Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of statute

Legal area

Court

28 May 2025

HKSAR v. CHOW KUEN FUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 518
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC136/2024

Leave to appeal was granted solely on the narrow issue of statutory interpretation (Ground 1) concerning whether the second disqualification order could be deferred or must run in addition to the first; leave was refused on Grounds 2 and 3 because, applying sentencing principles and having regard to the applicant's serious, repetitive offending and aggravating features (offences while on bail and soon after release), there was no reasonable argument that the overall sentence of 67 months was manifestly excessive.
4 Aug 2023

LUCK MOST LTD AND OTHERS v. GOOD MOVEMENT LTD

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 52
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS11000/2020

The Tribunal held that the phrase 'redevelopment potential of the lot on its own' in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Ordinance restricts the reserve price to the RDV of the lot alone where adjacent lots are not part of the sale; the respondent's expert reports were expunged and excluded for failing to meet the Tribunal's requirements to disclose methodology, justification and quantum and thus lacking probative utility at interlocutory stage; leave to appeal/review was refused because the proposed grounds lacked reasonable prospects and there was no sufficient interest of justice to permit ap…
9 Feb 2021

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING (黎智英)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 3
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2021

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the bail granted because Alex Lee J misconstrued NSL 42(2) by treating it as equivalent to the CPO discretionary ground for withholding bail; NSL 42(2) creates a more stringent 'no bail unless' threshold that must be applied as a judicial evaluative exercise (not by imposing a formal burden of proof), bail conditions may be considered in that evaluation, and the Court has no jurisdiction to strike down NSL provisions as incompatible with the Basic Law or ICCPR.
21 Jun 2019

NOMURA FUNDS IRELAND PLC v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2019] HKDC 852
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA4/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were unarguable: the court correctly treated the Luxembourg opinions as not dispositive in the absence of contested foreign-law evidence, properly interpreted the Merger Proposal and relevant Luxembourg provisions and concluded the Merger effected a transfer of the HK securities within the meaning of the SDO, and the appellant failed to show that s27(5) exempted the transaction; no public‑interest basis justified leave; costs awarded to respondent.
22 Oct 2018

WONG YAU CHUNG 對 THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1265
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA99/2016

The court found on the facts that the two sales formed an integral, coordinated series of transactions (same vendor, same floor, same prices and deposits, simultaneous agreements and conveyances, clause 45 conditioning completion), therefore s29(1) did not protect the individual HK$100 certification and the aggregate consideration must be used; accordingly the ad valorem rate (2.25%) under Schedule 1 applied and the Commissioner’s assessments were correct and within the six-year limitation, so the appeals were dismissed.
20 May 2015

TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV6/2015

The court was satisfied that questions 1–6 raised issues of sufficient public and legal importance to warrant grant of leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b); questions 7–9 were refused. Consequently the appeal was permitted to proceed to full hearing on the specified questions concerning interpretation and application of trade mark and passing off law.
19 May 2014

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC272/2011

The Court may order costs under s13 of the Ordinance against unsuccessful applicants for leave to appeal in respect of appeal/application costs and should allocate those costs proportionately among multiple defendants; D1 ordered to pay 60% and D2 10% of the respondent's application/appeal costs (D1 also to pay his sentence-appeal costs), D3 no order as to costs; the Court has no jurisdiction to order payment of prosecution trial costs on appeal because the statutory scheme confines s13 costs to the appeal/application and section17 does not empower the appellate court to award trial costs inc…
30 Jan 2014

RE RAFAT ALI RIZVI AND OTHERS

Citation

RE RAFAT ALI RIZVI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2557/2010

The court held that the Indonesian court had jurisdiction to try the defendants in absentia under Indonesian law and the s28(1) criteria were satisfied (order in force, notice under Indonesian law, enforcement not contrary to interests of justice); dual criminality was satisfied; "realisable property" for enforcement of the external confiscation order is confined to property specified in the external confiscation order (Schedule 2 s5(1)(a)); accordingly the court registered and ordered enforcement of the external confiscation order in respect of specified Hong Kong accounts and appointed the…
21 Jul 2011

RE YUE MAN PAK

Citation

RE YUE MAN PAK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2178/2011

Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) are not mutually exclusive in a way that ousts the debtor's statutory right to present a petition; the bracketed words in s3(1)(c) are descriptive of persons who may present under that limb and do not by implication remove the debtor's right; even if presentation before IVA termination were irregular, under section 124(1) the petition should not be invalidated because no substantial injustice or prejudice to creditors was shown; accordingly a Bankruptcy Order was made for the debtor.
26 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. CHAN SHING KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SHING KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA258/2010

The magistrate erred in concluding the offence was outside Hong Kong's jurisdiction: a substantial measure of the activities constituting the alleged offence occurred in Hong Kong (including the payment), so Hong Kong courts had jurisdiction; the magistrate also erred in inviting the prosecution to appeal by way of case stated before completing the determination required by s.19(2) and in adjourning sine die without discharging the defendants or properly recording a verdict; nonetheless the appeal by way of case stated was inappropriate in the circumstances and is dismissed, and the matter is…