Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Discharge

  • 19 Jan 2012

    HKSAR v. VSL HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. VSL HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA461/2011

    Appeal allowed because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the polluting discharge into the water control zone was not made by way of a communal drain; evidence showed a plausible communal drainage path outside Chun Wo Site and ambiguity in witness evidence prevented a conclusive finding that the drain was used exclusively by Chun Wo.

  • 27 Jul 2006

    CAREWINS DEVELOPMENT (CHINA) LTD v. BRIGHT FORTUNE SHIPPING LTD

    Citation
    CAREWINS DEVELOPMENT (CHINA) LTD v. BRIGHT FORTUNE SHIPPING LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCL49/2004

    The court held that presentation of a straight bill is a requirement for delivery; the misdelivery occurred at the port when containers were handed to the consignee's agents without production of the original bills; on the facts the Hague-Visby Rules did not extend to the misdelivery because discharge was complete before the act complained of, so Article III(8) did not void contractual exemptions; the exemption clause (Clause 2(b)) was clear and unambiguous in excluding liability for misdelivery and therefore operated to defeat the plaintiff's claim; accordingly the plaintiff's claims were di…

  • 19 Jul 1989

    LAM KAM SING v. THE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LAM KAM SING v. THE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB653/1986

    The court held that the legislature intended the Official Receiver to be entitled to charge fees and expenses under Item 1(a) of Table B of the Bankruptcy (Fees and Percentages) Order for work done in administration under s78(1); such charges are distinct from litigation costs and are recoverable under section 37, therefore the Official Receiver's claimed costs and expenses are allowed under Item 1(a).

  • 27 Nov 1984

    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PIK-SHAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PIK-SHAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC441/1984

    Convictions quashed because the judge failed to address the special risk of relying on accomplice witnesses and there was insufficient cogent corroboration; proviso not applied; retrial ordered for the husband (4th defendant) but the wife (5th defendant) discharged as retrial would be unjust.

  • 20 Mar 1975

    WONG TUNG HEI v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    WONG TUNG HEI v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC140/1975

    The one year imprisonment for taking the bicycle was beyond the magistrate's statutory jurisdiction under s.14(2) of the Theft Ordinance; substituting a fine (with an imprisonment option for non-payment) would unjustly increase the appellant's overall punishment because the original concurrent one year terms would remain, so the correct and just remedy was to set aside the illegal sentence and grant an unconditional discharge with no conviction recorded on that charge; the burglary sentences were proper and upheld.