Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Identification of property

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2021

CHOW KWAN YEE v. LEUNG MEI YIN MAY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 497
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV20/2020

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's factual finding that the plaintiff advanced HK$2,000,000 to assist the 1st defendant and that repayments were made until April 2014, but found no evidential basis to hold the 2nd defendant personally liable on the oral loan (no proven agency or contract with him); the 2nd defendant's monetary counterclaims were dismissed for want of proof or improbability; however, the trial judge erred in dismissing the detinue claim on the ground of insufficient description — the 2nd defendant proved entitlement to delivery up of the specific jade dragon-and-phoenix…
16 May 2018

SUM MUN KID FREDERICK v. AUTO ITALIA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA60/2017

A preservation order cannot be granted over money that no longer exists as identifiable property because it has been paid away and intermingled with other funds; in such circumstances the correct remedy is a Mareva injunction. The applicant's preservation application was therefore wholly misconceived and costs should follow the event.
15 Jan 2004

HKSAR v. WONG NGA MAN WINNIE

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG NGA MAN WINNIE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA838/2003

The magistrate was entitled to accept the oral admissions and the evidence of PW3 and PW4 despite absence of a written confession; defence declined a voire dire; the admissions were sufficiently reliable to support conviction and there was no demonstrable miscarriage of justice, so the appeal is dismissed.
23 May 2002

HKSAR v. TONG WAI HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. TONG WAI HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA418/2002

The magistrate's acceptance of PW1's evidence and inference of theft were supported by fingerprint evidence and identification of the stolen watch; those findings were open on the evidence and the appellate court will not interfere; the nine month sentence for theft of property valued at HK$44,000 was not excessive.
6 Apr 2001

LOW TUCK KWONG AND OTHERS v. DYNASTY LINE LTD.

Citation

LOW TUCK KWONG AND OTHERS v. DYNASTY LINE LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9505/1999

When identifiable blocks of shares were transferred to the defendant without full payment and it would be unconscionable for the defendant to dispose of them, an equitable lien arises by operation of law over the whole block of each plaintiff's shares to secure the unpaid contractual price and interest; identification is determined at the time of transfer and unparticularised allegations of subsequent dealings or third party priorities do not defeat the lien as against the defendant in the absence of adequate evidence; accordingly plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of equitable lien and a…
31 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. LAM YIU WA

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM YIU WA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1057/1999

The magistrate's acceptance of PW1's detailed and truthful evidence and rejection of the appellant's account was reasonable; the identified discrepancies between prosecution witnesses were minor and adequately explained and did not create reasonable doubt as to guilt, therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Oct 1981

DR FRANKLIN LI AND ANOTHER v. CROCUS PROPERTY INC

Citation

DR FRANKLIN LI AND ANOTHER v. CROCUS PROPERTY INC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4909/1980

Although the parties intended the Confirmation of Instruction to be binding, the agreement lacked agreement on essential terms — notably a Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant between vendor and sub-purchasers and an ascertainable method for calculating gross area (and thus price). Those matters remained subject to further negotiation and rendered the purported contract unenforceable for uncertainty; specific performance was refused and registration vacated.
18 Jul 1973

WONG CHUN KI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG CHUN KI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC300/1973

Conviction was unsafe because the evidence did not establish the stolen watch was the appellant's beyond reasonable doubt given the mass-produced nature of the watch, lack of distinctive markings, a distinguishing scratch on the watch found, and the escape of a co-accused who may have had the stolen watch; appeal allowed and conviction and sentence set aside.
14 Dec 1972

POON KWOK YUI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

POON KWOK YUI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC748/1972

The conviction was quashed because the cautioned confession was the only evidence linking the appellant to the burglary, the magistrate did not appear to appreciate that fact or address the possibility that the confession was prompted, and other identification evidence was insufficient, rendering the conviction unsafe.
1 Dec 1972

MAK KWONG SUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

MAK KWONG SUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC784/1972

Conviction for robbery is justified where the accused is found in recent possession of property that can be identified as the property stolen in the charged offence; however, where the property in the accused's possession cannot be connected to the specific robbery charge beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction on that charge cannot stand.