Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compellability of witnesses

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. TOERAB MOHAMEDAJOEB AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. TOERAB MOHAMEDAJOEB AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC411/2009

Cross-examination of Detective Constable 34311 to elicit statements by the first accused is disallowed because the first accused has pleaded guilty and is therefore a competent and compellable witness under Cap.221 ss.57(1),(2),(5),(6); the procedural unfairness rationale for admitting a co-accused's confession through prosecution witnesses does not apply where the defence can call the maker as a witness.
21 Jul 2010

WONG TAK WAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

WONG TAK WAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2009

The Court found apparent bias at first instance (Superintendents adjudicating in their own institutions) established on systemic grounds but held the overall process combined with the Commissionerʹs appellate power (full merits rehearing) and availability of judicial review cured that unfairness; however, where forfeiture of remission imposes an appreciable punitive effect/deprivation of liberty the applicable standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, so decisions in Cases 2,3,4 and 5 were quashed while the quashing of Case 1 was set aside.
8 Jun 2009

CHAN KIN SHING SONNY v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KIN SHING SONNY v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV360/2005

The Court dismissed the appeals: the IDT was not institutionally biased or inherently unfair; section 31(1)(b)'s leave requirement for factual appeals is not unconstitutional; the Tribunal's factual findings as to Koon and Sonny Chan were open on the evidence and properly reached; disqualification orders under section 23(1)(a) were valid without naming each company; disgorgement orders under section 23(1)(b) were valid and the appeals challenging them failed.
22 Oct 2008

OTC INTERNATIONAL AG v. PERFECT RECOVERY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

OTC INTERNATIONAL AG v. PERFECT RECOVERY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL11/2007

The court varied the previous order nisi: it held that the German law evidence exercise did not assist the substantive decision and therefore excluded from the costs order those costs relating to obtaining and filing expert evidence as to German law and excluded costs of the plaintiff's variation application; but upheld that the costs of the 1st defendant's stay application (including hearings on 22 January 2008 and 10 June 2008) are to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant, taxed if not agreed.
11 Sept 2007

LAU LUEN HUNG THOMAS v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU LUEN HUNG THOMAS v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1161/2007

An extension of time to appeal was granted because, on balance of the four recognised factors (length of delay, reasons for delay, merits, prejudice), the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances: a fundamental change of law (recharacterising Tribunal proceedings as criminal and altering standard of proof and compellability) created a meritorious prospect of success and the delay was reasonably explained and contextualised, with no substantial prejudice to respondents.
16 Jun 2006

MAN ROLAND (CHINA) LTD v. PICC PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO LTD

Citation

MAN ROLAND (CHINA) LTD v. PICC PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA456/2005

The court found on the balance of connecting factors that Hong Kong law governs the policy and that the plaintiff s Hong Kong character, the location of principal witnesses and the predominance of English technical evidence created a stronger real and substantial connection with Hong Kong; the defendant failed to prove that Shenzhen was clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum, so the application for a permanent stay was dismissed.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3313/1993

Where the Court is satisfied that continued detention under s32(4)(b) is reasonably necessary to secure attendance of material prosecution witnesses and that there is a realistic prospect of their giving evidence within a reasonable period, the balance of public interest in administering justice outweighs the private interest in immediate repatriation; accordingly a detention order for a limited period (21 days from 8 October 1993) was lawful and justified.
27 Aug 1993

TIN TIN YAT PAO (INTERNATIONAL) LTD AND OTHERS v. CHENG YUN SING trading as Y S CHENG & CO

Citation

TIN TIN YAT PAO (INTERNATIONAL) LTD AND OTHERS v. CHENG YUN SING trading as Y S CHENG & CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6865/1990

No sufficient grounds were shown to release Mr Cheng from his undertakings; a claim that the undertakings give rise to a privilege to refuse testimony in criminal proceedings based solely on fear of contempt is not justified because the risk of punishment for answering under compulsion of another court is remote; therefore the appeal to be released from the undertakings is dismissed and Master Woolley's order is affirmed.