Preparing for my first ever court hearing did not feel like the beginning of a career milestone. It felt more like being handed an important responsibility before I fully understood what was required.

I was in the middle of limited practice, absorbing how work gets done in chambers – how documents are handled, how time pressures shape decisions. Then a chamber mate of my pupil master asked me to appear in court. The task was not complicated, it was for a routine time extension to file pleadings. But to a fledgling pupil barrister, this was a challenge.

In practical terms, I had a very short runway. I needed to be ready within a limited time, and I needed to prepare for all eventualities from the opposing side, even for a three-minute hearing.

This is the particular challenge of pupillage and limited practice in Hong Kong. We are afforded a great education from observing our pupil masters. At the same time, we have to fully grasp the procedural aspects – the mechanics of intricate court procedures – and perform competently once we are there. The work demands precision, and precision is only possible if you prepare for both substance and process.

My hearing was an application before a Master of the High Court, seeking a time extension. On paper, this was routine. These applications are common, usually straightforward, and often turn on basic fairness: whether an extension is justified, whether there is good reason, and whether the request is made with appropriate candour. The court is accustomed to them.

However, routine matters do not feel routine when it is your first appearance.

Before the hearing, I treated the matter like a checklist with consequences. I reviewed the materials – documents, dates, the procedural context, and what exactly was being sought. I clarified the narrative – what had happened, what delay had occurred, and why the court should grant the requested time. I also paid attention to form – how to present a time extension request clearly, without overstatement or unnecessary commentary.