29 Oct 2001
The Court rejected Wylam's application and held that justice required the costs of the appeals and the proceedings below to be in the cause of the new trial, making the order nisi absolute.
29 Oct 2001
The Court rejected Wylam's application to vary the order nisi and held that justice required making the order nisi absolute and that costs here and below be in the cause of the new trial; therefore the costs order as originally proposed remains in force.
19 Sept 2001
The trial judge's stated reason for finding Wylam the employer was legally inadequate; more importantly, the judge fundamentally breached natural justice by preventing Mr Yu from giving any evidence. Because it is not perfectly plain that the same result would follow after a proper hearing, the Court set aside the Court of Appeal's substitution of findings and ordered a new trial between the four parties limited to the question who was the claimant's employer; the existing finding that the employer is liable remains operative for purposes of proceedings on liability and quantum is to be addre…
13 Nov 2000
A comment that falls within the objective limits of fair comment loses immunity only if the defendant did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed; improper motive such as spite or intent to injure does not of itself defeat fair comment though such motive may be evidence from which lack of genuine belief can be inferred; the trial judge misdirected the jury by treating motive as supplanting genuineness, warranting quashing of verdicts against the appellants and ordering a new trial.
8 Jun 2000
The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly identified the single natural and ordinary meaning of the publication (that the plaintiff quoted Mr Cheng out of context to attack him) thereby rejecting the 'falsely reported' meaning; the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial because the issue was not left unresolved and the Diplock/Charleston principles govern judge-alone libel trials.
1 Mar 1996
The Court allowed the appeal because the trial record and evidence were inadequate to sustain the trial judge's findings on causation and there was no admissible evidence to assess the claimed damages; accordingly the trial judge's order was set aside and a new trial was ordered so first‑hand evidence on causation and quantum can be led.
26 Sept 1995
With the consent of the plaintiff and the defendant LO Lai Fung, the Court set aside the interlocutory judgment against KWOK and CHAN and ordered a new trial to determine whether LO contracted to purchase the scallops or acted as bailee/agent, and to determine any liability or counterclaim by LO.
24 May 1994
The summing up included statements suggesting police were less likely to lie than other members of the public or the accused, which amounted to a prejudicial misdirection rendering the conviction unsafe; accordingly the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
12 Dec 1991
The trial judge's reasons amounted to a misdirection by suggesting the defendant had to prove his account of withdrawal; that misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe, so the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, set aside the sentence and ordered a new trial on a fresh indictment.
13 Jan 1989
Section 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance empowers a magistrate to order inspection and related orders including production of copies of documentary exhibits; the power is discretionary and, given the commercial complexity and importance of documents in the case, the magistrate ought to have exercised his discretion in favour of ordering copies; failure to do so materially prejudiced the defence and warranted quashing convictions and ordering a new trial.