Dr Ping-fat Sze
Dr Ping-fat Sze JP (Aus) barrister, chartered arbitrator & criminal law specialist. Newlawjournal.co.uk
Dr Ping-fat Sze JP (Aus) barrister, chartered arbitrator & criminal law specialist. Newlawjournal.co.uk
The Tai Po fire exposed Hong Kong’s longstanding failures in law enforcement, building management & judicial oversight, writes Dr Ping-fat Sze
Dr Ping-fat Sze is perplexed by the treatment of irrational prosecutorial decisions
Dr Ping-fat Sze examines the reviewability of prosecutorial decisions, & the effect on access to justice
Dr Ping-fat Sze examines the reviewability of prosecutorial decisions & asks: are mistakes being made?
It’s time to refocus attention on the administration of criminal justice in this former British colony. Dr Ping-fat Sze explains why
The denial of Jimmy Lai’s right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice casts serious doubt on Hong Kong’s legal future, says Dr Ping-fat Sze
Ping-fat Sze questions whether parties involved in small claims proceedings are fairly treated
Lay litigants left behind: are small claims proceedings in Hong Kong fit for purpose? Dr Ping-fat Sze investigates
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace
Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team
Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall
Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role
Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei
Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert
NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners
Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.
How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct?
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
