Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trade descriptions ordinance

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

LAU DIK SANG v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6382
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2770/2025

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds on Form 86 as required by Order 53 r3; prosecutorial decisions by the DoJ are not subject to conventional judicial review absent a claim of unconstitutionality; the alleged misinterpretation of section 17(2) TDO was untenable and requests to amend the TDO are matters for the Administration and Legislative Council, not the court.
21 Oct 2025

趙捷對 ASK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY LTD t/a ASK DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5429
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA21/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the core disputes were factual, the tribunal's findings that there was no misrepresentation and that the screen protector bubbles were not permanent were supported by evidence and did not involve questions of law or jurisdictional error; Trade Descriptions Ordinance did not apply because there was no prosecution/conviction and no proven loss linked to prohibited conduct.
26 Nov 2024

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN YUN OR FORMERLY KNOWN AS YUEN TIN YUN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1999
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4215/2023

The defendant's appeal was dismissed as out of time and, on the merits, the defendant failed to show any real or bona fide defence or triable issue: the statutory provisions invoked did not apply to the developer or the real property; the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck out; the legal aid stay was rightly lifted for abuse and no material change; leave to adduce late evidence was refused because it was untimely, unsupported and would be unfair and procedurally irregular.
2 Apr 2024

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN TIN YUN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 499
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4215/2023

The defendant failed to raise any arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim for vacant possession because completion did not occur and the licence expired, rendering continued occupation unlawful (trespass); the Registrar properly uplifted the legal-aid stay given no material change and apparent abuse to cause delay; the Master’s case management directions were appropriate; accordingly summary judgment for vacant possession is warranted and the appeal against those orders is dismissed.
29 Feb 2016

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. YOUNG & FORTUNE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. YOUNG & FORTUNE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1838/2014

The third defendant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal; the grounds of economic duress and fiduciary duty relied on either lacked merit or sought to rely on fresh evidence not before the trial court; personal hardship (dogs, Chinese New Year, elderly mother) did not outweigh prejudice to the successful bank; therefore stay of execution pending appeal was refused and costs awarded to the bank on an indemnity basis assessed at $20,000.
5 Jan 1987

THE QUEEN v. HO FAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HO FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1167/1986

The convictions were upheld because the prosecution produced prima facie evidence that the appellant, as partner/manager of the exporting firm, exported goods with a forged trade mark and the appellant did not discharge the statutory exception in section 12(2); however the costs orders were set aside because the magistrate failed to exercise his discretion judicially by denying the defence an opportunity to be heard on costs.
19 Dec 1986

THE QUEEN v. PANG SAI-SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. PANG SAI-SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1259/1986

Conviction quashed because the learned magistrate relied on the contents of a manual that had not been admitted in evidence and there was no admission by the appellant that the manual accurately described the camera's functions; therefore an essential element of the offence was not proved by admissible evidence.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAU DIK SANG v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER

趙捷 對 ASK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY LTD t/a ASK DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN YUN OR FORMERLY KNOWN AS YUEN TIN YUN

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN TIN YUN

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. YOUNG & FORTUNE LTD AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. HO FAI

THE QUEEN v. PANG SAI-SANG

趙捷對 ASK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY LTD t/a ASK DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY COMPANY