Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Permanent stay

Legal area

Court

19 Feb 2025

香港特別行政區訴吳耀宗

Citation

[2025] HKDC 223
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC1129/2022

The court held the District Court dangerous‑driving prosecutions arose from the same or substantially the same set of primary facts as the 2019 summons (same incident, same evidential matrix); the prosecution failed to demonstrate any special or exceptional circumstances to justify a further trial; BOR s11(6) is engaged given prior final conviction on the related matter and where engaged the prohibition is non‑discretionary; accordingly the second prosecution constituted an abuse of process and the proceedings were permanently stayed (alternatively, a common‑law discretionary stay was warrant…
30 Sept 2024

RE HONG KONG PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2603
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW454/2023

A permanent stay of the winding-up was granted conditional on a written confirmation by the Liquidators that the Scheme's conditions precedent (other than the permanent stay and liquidators' discharge) have been satisfied or waived, because upon the Scheme becoming effective all indebtedness and liquidation expenses will be provided for, investigations are complete, creditors' interests are served, and these outcomes satisfy the requirements of s209 and relevant authorities.
21 Feb 2024

香港特別行政區訴李之豪

Citation

[2024] HKDC 279
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC810/2022

The application for a permanent stay is refused because the defence failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that missing witnesses, alleged loss of documents, or prosecutorial delay caused prejudice so serious as to make a fair trial impossible, and the prosecution reasonably explained investigative delay; the non‑prosecution of money changer staff did not amount to abuse of process given the defence's concession regarding the money changer's due diligence.
31 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. CHOW YIU CHUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 194
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC663/2022

The application for a permanent stay was refused because the police and prosecution acted reasonably without bad faith or serious fault, the materials and witnesses necessary for trial were obtainable or had been obtained, the delay was explicable and did not cause irremediable prejudice, and continuation of the trial would not offend the court’s sense of justice or undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
27 Jan 2023

HKSAR v. ADJEI ROBERT (also known as ADJEI KING)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 247
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC2/2019

Delay was caused by events outside the prosecution's control (social unrest, Covid-19 restrictions, interpreter issues); there was no prosecutorial misconduct; the defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that delay had caused irremediable prejudice making a fair trial impossible; available remedial measures (cross-examination, judicial directions) can address any disadvantage, therefore a permanent stay is not justified and the application is refused.
29 Jul 2021

RE VIOLET PROFIT HOLDINGS LTD (In Liquidation)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW366/2018

The permanent stay was granted because the evidence demonstrated the company is balance-sheet solvent, there are no unpaid creditors or outstanding matters requiring investigation by the liquidators, and the statutory and case law criteria for a stay (protection of creditors, members and public interest, and provision for liabilities) were satisfied.
28 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

Application dismissed: on the balance of probabilities the recorded pre-trial publicity was limited in scale and largely historic, passage of time and available judicial measures (directions, adjournment, jury vetting) meant a fair trial remained practicable; therefore the threshold that no direction could remove prejudice was not met and a permanent stay as abuse of process was not warranted.
12 Oct 2016

HKSAR v. GUTIERREZ ALVAREZ KEISHU MERCEDES

Citation

HKSAR v. GUTIERREZ ALVAREZ KEISHU MERCEDES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC84/2016

The defendant failed, on the balance of probabilities, to establish that a fair trial is impossible or that continuation would constitute an abuse of process; material contradictions and improbabilities in the defendant's account, lack of proven bad faith or egregious investigatory misconduct by authorities, and reasonable investigative steps taken justify refusal of a permanent stay and proceeding to trial where credibility and duress are matters for the jury.
3 Dec 2013

HKSAR v. NANCY ANN KISSEL

Citation

HKSAR v. NANCY ANN KISSEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC66/2012

The Court held that a permanent stay was not required because a fair trial could be achieved by judicial case‑management and directions; Dr Lui's written opinion was inadmissible hearsay where the expert was not called and could not be used to bolster another expert on a contested issue; the prosecution case was supported by substantial evidence (spiked milkshake, concealment, forensic findings) and there was ample basis for the jury to reject defence psychiatric evidence; on the whole the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and the appeal was dismissed.
2 Dec 2005

HKSAR v. YU WAI HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YU WAI HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC80/2005

The court found on the balance of probabilities that no agreement was made by the prosecution to re-interview the defendant, that the prosecution acted without mala fides, and that any disclosure by defence counsel did not cause prejudice so severe as to prevent a fair trial; accordingly the application for a permanent stay was refused.