Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Disclosure duty

  • 31 Jan 2024

    HKSAR v. CHOW YIU CHUNG

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 194
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC663/2022

    The application for a permanent stay was refused because the police and prosecution acted reasonably without bad faith or serious fault, the materials and witnesses necessary for trial were obtainable or had been obtained, the delay was explicable and did not cause irremediable prejudice, and continuation of the trial would not offend the court’s sense of justice or undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

  • 31 Oct 2017

    HKSAR v. CHAN HO MING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN HO MING
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC15/2017

    The judge below correctly applied the test whether non-disclosure caused serious prejudice to the fairness of the trial and correctly found that the CCTV recordings either did not capture the relevant contact or would not have shown it clearly; therefore absence of the recordings did not render the trial unfair and the application for leave to appeal failed.

  • 2 Aug 2000

    HINQUAND ENTERPRISE LTD. v. EDEX ENTERPRISES LTD.

    Citation
    HINQUAND ENTERPRISE LTD. v. EDEX ENTERPRISES LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA17831/1999

    There is no legal duty on the landlord to disclose the building order; Clause 3(a) only guaranteed peaceful enjoyment of the demised premises (the two shops) and did not cover the external wall; the Defendant did not show the works affected the shops nor that he had complied with conditions to rely on Clause 3(a); accordingly there was no substantive defence and the Master's judgment was upheld (appeal dismissed), subject to variation of the vacant possession timing with conditions for payment into court.