Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Application for review

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2024

吳楚鏗對高松添

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 78
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1014/2024

Because the lease both required immediate payment and expressly provided a forfeiture condition only if rent was unpaid for more than 30 days, section 117(3) did not operate to imply the 15‑day forfeiture term; therefore the landlord's application made while the 30‑day period had not expired was premature and the tribunal correctly set aside the repossession and rent recovery application on 28 August 2024, and the present review was dismissed.
19 Jan 2022

鄧錦祥對土地註冊處處長

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 233
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2670/2018

The appeal was dismissed as the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it before the taxation officer had been asked to review his decision in accordance with Order 62 rule 33(1)(b); therefore the judge must not entertain the appeal and the respondent is entitled to costs.
18 Nov 2014

LEE CHICK CHOI v. BEST SPIRITS CO LTD

Citation

LEE CHICK CHOI v. BEST SPIRITS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA19/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the review application was made nearly two years out of time without reasonable explanation, leave had previously been dismissed, and there was no error of law or jurisdiction in the Tribunal's discretionary costs order.
21 Jan 2013

NGAI NGOK PANG 及另一人對 LEE SYN YUK, MICHELLE

Citation

NGAI NGOK PANG 及另一人對 LEE SYN YUK, MICHELLE
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2002/2012

The Tribunal dismissed the review because the earlier decision correctly applied authorities and facts: the 1 July 2012 correspondence did not have the legal effect relied on by applicants to prevent the finding of a new tenancy; the applicants' pursuit/acceptance of payments after the termination notice indicated an intention to permit continued occupation (consistent with creation or restoration of tenancy), the respondent's compliance with Tribunal directions reinforced that position, and there was no cogent evidence of procedural bias or material error of law warranting overturning the 15…
16 Apr 2012

悅勝投資有限公司對屈浩輝

Citation

悅勝投資有限公司對屈浩輝
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2739/2011

The review application was dismissed because the facts and evidence were identical to LDPE 1147/2011 and the Tribunal applied the same reasoning; consequently the Tribunal's original decision of 10 February 2012 was maintained and no order for costs was made.
16 Apr 2012

悅勝投資有限公司對冼健寧

Citation

悅勝投資有限公司對冼健寧
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1147/2011

The review is dismissed because the applicant did not prove entitlement to terminate under the lease's redevelopment clause: board resolutions, preliminary plans and demolition applications (and post‑hearing acquisition/approval) were insufficient to establish an intention and preparedness to rebuild as required; burden rested on the applicant and was not met, so the Tribunal's original decision to dismiss repossession and rent claims stands.
26 Aug 1997

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU CHO MAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU CHO MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR8/1997

The Court held there were no exceptional circumstances to justify suspension; the respondent voluntarily paid bribes and thereby encouraged the corruption despite being solicited; suspension was therefore wrong in principle and the court substituted an immediate custodial sentence of 8 months (reducing the original 11 months suspended sentence).
4 Mar 1997

R. v. CHAN HUNG

Citation

R. v. CHAN HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC679/1996

Having considered the quantity and purity of the drugs (1.28g and 19.50g of almost pure heroin), the latent risk of trafficking, the starting points adopted by the trial judge and the plea discount, the Court held the total sentence of two years was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and dismissed the application.
13 Aug 1993

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM WING KWONG

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM WING KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR6/1993

Although the correct starting point for possession of an imitation firearm after trial would be about five to six years, the Court refused to interfere with the trial judge's two-year sentence given the strong mitigation, guilty plea and the margin of discretion afforded to sentencing judges; accordingly the application for review was dismissed and the sentence of two years' imprisonment was upheld.
8 May 1986

THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA

Citation

THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR8/1986

Where offences involve acts of gross indecency with a boy under 14, suspension of an immediate custodial sentence is impermissible in the absence of clearly identified exceptional circumstances; the trial judge must state such circumstances and, absent them, the appellate court will impose immediate custody — accordingly suspension was set aside and immediate concurrent sentences imposed.