Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Mode of trial

  • 1 Aug 2022

    HKSAR v. CHAN TAI SUM

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 815
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC354/2022

    The sedition offence under s10(1)(a) Crimes Ordinance is a summary offence under s14A Criminal Procedure Ordinance and remains summary after the NSL; however, a magistrate properly exercising the discretion in s88(1)(b) Magistrates Ordinance may transfer summary sedition charges to the District Court together with a properly transferable indictable charge, so the District Court has jurisdiction to hear Charges 2–5.

  • 25 May 2012

    CHAU HOI SHUEN, SOLINA HOLLY v. SEEC MEDIA GROUP LTD

    Citation
    CHAU HOI SHUEN, SOLINA HOLLY v. SEEC MEDIA GROUP LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1194/2010

    The court held that the statutory scheme (s 33A HCO and O 33 r 5(1) RHC) prescribes a time limit for jury applications which the defendant failed to meet; absent an express statutory provision authorising variation at this late stage the court will not order a jury trial, and even if a residual discretion existed it would be exercised against the defendant because of lateness, inadequate explanation, risk of delay and extra cost and because the issues (innocent dissemination) are suitable for determination by a judge alone.

  • 28 Nov 2002

    KABUSHIKI KAISHA YAKULT HONSHA AND OTHERS v. YAKUDO GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    KABUSHIKI KAISHA YAKULT HONSHA AND OTHERS v. YAKUDO GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2409/2002

    Passing off is not within Section 33A(1)(a); the defendants failed to discharge the onus of showing a jury trial would produce a more just result given the nature of the issues (secondary facts, mixed questions of law and fact, likely complexity and risk of confusion and prolongation); accordingly the application for trial by jury is refused and the action will be tried by judge alone; leave to publish the Ruling of 6 September 2002 is granted.

  • 11 Sept 2001

    ASIA TELEVISION LTD. v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD. AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ASIA TELEVISION LTD. v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD. AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA6124/2000

    The judge exercised the discretion under s.33A(3) to vary the earlier order and permit a trial before a bilingual judge with a jury because the action is suitable for jury determination, does not require prolonged examination or scientific/local investigation incompatible with a jury, and any prejudice from adjournment can be adequately addressed by costs; accordingly the existing trial fixture was vacated and new dates ordered with a seven‑day estimate.

  • 29 Mar 1990

    A B VOLVO AND ANOTHER v. TANFORY CO LTD t/a CLUB VOLVO

    Citation
    A B VOLVO AND ANOTHER v. TANFORY CO LTD t/a CLUB VOLVO
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV194/1989

    The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judge's order for a jury trial because the judge erred in principle by failing to apply the statutory directive favouring judge-alone trials, not properly weighing the disadvantages of a separate jury trial (including overlapping issues and a separate damages hearing) and failing to require that the applicant demonstrate that a jury would overall be likely to produce a more just result.