8 Jan 2020
Defendant was guilty of contempt in two proceedings; a custodial sentence was justified to punish and deter given knowledge of the injunction and contumelious conduct, but suspension for a definite period combined with a fine was appropriate in light of mitigation and the need to deter further breaches; costs apportioned to reflect which charges were proved.
5 Mar 2019
Because the defendant's breach was deliberate, intentional and continuing, she refused to attend the penalty hearing and gave no explanation or offer to purge contempt, and because the breach related to substantial undisclosed assets in the context of a Mareva injunction protecting a claim of US$286,815,887, the court concluded that alternatives (suspended sentence, sequestration, fine) were inappropriate and that an immediate custodial sentence of 12 months, together with committal and warrant, was necessary to enforce the order and uphold the administration of justice; costs ordered on an i…
23 Mar 2015
Court found both respondents in contempt. 1st respondent committed to 21 days imprisonment suspended for 24 months given purge, remorse, lack of prior record and risk to residency. 2nd respondent fined HKD 5,000 payable within 28 days, default 3 days' imprisonment, because his role was passive and misconduct was less culpable. Costs awarded on an indemnity basis but limited to 50% of applicant's legal costs and apportioned 70% to the 1st respondent and 30% to the 2nd respondent.
24 May 2013
The court awarded indemnity costs in full (HK$185,580.50) and imposed a fine of HK$10,000, having regard to the need to enforce compliance with court orders, the costs incurred, and the defendant's financial circumstances; payment to be made within 14 days.
12 Jan 2012
The appellate court found no principled error in the trial judge's sentencing exercise but noted the judge's reference to a withdrawn third count risked unfairness; in the interests of fairness the fine was reduced while the 12‑month probation order was upheld.
21 Mar 2007
The court held that the magistrate did not err in imposing a $1,000 fine; given the seriousness of wasting police time, the involvement of six officers, and the societal cost and deterrence considerations, confirming the fine and dismissing the appeal was appropriate despite the appellant's mitigation.
9 Mar 2005
The court held that although the appellant's driving amounted to dangerous driving warranting disqualification, the original 18-month disqualification was excessive in all the circumstances and should be reduced to 9 months while upholding the fine and the order to resit the driving licence examination and practical test; a one-day driving improvement course was insufficient in this case.
30 Aug 2001
The magistrate did not order the fine to be paid out of bail; even if counsel's statement suggested bail could be used, that did not constitute an unlawful magistrate order. The magistrate properly assessed the appellant's means, the prior similar conviction and profit motive, and the $40,000 fine with a 4‑month sentence suspended for 2 years was not excessive. Appeal dismissed.
25 Jan 1996
The additional penalty imposed under Section 20(3) Cap.237 was unreasonable on the facts because the demand note's address was incomprehensible and the appellant's conduct did not justify a mandatory additional penalty; the fine was therefore reduced to the fixed penalty of $320.
26 Jul 1991
Appeal dismissed: the Magistrate was entitled to find a substantial bookmaking operation from the facts; the fine of $150,000 was not excessive in light of the statutory maximum and the circumstances; the appellant's claim of inability to pay was undermined by the prompt payment the same day, so there was no basis to interfere with the sentence.