Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disciplinary sanctions

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2025

LAU KAM SING DICKIE v. ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD HKSAR INQUIRY COMMITTEE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 76
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/2024

Given the undisputed facts of Lau's adjudicated bankruptcy and a subsisting non‑commencement order the Court found special circumstances justifying security for costs; Lau failed to demonstrate sufficient countervailing factors because the Appeal was not shown to be so meritorious as to outweigh the impecuniosity; the Court exercised its discretion to order security of HKD 300,000 on a party‑to‑party basis, stayed the Appeal pending payment, and ordered dismissal in default and costs to the Board.
28 Jun 2024

WISDOM WEALTH RESOURCES INVESTMENT HOLDING GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1570
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL412/2024

The LRC's findings that the Company breached Rule 2.13(2) by failing to disclose sufficient explanation for a sevenfold increase in land valuation and that directors breached Rule 3.08 in not procuring adequate disclosure were reasonable and not Wednesbury-irrational; the imposed sanction (public statement involving criticism) was proportionate (less than public censure) and the court refused leave for judicial review
5 Mar 2024

DR CHUNG HO YIN ANDREWS v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 196
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2021

The Court held the Medical Council's finding of no sufficient factual basis was unsound because the materials before the Council — including articles by Professor Chan and the appellant’s own experience and explanations — provided adequate factual foundation for the comments; consequently the disciplinary findings and reprimand could not stand and were quashed.
27 Nov 2023

FAN REN DA ANTHONY AND ANOTHER v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1211/2023

The Court held the LRC provided adequate, intelligible reasons; it was rationally open to the LRC to find that the applicants, as Audit Committee members, breached duties under Rule 3.08 and their Directors' Undertakings by failing to ensure adequate internal controls and by endorsing the FY18/19 Interim Report without properly addressing auditors' expressed concerns about ECL; reliance on management or expert commentary did not absolve the non‑delegable supervisory obligations; public censure and mandated training were proportionate; leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed and the s…
11 Oct 2018

MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE HONG KONG LIMITED v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 42
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV6/2018

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Report related to the provision of credit rating services within the meaning of s193(1)(d) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance because a reasonable person in the targeted market would understand the Report as connected to Moody's credit ratings; accordingly the Commission had jurisdiction to discipline Moody's and the disciplinary outcome below was upheld.
11 May 2015

YEUNG KWOK KEUNG DENNIS v. CHIROPRACTORS COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

YEUNG KWOK KEUNG DENNIS v. CHIROPRACTORS COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/2014

The Court held that charge (a), properly construed in context, could legitimately encompass the allegation that the appellant failed to perform a neurological examination and thus rendered treatment inappropriate; the appellant was given sufficient notice and opportunity to meet the case and there was no procedural unfairness; accordingly the findings of misconduct on charges (a)-(c) and the disciplinary order were upheld.
10 Dec 2014

SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

SIN CHUNG YIN RONALD AND OTHERS v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV149/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested assumptions (lack of notice, failure of the prosecution to particularise or advance material facts) were not supported by the trial record, the issues raised did not involve points of great general or public importance but application of established principles to facts, the Council's finding was properly based on negligence amounting to elemental and grievous failure without requiring specific mens rea, and the applicants failed to satisfy the stringent 'or otherwise' limb requiring exceptional circumstances and virtual certainty of success.
20 Mar 2009

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/2007

The Court was satisfied that the Tribunal's findings in relation to the 3rd, 4th and 5th complaints were erroneously made and allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's orders in respect of those complaints and ordering costs in accordance with the parties' agreement (Respondent to pay 70% of specified costs up to 10 October 2007; no order as to later costs).
18 Feb 2008

WONG CHI HUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

WONG CHI HUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL27/2006

The judicial review is dismissed because the Commissioner lawfully considered the Formation Commander report and Staffing Note, the compulsory retirement with deferred benefits was not perverse or Wednesbury unreasonable given the assessment of the applicant's fitness to remain in the Force, the delegation to an Assistant Commissioner was lawful under s7(2) of the Police Force Ordinance and the reasons given were adequate in context.
9 Jun 2005

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV246/2004

The Court held the Council validly appointed inspectors and exercised powers under sections 8AA and 8B lawfully; section 8B's requirement for production notwithstanding privilege does not contravene Article 35 of the Basic Law because use of disclosed documents is strictly limited to inquiries and investigations, and the appellant was properly found guilty of deliberate non-compliance with the lawful notice.