2 Nov 2011
The Court found the Company unable to pay its debts and held that alleged unfairness or pending Mainland litigation, unsupported by admissible particulars or expert evidence about foreign proceedings or asset recoverability, do not constitute legal grounds to refuse a winding-up order; accordingly a winding-up order was made.
16 Sept 2004
The court exercised its discretion to refuse the late application to amend because the defendants had no adequate explanation for the delay (they had elected to rely on PRC law despite knowledge of the PRC judgment), the ruling excluding PRC expert evidence did not justify a belated amendment, and allowing the amendment would cause prejudice and further delay to the plaintiffs that could not be compensated by costs; accordingly the application was dismissed and a costs order nisi made against the defendants.
23 Feb 2000
The Court dismissed the appeal: municipal courts in Hong Kong cannot adjudicate the international-law validity or abrogation of treaties concluded by foreign states; section 3(12)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance makes the Chief Executive's Order conclusive evidence that the Ordinance applies to the USA and precludes the appellant's challenge; evidence of foreign law is admissible only within the narrow statutory confines, and thus the magistrate had jurisdiction to commit and Stock J correctly refused habeas corpus.
20 Jan 1993
The Court held that (1) a joint warrant is a technical defect that does not invalidate committal where identities and offences are properly set out though separate warrants are preferable; (2) the magistrate (and reviewing court) must determine committal by reference to the crimes in the Governor's Order to Proceed and the evidence furnished to the Governor, not by relying on particulars in a foreign indictment; (3) on habeas corpus the High Court must apply the Wednesbury standard and not retry facts; (4) magistrates may not receive evidence of foreign law except in narrow treaty/ political‑…
20 Jan 1993
A joint warrant is not fatal though separate warrants are preferable; the magistrate must determine committal based on the offences set out in the Governor's Order to Proceed and the evidence furnished, not on the particulars of the foreign indictment; the Divisional Court must apply a Wednesbury standard on habeas corpus and cannot retry the facts; foreign law evidence is inadmissible except in narrow exceptions; on the proper standard the evidence was sufficient to commit the appellants for trial on crime 3.
7 Jan 1987
The Acting Governor's Order to Proceed was lawful; the Governor may specify multiple Hong Kong offences to reflect the conduct alleged; the Magistrate correctly confined himself to whether the evidence would, under Hong Kong law, justify committal on the specified local offences and whether those offences were extradition crimes; expert evidence about the substantive criminal law of the requesting state was not admissible except to satisfy narrow treaty conditions; the applications for habeas corpus and certiorari were dismissed.