Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collateral challenge

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2024

HKSAR v. CHOW HANG TUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA99/2023

The applicants failed to identify any point of law of great and general importance that is reasonably arguable; the law on collateral challenges is settled by HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung [2024] HKCFA 2 and the remaining points advanced merely re‑argued matters already decided at trial and on appeal; accordingly all applications for certificates and for bail pending appeal are dismissed.
25 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. CHOW HANG TUNG (鄒幸彤)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 2
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC9/2023

The Court allowed the prosecution's appeal and restored conviction. The panel unanimously concluded the respondent's challenge did not succeed: either because, on the leading judgment of the Chief Justice, collateral re-opening of a prohibition upheld by the Appeal Board is not permissible in a prosecution under s17A(3)(a) given the statutory scheme and its emphasis on finality subject to judicial review, or because, on the alternative reasoning of other members, even if a collateral or constitutional challenge were available it fails on the facts because the Commissioner and Appeal Board act…
19 May 2009

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. OCEAN TECHNOLOGY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. OCEAN TECHNOLOGY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC1/2009

Leave to appeal refused because the Court of Appeal was not shown to be wrong: on proper construction the licensing decision under the Telecommunications Ordinance is irrelevant to the offence of broadcasting without a licence, collateral challenge to that decision within the prosecution is impermissible, judicial review is the appropriate remedy, and there was no reasonably arguable case that the offence-creating provisions were unconstitutional.
9 Jan 2008

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV330/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the plea of autrefois acquit was inapplicable: the Hong Kong charges were different in law and fact (different bank account, amounts and time periods) and did not constitute re-litigation of the same incident; consequently no abuse of process arose and no stay was warranted; foreign prosecutorial omissions do not compel a domestic stay absent unfairness affecting a fair trial; collateral judicial review of trial discretion should be exceptional.
24 Apr 2006

CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES INVESTMENT LTD v. RONALD R.C. CHUM AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES INVESTMENT LTD v. RONALD R.C. CHUM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL10/2003

The court held the applications to set aside ex parte leave to serve out and the service effected succeed because the Hong Kong proceedings constitute an abusive collateral challenge to prior Bermuda judgments such that there is no serious issue to be tried; alternatively the plaintiffs failed to show Hong Kong is the forum conveniens. Accordingly leave and service were set aside and costs ordered nisi.
30 Mar 2006

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV368/2005

Rejection of a properly defined plea of autrefois acquit may, in narrow and well defined circumstances, be subject to collateral judicial review, but mere failure of such a plea will not automatically justify interrupting criminal proceedings; where the plea is arguable and the right invoked is fundamental an application for leave to judicially review should not be summarily set aside in favour of waiting for appeal.
31 Mar 1995

In re Sun Yeung Bin

Citation

In re Sun Yeung Bin
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP782/1995

Leave was refused because the challenge to the 23 February 1995 decision was in substance a collateral attack on the earlier 15 June 1994 decision; absent a relevant change of circumstances the strict time limits under Order 53 cannot be circumvented, and the events between the two dates were not such relevant changes that would reasonably affect the earlier decision; although absence of reasons might have justified leave to challenge the 15 June 1994 decision if extension were shown, that was not the decision before the court.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHOW HANG TUNG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHOW HANG TUNG (鄒幸彤)

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. OCEAN TECHNOLOGY LTD AND OTHERS

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES INVESTMENT LTD v. RONALD R.C. CHUM AND OTHERS

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

In re Sun Yeung Bin