Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2018

郭卓堅 v. 香港特首林鄭月娥

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1165/2018

Although the court assumed a serious issue to be tried on constitutionality, the balance of convenience and public interest weighed decisively against granting interim injunctive relief; the likely substantial public and commercial losses from delaying commencement of the XRL, absence of exceptional circumstances, availability of alternative travel for the applicants, and the proximity of a substantive hearing required refusal of the interim relief. Applications therefore dismissed with costs.
19 Aug 2015

QMY v. GSS

Citation

QMY v. GSS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV68/2014

The Court of Appeal held that although Hong Kong courts retain an entrenched inherent jurisdiction to protect children and jurisdiction under the GMO can be invoked notwithstanding non-domicile of parties, the exercise of that jurisdiction over a child who is physically resident outside Hong Kong should be sparing; given the child's de facto residence in the Mainland, concurrent Mainland proceedings and judgments, lack of Hong Kong connections affecting welfare and comity concerns, the Family Court should not exercise jurisdiction in this case — the father's appeal was allowed, the order belo…
24 Oct 2014

HKSAR v. WONG TAK WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG TAK WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC220/2011

The court dismissed the application for leave to make an out-of-time application for a certificate because the contested legal question would not affect the safety of the applicants' convictions on the relevant count: the prosecution adduced substantial evidence of acts done by the applicants in Hong Kong in furtherance of the conspiracy, rendering resolution of the abstract jurisdictional point unnecessary for the outcome.
6 Aug 2014

HKSAR v. LIONEL JOHN KRIEGER AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LIONEL JOHN KRIEGER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC1/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the alleged conspiracy, even if carried out, would involve the commission of the s9(2) offence in Macau where the offer would be made to the agent and s9(2) lacks extraterritorial effect; PBO s2(2) does not remove the requirement that the offer be made to the agent or extend the offence to conduct constituting only an agreement in Hong Kong to make an offer abroad, so the conspiracy was not indictable in Hong Kong.
24 Feb 2014

FANCYMIND INC v. CENTRAL BILLION INC AND OTHERS

Citation

FANCYMIND INC v. CENTRAL BILLION INC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW375/2011

The applications to strike out the winding-up petitions were dismissed because it is not plain and obvious that the petitions cannot succeed: on the pleadings and affidavits taken in the petitioners' favour there is a sufficiently strong connection between the companies and Hong Kong (assets, central management, shareholders' connection and locus of disputes), a reasonable possibility of benefit to petitioners, and persons interested in the assets within the court's jurisdiction; the court may consider group affairs and beneficial owners despite BVI corporate vehicles; matters require trial.
18 Dec 2013

HKSAR v. LIONEL JOHN KRIEGER AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LIONEL JOHN KRIEGER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC99/2012

The Court held the trial judge erred in law in ruling that the drafting and emailing of the draft consultancy agreement (P8) in Hong Kong constituted the making of an offer to the Macau agent for the purposes of s9(2) POBO; the substantive offence is committed when the offer is communicated to the agent, and conspiracy under s159A requires agreement to commit an offence triable in Hong Kong or that a substantial measure of activities constituting the crime occur in Hong Kong; on the prosecution case as presented the contemplated offer was to be made in Macau so there was no case to answer and…
18 Nov 2013

香港特別行政區訴李國華

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李國華
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC30/2011

The Court refused to issue a certificate under s32 because the application was out of time without a satisfactory explanation, the applicant had been informed of the deadlines, relevant legal points had been considered and rejected at earlier stages (and some were not raised earlier), and only the Court of Final Appeal may decide on substantial and grave unfairness; therefore there was no reasonable prospect warranting certification.
27 Feb 2013

HKSAR v. KKK

Citation

HKSAR v. KKK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC504/2011

Indeterminate sentence was not justified on the evidence of risk and psychiatric opinion; the sentencing judge's individual starting points required adjustment and the aggregate sentence breached the totality principle so the appropriate total sentence is 18 years, with specified re‑structuring of concurrent and consecutive elements and preservation of the sentence for the minor indecency count.
3 Dec 2012

香港特別行政區訴李國華

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李國華
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC30/2011

Section 153P is constitutionally valid as enacted to meet a legitimate aim and the distinction is rationally connected and proportionate; the trial was fair given the judge's directions and absence of evidence that jury disregarded them; prosecution did not impermissibly rely on specimen/sample charges and uncharged acts were properly limited in use; the jury could properly find penetration; the aggregate sentence of eight years is not manifestly excessive and is justified by seriousness, breach of trust and need for deterrence.
28 Jan 2010

B v. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Citation

B v. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2009

Where an advantage is offered in Hong Kong s.9(2) of the POBO applies even if the offeree is a public official of a place outside Hong Kong and the conduct relates to his public duties outside Hong Kong; an agreement made in Hong Kong to offer such an advantage is a conspiracy under s.159A of the Crimes Ordinance triable in Hong Kong; consequently the High Court had jurisdiction to make the s.14(1)(d) order and the appeal against that order is dismissed.