Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Production orders

Legal area

Court

22 Jun 2021

A AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCM425/2020

On inspection the court found items 19-22 were communications with the applicants' legal department made in that department's capacity as lawyers and satisfied the dominant purpose test, and there was no prima facie case that they were produced in furtherance of fraud or crime; those items are therefore subject to LPP and must be returned. None of the disputed items qualified as journalistic material under s82 IGCO. Part XII IGCO does not directly apply to Schedule 7 of the IR; however the court may, in exercising its Sch 7 discretion, take into account that materials sought might include JM…
27 Apr 2021

ALLIED EVER HOLDINGS LTD v. LI SHU CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 577
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV11/2018

The Court of Appeal held Judge To did not err in exercising his discretion: the liquidators' cumulative conduct — entertaining belated and unsubstantiated proofs of debt, resurrecting a stale tax issue while having prior knowledge, failing to investigate or recover apparent misappropriations, assisting an interested party in related litigation — gave rise to a real and reasonable perception of bias and forfeited confidence in them as officers of the court, justifying removal; the appeal was dismissed.
8 Feb 2018

RE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4 OF THE ORGANIZED AND SERIOUS CRIMES ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 455

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCM52/2018

The court held that an application for a production order under section 4(2) Cap 455 is competent after charges have been laid because an investigation can continue post-charge, and granted the order upon finding the statutory conditions in s4(4) satisfied.
14 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. PCCW MEDIA LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. PCCW MEDIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP120/2016

Although the applicant did not act with improper motive, the court exercised its discretion to award indemnity costs to i-CABLE because the applicant persisted with proceedings against the wrong party, failed to specify the premises as required by statute after being alerted to the jurisdictional defect, did not provide a clear account of police video material, and refused to correct the originating summons; accordingly indemnity costs were appropriate in the particular circumstances, while costs against other respondents followed the event on a party-and-party basis as ordered.
8 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/2016

The court redefined the request to footage of Tsang from 3:20am until he was escorted away and held that the applicant failed to satisfy s84(3)(a)(iii) for the broader 'general' footage and for much of the requested material because the footage was not shown to be of substantial value to investigation or necessary as relevant evidence; identities of makers are not 'journalistic material' under s82 and therefore cannot be compelled under s84; where footage was in public domain and alternatives existed (including witness and police footage), public interest balancing under s84(3)(d) and s89(2)…
25 Sept 2007

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL16/2007

The application was refused because the court lacked jurisdiction to direct the Secretary for Justice to use his best endeavours to secure an embargo by Italian authorities, such an order would risk breaching international comity and improperly seek to bypass the jurisdiction of Italian courts, and the appropriate remedy is to apply to the Italian courts under Italian law.
25 Sept 2007

HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2007

The application was refused because the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Secretary for Justice to use his best endeavours to obtain an embargo from foreign (Italian) authorities, the issue of embargo is governed by Italian law and courts, and issuing such a direction risks breaching comity and cannot be effectively policed by this court.
31 Aug 2006

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

Citation

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4511/2002

Although the affidavit constituted a waiver of legal professional privilege by reference to and deployment of the documents' contents, the court exercised its discretion under the rules and refused to order production because the documents were not necessary for the fair disposal of the striking out application nor required to save costs; therefore the application for specific discovery was dismissed.
8 Aug 1991

RE THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

RE THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP974/1991

Sections 20 and 21 of the Ordinance satisfy the core requirements for lawful searches under Article 14: they provide prior judicial authorization by a judge capable of acting judicially and require establishment on oath of reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed and that specified or describable material likely containing evidence exists; therefore the provisions are not inconsistent with Article 14 and the production orders and search warrant were lawfully granted on the facts.
8 Aug 1991

RE SHANGRI-LA HOTEL REINER JACOBI

Citation

RE SHANGRI-LA HOTEL REINER JACOBI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP975/1991

Sections 20 and 21 satisfy the threefold requirements adopted from Canadian jurisprudence (prior authorization, a judicial decision-maker capable of acting judicially, and establishment on oath of reasonable grounds that the material is likely to yield evidence), and therefore the statutory production orders and search warrant do not constitute arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy under Article 14 of the Bill of Rights; accordingly the production orders and search warrant were properly issued on the evidence presented.