Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fit and proper person

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2022

FUNG PING SUM CONNIE v. APPEAL PANEL (ESTATE AGENTS ORDINANCE)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 277
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL514/2021

Section 18 was never operable because no 'relevant period' was ever determined and published; the operative statutory test for eligibility and fitness was section 19, which permits the Authority to consider the listed matters and other relevant factors; repeated nondisclosure of a prior conviction was properly material to the assessment of fitness and properness; there was no error of law or fact warranting judicial review and the leave application was dismissed.
16 Oct 2020

KOO MING KOWN v. REV. MR. MOK KONG TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2016

The 3rd defendant's grounds for leave to appeal lacked any reasonable prospect of success because the court correctly held there was a justiciable issue and enforceable interest, interpreted the Education Ordinance as imposing a duty on the management committee to ensure supervisors are fit and proper, and correctly held that subsequent events do not automatically invalidate a cause of action; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were ordered nisi in favour of the plaintiff.
10 Jul 2020

CONVOY GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. KWOK HIU KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1496
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2000/2018

The writ and statement of claim were struck out because the plaintiffs lacked the requisite real and present legal interest to obtain the declaratory relief sought under SFO s.131; the statutory scheme makes the SFC the primary enforcement authority and the declarations sought would amount to declarations of criminality inappropriate for civil proceedings; additionally the separate SFO Action constituted an abuse of process given substantial overlap with the Main Action; accordingly the claim was unsustainable and dismissed with costs.
3 Jun 2020

KOO MING KOWN v. REV. MR. MOK KONG TING (PRESIDENT OF THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1040
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2016

The appeal was allowed and the Master\'s strike out order set aside because (1) the interlocutory 2018 decision did not bind D3 who was not represented at the hearing and (2) there were material changes and new evidence (D3 ceased to be supervisor and a public announcement was made) justifying reconsideration; further, the claim for a declaration that D3 was not a fit and proper person was justiciable under the Education Ordinance and it was not a plain and obvious case warranting strike out under O 18 r 19.
23 Sept 2019

RE CHU, ALFRED

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2338
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1139/2019

Because both the Law Society and the Secretary for Justice conducted inquiries and accepted the applicant's explanation that the offensive post was made by a friend and the applicant did not mislead the court, the court declined to conduct further inquiry and allowed the admission as the applicant is fit and proper to be admitted.
2 Aug 2019

RE CHAN JOHN LOONG FAI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1886
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6991/2017

The court held that rule 158 was not the appropriate vehicle to decide a general disciplinary question of fitness to act as an insolvency officer; the OR's concerns arising from Mr Tang's contempt, failure to disclose and alleged stubbornness did not establish dishonesty or sufficient grounds to invalidate the creditors' appointment or to remove him by way of directions under r158; non-disclosure was characterised as negligence not dishonesty and the OR could not by administrative measures re‑punish or debar him outside disciplinary procedures, accordingly the application was dismissed.
28 Nov 2018

RE "A"

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 52
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV43/2018

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal did not err in principle in allowing the applicant's appeal: rehabilitation can, depending on circumstances, be shown without a public admission of guilt and substantial weight may be given to long good conduct and cogent testimonials; the Court of Appeal's approach provided adequate guidance and there was no arguable ground of sufficient general or public importance to warrant further appeal.
30 Jul 2018

RE “A”

Citation

[2018] HKCA 445
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV161/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised did not involve questions of great general or public importance; the proper approach to s27(1) is a case-by-case, multi-factored value judgment where convictions or lack of remorse are not per se determinative and rehabilitation can be shown by sustained responsible conduct without necessarily involving a public admission of guilt.
4 May 2018

KOO MING KOWN v. Rev. Mr. MOK KONG TING (President of the Baptist Convention of Hong Kong) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 967
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2016

The plaintiff demonstrated a genuine and material interest in the subject matter (supported by his former role and substantial donations) such that the court's wide declaratory jurisdiction was properly exercisable; BCHK and Chan are proper contradictors because BCHK (through its Council and Education Department) has duties and powers under its constitution and the Education Ordinance to ensure a fit supervisor and to cause the management committee to invoke removal/nomination procedures; the 2nd defendant, as a salaried Executive Secretary and not a Council member, lacks a sufficient interes…
25 Sept 2017

HANG HING FINANCE LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

HANG HING FINANCE LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP955/2017

Leave to appeal out of time refused because the applicant's delay of approximately five months was substantial and inexcusable given the clear statutory route of appeal under s16 MLO and prior advice from DOJ; and the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merits because the licensing court's factual findings that the applicant deliberately breached ss18 and 24 were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong. An order for costs nisi was made against the applicant.