Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Market misconduct tribunal

Legal area

Court

18 Feb 2015

CHANG LI HSIEN LESLIE v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

CHANG LI HSIEN LESLIE v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL164/2014

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to exhaust an effective alternative remedy (the MMT's power to stay proceedings under the SFO); the applicant's central complaints of prejudice from parallel proceedings would be addressed by an MMT stay and thus the proposed ground for quashing the Decision was not reasonably arguable.
10 May 2013

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. SUNG KOOK HWANG BILL

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. SUNG KOOK HWANG BILL
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2012

The Court of Final Appeal held that s213 SFO empowers the Court of First Instance to determine whether a person has contravened the market misconduct provisions (including s291(5) insider dealing) and to grant civil remedies without requirement of a prior criminal conviction or a finding by the Market Misconduct Tribunal; the criminal and MMT procedures are not mutually exhaustive so as to oust s213 jurisdiction.
10 May 2013

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. RAYMOND PARK

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. RAYMOND PARK
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV12/2012

The Court held that s213 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance plainly confers jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance to determine whether a person has contravened the insider dealing prohibition in s291(5) and to grant the civil remedies listed in s213(2); those proceedings are civil, free‑standing and are not precluded by the existence of criminal proceedings under Part XIV or proceedings before the Market Misconduct Tribunal under Part XIII, and therefore the appeals were dismissed.
10 May 2013

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WILLIAM TOMITA

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WILLIAM TOMITA
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV10/2012

The Court of Final Appeal held that s213 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance confers jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance to determine whether a person has contravened the insider dealing prohibition in s291(5); the fact that criminal proceedings under Part XIV or proceedings before the Market Misconduct Tribunal are alternative routes does not preclude the CFI from determining contravention under s213, and therefore the appellants' strike-out challenge failed.
19 Sept 2012

GEORGE WILLIAM STAIRS v. MARKET MISCONDUCT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

GEORGE WILLIAM STAIRS v. MARKET MISCONDUCT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1187/2012

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the proposed grounds attacked primarily the Tribunal’s findings of fact and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the Tribunal’s evaluation of evidence and inferences were within its discretion, there was no unfairness or material irregularity, and the application was totally without merit warranting refusal of leave and costs against the applicant.
17 Feb 2009

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV53/2008

Leave to appeal dismissed because no reasonably arguable basis that the broader Article 10 privilege applies: compelled answers are protected from direct use in criminal courts by s187(2) and MMT proceedings are properly characterized as civil (remedies such as disgorgement and civil damages do not render them criminal); accordingly the claim is premature and no arguable grounds for relief were shown.
19 Dec 2008

CHAN CHIN YUEN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

CHAN CHIN YUEN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL95/2008

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the application is unarguable and premature: prior authority establishes that MMT proceedings are civil and compellability is a proportionate statutory measure, and any complaint about use of compelled evidence can be raised if and when such evidence is sought to be used in proceedings.
29 Oct 2008

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV369/2007

The Court refused leave to appeal and refused the stay because the applicant's challenges were premature and hypothetical, lacked evidential support and sufficient interest, and thus were not fit for appellate or final determination.
3 Sept 2008

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV369/2007

The appeal was dismissed because the judicial review challenge was premature and hypothetical: the SFC was entitled to conduct its statutory investigation and the Bill of Rights does not give a person protection from legislation compelling answers to investigators; any breach arising from improper use of answers or from future Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings can be the subject of a later challenge when such use or proceedings materialize, so the lower court's dismissal was upheld.
2 Nov 2007

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL7/2007

The challenge was dismissed as premature: Article 11(2)(g) and Article 10 protections are engaged only where criminal charges or Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings are actually brought. At the time of the notice the applicant faced neither, and binding authority (HKSAR v Lee Ming Tee) establishes the testimonial immunity in Article 11(2)(g) applies only to persons charged; therefore s183 did not presently breach the Bill of Rights and issues about the MMT's criminal character or impartiality arise only if proceedings are instituted.