contrary to misleading statements made by P and its counsel at ex parte application, the fact that the hearings at LT proceeded in absence of P was not a matter which it could put the blame on D, given that:
(1) The “Capital Centre Address” to which the notice in LT 944 was sent was P’s “then principal place of business” (as described in Liu 2nd), such that it was proper for the notice to have been sent.
(2) The notice in LT 1914 was also delivered to that same Address which P had admittedly received. This crucial fact was only belatedly disclosed in Liu 2nd §6(a) and §7(a) .
(3) The hearing notice dated 25 March 2019 in LT 944 was issued by LT. It was not issued by D, as suggested in §22 of ex parte Skeleton.
(4) The above matters show that it was P’s own decisions in not attending the hearing to contest D’s claims at LT.
... 17. In view of the material non-disclosures discussed above, which I consider to be egregious and deliberate, I do not think that P should be allowed to enjoy the benefit of the Injunction obtained, and I refuse to continue the Injunction...
(Linda Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
Ms Sakinah Sat, instructed by Cheung & Choy, for the plaintiff
Mr Vincent Chiu, instructed by W.K. To & Co, for the defendant
Please prosecute Hong Kong Barrister Ms Sakinah Sat (薩忻琪大律師) of Des Voeux Chambers for professional misconduct accordingly.
Comments
Post a Comment