Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal standard

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴陳國標

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA87/2022

The conviction was upheld because the accepted evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally scattered bird feed on a public pavement such that it amounted to 'deposit' and 'litter' under Cap.132 and regulation 4(1)(a); the statutory provisions are validly enacted to protect public health, the definitions are sufficiently certain when read purposively and in context, and the restriction on property use is proportionate under constitutional review.
2 Dec 2021

RE NGO QUANG THI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1809
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP195/2021

Refusal of extension of time to appeal was justified because the applicant's delay was substantial, he gave no cogent explanation for the delay, he did not identify any viable grounds of appeal or errors in the Leave Decision and therefore the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; granting an extension would be futile.
29 Mar 2021

黃對林

Citation

[2021] HKCA 443
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP106/2020

The application for leave to appeal and for a stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or any plainly wrong factual finding by the trial judge, failed to comply with court directions, did not show bias or unfairness that would warrant reopening the case or a stay, and there was no material basis to accept the asserted third‑party beneficial ownership after consideration of the evidence.
13 Apr 2016

NG CHO CHU JUDY v. CHAN WING HUNG

Citation

NG CHO CHU JUDY v. CHAN WING HUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI655/2015

The master correctly found the defendant had disclosed the police statements prior to the plaintiff's summons, the summons was therefore premature and unnecessary, and the master's costs order was not unreasonable or legally flawed; the appeal is dismissed and costs follow the event.
2 Dec 2008

HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA

Citation

HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV401/2007

The application for a stay of execution was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate a high prospect of success on appeal or that enforcement of the costs order would render the appeal nugatory; financial hardship alone did not justify a stay, and the proposed amendment to the claim was not before the court.
29 Mar 2006

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA11/2005

The Board's factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and documentation; on the facts found Mr Lee did not discharge the onus of proving he was carrying on a trade in securities and futures. The inference that he was an enthusiastic investor rather than a trader was open on the primary facts (transaction frequency and holding periods, late business registration, inconsistent use and disclosure of YST, absence of audited accounts and adverse credibility findings). The Court therefore upheld the Board's decision and dismissed the appeal.
8 Mar 1999

HUNT MELANIE ANNE v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD.

Citation

HUNT MELANIE ANNE v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA11/1998

The Tribunal's dismissal of the claims was sustained because there was no signed 1997 commission scheme and insufficient evidence linking the appellant's work to the claimed commissions; the transfer was an administrative re-designation within the employer's powers and replacements were employed so no severance arose; wages in lieu of notice had been paid as required.
12 Jul 1994

HUI HON KIT v. LEUNG YUET MING

Citation

HUI HON KIT v. LEUNG YUET MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/1994

The court allowed the appeal in part because the Deputy Judge failed to take into account the husband's admitted unchallenged available monthly balance; the wife's award of $3,000 was upheld but each child's interim maintenance was reduced from $2,000 to $1,000 so the total award fell within the husband's proven means, with payments to run from 1 March 1994.
11 Oct 1985

THE QUEEN v. LAM SAI-WAN (A1) AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM SAI-WAN (A1) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA805/1985

The convictions were upheld because the magistrate's factual findings that Cheuk instigated a coercive group which, by overall conduct, amounted to menaces were supported by the evidence; there was no impermissible reliance on a co-accused's statement to attribute guilt to others, and the sentences fell within the magistrate's proper discretion given the context and records.