Key Issues

1. Procedural Validity: Whether the Consent Judgment was procedurally flawed, making it a nullity.
2. Authority of Mr. Zhao: Whether Mr. Zhao, not being a lawyer, had the authority to sign the Consent Judgment.

Background

• A Consent Judgment, endorsed on December 13, 2021, awarded damages to Mr. Lam and Ms. Wang for wrongful dismissal, reputational damage, and legal expenses.
• The judgment was processed via email due to pandemic restrictions.

Procedural Issues

1. Failure to Follow Procedure: The judgment was filed without an originating document. The Applicant argued this violated procedural rules (r. 3.2(1), r. 1.4(2)(b)). The Respondents claimed the AJ waived these requirements given the circumstances.
2. Mr. Zhao’s Authority: Mr. Zhao, not a licensed lawyer, signed the judgment. The Applicant argued this violated the Legal Profession Act. The Respondents maintained he had authority as CEO.

Decision

• Procedural Flaws: The court ruled it lacked the power to set aside the Consent Judgment despite procedural flaws.
• Validity of Orders: The court cited precedent that superior court orders are never nullities and must be attacked through specific legal processes.
• Other Remedies: Noted a separate fraud action was underway.

Disposition

• Funds: Monies from the Consent Judgment remain in court pending further orders.
• Costs: Respondents are entitled to costs.