Carter Chim recognised as a Recommended Barrister for Competition Law in Hong Kong by the latest Lexology Index
We are pleased to announce that in the latest Lexology Index (formerly Who’s Who Legal), Carter Chim has been recognised as Recommended Barrister and Future Leader in the field of Competition Law in Hong Kong.
Carter Chim
“Carter is a leading specialist in competition law in Hong Kong and is known for his deep legal knowledge in EU and Hong Kong competition law. He is a very collaborative and effective communicator, he gives pragmatic advice that addresses commercial realities and client sensitivities, and his persuasive style and ability to distill complex legal concepts into accessible language make him a compelling advocate.”
Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2024, Competition — Leading Juniors
Carter has been recognised by The Legal 500 (Legalease) as a Leading Junior (Tier 1) in Competition Law for four consecutive years (i.e. 2021 to 2024).
Carter has acted in a number of landmark constitutional and administrative law cases before the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, including Secretary for Justice v Leung Kwok Hung [2021] HKCFA 32 (concerning the scope of parliamentary privilege enjoyed by a member of the Legislative Council in the course of proceedings).
General civil matters form a core part of Carter’s practice. Matters which he is regularly instructed to handle include winding up petitions (for the successful petitioner in Re Yuan Tong Global Financial Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 1534), water leakage cases, property disputes, discrimination cases, and more.
Carter currently teaches Civil Procedures and Clinical Legal Education at The University of Hong Kong.
Visit Carter’s profile for more information.
This article was first published on 18 November 2024.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.