Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice and fairness

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2011

GARWIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v, HO KAI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

GARWIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v, HO KAI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2145/2006

The application to amend the statement of claim was dismissed because permitting the proposed amendments at this late stage would reverse the legal burden of proof on key matters and cause unfair and prejudicial impact on the 2nd defendant given the delay since the aborted March 2010 trial and the need for defendants to prepare to discharge the reversed burden; the dismissal was confined save for adjustments to figures to match the plaintiffs' accountants' report.
15 Apr 2011

HYPERMAX LTD v. GARWIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HYPERMAX LTD v. GARWIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2148/2006

The application to amend the statement of claim to plead the conviction and attendant findings was dismissed because allowing such amendments at this late stage would reverse the burden of proof and would be unfair and prejudicial to the 2nd defendant; only amendments limited to figures to tally with the plaintiffs' accountants' report were permitted; plaintiffs ordered to pay costs to all parties including Hypermax with certificate for counsel.
10 Jul 2009

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/2007

Refusal to reopen: the proposed evidence was of low and peripheral probative value for the issues to be decided; the Plaintiff failed to show sufficient due diligence in procuring and disclosing the evidence before trial; permitting the evidence would be unfair and prejudicial to the 1st Defendant and likely disrupt the trial schedule; therefore the interests of justice required refusal of the application.
25 Oct 2005

YEUNG CHUNG WAI v. ST. PAUL\'S HOSPITAL

Citation

YEUNG CHUNG WAI v. ST. PAUL\'S HOSPITAL
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO7/2003

Although the defendant's proposed examples and documents were relevant, the lateness risked unfair prejudice; the prejudice was addressed by ordering full discovery of payroll and appraisal reports of all clerical staff at the material time, striking out the second sentence of paragraph 19 of the plaintiff's second supplemental witness statement, and awarding costs to the plaintiff under s73C(3) given the defendant's change of position and late conduct.
8 Apr 2003

HKSAR v. POON YU TING

Citation

HKSAR v. POON YU TING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1145/2002

The Deputy High Court Judge affirmed the Magistrate's credibility and factual findings, held that the psychiatric evidence was rightly discounted because it relied on the appellant's unreliable account, found no prejudice from the late calling of PW5 or the translation error, and therefore concluded the conviction was safe and must be affirmed.
20 Sept 1999

POON CHAU CHEONG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

POON CHAU CHEONG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC23/1999

The Court granted leave to appeal because the matter raised questions of great and general importance concerning whether amendment powers under s.27 can be exercised on a s.104 review to substitute an information that would be time‑barred under s.31A(1) and whether such procedure could constitute misuse of process; these issues were sufficiently arguable to warrant appellate consideration.

Hong Kong Case Law

GARWIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v, HO KAI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

HYPERMAX LTD v. GARWIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

YEUNG CHUNG WAI v. ST. PAUL\'S HOSPITAL

HKSAR v. POON YU TING

POON CHAU CHEONG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE