Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence and cross-examination

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2006

HONG MAN CHING v. HONGDOU GROUP CORPORATION

Citation

HONG MAN CHING v. HONGDOU GROUP CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2148/2005

The court found that, despite the absence of cross-examination, the coincidences in design (font, inclination, near perfect superposition except one letter) combined with the appellant's implausible account made the inference of copying irresistible; therefore the appellant acted dishonestly in seeking registration and the Registrar was correct to refuse registration.
30 Jan 2003

POON HAU KEI v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

POON HAU KEI v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2002

Appeal allowed and plaintiff's claim dismissed because the judge erred in deciding liability against the 1st defendant on an alternative light trough version that was not advanced or pleaded by the plaintiff at trial and which the 1st defendant had no fair opportunity to meet by pleadings or proper cross-examination; a court must ensure a new factual version is properly put and the other party given full opportunity to deal with it before finding liability.
1 Apr 1999

LAU TSIM v. BRILLANT PLASTIC MANUFACTURING LTD.

Citation

LAU TSIM v. BRILLANT PLASTIC MANUFACTURING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA13/1999

Leave to appeal refused. The Tribunal's finding that allegations of concurrent employment were not proved was a factual determination not amenable to appeal; the written statement of an unavailable witness was properly treated as unreliable and its weight was for the Tribunal; and the refusal to transfer under s10(2) was a lawful exercise of discretion within permissible bounds.
29 Oct 1993

CHAN WEI YIN v. CHEONG SHUN CHIU

Citation

CHAN WEI YIN v. CHEONG SHUN CHIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV67/1993

The District Judge's 'recommendation' to the Housing Authority was ultra vires because the Housing Ordinance vests discretion over tenancies in the Housing Authority and the court has no power to direct termination/regrant; consequently paragraph 1 of the order must be discharged. Further, the maintenance order was unsustainable on the material before the court because the husband's financial position was not adequately explored and he was not cross-examined; adverse inferences drawn by the judge were not justified. The proper remedy is to set aside the impugned orders (paras 1 and 2) and rem…
28 Sept 1976

TSOI TIN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TSOI TIN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC659/1976

The conviction for arson was upheld because the jury, properly directed and on the evidence before them, could reasonably conclude that the appellant had the necessary intent or was reckless for arson despite acquittal on the wounding charge; however the sentence of eight years was excessive and was reduced to five years' imprisonment by the Court of Appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

HONG MAN CHING v. HONGDOU GROUP CORPORATION

POON HAU KEI v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

LAU TSIM v. BRILLANT PLASTIC MANUFACTURING LTD.

CHAN WEI YIN v. CHEONG SHUN CHIU

TSOI TIN v. THE QUEEN