Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Perjury

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2025

LI XIAO YI v. TANG CHUNG WAH (also known as ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5754
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP406/2025

Recusal dismissed: adverse findings and critical comments made in the prior civil Reasons, and similarity between those Reasons and the plaintiff's submissions, do not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias; the issues to be decided at the contempt hearing are distinct and require proof to criminal standard; judge is presumed able to act impartially; leave to cross-examine granted if defendant elects to give oral evidence; entitlement summons achieved its objective (defendant filed affirmation) and plaintiff awarded costs nisi against defendant for the interlocutory applications.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA197/2019

The Magistrate correctly refused to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to provide sufficient particulars or evidence to show the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie present; statutory provisions relied upon by the appellant (s44 Crimes Ordinance and ss21/22 Magistrates Ordinance) do not empower the Magistrate to obtain records or compel production prior to issuance of summonses; there was no demonstrated actual or apparent bias and Article 10 was not engaged; appeals dismissed.
14 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC74/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's findings that the statement was material, that the prosecution witnesses collectively provided cogent corroboration and that the applicant's evidence was false were reasonable and open on the evidence; further, the 15‑month custodial sentence (after a 6‑month mitigation discount) was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
26 Jul 2013

RE TAM MEI KAM

Citation

RE TAM MEI KAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal was from a bankruptcy order (not the underlying judgment debt) so s.22(1)(a) did not apply; the questions posed were not of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b); and no miscarriage of justice was established to justify leave.
11 Oct 2011

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. NG WAI BING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. NG WAI BING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV11/2011

The Court dismissed the Secretary for Justice's appeals: (1) the sentences imposed on R1 (9 months) and R2 (6 months), suspended for 18 months, were not unduly lenient and will not be increased because the sentencing judge had properly balanced the gravity of the contumelious recording against mitigating and unusual facts; (2) the acquittal of R3 is upheld because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that R3 knew of and encouraged an ongoing course of covert recording — arranging transcription/translation of existing tapes does not, absent proof of knowledge and encourageme…
17 Jun 2010

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1517/2005

The court allowed only the amendment pleading illegality of the Ting Agreements (false declarations re beneficial ownership and self-use) but refused amendments that impeached the completed sales or sought to impose a condition precedent to sale, and refused the proposed implied 3-year completion term as too vague; directions and costs orders were given accordingly.
17 Jun 2010

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU FOOK KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU FOOK KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1520/2005

The court allowed only the amendment pleading illegality (false declarations to the Lands Department and public policy concerns) because it was not factually inconsistent with prior pleadings, could be dealt with within case management timetables, and was necessary to determine whether Plaintiffs had recouped ill-gotten gains. All other proposed amendments (challenge to title/sales, forgery/attestation challenges, implied three-year completion term, and payment as condition precedent) were refused as unnecessary, vague, inconsistent with prior orders or barred by the unappealed Order for Sale.
17 Jun 2010

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAN KAR FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAN KAR FAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1518/2005

The Court allowed only the late amendment to plead illegality of the Ting Agreements (false declarations re beneficial ownership/self-use) because it raised a serious issue that required investigation, was not inconsistent with previously pleaded facts, and would not cause undue delay or prejudice; all other proposed amendments (attack on title/sales, implied 3-year completion term, condition precedent to sale, forgery challenge) were refused for being inconsistent with completed Order for Sale, vague, imprecise, unnecessary or prejudicial.
12 Feb 2009

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KANJANAPAS CHONG KWONG DEREK AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KANJANAPAS CHONG KWONG DEREK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR8/2006

To establish a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice the prosecution must prove agreement to do acts which have a tendency to impair the administration of justice together with intent that such acts have that effect; knowledge that a particular act (eg a habeas corpus application) was a sham is evidential but not an essential element in all cases — intent can be inferred from the totality of conduct. Conversely, a legal practitioner who acts on instructions and genuinely believes the proceedings are bona fide should not be convicted for conduct undertaken in the course of professional d…
23 Sept 2008

MA PUI TUNG v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Citation

MA PUI TUNG v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV64/2008

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision not to prosecute Mr Koo did not disclose any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review; the Official Receiver's prosecution of the applicant for failure to file annual returns was proper; therefore there was no basis to grant leave or overturn the decision.