24th January, 2017

Amy Rollings returns from Pegasus Trust Scholarship to Hong Kong

Amy reports on her time spent in Hong Kong as a Pegasus Scholar:

As my first week in chambers in just over three months draws to a close, I have been reflecting on a wonderful time in Asia.

As some of my instructing solicitors will know, I was awarded a Pegasus Scholarship to Hong Kong by the Pegasus Trust of the Inner Temple. The scheme is intended to allow junior barristers of up to 5 years practice, the opportunity to travel abroad, live and work in other common law jurisdictions.

I was placed in the following 4 organisations:

  1. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (‘HKIAC’);
  2. The High Court;
  3. Temple Chambers;
  4. Howse Williams Bowers (law firm).

The following experiences were personal highlights; watching the murder trial of British banker, Rurik Jutting, visiting the Supreme Court, HKIAC’s “Arbitration Week” and my time spent in the law firm advising a range of high profile blue-chip clients on personal injury and employment law.

I learnt a lot during my time in Hong Kong, most notably the importance of client care - in a system which does not have clerks - and the art of effective advocacy due to the non-specialist nature of life at the Bar in Hong Kong.  

In my downtime, I hiked the beautiful trails of Hong Kong, enjoyed wonderful beaches and admired the iconic skyline from the plentiful rooftop bars. 



Latest News...

9SJS welcomes three new pupils!

22nd September, 2023

9SJS warmly welcomes Emily Bonass[our-people/barristers/emily-bonass/], Jolene Charalambous[our-people/barristers/jolene-charalambous/] and Natasha Otero[our-people/barristers/natasha-otero/] to Chambers. All three have just started their...

Elizabeth Murray and Leanne Jones secured success for their respective clients in this 2 day Employers Liability/Occupiers Liability trial in which the Second Defendant was ordered to pay out almost £50,000.

22nd September, 2023
Elizabeth represented the Claimant who had been injured during the course of her employment with the Second Defendant as a "bus shunter". The Claimant originally pursued a claim against the First Defendant, as owner/occupier of the premises, and the Second Defendant, as her employer. The Second Defendant in turn brought a CPR 20.6 claim for contribution/indemnity against the First Defendant on the basis that, as the employer, it had no control over the workplace, premises, equipment, devices and systems.

Free Zoom Webinar. Thursday 28th September 2023 Time 4.30pm – 1 hour estimated length

21st September, 2023

Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Private Law Children Act Cases Speakers: Sarah Kilvington and Emily Landale This...