Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Point of law

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2016

CHEUNG LOK PUN BENEDICT v. HAIDER ALI

Citation

CHEUNG LOK PUN BENEDICT v. HAIDER ALI
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1553/2016

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the respondent's grounds were findings of fact and did not raise points of law; the respondent failed to identify any point of law or show a reasonable prospect of success under s.11AA(6), and the relief period expired because the respondent did not pay arrears by the relief expiration date, entitling the applicant to possession.
6 Dec 2011

MA HO FAI v. HKSAR

Citation

MA HO FAI v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC41/2011

The magistrate and the appeal judge properly assessed the identification and circumstantial evidence, found PW1 reliable, and there was no unfairness from the police not holding a formal identification parade; English PACE 1984 is not determinative in Hong Kong and no arguable departure from accepted norms or substantial and grave injustice was established, therefore leave is refused.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC28/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal to the specified applicants largely under the substantial and grave injustice limb of s.32(2), and in one instance also under the point of law limb, because arguable errors existed concerning admitted evidence, factual inferences (including tacit agreement and post‑conspiracy conduct), application of the proviso and a legal point about whistle‑blower obligations for non‑director employees; the grants were for the limited purpose of permitting those issues to be fully argued before the Court of Final Appeal, not to decide guilt or liability at this stage.
21 Sept 2009

RICHFINE DEVELOPMENT LTD t/a KENG FAI JEWELLERY v. HUGH RUPERT RIVINGTON

Citation

RICHFINE DEVELOPMENT LTD t/a KENG FAI JEWELLERY v. HUGH RUPERT RIVINGTON
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV41/2009

Leave to appeal is refused because the claim is unliquidated and no point of law of controversy or difficulty arises; the Court of Appeal's decision is correct.
21 Oct 2005

PEARL B. CHENG v. BANK OF AMERICA (ASIA) LTD

Citation

PEARL B. CHENG v. BANK OF AMERICA (ASIA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA93/2005

Leave to appeal was refused because the court found no error of law in the Adjudicator's decision and the factual findings were not so unreasonable as to amount to a point of law.
29 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI KEI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI KEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1000/2004

The court accepted the legal test from Kong Kam Piu but found the applicant's challenge was to the factual application of that test and did not raise a point of law of great and general importance; therefore the application for a certificate/leave to appeal was refused.
16 Oct 2003

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2003

The Registrar held the setting down valid: appeals from the Lands Tribunal are governed by s.11(2) LTO and Order 60A r.4 HCR; a sealed copy is not required where set down within the statutory 7‑day period after service; the decision appealed was a determination/order and the notice disclosed a point of law (construction of s.34I Building Management Ordinance and 'owners committee'), therefore the appeal was properly set down.
11 May 2001

Gallium Development Ltd. and Another v. Winning Properties Management Ltd. and Another

Citation

Gallium Development Ltd. and Another v. Winning Properties Management Ltd. and Another
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM121/2000

The summons under Rule 18 was dismissed because there were no agreed or admitted facts that the listed resolutions had in fact been passed; without such factual foundation the Tribunal could not apply clause 4(5) of the Seventh Schedule or clause 27(1) of the DMC and therefore Rule 18 was inapplicable.
25 Aug 1999

TREND HARVEST INVESTMENT LTD. v. IP KIN MAN

Citation

TREND HARVEST INVESTMENT LTD. v. IP KIN MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14034/1997

The summons under Order 14A was dismissed because the materials did not establish a point of law of general application and, critically, the purchaser's requisitions on title had not been shown to have been satisfactorily answered; therefore O.14A was not an appropriate procedure and the matter must proceed in the normal course.
21 Feb 1997

CHEUNG KIT MUI v. Bayview Mansion Management Committee of Incorporated Owners of Bayview Mansion

Citation

CHEUNG KIT MUI v. Bayview Mansion Management Committee of Incorporated Owners of Bayview Mansion
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV240/1996

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Court found that no point of law arose under section 11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance.