Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deeming provision

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2021

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 871
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/2019

The Court held the Guangzhou‑Shenzhen‑Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co‑location) Ordinance (Cap. 632) is constitutionally valid: s.6's deeming of the Mainland Port Area as outside Hong Kong for application of Mainland law (save reserved matters) does not contravene Basic Law Articles 18 or 19, does not diminish the HKSAR's high degree of autonomy, the NPCSC Decision confirming compatibility is a highly persuasive constitutional factor, and in any event the measure satisfies proportionality.
29 Jan 2021

香港特別行政區訴陳文賢

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 108
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA214/2019

[2021] HKCFI 108
22 Jan 2020

RICCO (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD v. UNI-HARVEST INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 201
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW229/2018

The summons was dismissed: the court held that any technical non-compliance with s.327(4)(a) did not justify striking out the petition because s.178(1)(a) and other provisions provide additional means of service, the debt remained unpaid and insolvency could be established on that basis, no abuse of process or collateral purpose was proved, and a case management stay was unjustified.
10 Dec 2019

SOGO HONG KONG CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 68
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA14/2017

The Tribunal held that both Sign 5 and Sign K are separate tenements under section 9(1) (second limb) of the Rating Ordinance because the external wall spaces were not occupied for any other purpose and the appellant granted rights to third parties (Prada and Bottega) to use those spaces for advertising; consequently both signs are rateable and Sign 5 is liable for Government rent under the Rent Ordinance where a rateable value has been assigned.
30 Mar 2015

CHINA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. MANDECLY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. MANDECLY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT53/2010

The court set aside paragraphs §342 and §477(7) of the Award because the Tribunal imposed a payment obligation on CPDH based on reasoning (invocation of unjust enrichment and the effect of the Jade Bird Agreement) that was not a basis advanced against CPDH at the hearing and was not evident from the Award; that denial of a reasonable opportunity to address the Tribunal’s actual basis for decision amounted to a sufficiently serious breach of procedural fairness under Art 34/Section 34C warranting setting aside those parts of the Award.
2 Mar 2011

HKSAR v. FU KOR KUEN, PATRICK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. FU KOR KUEN, PATRICK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2010

The Court declined certification because the trial judge made independent findings of intention and recklessness sufficient to sustain the convictions without reliance on the deeming provision; therefore the availability of the s295(7) defence in circumstances where the deeming provision was not relied upon did not raise a certifiable question of law of great and general importance in this case.
25 Oct 2010

SIT WING YI SIBLY v. BRETON INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

SIT WING YI SIBLY v. BRETON INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC733/2009

Applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that an "accident" caused or contributed to the Deceased's death on 13 July 2007; absent proof of such an accident there is no basis to apply the deeming provision and the claim under s.5(1) must be dismissed.
5 Oct 2006

SIN FU YAU v. WONG PO KEE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SIN FU YAU v. WONG PO KEE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC654/2003

The court held that, absent evidence of fraud, the deeming presumption in section 10(2) of the Employees Compensation Ordinance is irrebuttable; accordingly the certified period of sick leave (4/9/2002 to 6/10/2004) was accepted and extended under section 10(5) where appropriate, and on the evidence the permanent loss of earning capacity was fixed at 2%; applying those findings the net judgment for the Applicant was HK$364,682.40.
20 Jan 2004

ALI SHOUKAT v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Citation

ALI SHOUKAT v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC69/2002

The court held that s.10(2) creates a rebuttable presumption of total temporary incapacity when certified by an authorized medical authority; that presumption was rebutted by expert evidence and the findings of the Medical Assessment Board and the Review Board which assessed the necessary period of absence as 15 months; therefore the applicant was entitled only to periodical payments for 15 months and the respondent may set off or recover any overpayments.
24 Dec 1998

RE YUNG KWAN LEE AND OTHERS

Citation

RE YUNG KWAN LEE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV109/1998

A valid executive warrant issued before 1 July 1997 did not cease to have effect because the Anglo-Thai Agreement and ROPA ceased to apply; section 10(1) of the TSPO validly deems such warrants to be inward warrants under TSPO and, as adopted under the Basic Law, provides the necessary domestic statutory authority for continued detention in Hong Kong; therefore the appellants' detentions were lawful and the appeals fail.