Lord Sales, Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, delivered the latest lecture in the HKU-Temple Chambers Law Lecture Series on 24 September 2026.

The Role of Equity in the Law of Contract

”, the lecture addressed the distinct moral foundations of contract law and Equity, and how the two interact. The opening remarks were delivered by Professor Hualing Fu, Dean of the HKU Faculty of Law, and 

Held at the University of Hong Kong, the event welcomed nearly 300 attendees including members of the judiciary, legal practitioners, professors, and law students. The Honourable Mr Justice Eugene Fung, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court and a former member of Temple Chambers, moderated the lecture.

We extend our sincere thanks to our co-sponsor, The University of Hong Kong, to Lord Sales and our other speakers for their contributions, and to everyone who attended and supported the event.

 [2026] HKCFI 2620 is the latest in a string of recent decisions where claims of human trafficking (TIP) and/or forced labour (FL) have been unsuccessfully mounted as collateral challenges to criminal convictions, including 

 [2023] 1 HKLRD 233. As Coleman J pertinently noted at the beginning of the Judgment, it is important for lawyers practising in this area to properly consider: (1) the appropriate timing of making claims of TIP in the context of potential or actual criminal proceedings; (2) the utility or otherwise of screening for TIP, depending on that timing.

, the Applicant, a convicted drug trafficker, brought judicial review proceedings complaining of the Government’s investigative failure/refusal to screen him as a potential victim of TIP. The Applicant’s arguments expose the importance of timing and utility when raising claims of TIP/FL. Here, the Applicant only sought a victim screening over five years after being charged with the offence and two years after his conviction. Yet:

1) Whether or not there was information that could reasonably give rise to a credible suspicion of TIP/FL was a matter to be decided as part of the criminal investigation.

2) Even if there was a ruling favourable to the Applicant in the judicial review proceedings, it would not be admissible in a fresh appeal against conviction.

3) On the facts, it was not clear what the Applicant could hope to achieve in seeking judicial review apart from calling into question the safety of his conviction (by seeking an opinion from the judicial review court questioning the propriety of the criminal prosecution). But that is abusive, as any contrary opinion of the judicial review court may undermine the safety of the criminal conviction in the eyes of the public.

In any event, arguments on whether the circumstances reasonably gave rise to a credible suspicion of TIP/FL could and should have been raised much earlier in the criminal proceedings. The possibility of conflicting judgments in different proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute by sowing confusion amongst the public. Accordingly, the doctrine of issue estoppel created an absolute bar against the Applicant from raising those arguments. The judicial review was also an abuse of process for want of practical utility.

, instructed by the Department of Justice, acted for the Respondents.

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Trafficking-in-Persons in the Criminal Context

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Lord Sales delivers the 2026 HKU-Temple Chambers Law Lecture

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New