Barrister-at-Law
Mr Gordon Chan was selected as a delegate to the Law Society of Singapore x Hong Kong Bar Association Exchange Programme 2025, attached to Sreenivasan Chambers LLC, shadowing Sreenivasan Narayanan SC throughout August 2025.
Use of reproductive technology in Hong Kong is relaxing after more than two decades. From 1 December 2025, gametes for self-use can be frozen without a time limit.
Phoenix TV’s news programme interviewed Mr Gordon Chan about the legal issues in dine-and-dash and pretending to be a lawyer.
Immediahk interviewed Mr Gordon Chan on the “free adoption” of cats as a facade to circumvent licensing requirements of animal traders.
In Re Chan Fai-wong 陳輝旺, deceased CCDI 477/2013, Mr Gordon Chan led by Mr Alfred Fung represented the Hospital Authority in a second death inquest concerning the death of a taxi driver. The jury found that the driver was unlawfully killed after he was arrested.
Mr Gordon Chan traced the evolution of animal protection laws in Hong Kong in the inaugural GBA University Cat Welfare Alliance seminar.
After leave to appeal was granted in HKSAR v Yau Kai-fung, the Court of Appeal may soon review the sentencing approach for trafficking in multiple dangerous drugs.
Mr Gordon Chan is pleased to receive a Special Award in the 2023/24 Recognition Scheme for Provision of Pro Bono Legal Services for contributing over 50 hours in pro bono services.
East Week magazine interviewed Mr Gordon Chan regarding agencies arranging patients to undergo fertility treatment in licensed clinics in Hong Kong under a false pretence.
Mr Gordon Chan and Mr Wilson Yuen handled nine fire summonses on behalf of a flat owner who was unable to return to Hong Kong from mainland China. Unusually, the fault lay with the management company of a new building, which led to the prosecution of all 25 owners.
In WKS 7358/2025, Mr Gordon Chan mitigated on behalf of a defendant summonsed for neglecting to furnish information in a declaration. After considering her circumstances, the Magistrate acknowledged that the defendant was remorseful and imposed a fine of $6,000.
