A A
HCMP 395/2025
[2025] HKCFI 5524
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
C C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
D D
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 395 OF 2025
________________
E E
IN THE MATTER of MEMBERSHIP
F OF ARCHERY ASSOCIATION OF F
HONG KONG, CHINA
G ________________ G
H
BETWEEN H
CHENG WAI LUN WILLIAM (鄭偉倫) Plaintiff
I I
J
and J
K ARCHERY ASSOCIATION OF HONG Defendant K
KONG, CHINA (中國香港射箭總會)
L __________________ L
M M
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Gary CC Lam in Chambers (Open to public)
N Date of Hearing: 4 November 2025 N
Date of Decision: 4 November 2025
O O
P P
Q DECISION Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
I. INTRODUCTION
B B
C 1. The Plaintiff commenced the present proceedings by C
Originating Summons filed on 13 March 2025 (the “Originating
D D
Summons”) against the Defendant in respect of disciplinary proceedings
E and the consequential three-year sanction of suspension of membership E
against the Plaintiff. This is the first hearing. The parties have filed
F F
affirmations, and at this first hearing, the dispute between the parties is
G G
whether I should order cross-examination on the affirmations.
H H
II. BACKGROUND
I I
2. The Defendant was incorporated in 2007 as a company
J J
limited by guarantee in Hong Kong. It is the local governing body of the
K sport of archery. It is a member of the Sports Federation & Olympic K
Committee of Hong Kong, China.
L L
M 3. There are three types of the Defendant’s membership:- M
N (1) Club membership; N
O O
(2) Individual membership; and
P P
(3) Honorary membership.
Q Q
4. The Plaintiff has been its individual member since 2007, and
R R
has been registered as a coach and a judge with the Defendant since 2009
S
and 2010 respectively. S
T T
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
5. Under article 13 of the Articles of Association of the
B B
Defendant, there shall be an Executive Committee for the management of
C C
the affairs of the Defendant. By article 51, the Executive Committee shall
D
have the full power to make rules and bye-laws for “the good conduct” of D
its members and in relation to the Defendant’s affairs and for “good
E E
conduct and discipline of all persons (whether members of the [Defendant]
F or not) taking part in any of the activities of the [Defendant] or in any F
activities with which the [Defendant] may be associated”. The bye-laws
G G
provides that a Disciplinary Sub-committee is formed.
H H
6. There are no rules provided for the procedures of disciplinary
I I
proceedings, but the procedures have been set out by a two-page Chinese
J flowchart (the “Flowchart”), the details of which I need not set out here J
for the present purpose. I only need to mention that after the Disciplinary
K K
Sub-committee conducts disciplinary hearings and adjudicates upon the
L complaint in question, it shall report the results to the Executive Committee, L
which will endorse or disapprove the decisions made by the Disciplinary
M M
Sub-committee.
N N
7. On 24 April 2024, the Defendant received a written complaint
O O
(the “Complaint”) about the Plaintiff’s conduct. On 26 June 2024, the
P Plaintiff wrote a reply. On 9 July 2024, the Defendant informed the P
Plaintiff that a disciplinary hearing would take place on 16 July 2024. In
Q Q
reply, the Plaintiff told the Defendant that he was not available to attend
R the hearing. On 12 July 2024, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that R
the hearing would proceed ahead in his absence. The Plaintiff did not
S S
attend the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in his absence. Live
T evidence was heard. The Disciplinary Sub-committee found that the T
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
Plaintiff had committed three sets of misconduct, and proceeded to give
B B
sentence, namely, suspension of his membership for one year for the first
C C
misconduct, suspension of his membership for three years for the second
D
misconduct and a reprimand for the third misconduct. D
E 8. On 20 July 2024, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the E
decision made by the Disciplinary Sub-committee (the “Disciplinary Sub-
F F
committee’s Decision”), and informed the Plaintiff that the Executive
G G
Committee would meet and consider the Disciplinary Sub-committee’s
H
Decision. H
I I
9. The Plaintiff attended the meeting of the Executive
J
Committee on 16 September 2024 without legal representatives, and made J
representations himself in the meeting. There is dispute over whether he
K K
had the right to have his lawyers, but this is not an issue that concerns me
L for the present purpose. The long and short is that the Executive L
Committee resolved to approve the Disciplinary Sub-committee’s
M M
Decision.
N N
10. As a result, the Plaintiff’s membership has since been
O O
suspended and cannot take up the job as a coach.
P P
III. THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
Q Q
11. The Plaintiff’s claim is mainly that there was breach of natural
R R
justice in the disciplinary proceedings and the Disciplinary Sub-
S S
committee’s Decision and the Executive Committee’s approval were not
T
made in good faith. While it will be seen at the substantive hearing how T
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
breach of natural justice could arise in the present context, and if it could,
B B
what the standard of the natural justice should be, I hasten to point out that
C C
the present proceedings are not a judicial review. I also note that in the
D
margin note of the Originating Summons, in the affirmations and in the D
submissions (except the oral submissions made by the Plaintiff’s counsel
E E
with additional authorities submitted during the hearing), no rules or other
F legal basis, express, implied or otherwise, are stated for the Plaintiff’s F
claim.
G G
H
12. Be that as it may, what is salient here are the questions which H
the Plaintiff raises and says are questions for cross-examination, which I
I I
shall deal with below.
J J
IV. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S QUESTIONS
K K
NECESSARY?
L L
13. The legal principles in relation to whether to order cross-
M M
examination on affirmation evidence in an Originating Summons are trite:-
N N
(1) Whether to order cross-examination is a case-management
O decision; O
P (2) The burden lies upon the applicant to show that it will be just P
and convenient to order cross-examination;
Q Q
(3) The Court has to consider whether the just, expeditious and
R R
economical resolution can best be secured by oral evidence;
S and S
T T
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
(4) Where there are genuine, substantial factual disputes that are
B B
central to the Court’s determination and cannot be resolved on
C C
affirmation, the Court may order cross-examination.
D D
See Re Estate of Chiu Keung [2020] 3 HKLRD 779 at §§58-59 per Chu JA
E (as she then was); Tierra Trading Limited v Land Base Limited HCMP E
3074/2014 at §7 per Recorder Cheng SC.
F F
G 14. I add that of course, the Court should also consider the G
underlying objectives stated in Order 1A of the Rules of the High Court.
H H
I 15. The first question the Plaintiff identities for cross-examination I
is whether the Plaintiff was made aware of the procedure for the
J J
disciplinary hearing. Assuming, without finding, that the standard of
K natural justice would be akin to that adopted in disciplinary proceedings of K
professional bodies usually subject to judicial review, I fail to see how the
L L
knowledge of the procedure for the disciplinary hearing would be relevant.
M M
It is how the proceedings or the hearing itself were conducted that would
N
determine the natural justice, while I note that it is also the Plaintiff’s own N
evidence that he was informed that the hearing would proceed in his
O O
absence. If it is said that circulation of the Flowchart had been made in
P the past, there would be, in the normal course of events, documentary P
evidence, and if this is a relevant issue, the Court would be able enough to
Q Q
make findings from such evidence or lack of it. Therefore, I do not see
R the need for cross-examination on this question. R
S S
16. The second question is whether the Plaintiff was made known
T and clear about the charges, allegations and/or complaints laid against him. T
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
Assuming, without finding, that the standard of natural justice would be
B B
akin to that adopted in disciplinary proceedings of professional bodies
C C
usually subject to judicial review, in my view, the Court can determine the
D
issue on paper evidence without resort to cross-examination, bearing in D
mind the usual way to assess the credibility with reference to
E E
contemporaneous documents (if any) and inherent probabilities (for
F example, is it inherent probable that any circulation of the guidelines or F
codes of conduct is not evidenced by any documents?) As to whether the
G G
charges against the Plaintiff were made clear, the Court could just examine
H the documents relating the Complaint to the Plaintiff to determine the issue. H
Insofar as there is any allegation that prior to the disciplinary hearing,
I I
explanation of the charges was made to the Plaintiff, one would expect that
J there should be some written record. If this is a relevant issue, the Court J
would be able enough to make findings from such evidence or lack of it.
K K
Therefore, I do not see the need for cross-examination on this question.
L L
17. The third question is whether the Defendant took into account
M M
irrelevant considerations during the disciplinary hearing and the meeting
N of the Executive Committee. Both the minutes of the Disciplinary N
hearing and the meeting of the Executive Committee as well as the
O O
recordings and the transcripts of relevant part of the meeting of the
P Executive Committee are in the evidence. What were considered and P
what not, and the effect of such consideration, could be determined on such
Q Q
objective evidence, while subjective matters of what the members thought
R in their mind are irrelevant. Therefore, I do not see the need for cross- R
examination on this question.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 8 -
A A
18. The fourth question is whether the Plaintiff was made known
B B
of the true nature and procedure of the meeting of the Executive Committee
C C
on 16 September 2024 and the availability of any appeal mechanism. The
D
recording and the transcripts of the meeting are in the evidence, and the D
Court can read them to determine this question objectively. There is no
E E
need for cross-examination on this question.
F F
19. The last question is concerning the Plaintiff’s right to legal
G G
representation. The dispute was whether prior notice that the Plaintiff
H
would be accompanied by lawyers for the meeting of the Executive H
Committee on 16 September 2024 was given to the Executive Committee.
I I
It is, put most favourably to the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff did give such
J prior notice. It is not the Plaintiff’s evidence that the Defendant then J
promised that the lawyers could join the meeting and make representations
K K
on behalf of the Plaintiff. In the circumstances, if the Plaintiff was
L entitled to legal representations, he would be; but if he was not, whether L
there was any prior notice or not, without the Defendant’s promise, is
M M
irrelevant.
N N
20. Therefore, there is no need for cross-examination on this
O O
question also.
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 9 -
A A
V. CONCLUSION
B B
C 21. In the premises, I refuse leave for cross-examination on C
affirmations, and shall give directions for the substantive hearing.
D D
E E
F F
G G
(Gary CC Lam)
Deputy High Court Judge
H H
I Mr Wayne Hariman, leading Mr Felix Tsang, instructed by W K To & Co I
Solicitors, for the Plaintiff
J J
Mr Paul Wong, instructed by Raymond T.M. Lau & Co., for the Defendant
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V