Hong Kong judge who committed serial plagiarism to take early retirement at chief justice’s request

A High Court judge will retire early this week after he was found to have committed plagiarism in his judgements at least five times over the past three years.

High Court Judge Wilson Chan tendered his retirement at the request of Chief Justice Andrew Cheung. It will come into effect on Friday, the judiciary said on Monday.

Chan, 64, received a “serious reprimand” last week for committing plagiarism in his judgement in a 2024 trial over a company shares dispute. It was at least the third known instance of “judicial copying” following two earlier instances in 2023.

In a statement on Monday, Chief Justice Cheung said “judicial copying strikes at the very core” of the fundamental requirement for judges to adjudicate cases independently.

“A judge must exercise an independent judicial mind in carefully considering and resolving the issues raised and in determining the disputes before the court,” Cheung said.

“The exercise of independent judicial judgment, which lies at the heart of the adjudicative process, is principally reflected in the reasons and judgments delivered by the judge,” he added.

Cheung said Chan’s instances of plagiarism had led to a number of appeals and orders for retrial, straining the court’s resources and undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

He warned judges at all levels of Hong Kong’s courts to avoid any form of judicial copying, adding that training in judgement writing will be strengthened where appropriate.

Monday’s announcement means that Chan will retire almost six years before he is set to hit the retirement age for a High Court judge. Hong Kong amended rules in 2019 to extend a High Court judge’s retirement age from 65 to 70.

String of instances

In the latest instance of plagiarism, Chan was found to have copied large parts of the defence’s opening and closing arguments in a HK$40 million shares dispute between Koo Ming-kown, the founder of digital products company Nam Tai Electronics, and Koo’s former brother-in-law.

Koo lost the case initially but won an appeal this month, with the Court of Appeal finding that 95 per cent of Chan’s judgement was plagiarised. The case was ordered to be retried before another judge.

Chan, who presided over the early proceedings of the 47 democrats’ national security case, has been caught in the act at least four times before.

The Court of Appeal found Chan had plagiarised during two separate cases in 2025, according to local media outlet The Witness.

In 2023, he was also found to have copied the majority of the plaintiff’s written submission in his judgement after the defendant lodged an appeal in a trademark dispute case involving two pharmaceutical brands.

That same year, Chan was also found to have plagiarised in a case concerning real estate giant Great Eagle Holdings. The defendant, who lost the case, filed an appeal accusing Chan of lifting large parts of the plaintiff’s submissions.

In both 2023 incidents, the Court of Appeal ordered the cases to undergo retrials by different judges.