Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of statutory provisions

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2017

TANG WAI CHO v. TANG WAI LEUNG

Citation

TANG WAI CHO v. TANG WAI LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2207/2007

The court held that the statutory set-off power under s18A(4) LAO permits the court to order set-off notwithstanding the Director's first charge, but only the court may exercise that discretion; private settlement between the aided person and the other party cannot circumvent the Director's charge absent the Director's written direction. In the present case set-off was not available because the beneficiaries of the respective costs orders differed (the taxed $168,486.50 was for the benefit of the Director while the larger taxed sum was payable personally to Leung), and DLA had already been pa…
13 Jan 2017

FIRST KIND LTD v. UNION ESSENCE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

FIRST KIND LTD v. UNION ESSENCE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS20000/2014

R1 in CS-13 was refused leave to appeal because having previously indicated he would abide by the Tribunal's decision and not participated he was bound by that stance and caught by res judicata/issue estoppel; leave to appeal was granted to the other participating minority respondents because their grounds raised arguable points of law, conflicting Tribunal authorities existed and the questions (construction of LCSRO provisions and reserve price treatment for combined sales) raised issues of public importance and a reasonable prospect of success; costs order nisi previously made was made abso…
14 Apr 2000

BARNES & NOBLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. HODSUN LTD.

Citation

BARNES & NOBLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. HODSUN LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA27/1999

The adjudicator had statutory power under the Ordinance to order costs relating to proceedings before transfer, but she wrongly exercised her discretion in ordering costs when she transferred the matter and appeared to penalise the appellant for alleged delaying tactics; the costs order was therefore quashed and the appeal allowed.
16 Mar 1999

THE INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL v. SHEK MEI LING

Citation

THE INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL v. SHEK MEI LING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV23/1998

The Court held that, in general, 'profit gained' under section 23 is the actual difference between the purchase cost and the net sale proceeds; if shares are retained when the information becomes public the profit is measured by market value at that date; therefore the Tribunal erred in applying an American approach to inflate profit where the insider sold before public dissemination and the Court of Appeal's calculation of actual realised profit (HK$231,745) was correct.
17 Jan 1975

CHAN KING PAN v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

CHAN KING PAN v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV13/1973

The conviction and reprimand were set aside because the Council's charge improperly incorporated guidance that could not alter the statute, the mere printing of visiting cards absent use does not automatically constitute canvassing, and crucial procedural errors at the hearing (failure to separate evidence and address, improper handling of oath and cross-examination, and prejudicial interventions) rendered the finding unsafe.

Hong Kong Case Law

TANG WAI CHO v. TANG WAI LEUNG

FIRST KIND LTD v. UNION ESSENCE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

BARNES & NOBLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. HODSUN LTD.

THE INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL v. SHEK MEI LING

CHAN KING PAN v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG