Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inequality of arms

Legal area

Court

30 May 2022

GURDAS S. CHOITHRAMANI v. MAYER BROWN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAYER BROWN JSM FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 753
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV180/2021

The Court refused leave to appeal because the Notice of Motion failed to identify any question of law of great general or public importance and there was no reason to submit the matter under the 'or otherwise' limb; the Court upheld that res judicata principles and special circumstances justified the earlier order for security for costs and awarded costs to the defendants, summarily assessed at HK$32,013.
4 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC27/2014

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because no arguable point of law of great and general importance was shown and the applicants failed to establish entitlement to a permanent stay: the Court of Appeal's factual and discretionary conclusions that there was no inequality of arms, that the applicants had not taken adequate steps to secure Mainland evidence, and that Article 95 does not impose a duty, were unimpeachable; alleged ICCPR breaches were non‑justiciable and Holgate did not assist the applicants.
4 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC25/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the points of law advanced were misconceived or not of great and general importance, Article 95 does not create a mandatory duty, the ICCPR claim against the PRC is not justiciable in HKSAR courts, and the applicants failed to establish on the facts an inequality of arms or abuse of process warranting a stay; the courts below properly exercised their discretion.
4 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC26/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because no point of law of great and general importance was raised: Article 95 does not impose a duty to establish a mutual legal assistance scheme; the applicants failed to show inequality of arms or that the absence of Mainland witness evidence made the trial unfair to the degree requiring a permanent stay; the Court of Appeal's fresh discretionary exercise was unimpeachable and there was no substantial and grave injustice warranting further appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

GURDAS S. CHOITHRAMANI v. MAYER BROWN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAYER BROWN JSM FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER) AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS