Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Preddy principle

  • 5 Nov 2025

    HKSAR v. CHU KA LOK

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 951
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC69/2023

    The Court found insufficient evidence that the payer intended the payments to be held on trust or that the applicant agreed to such restriction; applying Preddy the increases in the applicant's account balances were choses in action belonging to the applicant; accordingly sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Theft Ordinance did not apply and the prosecution failed to prove that the property belonged to the Company; the convictions were unsafe and were quashed and the sentence set aside.

  • 10 Oct 2001

    HKSAR v. CHENG LAP SUN PATRICK

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHENG LAP SUN PATRICK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC296/2000

    Presentation of the cheques which caused a diminution of the companies bank credit constituted an appropriation of choses in action and, given the finding of dishonesty, amounted to theft; Preddy was inapplicable; alleged forgery did not prevent appropriation; the evidence permitted reasonable inference of overdraft/arrangements for charges 2 and 9, so choses in action existed; therefore leave to appeal was dismissed and convictions upheld.

  • 23 Feb 2000

    HKSAR v. LI TING KIT

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LI TING KIT
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC402/1999

    The Court held that the misapplication of monies received under an obligation fell within s.6(3) so that the monies (or their proceeds) were to be regarded as belonging to the payors and thus theft convictions could stand despite Preddy; amendment of particulars under s.83A was appropriate; omission by the trial judge to cite s.6(3) was a material irregularity but the proviso under s.83(1) applied because no miscarriage of justice occurred, therefore the convictions and sentences were upheld.