Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bias and apparent bias

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA311/2019

The magistrate properly refused to issue the private summonses for good cause because the appellant failed to provide requested particulars or supporting materials and thus the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not prima facie present; service by noticeboard was valid; allegations of bias were unproven; and Article 10 did not entitle the appellant to a public hearing at the summons‑application stage. All three appeals are dismissed.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA196/2019

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to supply necessary material to show that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie present; the Magistrate acted within the statutory power to refuse issuance of summonses for good cause under s8(1B)(b); statutory provisions relied on by appellant (s44 Cap 200; ss21/22 Cap 227) do not empower the court to obtain tribunal records or compel production prior to institution of proceedings; Article 10 BOR did not apply to the Magistrate's decision whether to issue private summonses; no actual or apparent bias was est…
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA309/2019

The magistrate had good cause to refuse to issue the private summonses because the appellant repeatedly failed to provide particulars, materials or evidence requested so the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not prima facie present; service by posting was valid; Article 10 HBOR did not apply to the refusals; and no actual or apparent bias was demonstrated.
21 Jan 2016

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. CHU CHI HO IAN

Citation

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. CHU CHI HO IAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4344/2012

The court dismissed the application to remove the trustees: it found the trustees acted within their statutory duties and professional judgment, their fees were approved by the Creditors Committee and not shown to be excessive, communications and disclosures were appropriate in timing and content, rejection of proofs for voting was justified by lack of substantiation, confidentiality of the funding agreement justified non‑disclosure and the agreement was sanctioned by the court, and it was reasonable to exclude subjects of investigation from funding invitations; therefore no misconduct under…
6 Jun 1994

Re OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (HK) LTD.

Citation

Re OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (HK) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3609/1993

Section 11E(2)(d) of Cap.327, which provided that the Director or his representative shall be a member (and capable of being chairman) of the Disciplinary Board, is inconsistent with s.8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights because the Director is the accuser and his presence (or that of his representative) on the tribunal gives rise to a real possibility of bias; that provision is therefore deemed repealed from 6 June 1991 and the Disciplinary Board decision of 28 September 1993 was quashed as made by an invalidly constituted tribunal. The method of appointing panel members under s.8A was not con…

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. CHU CHI HO IAN

Re OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (HK) LTD.