Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Anonymity

  • 8 Aug 2023

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG KWOK LEUNG

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2026
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP664/2022

    The defendant was in contempt for reposting prohibited personal data in breach of the Police Doxxing Injunction and Anonymity Order; having weighed aggravating features (publication of personal data including a child, less than frank account to police) against mitigation (one‑off conduct, limited reach, deletion before arrest, good character, family and financial hardship, and delay in proceedings), the appropriate and proportionate sentence was 28 days imprisonment suspended for 12 months and an order that the defendant contribute HK$25,000 towards the Secretary for Justice's costs.

  • 23 May 2022

    LAM SZE CHUN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1496
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL133/2022

    Leave to apply for judicial review is granted only in respect of issues concerning (a) the categorisation of the CAPO Complaint (Decisions 8 and 14) and (b) the alleged breach of IPCC's duty of confidence in disclosing applicant's information to CAPO (Decision 11); all other challenged decisions lack reasonable prospects of success as they are either non-justiciable operational choices, premised on wrong facts, devoid of particulars, or premature; interim relief and anonymity are refused.

  • 13 May 2021

    NPYJ v. SMRC

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 82
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9098/2018

    Leave to appeal was refused because the court's decision to upload a sanitized family judgment was an administrative act outside its judicial capacity and therefore not appealable under Order 59; in any event the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice to hear it.

  • 16 Mar 2021

    A1 AND ANOTHER v. R1 AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 650
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP307/2021

    The court granted Norwich Pharmacal disclosure against the three respondent banks, together with gagging, confidentiality and anonymity orders (subject to amendments), because the applicants had met the meritorious threshold for relief, the disclosure sought was appropriately limited in time and scope, and the Hong Kong incorporated banks likely had possession, custody or power to obtain documents from their Macau branches.

  • 24 Jun 2013

    D v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    D v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV98/2013

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because judicial review would constitute an inappropriate interference with ongoing criminal proceedings; the HCCC provides an adequate and preferred forum to address disclosure and anonymity issues, the judge in the HCCC is best placed to balance competing interests, and the Kebilene principle accordingly militates against allowing the judicial review in this case.

  • 25 Feb 2011

    ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. FEVAWORKS SOLUTIONS LTD

    Citation
    ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. FEVAWORKS SOLUTIONS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2140/2008

    The defendants were held to be subordinate distributors rather than primary publishers; as such they could rely on the innocent dissemination defence. The defence failed in respect of the March 2007 postings because the defendants were notified in December 2008 and unreasonably delayed removal until about August 2009, establishing negligence. The defendants successfully established the defence for the October 2008 and January 2009 postings because they were notified and removal was timely and not negligent. The March 2007 and October 2008 words were found to bear defamatory imputations descri…

  • 4 May 2010

    RE X LTD

    Citation
    RE X LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW382/2006

    The court granted a gagging order in respect of the company’s officers and employees because the Provisional Liquidators demonstrated a real risk those persons would take steps to hinder investigations or the prosecution of claims; in respect of the auditors the court ordered a separate protective writ and gagging order but required that the auditors be notified and given liberty to apply to have the order set aside, balancing the exceptional nature of such orders against fairness to the auditors and the need to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations.