Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mens rea for contempt

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2025

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD (suing on behalf of itself and also in its capacity as the sole shareholder of LONGFORD INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY CO LTD) v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 220
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV341/2022

None of the 13 formulated questions constituted matters of great and general importance warranting certification to the Court of Final Appeal; established law (including Hone v Page) applies to prohibitory injunctions and vicarious liability by agents; the judge's factual findings on agency, foreseeability and failure to take reasonable steps were supported and not open to appellate interference; pleading was adequate and caused no prejudice; foreign law issues were not raised below and were irrelevant on the facts; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and indemnity costs awarded to the pl…
26 Aug 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI KWOK WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2107
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2254/2020

The deliberate harassment, abusive shouting and obscene gestures by the defendants at witnesses exiting the Inquest, captured on video and corroborated by witness testimony, constituted criminal contempt because the acts were inherently likely to interfere with the administration of justice; for this form of contempt basic intent to do the acts was sufficient and the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2918/2015

The respondent intentionally took three photographs inside the courtroom in breach of clear prohibitions; for this form of contempt basic intent to take the photographs together with the act was sufficient, the acts were inherently and factually likely to prejudice the administration of justice and did cause disruption, therefore the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt.
2 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HUI CHI FUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 839
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP830/2021

The court found on the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondent knowingly provided false documents and representations through his solicitors to procure lifting of a travel restriction, undertook a premeditated departure from Hong Kong to evade court proceedings and deliberately failed to surrender as required; those deliberate deceptive acts were calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice and posed a real risk of undermining public confidence, and therefore amounted to criminal contempt.
20 Jan 2022

SAIF PARTNERS II L P AND ANOTHER v. JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU

Citation

[2022] HKCA 117
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV625/2020

Where a party has submitted to the jurisdiction by commencing proceedings in Hong Kong, contempt proceedings incidental to that action do not require fresh leave under Order 11 and the court may, pursuant to Order 52 r.3(4), dispense with personal service of the originating summons; applying those principles the defendant deliberately restricted the ambit of the Account Order, failed to account for income (notably carried interest and management fees) as ordered, was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be in contempt, and the sentence of two months’ imprisonment with indemnity costs was appropr…
21 Dec 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG HO MING

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 62
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV55/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because even if a specific intent to interfere with the administration of justice were required, the facts demonstrated deliberate and knowing breach of the injunction amounting to interference; the lower courts’ factual findings were supported by evidence and there was no sufficient public importance or pending litigation to justify leave.
31 Aug 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LOU TIT MAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2931/2015

Each respondent, being a person subject to the injunction, deliberately remained in the Area after multiple announcements and warnings, and by so doing obstructed and interfered with bailiffs and police executing the injunction; pursuant to Wong Ho Ming the requisite mens rea is established by intent to do the obstructing acts, and accordingly each respondent was guilty of criminal contempt.
31 Aug 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK TAO

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2929/2015

Each respondent, being within the injunction's scope, heard repeated announcements and warnings yet intentionally remained and engaged in conduct that materially obstructed bailiffs and police executing the injunction; the mens rea requirement is satisfied by intent to do the obstructing acts, and therefore each respondent was guilty of criminal contempt.
8 Aug 2017

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1707/2016

On the evidence the defendant, Leong, had knowledge of the injunction and the undertaking and, notwithstanding available alternatives (including applying to the court), intentionally and voluntarily authorised or permitted 18 transfers and other transactions that constituted dealings with the Capital Account in breach of the injunction and failed to use her best endeavours to produce the Longford bank statements within the 14 day period; defences of impossibility, lack of possession, mistake of fact and triviality were rejected and she is therefore guilty of contempt of court.
13 Nov 2015

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE

Citation

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2206/2014

The court found on proper construction the 1st undertaking required maintaining an unencumbered RMB45,000,000 in a Chongqing bank account over which the Defendant or his nominee had unfettered control and which had to be agreed; the deposits produced were held in Chongqing Wijaya accounts subject to bank control and loan/security arrangements and therefore were encumbered and not under the Defendant's unfettered control; the Defendant misled the court about availability of unencumbered funds. The 2nd undertaking (weekly reporting) was breached repeatedly and persistently. The breaches were pr…