Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal advice

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2018

香港特別行政區訴 HJD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1314
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC445/2017

The court found the defendant's plea was clear, voluntary and supported by facts; the Legal Aid Department officer and counsel were credible and gave proper advice; the defendant failed to establish any of the recognised grounds (including involuntariness, misrepresentation or a fundamental error) required to upset a plea, therefore the application to withdraw the plea is dismissed and convictions are upheld.
8 Jul 2005

LAU LEUNG WA AND ANOTHER v. LAU YUE KUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU LEUNG WA AND ANOTHER v. LAU YUE KUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP10/2001

The Court held the October 2000 legal advice was not relevant to whether D1 reasonably believed he should enter fee agreements made in 1994, 1995 and July 2000; reliance on that advice would raise only collateral credibility issues and its admission at this stage would prejudice the plaintiffs by likely causing adjournment, therefore leave to adduce the witness statement was refused.
8 Aug 1996

LUK CHUN YUE v. R.

Citation

LUK CHUN YUE v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC384/1995

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide a credible or sufficient explanation for the delay (the assertion of counsel's advice was implausible given that preliminary grounds had been drafted), lack of funds was not a proper reason, and the preliminary grounds did not disclose arguable grounds of appeal.
29 May 1996

R. v. LAI KA YI and Others

Citation

R. v. LAI KA YI and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA828/1995

Where counsel's advice before a guilty plea was ambiguous or erroneous as to the defendant's appellate rights and the legal status of the offence, the plea may be set aside in the interests of justice and a new trial ordered or the matter remitted for a valid hearing; applying that principle the appeal was allowed for D11 and D12 and a new trial ordered.
11 Jul 1995

BANQUE WORMS v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "MAULE" (Cyprus Flag)(formerly known as "Amer Deep")

Citation

BANQUE WORMS v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "MAULE" (Cyprus Flag)(formerly known as "Amer Deep")
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV187/1994

Ordering an inquiry as to damages was not the only proper course because there was insufficient basis at the short hearing to find mala fides or malicious negligence; the matter must be remitted to the judge to decide afresh after full consideration (including whether competent legal advice was taken); accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the order for inquiry set aside and remitted.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 HJD

LAU LEUNG WA AND ANOTHER v. LAU YUE KUI AND ANOTHER

LUK CHUN YUE v. R.

R. v. LAI KA YI and Others

BANQUE WORMS v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "MAULE" (Cyprus Flag)(formerly known as "Amer Deep")

香港特別行政區訴 HJD