In a Decision for our client concerning a mega cross-border commercial dispute involving a Mainland restructuring plan, the High Court reaffirmed the antecedence of the issue of a solicitor’s authority to act, over other procedural or substantive issue including an issue of locus.

In Tu Jianhua v USUM Investment Group Hong Kong Limited [2025] HKCFI 2782, our client as the Plaintiff applied by an Originating Summons (the “OS”) for leave to commence a statutory derivative action on behalf of the subject Respondent company (the “Company”).

A firm of solicitors (the “Firm”) filed an acknowledgement of service on behalf of the Company (the “AS”). Our client filed a summons for an order that the AS be struck out on the ground that the Firm had no authority to act for the Company (the “Authority Summons”). The Firm filed a summons for striking out the OS on the ground that our client has no locus to seek the Leave on behalf of the Company (the “Locus Summons”).

There was effectively a procedural contest between the Authority Summons and the Locus Summons. Deputy High Court Judge Maria Yuen held that the Authority Summons shall be heard first, before the Locus Summons. The legal analysis is threefold, summarized as follows.

First of all, it is well established that where the solicitors’ authority to act for that litigant is challenged, that challenge should be raised at the outset and determined by the court at the earliest opportunity.

Secondly, comparing the two summonses, the learned Judge found that the Authority Summons was filed in good time and supported by PRC legal opinion, whereas the Locus Summons should not be heard first before determining whether the Firm even has authority to issue it on the Company’s behalf.

Thirdly, the learned Judge refused to hear two summonses together, as hearing an authority challenge together with substantive issues shall be discouraged.

The question of a solicitor's authority to act in legal proceedings is not just procedural, but goes in the heart of public interests in maintaining confidence in the judicial system.

This case is conducted by our Partner Mr. Sidney Ho.