Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freedom of speech

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 649
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC62/2022

The Court granted the certificate because Question 1 involves statutory interpretation and the interplay between the PRC national security law and local law, constituting points of law of great and general importance; Questions 2 and 3 also merit CFA determination because the repealed provisions are predecessors of the new sedition offences under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance and raise arguable issues about mens rea and constitutional validity.
17 May 2024

LIU, PEIBAO v. TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA229/2023

The court upheld the master’s striking out of the claim because the evidence established that the User Agreement and operation of Weixin were through Shenzhen Tencent, not HK Tencent, there was no evidential basis that HK Tencent was party to the contract or involved in the alleged restrictions, and therefore the claim against HK Tencent was hopeless, frivolous and an abuse of process under O.18 r.19 RHC; consequently the appeal and cross‑appeal were dismissed and no substantive orders on the defendant's summons were required.
24 May 2019

ANDREW EDWARD LEFT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 569
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV228/2016

The Court refused leave because the legal arguments on recklessness and negligence in s277(1) were not reasonably arguable in light of the Tribunal's factual findings; even under the alternative test advanced by the appellant the outcome would be the same, so the established concepts do not require further elaboration and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was not warranted.
2 Apr 2019

HKSAR v. YIP PO LAM (葉寶琳), WONG KAN YUEN (黃根源)

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 13
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC54/2018

Applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because none of the points raised were reasonably arguable: AI s11 is directed to legitimate aims and satisfies the proportionality test; conviction under s20(b)/AI s11 does not require proof of actual disruption nor both a failure to behave and a failure to comply with directions; and bail jurisdiction under s34 HKCFAO does not arise until an applicant takes the procedural step to apply for leave to appeal.
13 Apr 2018

郭卓堅 v. 林鄭月娥香港特別行政區首長

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 756
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL531/2018

The Chief Executive's public remarks were non-justiciable statements without legal effect, the Chief Executive was entitled to comment on public matters, the Applicant lacked standing to complain about those remarks, and the proceedings constituted an abuse of process — accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the application dismissed.
11 Aug 2017

HKSAR v. PUN LIN FA

Citation

HKSAR v. PUN LIN FA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA585/2015

The court held (1) the respondent is entitled to challenge, by way of defence to a s104A prosecution, the constitutionality of s104A itself rather than being confined to challenging the Director's permission scheme; and (2) the Magistrate erred in determining the constitutional validity of s104A(1)(b) and (2) as a preliminary issue without evidence on the framework, criteria and operation of the permission scheme(s); accordingly the Magistrate's answer to Question (2) is set aside and the question is remitted to another magistrate for fresh consideration because admissible evidence is require…
8 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. FONG KWOK SHAN, CHRISTINE

Citation

HKSAR v. FONG KWOK SHAN, CHRISTINE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC29/2016

The Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal on the certified legal questions because they are of great and general importance and reasonably arguable, and held that an intermediate appellate court must satisfy itself that a question is reasonably arguable before certifying it; the committee refused leave insofar as the applicant sought leave on factual allegations of substantial and grave injustice, which are not within the grant of leave.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA89/2013

The prosecution appeals are dismissed. The magistrate did not err in awarding costs on 14 January 2013 given the prosecution's failure to provide summaries or evidence; although the magistrate erred in procedure on 18 February 2013 by not following Lam Chiu Fong and relying on earlier awards, on the merits the three respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and there was no positive reason to deprive them of costs, so the costs orders stand.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA83/2013

The magistrate's awards of costs were upheld: where the prosecution failed to present summaries of facts or authorities the magistrate did not err in awarding costs; where the prosecution complied with procedural requirements the magistrate should apply Lam Chiu Fong, but on the merits the respondents had not shown conduct that 'brought suspicion on themselves' and there was no positive reason to deny costs; appeals dismissed and costs of the appeals ordered to the respondents.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA97/2013

Appeals dismissed. For the 14 January 2013 orders the magistrate did not err because the prosecution was inadequately prepared and did not provide summaries or authorities; awarding costs was reasonable. For the 18 February 2013 orders the magistrate erred in procedure and in relying on earlier awards, but on the merits the respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and there was no positive reason to deprive them of costs; accordingly all appeals against the costs orders were dismissed and costs of the appeals awarded to the respondents.