Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Open court principle

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2014

RE LEUNG KIT-HING, DORIS

Citation

RE LEUNG KIT-HING, DORIS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV67/2013

The application to re-open the court's prior interlocutory judgment is dismissed because there are no exceptional circumstances; the two co-administratrices must be joined as parties to the appeal under Order 76 Rule 3 and Re Estate of Cheng Ki Sang [2009] 2 HKLRD 533; the unless order for service is valid and was extended to 31 October 2014; the summons seeking recourse to the Chief Judge is an abuse of process and is dismissed.
24 Dec 2012

TCWF v. LKKS

Citation

TCWF v. LKKS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV166/2012

The Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner's substantive original application for leave to disclose documents for enforcement abroad because the application is not incidental to the hearing, determination or enforcement of the appeal under s13(4); such enforcement-step applications should be made in the court of original jurisdiction. Accordingly the Petitioner's summons was dismissed.
18 Sept 2008

TONG SIN LUN v. PROSHING FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

TONG SIN LUN v. PROSHING FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3041/2008

The initial hearing of an Assessment Notice is a case-management call-over to determine readiness for a full open-court assessment; it is not permissible to decide quantum on paper in chambers. The Plaintiff's extensive affirmation was unnecessary for the call-over. The court exercised its case-management power under O.37 r.1 to direct mutual discovery, exchange of witness statements, filing of bundles and schedules, and to list a one-day open hearing to assess damages.
21 Jan 1998

PRISCILLA SIT KA YIN v. THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

Citation

PRISCILLA SIT KA YIN v. THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL119/1997

The Commission's statutory framework (Sex Discrimination Ordinance, Sch.6 para.11(1)) did not restrict the Commission's freedom to dismiss nor provide statutory underpinning converting disciplinary procedures into public law rights; therefore the applicant's rights arising from the Disciplinary Policy are private law (contract) rights only, the leave application is not arguable in public law and is dismissed; additionally, the Practice Direction and public interest require the leave hearing to be in open court absent a showing that privacy is necessary to prevent denial of justice.
22 Jan 1996

RE TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS PANEL

Citation

RE TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS PANEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3825/1995

The court must conduct oral leave hearings in open court in the absence of wholly exceptional circumstances showing that public knowledge would deny justice; the applicants' concern about embarrassment from disclosure of private reprimands did not meet that threshold and anonymity can be preserved by directions rather than holding the hearing in chambers.
22 Feb 1982

TAM WAI-KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TAM WAI-KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1114/1981

The magistrate's order excluding a group of youths was authorised by section 122 and was a reasonable exercise of discretion in the interests of justice given the witness's evident fear and the intimidating presence of a large group; the High Court will not substitute its view where a reasonable magistrate could have made the same decision, therefore the appeals against conviction were dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE LEUNG KIT-HING, DORIS

TCWF v. LKKS

TONG SIN LUN v. PROSHING FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING LTD

PRISCILLA SIT KA YIN v. THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

RE TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS PANEL

TAM WAI-KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN