A lawyer who challenged the Bar Association's restriction on its members having a second job won his case yesterday after a judge ruled that the regulation infringed barristers' freedom to choose their occupation. Barrister Albert Leung Sze-ho sought the judicial review at the High Court after being told he could not be a practitioner of neuro-beautology - a natural treatment which helps correct misaligned spines and limbs. Mr Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-ho stated that Article 33 of the Basic Law allowed people in Hong Kong the freedom of choice of occupation. READ MORE: Barrister battles Bar Association over second job He said the freedom prevented a person from being compelled to take up an occupation against his or her wishes and from being denied the opportunity to pursue an occupation of his or her choice. "With [the rule] in place, and absent permission from the Bar Council, [Leung] cannot do so without risking disciplinary sanctions," the judge wrote. If there was no such rule in the code, he saw no reason why Leung could not practise both as a lawyer and any other job he wanted. "It seems to me that in a real and substantial way, [Leung]'s freedom of choice of occupation has been restricted by [the rule]." The judge claimed he had no doubt the Bar Council kept the rule in the code of conduct to be enacted "in good faith" and ultimately in the interests of the administration of justice. However, he found the rule was still "unconstitutional" and invalid. Leung, who has been a barrister since 2005 and applied to be a neuro-beautologist last year, said he was happy with the result. He said he had launched the application on discovering that the Bar Association in Hong Kong was the only professional legal body in the world that restricted its members in the choice of a second occupation. It was time that was changed, he said. The judge yesterday agreed with Leung's claim that the association had not given him sufficient reason when refusing his application.