Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Access to courts (basic law article 35)

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2021

KWOK TAK YING v. HKSAR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1491
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA216/2020

The right to private prosecution is compatible with Basic Law article 63 when read with article 35 because it is a qualified right subject to SJ control; a magistrate deciding whether to issue a private summons must apply the prima facie test to determine sufficiency of evidence; procedural guidance for magistrates was provided; statutory appeal routes under ss104,105,113 do not apply to refusals to issue private summonses and judicial review is the appropriate remedy; the magistrate did not err in refusing the summons on the materials before him, so the appeal fails.
26 Jan 2017

ZHI CHARLES v. LIM HOSOK AND OTHERS

Citation

ZHI CHARLES v. LIM HOSOK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA584/2016

Section 22 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap 571) is constitutional and operates to bar civil liability claims against The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong and persons acting on its behalf for acts or omissions done in good faith; the plaintiff failed to plead or adduce evidence of bad faith sufficient to found an arguable claim against SEHK or Ms Chan, therefore the pleadings against them are struck out and the claims dismissed; related interlocutory applications against SEHK and Ms Chan are dismissed and costs follow the event.
5 Sept 2013

YU CHI SHING PAUL v. OR SIN YI WINDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

YU CHI SHING PAUL v. OR SIN YI WINDY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/2013

The 2011 legislative amendments instituted a statutory, discretionary leap-frog appeal from Court of First Instance determinations in election petitions to the Court of Final Appeal (s22(1)(c)(v) Cap 484); section 14(3)(g) Cap 4 therefore removes any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in such cases; removal of that right does not engage Basic Law article 35 so as to render the amendments invalid. Consequently the Amended Notice of Appeal and the appeal to the Court of Appeal were incompetent and were struck out.
25 Jul 2013

BILLION STAR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG TAK CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

BILLION STAR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG TAK CHUEN AND OTHERS<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV49/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions identified are not of great general or public importance, the challenged matter was primarily a concurrent factual finding that the applicant evinced an intention to commit wrongful acts (for which no special circumstances to justify reversal were shown), and the constitutional arguments raised were novel to the Court of Final Appeal with no exceptional basis to grant leave under s.22(1)(b).
13 Nov 2012

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV24/2012

The Court held it has jurisdiction under section 22(1)(c) purposively construed to entertain leap-frog appeals in CEEO matters; refused leave to appeal on the substantive challenges to Lam JA's striking out and dismissal because the first statement fell outside ECICO s26 period and the continuation argument was not reasonably arguable, and because the second statement had no real prospect of establishing illegal conduct under s26; further held that where a time limit is unconstitutional a reading-in of a discretion to extend time is an appropriate minimal remedy and that the proper threshold…
12 Sept 2005

T v. LEE WAI YING ELVIS

Citation

T v. LEE WAI YING ELVIS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI878/2003

Security for costs was justified. Balancing the defendant's need for protection against a non-resident plaintiff and the plaintiff's inability to raise the full amount sought, the court ordered security of HK$300,000 payable into court or by bank guarantee within 28 days, stayed further proceedings pending provision of security and awarded costs (nisi) to the defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

KWOK TAK YING v. HKSAR

ZHI CHARLES v. LIM HOSOK AND OTHERS

YU CHI SHING PAUL v. OR SIN YI WINDY AND ANOTHER

BILLION STAR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG TAK CHUEN AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND OTHERS

T v. LEE WAI YING ELVIS