Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bigamy

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. CHENG, KELL HIU FAI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA409/2021

The appellant's deliberate deception of immigration authorities and demonstrated knowledge or wilful failure to check his marital status rendered his culpability considerable and required a custodial sentence; the Court reduced the starting point to three months and applied the full one-third discount for an early plea, resulting in two months' imprisonment to run concurrently.
9 Jan 2017

WONG SIK YUK v. TSUI LEN

Citation

WONG SIK YUK v. TSUI LEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1194/2015

The court refused to strike out the Statement of Claim because, notwithstanding significant difficulties and evidence challenging the PRC notarial certificate, it was not 'plain and obvious' that the plaintiff could never prove the alleged 1979 marriage; genuine factual disputes and legal questions remain for trial or further investigation, and summary disposal would be inappropriate.
1 Dec 2010

SO YEE MUI AND OTHERS v. LAM PUI CHI

Citation

SO YEE MUI AND OTHERS v. LAM PUI CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP7/2008

On the balance of probabilities the court found Madam So was validly married to the deceased in 1963 and that Madam Lam did not validly marry the deceased prior to 7 October 1971; because the alleged marriage occurred after that date (or was void by reason of the prior valid marriage) it is not recognized by Hong Kong law under the MRO; accordingly the plaintiffs succeed and are entitled to administration of the estate.
18 Nov 2005

L v. L

Citation

L v. L
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2003

The court held that the 2000 and 2001 agreements were properly and permanently intended partial settlements (partial Edgar) and should be given substantial effect; Section 7 must be applied broadly to achieve fairness rather than imposing a rigid equality presumption or a reasonable-requirements ceiling; alleged bigamy did not disentitle the Wife because the earlier spouse had been absent for seven years and there was no proof the Wife knew he was alive; non-disclosure by the Wife justified adverse inference but not wholesale reopening of the agreements; valuation disputes and expert shortcom…
4 Aug 2000

HKSAR v. BIBI NUSRAT

Citation

HKSAR v. BIBI NUSRAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA352/2000

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate failed to advise the spouse witness of his right not to be compellable, creating a material trial irregularity and potential prejudice that required setting aside the conviction and sentence; no retrial was requested by the prosecution.
31 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. LAM KA WING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM KA WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA56/2000

The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion: he identified the aggravating factor of monetary gain and deception, applied mitigation for guilty plea, delay and personal circumstances, gave a substantial discount from a stated 9–12 month starting point, and the resulting concurrent 3‑month sentences were not excessive or wrong in principle.
28 Feb 1997

R. v. PAN OI LIN

Citation

R. v. PAN OI LIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA497/1992

Because expert material placed before the court showed that the Crown would be unlikely to prove that a valid customary marriage existed in July 1983, the conviction based primarily on the appellant's admission was unsafe and, in the interests of justice, the appeal must be allowed and the conviction set aside.
6 Jun 1995

FONG PAK KAI v. FONG CHUE YIN LING MARGARET

Citation

FONG PAK KAI v. FONG CHUE YIN LING MARGARET
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/1994

The Court of Appeal held Deputy Judge Gill erred in law: a person party to a marriage void ab initio by reason of bigamy is entitled to seek a decree of nullity and ancillary relief; the petition was not plainly unsustainable and therefore should not have been struck out under Order 18 r 19; the striking out order was set aside and the petition must proceed to be heard on its merits.
15 Dec 1987

THE QUEEN v. SZE TIN SIN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SZE TIN SIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA804/1987

Given the victim was deceived and injury resulted, immediate custody is appropriate; applying that principle to the facts the 12-month sentence was not so severe as to warrant interference and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Apr 1985

SANNAD MANUELA L v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SANNAD MANUELA L v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA239/1985

The convictions were quashed because the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the offences charged (bigamy and false statement) — notably absence of particulars, absence of expert evidence as to validity and subsistence of the first foreign marriage, and lack of mens rea — and the prosecution should not have been permitted to proceed; the magistrate erred in convicting on the available evidence.