Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Overt acts

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. YEE WENJYE (also known as YU WENJIE) (alias ERIC YEE)

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 32
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC28/2018

Particulars (a)–(e) in the indictment were treated at trial (by indictment language, agreed written directions, and a Kevin Brown direction) as alternative agreed dishonest means forming essential ingredients of the conspiratorial agreements; that framing created a latent duplicity because the jury could have convicted different defendants as parties to different conspiracies aggregated in a single count, undermining unanimity and rendering convictions unsafe — convictions therefore quashed and retrial ordered.
28 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 316
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The court directed the prosecution to provide further and better particulars because, to ensure a fair trial and to avoid prejudice from an unclear or shifting prosecutorial case, the prosecution must specify the nature and object of the conspiratorial agreement including the nature and quantity of the explosive substance(s) alleged, the principal overt acts relied on to infer the agreement, and the case it seeks to prove that each defendant was a party; and must specify the nature and quantity of the explosive substance(s) for each possession count.
22 Sept 2011

WONG SHUI KEE ROGER v. THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICE MR JUSTICE MA AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG SHUI KEE ROGER v. THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICE<br>MR JUSTICE MA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1474/2011

The statement of claim was struck out because it failed procedural requirements (no statement of truth), failed to plead necessary particulars and overt acts to establish a conspiracy, contained no evidential foundation for serious allegations against judges and lawyers, and was therefore wholly and plainly devoid of merit and an abuse of process warranting dismissal on the court's own motion.
13 Jul 1994

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/1994

Conspiracy pleadings were struck out in entirety because ADS failed to plead any overt act attributable to all or to at least two alleged conspirators and thus failed to show implementation of any conspiratorial agreement; misrepresentation pleadings were struck out as to the specified individual defendants because ADS failed to plead particulars demonstrating authorisation of the 5th defendant by those defendants and paragraphary allegations of mere failure to correct were bald and insufficient to establish joint tortfeasor liability on the pleaded facts.
13 Jul 1994

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/1994

The conspiracy pleadings were struck out in their entirety because ADS failed to plead any overt act by all alleged conspirators or by at least two defendants (only one defendant was alleged to have made the misrepresentations); allegations of knowledge, common purpose and intention are not overt acts and cannot substitute for required particulars; misrepresentation pleadings were struck out as to specified individual defendants because ADS failed to plead authorisation particulars ordered by the court and the averments of failure to correct were insufficiently particularised to found liabili…
13 Jul 1994

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV36/1994

The conspiracy pleading failed because no overt act was pleaded on the part of all alleged conspirators (nor any overt act pleaded for at least two individual defendants), such that the conspiracy allegation could not be sustained; the conspiracy plea was therefore embarrassing and an abuse of process and must be struck out in its entirety. The misrepresentation pleading was defective as against the 2nd‑4th, 7th, 9th and 10th defendants because ADS failed to provide particulars of authorisation as ordered and paragraphs alleging mere failure to correct lacked required particulars and conseque…
13 Jul 1994

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV25/1994

Conspiracy pleadings were struck out in their entirety because ADS failed to plead any overt acts involving more than one alleged conspirator; pleading only misrepresentations by one defendant and omissions to correct does not establish concerted implementation by multiple conspirators. Misrepresentation claims were struck out as to specified individual defendants because ADS failed to provide particulars of authorisation for the 5th defendant's statements and paragraphs alleging mere failure to correct were conclusory and lacked necessary particulars of intention and causal chain; the impugn…
13 Jul 1994

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/1994

Conspiracy pleadings were struck out in their entirety because ADS failed to plead any overt act attributable to all or to at least two alleged conspirators; knowledge, common purpose and intention pleaded are not acts and cannot substitute for overt acts. Misrepresentation pleadings were struck out as to specified individual defendants because ADS failed to plead particulars of authorisation for the 5th defendant's express representations and failed to plead adequate particulars to sustain liability for failure to correct these representations; the defects rendered the pleadings embarrassing…
11 Jan 1990

THE WING ON BANK LTD AND ANOTHER v. WAI MAN ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE WING ON BANK LTD AND ANOTHER v. WAI MAN ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV100/1989

The court held that the tort of civil conspiracy requires a sole or predominant intention to injure the plaintiff; the pleaded overt acts could not reasonably support an inference of such predominant intent (the facts pointed instead to benefit to a third party), therefore the conspiracy allegations could not stand and the grant of leave to amend for those claims was wrong.