Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Burden of proof on defendant

Legal area

Court

15 Jun 2001

EAST ASIA CREDIT CO LTD. v. FULL YOUNG PROPERTY LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

EAST ASIA CREDIT CO LTD. v. FULL YOUNG PROPERTY LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7166/2001

The 2nd Defendant's allegations were bare, lacked necessary particulars and were inherently implausible in light of his conduct and evidence; they did not amount to an arguable defence under Order 14, and absent circumstances putting the bank on inquiry there was no duty to advise him to obtain legal advice, therefore summary judgment for the Plaintiff was appropriate.
8 Jan 1991

THE QUEEN v. CO BELO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CO BELO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1571/1990

The Magistrate's factual findings that the appellant caused the goods to be imported and that he had knowledge or at least could with reasonable diligence have discovered the false description were open on the evidence; the appellant failed to discharge the burden under s12(2)(a) Cap.362; the appellate court will not overturn the Magistrate's adverse credibility findings absent clear error; therefore the conviction and sentence were safe and must be affirmed.
13 Sept 1985

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG YIP AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG YIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA694/1985

The Court held the learned Magistrate was wrong to find there was no case to answer: admissions and the evidence gave rise to a prima facie case that mahjong was being conducted by way of business; the burden under s18 was not discharged and the ambiguity about the hire charge meant the presumption was not rebutted; accordingly each respondent had a case to answer and the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for trial.
12 Feb 1948

MAN KEUNG WONG v. CHUEN CHEONG HONG

Citation

MAN KEUNG WONG v. CHUEN CHEONG HONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC27/1947

Because the case stated lacked any finding that the respondent had taken all reasonable precautions required by s3(2)(a) and the notes of evidence did not supply material justifying amendment, the respondent had not discharged the statutory burden and the appeal must be allowed with the case remitted to the magistrate to enter conviction as to the four tins and impose penalty.

Hong Kong Case Law

EAST ASIA CREDIT CO LTD. v. FULL YOUNG PROPERTY LTD. AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. CO BELO

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG YIP AND OTHERS

MAN KEUNG WONG v. CHUEN CHEONG HONG