Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

In camera proceedings

Legal area

Court

17 May 2004

RE MA PUI TUNG

Citation

RE MA PUI TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB19884/2003

The consent order awarding costs to the petitioner, when taxed, created an immediately enforceable debt; the debtor's contention that the absence of the phrase 'payable forthwith' prevented immediate taxation and payment was rejected; the alleged set‑off was speculative and not a bar to the petition; the petitioner established the matters relevant to the petition and the court exercised its discretion to make the bankruptcy order with costs to the petitioner.
13 Feb 2003

TSE WAI CHUN PAUL v. SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSE WAI CHUN PAUL v. SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV46/2002

The Tribunal's statutory requirement to sit in camera in s.9B(4) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance did not amount to a breach of article 10 of the Bill of Rights because the Tribunal is not a classic court and appellate oversight by the Court of Appeal, which has full jurisdiction and complies with article 10, provides the necessary protection; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was dismissed.
2 Aug 2001

NINA KUNG v. WANG DIN SHIN

Citation

NINA KUNG v. WANG DIN SHIN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV18/2001

The Appeal Committee refused leave because the Court of Appeal had correctly recognized and properly exercised the discretion to grant a stay in appropriate circumstances and had applied that discretion in the round on the facts of this case; the matter did not warrant further appellate determination on grounds of law development or public importance
29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.BUI DINH NGOC AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.BUI DINH NGOC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3316/1993

On the facts before the court and for the purposes of exercising judicial discretion the judge assumed the section13E(1) orders and s32(4)(a) authorisations to be valid, held that the Crown's need for witnesses outweighed the respondents' liberty interests, reserved jurisdictional and factual challenges (including alleged ulterior purpose and Director's intention) for future application where the Director can adduce evidence, ruled that body orders do not amount to detention orders, and that unsealed originating notices were not a fatal procedural defect; accordingly ordered detention under s…
29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. PHAM THI XA

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. PHAM THI XA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3371/1993

The court exercised its discretion to grant further short-term detention orders under s32(4)(b) for all respondents except three specified individuals, on the basis that (1) valid s13E(1) and s32(4)(a) orders were in place or assumed for the exercise of discretion, (2) the Crown demonstrated that the respondents' evidence is sufficiently important to the integrity of an exceptionally long and serious criminal trial and likely to be required within a reasonable time (estimated within c.18 weeks), and (3) the public interest in the administration of justice outweighed the respondents' interest…
17 Oct 1984

R. v. GEORGE TAN AND OTHERS

Citation

R. v. GEORGE TAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2795/1984

Section 80 does not prima facie require preliminary inquiries to be in camera; the magistrate erred in law by excluding the press while admitting the public without properly balancing the paramount principle of open justice against the asserted risk to jury impartiality; the order disclosed an error on the face of the record and was one no properly directed magistrate could have made, therefore certiorari to quash the order was justified and the matter must be remitted for reconsideration to proceed in open court.
23 May 1972

WONG CHI-HUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG CHI-HUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC145/1972

Because the joinder of unrelated offences did not fall within the statutory exceptions in Section 10 of the Magistrates Ordinance the trial was void ab initio; accordingly the convictions were quashed and sentences set aside, and the Crown, though entitled to reinstitute separate proceedings, elected not to do so in view of time already served.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE MA PUI TUNG

TSE WAI CHUN PAUL v. SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

NINA KUNG v. WANG DIN SHIN

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.BUI DINH NGOC AND OTHERS

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. PHAM THI XA

R. v. GEORGE TAN AND OTHERS

WONG CHI-HUNG v. THE QUEEN