A Hong Kong appeal court has ordered a retrial after finding that a High Court judge copied large portions of a legal ruling from one party’s written submissions. The decision marks the second time the same judge has faced criticism over judicial plagiarism.
In a judgment dated July 15, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Justice Wilson Chan Ka-shun engaged in what it described as “impermissible judicial copying” while deciding a commercial dispute in 2024.
According to the appeal court, almost 95 percent of the written judgment closely matched arguments prepared by lawyers representing one side in the case. The judges said such extensive copying raised serious concerns about the fairness and independence of the judicial decision.
The appeal court stressed that judges may refer to legal submissions made by lawyers, but they must independently evaluate the evidence and explain their own reasoning when delivering judgments.
The dispute involved Nam Tai Property founder Koo Ming-kown and his former brother-in-law, Charles Chu Chia-chin. The case centered on the sale of shares in Lully Corporation, the parent company of Nam Tai Property.
After reviewing the original judgment, the Court of Appeal concluded that the decision could not stand because of the way it had been prepared. The judges ruled that the matter should return to the High Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge.
The appeal court said public confidence in the justice system depends on judges producing decisions that clearly reflect their own independent analysis. It added that copying extensive sections from one party’s legal arguments creates the appearance that competing submissions may not have received proper consideration.
The judges noted that while legal arguments often influence court decisions, a judgment must remain the product of the court’s own reasoning rather than a reproduction of a party’s written case.
This is not the first time Justice Chan has faced criticism over plagiarism in a judicial ruling. He had previously been reprimanded after another judgment contained copied material, making the latest findings particularly significant.
The appeal court’s ruling did not determine which party should ultimately succeed in the underlying commercial dispute. Instead, it focused on the fairness of the judicial process and whether the original judgment met the standards expected of the courts.
By ordering a retrial, the appeal judges said both sides should have the opportunity to present their arguments before a judge who will independently assess the evidence and legal issues.
Legal experts often note that judicial independence is one of the foundations of a fair court system. Written judgments are expected to show that judges have carefully considered all evidence, legal authorities, and arguments before reaching a decision.
The latest ruling highlights the importance of transparency and impartiality in judicial decision-making. It also reinforces the principle that court judgments must demonstrate original legal reasoning rather than extensive reliance on submissions prepared by one side.
The commercial dispute will now return to the High Court for a new hearing, where the case will be reconsidered from the beginning before another judge. The retrial will determine the outcome of the share sale dispute after an independent review of the evidence and legal arguments.
