Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona fides

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2021

LARAS PURWATI MARGO WALUYO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3336
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1498/2021

The Director properly applied the FDH visa policy and lawfully refused the application because the applicant failed to meet mandatory policy requirements (return to place of origin and valid travel document), was not bona fide in the context of long overstaying and a deportation order, and the leave application did not meet the arguability threshold; there was no error of law, procedural irregularity or irrationality in the decision.
14 Jan 2004

CHAO YUE WAH v. MO & CO (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAO YUE WAH v. MO & CO (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2326/2001

The amended claim was struck out because the pleaded case was contradicted by contemporaneous company minutes, mortgage records and audited accounts which showed company ownership and financing; the key purported authorization document was of doubtful provenance and contradicted Mr Zee's prior consistent position in litigation; the plaintiff's conduct in producing evidence late and inconsistently demonstrated lack of bona fides, and on the whole the claim was vexatious and bound to fail.
1 Mar 1988

KWAN WAI CHONG v. BONNY GLORY INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KWAN WAI CHONG v. BONNY GLORY INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2918/1987

Master Hill's order was correct: a garnishee order absolute does not give the garnishor priority akin to a charging order; because the garnishee's conversion of the debenture into a fixed charge was not shown to be mala fide and the plaintiff was bound by an earlier concession (issue estoppel), the goods were correctly ordered returned to the garnishee and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Sept 1981

S.D.S. BOKHARY v. MICHAEL ERIC BREMNER

Citation

S.D.S. BOKHARY v. MICHAEL ERIC BREMNER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/1981

The trial judge erred by entertaining irrelevant suspicions and failing to give adequate weight to the appellant's legitimate reasons (size, location, age, health and need for assistance); on the evidence the appellant had a genuine present need and entitlement to possession under s.53(2)(b), and the tenant's hardships did not amount to manifest injustice. Appeal allowed and possession ordered.
4 Dec 1973

IBM WORLD TRADE CORPORATION v. ANDREW JEAN

Citation

IBM WORLD TRADE CORPORATION v. ANDREW JEAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV25/1973

Where a dispute falls within the scope of a binding arbitration clause and is genuinely in dispute, the court will normally grant a stay under s.6 of the Arbitration Ordinance regardless of whether the issues involve questions of law or contract construction, unless exceptional circumstances demonstrate arbitration is inappropriate; here the dispute was sufficiently identified and bona fides could be tested by arbitrators, so the stay was properly granted and the appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

LARAS PURWATI MARGO WALUYO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

CHAO YUE WAH v. MO & CO (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

KWAN WAI CHONG v. BONNY GLORY INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

S.D.S. BOKHARY v. MICHAEL ERIC BREMNER

IBM WORLD TRADE CORPORATION v. ANDREW JEAN