Barrister-at-Law
In FLCC 368/2025, Mr Gordon Chan represented an elderly man accused of stealing money from a wallet he had picked up. The charge was withdrawn after it was established that the man suffered from dementia and was unfit to plead or stand trial.
In WKS 12666-67/2024, Mr Gordon Chan persuaded the Buildings Department to withdraw the summonses for failing to demolish an illegal rooftop structure, as the structure falls under an amnesty agreement back in 1975.
Following the sentencing guidelines review for trafficking in Cocaine, Heroin, and Ice in Huang Ruifang. The Court of Appeal is set to review the sentencing scheme for Ketamine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
