TSO YUNG v. CHENG YEUNG HING AND ANOTHER

TSO YUNG v. CHENG YEUNG HING AND ANOTHER

Plaintiff voluntarily refused to leave the 1st defendant's office after being informed it would be locked for lunch and therefore consented to remain (volenti applies), so false imprisonment not established; police officers honestly believed there was no prima facie case and lacked subjective malice or recklessness required for misfeasance in public office, intimidation or intentional infliction of injury; expert evidence for defendants preferred over plaintiff's experts on credibility and causation; accordingly defendants not liable and plaintiff's claims dismissed.

Citation
TSO YUNG v. CHENG YEUNG HING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: TSO YUNG; 1st Defendant: CHENG YEUNG HING; 2nd Defendant: SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (for and on behalf of Commissioner of Police)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 2003
Case Number
HCPI1509/2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment After Trial (liability and Quantum)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; 1st and 2nd defendants found not liable
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Misfeasance in Public Office, Intentional Infliction of Injury, Intimidation, Psychiatric Injury Causation, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Credibility of Witnesses, Expert Psychiatric Evidence, Costs
Source Language
EN
Tort Personal Injury Psychiatric Injury False Imprisonment Misfeasance in Public Office Intimidation Intentional Infliction of Injury Police Conduct and Liability +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSO YUNG

Plaintiff

CHENG YEUNG HING

1st Defendant

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (for and on behalf of Commissioner of Police)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment After Trial (liability and Quantum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was falsely imprisoned by the 1st defendant
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff validly consented to remain (volenti)
  3. 3 Whether police officers (2nd defendant) abused power or acted with requisite subjective malice or recklessness (misfeasance in public office)

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff voluntarily refused to leave the 1st defendant's office after being informed it would be locked for lunch and therefore consented to remain (volenti applies), so false imprisonment not established; police officers honestly believed there was no prima facie case and lacked subjective malice or recklessness required for misfeasance in public office, intimidation or intentional infliction of injury; expert evidence for defendants preferred over plaintiff's experts on credibility and causation; accordingly defendants not liable and plaintiff's claims dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; 1st and 2nd defendants found not liable

Orders

  • Judgment for the 1st and 2nd defendants: plaintiff's claims dismissed
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the 1st and 2nd defendants