16 Mar 1989
Because the prosecutor had not consented the magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the indictable offence summarily and, having also perversely refused a reasonable adjournment/remand, she committed an error of law; the purported conviction is therefore a nullity and is set aside, and the respondent must be returned to a magistrate for proper proceedings.
20 Jul 1988
Where an offence is indictable and not being dealt with summarily the magistrate had no power under section 20 (a provision in the Part of the Ordinance dealing with summary offences) to order costs on adjournment; accordingly the costs order in favour of To Fuk Ming quashed. Separately, where a charge is a summary offence (unlawful pawning) the magistrate could have validly ordered costs under section 20, and the costs order in respect of Chong Yuen Wah is valid insofar as it relates to that summary charge.
13 Feb 1981
Because interpleader claims are required by long-standing practice to be supported on oath, a claimant who refuses to support his claim on oath presents no effective claim for the purposes of the proceedings, permitting the judge to proceed to summary trial and enter judgment for the claimant whose claim is supported by affidavit.