Skip to Content
‘Members here are consistently instructed in some of the most complex and significant cases, and are viewed as embodying all-round quality from top to bottom.’Chambers and Partners 2014
Hong Kong

We have worked on several cases in a range of courts in Hong Kong, including the Court of Final Appeal. We have advised government departments, companies and individuals in this region. For our work in the rest of Asia, please see our dedicated page.

R v Thomas Kwok (Hong Kong High Court)

Clare Montgomery QC is representing one of the two defendants in this high profile corruption trial before the Hong Kong High Court. It is one of the most high value fraud cases the country has seen. The case concerns various offences in relation to payments and unsecured loans, and alleged conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption v “A” (Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong)

Clare Montgomery QC acted for the respondent, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), in this case before Hong Kong’s highest appellate court, the Court of Final Appeal. The case concerned a decision on the abolition of the right to silence under the Bribery Ordinance. The respondent was successful and the court dismissed the appeal.

HKSAR v Hon Ming Kong (HK Court of Appeal)

Tim Owen QC acted for the appellant in this appeal to the Hong Kong Court of Appeal concerning conspiracy to defraud and engaging in market abuse by the Chairman of two Hong Kong public companies. It raises issues of constitutional law arising from the lack of mutual legal assistance arrangements between Hong Kong and China.

Lawyer(s): Tim Owen QC

Chiang Lily v Secretary for Justice (HK Court of Appeal)

Lord Ken Macdonald QC represented Secretary for Justice and Clare Montgomery QC acted for the appellant, Lily Chiang, in this high profile case before the Hong Kong Court of Appeal. The case concerned a conviction for fraud, conspiracy to defraud and the authorisation of a prospectus that included an untrue statement. The appeal considered issues of witness credibility.

Back to top