Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privilege against self-incrimination (psi)

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2024

TECHTRONIC PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. FAUTEUX, DENIS GASTON

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 949
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1235/2023

The deputy judge found the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because most grounds were new, fact sensitive or unarguable; there was a prima facie case of criminality and potential civil claims in the Mainland sufficient to justify release from the implied undertaking; PSI did not bar use of the materials on these facts; accordingly leave to appeal and a stay were refused, D's summons dismissed, but an interim stay of the Feb 2024 Order was granted for 35 days; costs awarded to Plaintiffs (HKD380,820).
29 Oct 2020

HUOBI ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEN BOLIANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2750
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA415/2020

The court held the June injunction was not a proprietary injunction but only a Mareva injunction because the indorsement on the writ at the time was a monetary claim and no tracing or proprietary relief was pleaded when the injunction was granted; consequently the plaintiffs were not entitled to the wide worldwide disclosure order seeking the whereabouts of the USDT and the application for that disclosure order was dismissed.
28 May 2020

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD, SINGAPORE BRANCH v. LEGEND SIX HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 990
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2182/2019

Court applied Zhang Shouen and found all pre‑action discovery criteria met for Legend Six; applied A Co v B Co and found Norwich Pharmacal and banker’s books orders against BOC appropriate; applied Lee Ming Tee and subsequent Hong Kong authority to hold PSI does not protect pre‑existing documents and, on the evidence, no real risk of prosecution or clear link to a prosecutable offence was established for Legend Six, so PSI failed; accordingly orders in originating summons granted with a minor amendment and costs reserved as ordered.
12 May 2016

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP532/2016

The court declined leave to appeal on the general PSI ruling because the judge correctly found the principal risks related to offences under the Theft Ordinance and that the risk of additional charges such as conspiracy to defraud, absent Theft Ordinance charges, was fanciful under Khan v Khan; but the court granted limited leave on the separate point that tax evasion could represent a real independent risk requiring fuller argument.
10 Jun 2014

TCWF v. LKKS

Citation

TCWF v. LKKS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV166/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions were either not reasonably arguable, were fact‑specific or premised on incorrect factual assumptions, or did not raise issues of great general or public importance; completed referral to the DPP is a matter for the prosecuting authority; many contested issues (including LPP disclosure) should be pursued by appropriate remedies against the DPP or in properly framed proceedings rather than by leave applications to the CFA.
4 Mar 2014

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV107/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions advanced were either not of general or public importance but fact‑sensitive, or were governed by well‑established principles (issue estoppel, limits of PSI and LPP, and the court's discretionary control over access to court files); therefore the matters did not provide a proper basis for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The court implemented existing orders subject to LPP issues remitted to the Court of First Instance and granted limited permission to use certain judgments for enforcement abroad where appropriate safeguards existe…

Hong Kong Case Law

TECHTRONIC PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. FAUTEUX, DENIS GASTON

HUOBI ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEN BOLIANG AND ANOTHER

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD, SINGAPORE BRANCH v. LEGEND SIX HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

TCWF v. LKKS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS