Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remittal/retrial

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2021

GHALE GANJA MAN v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2764
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA4/2019

The appeal is allowed because the Deputy Presiding Officer erred in law by admitting and relying on crucial late-produced documents (the SG job application and contract) without properly investigating the unexplained change of stance by the 2nd Respondent and without giving the appellant adequate opportunity or consideration of prejudice; the factual findings must be reopened and the matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for retrial.
30 Apr 2019

香港特別行政區訴黃景光及另一人

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA88/2018

The judge materially departed from the prosecution’s pleaded case by treating the prosecution witness as agent of the building owners rather than of the management company named in the indictment and failed to give the defence any opportunity to address that new basis; that procedural unfairness rendered the convictions unsafe and required quashing of convictions and sentences, with further submissions ordered on whether to remit for retrial.
14 Mar 2013

WELLTUS LTD v. FORNTON KNITTING CO LTD

Citation

WELLTUS LTD v. FORNTON KNITTING CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV268/2011

The appeal was allowed in part because the trial judge failed to address a critical pleaded issue of acceptance of delivered goods and did not give adequate reasons on key credibility and expert-evidence disputes; the counterclaim contained errors in quantification and lacked sufficient reasoned analysis; accordingly the trial judgment was set aside, partial judgment for Plaintiff for $33,981.26 was entered by concession, and the balance of claims and the Defendant's counterclaim were remitted for retrial before another judge.
9 Dec 2008

FAZAL DAD v. FEDERAL SECURITIES LTD

Citation

FAZAL DAD v. FEDERAL SECURITIES LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV111/2008

The appeal is dismissed because the judge's finding that the applicant was not at the site between about midnight and 5:30am was supported by ample cogent evidence (notably the padlocked gate and unchallenged evidence of Mr Saif); the erroneous exclusion of evidence about the uniform did not suffice to overturn that finding and no evidential basis existed for the alternative case or for remittal for retrial.
2 Feb 1990

YIP PAK HUNG v. YPT INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

YIP PAK HUNG v. YPT INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA46/1989

The appeal is allowed because the Presiding Officer improperly supplemented a concluded TST 733 award while leave to appeal was pending and proceeded without adequate regard to written statements and proper evidential procedure; the defective process created a real risk that prior conclusions coloured subsequent determinations and accordingly the award in 733 is set aside and the matter remitted for readjudication by a different Presiding Officer.

Hong Kong Case Law

GHALE GANJA MAN v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

香港特別行政區 訴 黃景光及另一人

WELLTUS LTD v. FORNTON KNITTING CO LTD

FAZAL DAD v. FEDERAL SECURITIES LTD

YIP PAK HUNG v. YPT INTERNATIONAL LTD

香港特別行政區訴黃景光及另一人