Landmark Chambers International

Services

  • Find A Barrister

  •  

National courts

Our barristers have considerable experience of acting in the domestic courts and tribunals of several common law jurisdictions, including Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Northern Ireland, South Africa and New Zealand. We are happy to work either on an exclusive basis or as part of a team involving local counsel. 

A number of our members are permanently admitted to the local bars of some of these countries. In the case of those who are not and require either permanent or ad hoc admission, we are happy to undertake the necessary administrative work on a no cost basis. 

Examples include:

  • Acting for an association of asphalt producers in a judicial review challenge to the decision of the Hong Kong Director of Lands to grant a short-term waiver of lease conditions to an asphalt producer, a case raising far-reaching issues about the scope of judicial review in Hong Kong: Anderson Asphalt v Secretary for Justice [2010] 5 HKLRD 40.

  • Acting for China Light and Power in a successful appeal to the Hong Kong Court of Appeal concerning a dispute with the Hong Kong Government over the rateable value of machinery forming part of power station infrastructure.
  • Acting in a high value share ownership dispute in the British Virgin Islands High Court: China NTG Investments Ltd v Great River Corporation (2015-ongoing).

  • Appearing in the Grand Court and Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands resisting a creditor’s petition to wind up a Hong Kong-based company.

  • Acting for the South African Human Rights Commission in the Marikana Commission of Inquiry in South Africa, a judicial inquiry into the killing of 34 miners by the South African Police Service.

  • Acting as Court-appointed Amicus Curiae in some 600+ “Kigula beneficiaries” sentencing appeals before the Ugandan High Court, concerning the re-sentencing of persons convicted of capital crime offences following a declaration that the imposition of the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional.