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!

 [2025] HKCFI 3604 provides new guidance on a central feature of public law litigation: the duty of candour of public authorities to be full and frank in disclosing all facts and documents relevant to a judicial review challenge – or as Coleman J put it, the duty to identify “the good, the bad and the ugly”.

While it has been long established that the duty fully applies after leave to commence judicial review is given, the question of whether and to what extent the duty applies before that stage had been left open in previous cases. Taking the opportunity to address the question near the end of his judgment on the underlying challenge, Coleman J emphasised that the duty of candour is "a very high duty” which reflects the public nature and public interest elements inherent in judicial review proceedings.

Importantly, Coleman J affirmed for the first time in a Hong Kong judgment that where the Court has directed a rolled-up hearing (i.e. where submissions for leave to apply for judicial review and the substantive judicial review application are heard together), the duty of candour must operate even before the grant of any leave to commence judicial review. Coleman J reasoned that, were it otherwise, “if the Court decides at the rolled-up hearing that leave should be granted on any ground, absent the duty of candour there would be risk that the Court would not have all the information it would expect to have before deciding the substantive application”.

On the underlying challenge by the Applicant, a convicted drug trafficker complaining of the refusal of the Commissioner of Police to classify her as a victim of trafficking in persons (“TIP”), Coleman J dismissed the Applicant’s case, accepting the Commissioner’s primary submission that convicted criminals should not be allowed to use TIP claims as a “backdoor” application to challenge the safety of their criminal conviction, particularly where the avowed intention in seeking a screening result from the Police is to obtain evidence in support of an attempt to overturn a criminal conviction.

 and Albert NB Wong, instructed by Patricia Ho & Associates, for the Applicant.

, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Commissioner of Police.

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Scope of The Duty of Candour in Public Law Challenges

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