The Temple Chambers Moot 2025 was held on Saturday, 9 August 2025. This year’s moot problem centred on the “legitimate interest” test set out in 

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor 

[1962] AC 413. Set in the context of a fictional dispute concerning a commercial rental agreement, teams addressed the question of whether liability in misrepresentation can arise if a statement of present intention as to future action is made negligently.

Teams from Hong Kong and UK universities presented arguments across three rounds. Judges praised the high standard of competition shown by all teams. We extend our heartfelt congratulations to all participants for their contributions to this memorable event.

The winning team – Ryan Li Hok Yu (who was also awarded Best Speaker) and Alric Wong Tung Fai – edged out Maurice Yim Man Leung and Timothy Chow Hoi Yan in the Grand Final, appearing before a panel comprising the Hon Mr Justice Thomas Au, Justice of Appeal (a former member of Chambers), 

Special thanks go to Mr Justice Au JA for graciously presiding over the final and sharing invaluable insights on advocacy in court proceedings. We would also like to thank 

 for judging the preliminary rounds of the Moot.

We look forward to welcoming another group of talented law students for the 2026 edition!

The Court of First Instance recently clarified the approach to reviewing a sentence under the Long-term Sentences Review Ordinance (Cap 524) (the Ordinance) in 

Lo Hon Hing v Long Term Prison Sentence Review Board (

The Applicant was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment upon conviction of murder in 2007. In its latest sentencing review, the Board decided that in all the circumstances including the nature of crime committed, assistance rendered to law enforcement, performance at the facilities, and the length of sentence served, the Applicant had not served a sufficiently long sentence to merit a conditional release order or a recommendation for substituting his sentence with a determinate one (the Decision).

Section 8 of the Ordinance requires the Board to consider four principles in discharging its functions, including (a) rehabilitative effect, (b) benefits of supervised release, (c) sufficiency of sentence served, and (d) community protection. In an earlier case (

 [2013] 4 HKLRD 404), the Court held that s.8(c) involved a two-step consideration: (i) whether the prisoner has served a sufficiently long sentence, and (ii) if so, the Board should consider whether the prisoner should be released early.

The Court quashed the Decision on the ground that the Board had failed to consider relevant factors, having wrongly treated s.8(c) (sufficiency of sentence served) as a determinative factor that “shut out” consideration of the other mandatory principles. Section 8 instead requires a holistic exercise involving an iterative process of consideration giving due weight to all four principles. The two-step approach laid down in 

did not preclude consideration of the other mandatory principles. Instead, the Board is required to consider them as early as the first step.

The Court also emphasised that the four mandatory principles may interact with one another, e.g., the rehabilitative effect of early release might impact on whether the sentence served is sufficient to warrant consideration of early release.

The Court dismissed all the Applicant’s other grounds. Further, with the next review of the Applicant’s sentence scheduled for next year, the Court did not direct an earlier review.

, instructed by Wilkinson & Grist, for the Respondent.

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

How Long Is a Piece of String? Sentence Review under the Long-Term Sentences Review Ordinance

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Team from the University of Hong Kong and University College London (UCL) Crowned Winners of the Temple Chambers Moot 2025

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New