Harcourt Chambers Barrister Paul CY Wong Useless! 黃子元大律師無鬼用!

I am lodging a formal complaint, as a member of the public, against Hong Kong Barrister Mr Paul CY Wong (黃子元大律師) of Harcourt Chambers for his blatant breach of paragraphs 4.1(b)(ii), 4.1(b)(iii), 4.1(c), 4.1(d) & 10.34 of the Bar Code, in that he had, in handling a simple civil case - [2021] HKCFI 1431 - HCA 238/2016 - completely failed to act competently, in that (1) he did not know the Mediation Ordinance (Cap 620) existed; and (2) he did not know his entire case was unlawful because he was unilaterally and wrongfully destroying the confidentiality of mediations in obvious and direct contravention of the Mediation Ordinance (Cap 620).

Mr Paul CY Wong's ignorance in relation to this was worse than a PCLL student in a moot.  He was flagrantly incompetent and obviously so.  As a result of his flagrant incompetence, his client, Mr Leong Chi Kai, was ordered to pay indemnity costs for the entire civil action from beginning to end.  His client, Mr Leong Chi Kai, was also publicly reprimanded by Linda Chan J for abusing the legal process in a public judgment which will stay on the Internet for all eternity.  His client, Mr Leong Chi Kai, has therefore had his reputation permanently damaged and destroyed by Mr Paul CY Wong.

The contents of this public judgment of Leong Chi Kai v Chan Wing Sun [2021] HKCFI 1431 - HCA 238/2016 - Linda Chan J is self-explanatory: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=135865&currpage=T

Alleged Oral Terms

50.  In my judgment, P’s case on the §8 Terms and §13 Terms, insofar as they are alleged to have been agreed orally during the 2 mediations (“Alleged Oral Terms”), are demurrable and should be struck out in limine. 

51.  As this Court points out during Mr Wong’s oral opening, the communications during the 1st and 2nd mediations are privileged and confidential.  It is not open to P to adduce in evidence any communications between the parties (including the Mediator) during the 2 mediations without the consent of all parties and leave of the Court. 

52.  This can be seen from the following provisions of the Mediation Ordinance (Cap 620) (“MO”):

(1)  “Mediation communication” is defined as “means (a) anything said or done; (b) any document prepared; or (c) any information provided, for the purpose of or in the course of mediation, but does not include an agreement to mediate or a mediated settlement agreement” (s 2 of MO);

(2)  The objects of the MO are “(a) to promote, encourage and facilitate the resolution of disputes by mediation; and (b) to protect the confidential nature of mediation communications” (s 3 of MO); and

(3)  The MO applies to any mediation conducted under an agreement to mediate if, inter alia, “the mediation is wholly or partly conducted in Hong Kong” (s 5(1) of MO).

53.  The confidentiality of mediation communications is protected by s 8 of the MO, while the admissibility of mediation communications in evidence is governed by s 9 of the MO, which are in these terms:

“8. Confidentiality of mediation communications

(1) A person must not disclose a mediation communication except as provided by subsection (2) or (3).

(2) A person may disclose a mediation communication if—

(a) the disclosure is made with the consent of—

(i) each of the parties to the mediation;

(ii) the mediator for the mediation or, if there is more than one, each of them; and

(iii) if the mediation communication is made by a person other than a party to the mediation or a mediator—the person who made the communication;

(b) … (g)

(3) A person may disclose a mediation communication with leave of the court or tribunal under section 10—

(a) for the purpose of enforcing or challenging a mediated settlement agreement;

(b) for the purpose of establishing or disputing an allegation or complaint of professional misconduct made against a mediator or any other person who participated in the mediation in a professional capacity; or

(c) for any other purpose that the court or tribunal considers justifiable in the circumstances of the case.

(4) …

9. Admissibility of mediation communications in evidence

A mediation communication may be admitted in evidence in any proceedings (including judicial, arbitral, administrative or disciplinary proceedings) only with leave of the court or tribunal under section 10.”

54.  Mr Ray Kwan, counsel for D, cites Champion Concord Limited v Lau Koon Foo (2011) 14 HKCFAR 534 where Ribeiro PJ (at §17) reminded the parties the importance of maintaining the confidentiality in mediation in this way:

“Before leaving this matter, we wish to make it clear that we must not be taken to be accepting the appropriateness of the disclosures made by Mr Yeadon and Mr Kee regarding the mediation process. The fundamental importance of the confidentiality in mediation is universally acknowledged and it can only be in highly exceptional circumstances that evidence which invades such confidentiality will be permitted to be adduced. There was no argument as to whether the circumstances put forward by the appellants bring them within such an exception, and we wish expressly to keep that question open.”

55.  P has never sought the consent of D or the Mediator to disclose anything said or done during the 2 mediations.  Nor has P made any application under s 10 of the MO for leave to disclose or admit in evidence any such mediation communications.  Instead, P (and his legal advisers) completely ignored the confidential nature of the mediation communications and saw fit to allege, in the SOC and P’s witness statement, that the parties had during the 2 mediations agreed on the Alleged Oral Terms.  In so doing, P (and his legal advisers) unilaterally and wrongfully undermined, if not destroyed, the confidentiality of the 2 mediations.

56.  For the above reasons, I consider that P’s conduct in raising and pursuing the Alleged Oral Terms constitute an abuse of process.  In any event, there is no basis to admit in evidence those parts of P’s WS which relate to the Alleged Oral Terms.

Please prosecute Hong Kong Barrister Mr Paul CY Wong (黃子元大律師) of Harcourt Chambers for professional misconduct accordingly.