Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial impartiality

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2024

曹元緒對孫洪亞

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1455
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5438/2019

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant simply repeated evidence and arguments already rejected at trial without identifying any obvious or perverse errors in the trial judge's factual findings; he failed to challenge the registrar's decision within the required time and adduced no evidence that additional witnesses would have produced material evidence; allegations of judicial bias were unsupported.
14 Jan 2022

DP WORLD DJIBOUTI FZCO AND OTHERS v. CHINA MERCHANTS PORT HOLDINGS CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 84
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV86/2020

The Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and affirmed the judge's refusal to stay proceedings: the defendant failed to show Djibouti was clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum under the two-stage Spiliada analysis, and the plaintiffs demonstrated cogent evidence of real risk that substantial justice might not be obtained in Djibouti (including issues over the 3rd plaintiff's authority, administrative appointments and witness availability); accordingly Hong Kong should retain jurisdiction and no stay is granted.
4 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴陳智傑

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2943
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA51/2019

The judge permissibly relied on CCTV, photographic evidence and the appellant's testimony; the appellant had opportunities to address the court and no material procedural unfairness occurred; the judge's questioning was proper clarification and the inferences drawn were reasonable; the prosecution proved careless driving beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Dec 2020

CHINA INTERNATIONAL FUND LTD v. WEST CHINA CEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1889/2019

Defendants failed to show that Maputo is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong because the alleged conspiratorial agreement and the defendants' decision-making largely occurred in Mainland China (PRC law likely governs the conspiracy), and there is a real risk that CIF would be deprived of a legitimate juridical advantage in Mozambique due to witness availability and potential political influence; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.
18 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. FUNG HOI YEUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCA 512
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC62/2019

The bail application was dismissed because the applicant could not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on appeal (notably grounds dependent on unavailable transcripts could not be assessed, and other grounds lacked merit), and the seriousness of the offence and length of sentence weighed against release pending appeal.
4 Jun 2019

YUNG IVAN CAESAR AND OTHERS v. YUNG SIU CHEE MARGARET AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1568/2017

Applying the two‑fold test, the judge held that prior training and past employment at WKLL, without a present direct or indirect interest in the proceedings and given the remoteness of the matters relied upon, did not create a real possibility of bias for a fair‑minded and informed observer; accordingly recusal was not required.
30 May 2018

莊裕安對香港終審庭及另四人

Citation

[2018] HKCA 316
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV185/2017

The judge's date-fixing was a proper exercise of case-management power; the appellant did not provide sufficient reasons or particulars nor demonstrate a relevant connection to HCAL 950/2017 or any bias; therefore the adjournment application was dismissed and the appeal proceeds on 1 June 2018.
11 May 2018

張超翰對韓欣陶

Citation

[2018] HKDC 485
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3936/2012

The defendant's application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal was dismissed because the 62-day delay was not short, the explanation of waiting for Legal Aid was unreasonable (there was no need to await Legal Aid's decision) and the application had no real prospects of success; the plaintiff's application to amend the judgment to correct the land description was allowed because it did not change the substance of the decision and was necessary to effect registration; costs were ordered respectively for each application with any dispute to be assessed by the Master.
14 Oct 2016

香港特別行政區訴霍嘉駿

Citation

香港特別行政區訴霍嘉駿
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA235/2016

The court accepted the trial magistrate's assessment that the police interview (P7) was voluntary and the interviewing officer credible; CCTV and witness evidence corroborated conduct indicative of dishonest intent; the magistrate's credibility findings were not perverse or irrational and there was no demonstrable bias; therefore the evidence proved the elements of theft beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction stands.
6 Sept 2016

香港特別行政區訴譚曙光

Citation

香港特別行政區訴譚曙光
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC30/2016

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's summing-up went beyond permissible comment and conveyed an impression of favouring the prosecution, thereby undermining the jury's independent role; that unfairness rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing and remittal for retrial before a different judge and jury.