Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Open administration of justice

Legal area

Court

8 Mar 2021

TSL AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 564
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL191/2021

The application for anonymity was dismissed because the applicants failed to show necessity to displace the fundamental principle of open administration of justice: the materially sensitive information (account numbers and balances) could be protected by redaction or by relying on bank statements not available to the public, the police (via DOJ) represented there was no real concern of tipping off, there was no convincing link that SFC secrecy required anonymity, and publicity would not frustrate the administration of justice or prejudice any future trial; costs were awarded to the Commission…
25 Jun 2019

VALUE CONVERGENCE HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHOU QUAN CO., LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1631
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1078/2019

The Anonymity Order was not continued because the plaintiff's claim that public disclosure would cause share price harm was a bare assertion unsupported by evidence, the loss involved was modest relative to a Main Board listed company, and established authority holds that embarrassment or economic harm alone do not justify restrictions on open justice; therefore anonymity was unnecessary and unjustified.
17 Oct 2014

X v. Y

Citation

X v. Y
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2023/2014

A blanket order that all future hearings be held in camera is wrong in principle; each application for a private hearing must be justified on its own facts and any departure from open justice must be necessary and no more than minimally intrusive. Given the present circumstances the court would continue the sealing of the court file and anonymity orders but would not continue paragraph 7(1) imposing a blanket private hearing requirement.
19 Aug 2010

DEIULEMAR SHIPPING SPA AND OTHERS v. TRANSFIELD ER FUTURES LTD

Citation

DEIULEMAR SHIPPING SPA AND OTHERS v. TRANSFIELD ER FUTURES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1490/2010

Leave to appeal is refused because the judge correctly exercised discretion in refusing the Mareva injunction: plaintiffs had an arguable case but the balance of prejudice, real risk of severe and possibly terminal harm to the defendant's business, and the principles of open justice and prompt disclosure justified refusing the interlocutory relief and ordering disclosure; no error of law or principle was shown.

Hong Kong Case Law

TSL AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

VALUE CONVERGENCE HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHOU QUAN CO., LTD

X v. Y

DEIULEMAR SHIPPING SPA AND OTHERS v. TRANSFIELD ER FUTURES LTD