Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conspiracy allegation

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2018

林馬光對警務處長及積金局

Citation

[2018] HKCA 565
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV66/2018

The Court dismissed the appeal and refused permission where required because the plaintiff's claims against both defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action (police non-investigation is not actionable and there was no evidence MPF Authority participated in alleged trustee misconduct); the procedural complaints were without merit and the sequencing of strike out applications justified disposal prior to any summary judgment, and costs were ordered against the appellant.
11 Mar 2016

PATRIARCH PARTNERS MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC v. WONG SIU WA, SAMMY AND ANOTHER

Citation

PATRIARCH PARTNERS MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC v. WONG SIU WA, SAMMY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA865/2013

Court ordered that the costs of and occasioned by the re-amendment of the statement of claim be paid by the defendants while, on balance and exercising judicial discretion, the contested costs of the defendants' affirmation in opposition, the plaintiff's reply and the hearing on 20 November 2015 should lie where they fall (no order as to those costs). The court declined to infer the plaintiff had no arguable basis for the withdrawn conspiracy claim.
10 Oct 2003

PREMIERE AGRI TECHNOLOGIES ASIA INC AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG JOHN AND OTHERS

Citation

PREMIERE AGRI TECHNOLOGIES ASIA INC AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG JOHN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV246/2003

The 3rd defendant's disclosure was materially deficient and illusory; she had documents in her possession or control which were not listed or produced despite three discovery orders (including two unless orders); the claimed solicitor misconception was not credible in the face of explicit orders and representations; the prejudice to the plaintiffs justified entering judgment and dismissing the appeal, subject to minor amendment of the judgment entered below.
7 Mar 2003

LEE TAK (or TUCK) YAN AND OTHERS v. THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES, LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE TAK (or TUCK) YAN AND OTHERS v. THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES, LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4225/2001

The court exercised its discretion to allow only those particulars that were necessary, arose directly from the pleaded allegations and were relevant to identify the issues between the parties, and disallowed requests that were unnecessary, irrelevant, sought argument or were already apparent from the ASOC, specifying the particular requests to be provided for each defendant summons.
26 May 2000

ASIA WIDE PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YUK KIU

Citation

ASIA WIDE PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YUK KIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9500/1994

The objection was upheld and the question was disallowed because it invited argument and speculation beyond matters of fact by asking the witness to allege that document-makers fabricated entries to frame him, which the witness could not factually know; the question was therefore improper and disproportionate to the issues of relevance.
26 May 2000

TSANG YUK KIU AND ANOTHER v. LUCAS SASMITO AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSANG YUK KIU AND ANOTHER v. LUCAS SASMITO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6631/1991

The objection was upheld and the question disallowed because it improperly invited the witness to make a conclusion (that accounting entries were fabricated to frame him) rather than elicit facts within his knowledge; the issue of whether a false case was put forward is a matter of conclusion for the tribunal, not factual testimony, and permitting the question would be irrelevant and a misuse of cross‑examination time.
25 Jan 1978

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2459/1976

On the evidence the court found key transactions concerning shares registered in the names of Asiatic, Triumphant and Fermay were shams so that beneficial ownership remained in C.K. San and charging orders in respect of those shares were made absolute; by contrast the court found the parcel comprising approximately 8 million shares sold to Rocky/Coef was, on balance, purchased bona fide for value so beneficial interest passed to Rocky/Coef and charging orders in respect of IPC shares were discharged; hearsay evidence presented under the statutory hearsay rules was admissible and the plaintiff…

Hong Kong Case Law

林馬光 對 警務處長及積金局

PATRIARCH PARTNERS MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC v. WONG SIU WA, SAMMY AND ANOTHER

PREMIERE AGRI TECHNOLOGIES ASIA INC AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG JOHN AND OTHERS

LEE TAK (or TUCK) YAN AND OTHERS v. THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES, LTD. AND OTHERS

ASIA WIDE PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YUK KIU

TSANG YUK KIU AND ANOTHER v. LUCAS SASMITO AND ANOTHER

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS

林馬光對警務處長及積金局