Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sufficiency of particulars

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2019

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 961
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA609/2018

The learned magistrate erred in refusing to issue a private summons solely on the ground that there had been no police report, police investigation or consent of the Secretary for Justice; given the applicant's note that particulars would be disclosed in open court, the magistrate should have sought further particulars before refusing. The appropriate remedy is to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the magistrate's court for reconsideration and provision of particulars.
23 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA30/2016

The magistrate had good cause to refuse the five applications because the material before him lacked sufficient particulars and substance to establish the essential elements of the alleged offences, the alleged acts did not amount to attempting to pervert the course of justice, contempt powers of the Magistrates' Courts are limited to contempts in the face of the court, and aiding and abetting by legal omission is not an offence known to law; accordingly there was no bias or Bill of Rights breach and the appeals are dismissed.
4 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA689/2015

The magistrate had good cause to refuse the five applications because the material before him lacked sufficient particulars and substance to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and because Magistrates' Courts do not have jurisdiction to punish contempts except those in the face of the court; there was no evidence of bias and the appellant received a fair hearing, so the appeals are dismissed.
4 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA691/2015

The magistrate properly considered the material and applied correct legal principles; there was good cause to refuse issuance of the summonses because the information lacked necessary particulars and substance and the contempt allegations were outside the magistrate's punitive power; therefore the refusals were lawful and the appeals were dismissed.
4 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA690/2015

The magistrate lawfully refused to issue the five private summonses because the material before him was insufficient in particulars and substance to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, and allegations of contempt outside the face of the court were not actionable in the Magistrates' Courts; there was no evidence of bias and no unfair hearing, therefore the appeals are dismissed.
25 Sept 2014

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA490/2014

The magistrate lawfully refused to issue the private summonses because the draft charges supplied by the appellant lacked sufficient particulars and did not disclose a prima facie criminal case; the appellate court dismissed the appeal for non‑attendance and upheld the magistrate's exercise of discretion, awarding costs against the appellant.
23 Feb 2004

TIKEN LTD v. BRIERLEY INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

TIKEN LTD v. BRIERLEY INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL87/2000

The court held that the fact of the low settlement alone (HK$78m from HK$496m) is insufficient as a particular to establish a breach of the contractual obligation to use all reasonable endeavours to maximize Gross Contract Income; accordingly the specific proposed paragraphs and counterclaim alleging that breach were disallowed while the rest of the revised defence amendments were permitted.
28 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. WONG MING HING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG MING HING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC654/1996

The conviction was quashed because the trial judge only found an intention to participate in a dubious transaction generally and failed to find or apply facts establishing the appellant's intention to participate in the specific offence of procuring the making of the bank record entry; that lack of linkage made the conviction unsafe.
30 Apr 1996

R. v. CHUN LAI FUN

Citation

R. v. CHUN LAI FUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC538/1995

The Court upheld convictions on the 1st and 3rd charges because the evidence (faxed altered application, release of goods, dishonoured cheques and lack of funds) supported a finding of dishonest intent; the 4th charge was quashed because the judge's findings addressed a dishonoured cheque rather than proof that a bankers draft had been agreed or lodged as charged; the out‑of‑time appeal against sentence was dismissed for lack of satisfactory explanation and because the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
16 Jan 1987

WONG YEE-CHUN AND OTHERS v. TUNIS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG YEE-CHUN AND OTHERS v. TUNIS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA89/1986

Leave to appeal was granted on the specific question of law whether the Presiding Officer was correct in rejecting claims for want of sufficient particulars and whether Claimant 4 was wrongly dismissed without being given a further opportunity to sign; the matter is suitable for determination by a Judge of the High Court and legal aid for representation was directed to be considered.