Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency/authorization

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2024

王議瑩對葉耀錦及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1422
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5080/2021

The court found the plaintiff had clear, open and continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the rooftop unit from 9 December 2003; under the Limitation Ordinance plaintiff acquired possessory rights by 9 December 2015 and the registered owner lost the right to recover possession; the second defendant unlawfully locked and occupied the unit from 10 August 2018 with the first defendant's authorization such that both defendants were jointly and severally liable for plaintiff's losses; plaintiff awarded HK$302,000 plus interest and costs.
2 Feb 2023

RICH TREND LTD v. 張文房 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 271
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA906/2022

Leave granted to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to file and serve their Defence out of time and default judgment refused because earlier affirmation disclosed substantive issues (status of Plaintiff's possessory title and authenticity/impact of authorization and restoration of registered owner) that require full trial; prejudice to Plaintiff was not material and could be compensated by costs; costs awarded to Plaintiff on indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$120,000.
10 Apr 2019

香港特別行政區訴陳朝約

Citation

[2019] HKCA 436
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC8/2017

The appeal is dismissed because the documentary evidence and witness testimony established that the appellant used a company controlled by his wife to divert confirmed quantities of Via Span sold at a higher 'old price' and appropriated the margin; the company would not have authorized such arrangements and the appellant's explanations were implausible and unsupported; accordingly the elements of theft and the dishonesty required by Ghosh were satisfied and the laundering conviction followed; the fraud count failed because the indictment misidentified the victim and could not be fairly amende…
29 Apr 2010

TANG KA HUNG ROBERT AND ANOTHER v. TANG TIM CHUE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG KA HUNG ROBERT AND ANOTHER v. TANG TIM CHUE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3/2006

Defendants failed to prove authorization by the deceased and failed to prove any valid lease; defendants' evidence was inconsistent and unreliable; consequently plaintiffs, as executors and registered owners, are entitled to possession, a permanent injunction and nominal damages of HK$10,000, with costs nisi.
24 Nov 2000

HERBERT HAUSTER v. FPB ASIA LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

HERBERT HAUSTER v. FPB ASIA LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7459/1992

Although there were periods without procedural steps, the cumulative delay was not shown to be inordinate and inexcusable in the context of the case complexity, parties' conduct (including defendants' late discovery and their own periods of delay), and necessary preparatory steps; defendants failed to prove serious prejudice or that a fair trial was rendered impossible, therefore dismissal for want of prosecution was not justified and the Master’s order was set aside.

Hong Kong Case Law

王議瑩 對 葉耀錦及另一人

RICH TREND LTD v. 張文房 AND OTHERS

香港特別行政區 訴 陳朝約

TANG KA HUNG ROBERT AND ANOTHER v. TANG TIM CHUE AND ANOTHER

HERBERT HAUSTER v. FPB ASIA LTD. AND ANOTHER

王議瑩對葉耀錦及另一人

香港特別行政區訴陳朝約