Arthur Wong
Office Contact No.: 2866 8233
Fax: 2866 7858
Admission: Arthur Wong was called to the Bar in Hong Kong in 2004, prior to his admission as a solicitor from 1997 to 2004 with a focus on litigation practice.
He practises both civil and criminal law. 
In 2016, he sat as a deputy magistrate. 
His experience includes acting as counsel in
  • coroner’s court involving hospitals and medical practitioners; and
  • disciplinary proceedings involving China-appointed attesting officer, veterinary surgeon, registered lift contractor and engineer, and estate agent.

    Selected cases:- 
  • Advisinga transnational infant formula company in 2016 on their dispute with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department of Hong Kong on the meaning of the term “follow-up formula” under the newly-amended Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations, Cap.132W 

  • Wing Ming Garment Factory Limited v. The Incorporated Owners of Wing Ming Industrial Centre [2014] 4 HKLRD 52 (trial concerning building management disputes, construction of DMC, duties of owners versus the IO, alleged conversion of common areas, locus to sue, res judicata, limitation defence, estoppel, waiver, laches and acquiescence, etc.) 

  • HKSAR v. Nestle Hong Kong Limited(FLS 1535/2014) (defending a summons by the Customs and Excise Department of Hong Kong being attempt to export “powdered formula”, contrary to ss 6D(1) and 6D(3) of the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap 60), as read with s.159G of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200), concerning definition of “powdered formula” and the regulatory regime in Hong Kong) 

  • HKSAR v. Hood Richard Taylor (HCMA 285/2013) (appeal against conviction entered on a defendant’s guilty plea, on the ground that the facts admitted by the defendant did not support the charge) 

  • Lai Lung Hon Eros and Others v. National Holdings Group Limited [2011] 5 HKLRD 190 (appeal concerning the right of audience to appear for a company in the Labour Tribunal, the authority to sign settlement agreements for a company and whether the Presiding Officer of the Labour Tribunal erred in law in accepting a person’s authority to represent a company) 

  • Noblegain Limited v. Mak Shu Sun aka Raymond Mak and Other (HCA 7865/1999) (discovery application in 2011 involving causes of action of breach of fiduciary duties, conspiracy to injure, etc.; upon allegations of poaching of a company’s staff, property, business and customers by its former director, together with other defendants) 

  • SPM Limited v. Proper Invest Group Limited (LDBM 363/2009) (trial concerning whether installation of certain inscriptions and plaque constituted a change to the name of a building, and thus in breach of the DMC; and whether such inscriptions and plaque caused confusion to visitors to a building, thereby unreasonably interrupting enjoyment of the units of a building) 

  • Union Bank of India v. General Nice Resources (Hong Kong) Limited (HCA299/2007) (discovery application in 2010 involving sale of iron ore) 

  • Ngan Shun Wah and Others v. Tim Heung Tea House Limited (HCA 2074/2009) (interlocutory application involving allegations of intermeddling with the estate of a deceased and of passing off) 

  • Whole Light Industries Limited v. Turbo-Knit Factory Limited (DCCJ 3593/2006) (trial concerning sale of goods dispute; followed by application to vary or correct the judgment before it was perfected or sealed, whether the Court is functus officio) 

  • Luk Wai Fun v. CEO Investment Limited and Anor (HCCW 344/2006) (application for validation order in a shareholders’ dispute) 

  • Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited v. Cheung King Fung Francis and Another [2007] 1 HKLRD 462 (appeal concerning service of proceedings) 

  • Bond Star Development Limited v. Capital Well Limited (LDCS 2000/2001) (hearing in 2006 concerning different proposals on terms of sale of land under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance) 

  • Yau Chiu Wah v. Gold Chief Investment Limited and Another [2002] 2 HKLRD 832 (application for cross-examination of a deponent of affirmation made under a Mareva injunction)