Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court allowed an appeal in part and ordered the plaintiff to produce the originals of disputed documents for inspection, but not immediate forensic examination.
法院認為本案涉及簽署真偽等重大事實爭議，不適合只憑誓章以原訴傳票處理，遂依 O.28 r.8(1) 轉為按訴狀程序處理並保留訟費。
The Court of Appeal granted leave only on the interpretation of consecutive disqualification orders, and refused leave on challenges to sentence and overall severity.
The District Court held that the 2nd Defendant did not sign the written Guarantee and that the questioned signature was forged, dismissing the claim against her.
The High Court reheard the matter and concluded the magistrate's starting point of 24 months' imprisonment was appropriate given the low quality of the single counterfeit HK$1,000 note, the summary jurisdiction limit, and mitigating factors (single note, willingness to compensate), while recognising prior similar convictions and prompt reoffending as aggravating factors; after one‑third guilty‑plea discount the final sentence of 16 months and a compensation order of HK$900 were not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance held that a 2013 loan was proved, rejected forgery and intoxication defences, and dismissed the defendant’s HK$6.8 million counterclaim.
The Court of First Instance allowed William Chan’s out-of-time appeal, set aside summary judgment against him, and granted unconditional leave to defend over a disputed surety deed signature.
The court allowed a late expert affirmation on handwriting evidence in a probate dispute, but only with an adjournment and costs, because forgery allegations went to a central issue.
The Court of Final Appeal quashed the convictions, preferred the automendacity construction of false instrument, and limited costs to the substantive appeal.
CO s69(a)(vii) must be construed ejusdem generis with the other heads of falsity in s69(a): a 'false instrument' requires that the instrument on its face misrepresents the circumstances of its own making or alteration (automendacity); lies about underlying transactions are extraneous and do not satisfy s69(a)(vii). Therefore the appellant's convictions under CO ss73 and 74, based on alleged falsity about the underlying transaction and payment, were unsafe and are quashed; substitution is inappropriate because the charges do not amount to or include the alternative offences and statutory subst…
Source excerpt
Explore more
