Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Bias and independence

  • 26 May 2022

    RE APASTRON CAPITAL LTD

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1567
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW290/2020

    The court held the Leading Mar claim was an unliquidated and unascertained time-costs claim inadmissible under r125, and the Advisory Agreement did not bind the company because Ms Liu lacked actual authority and could not establish ostensible authority; accordingly the PLs were appointed liquidators, there was no committee of inspection appointed, the liquidators’ remuneration to be on a time-costs basis charged to company assets, and costs were ordered nisi in favour of the PLs and Anglo Chinese.

  • 26 Nov 2019

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG MAN KIT AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2860
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC236/2018

    The court held that expert evidence by a police officer on the workings of illicit retail drug operations and the specialised jargon used may be admissible if the witness demonstrates sufficient qualifications, independence and a transparent factual and methodological basis, and if the evidence is necessary to assist the jury and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect; the trial judge must tightly delineate scope and impose limiting directions to prevent overreach or substitution of jury fact‑finding.