Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption of regularity

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2017

BLENDORAN LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

BLENDORAN LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV196/2016

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the Tribunal’s factual findings that the contested roof structures were unauthorised were supported by cogent documentary and photographic evidence and permissible inferences; any reference to a burden on the applicant was an evidential burden tied to proven circumstances rather than a reversal of the legal burden, the presumption of regularity did not apply on these facts or was rebutted, and missing technical plans would not, on the Tribunal’s findings, have shown approval; no legal error of consequence was established.
5 Sept 2016

BLENDORAN LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

BLENDORAN LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL25/2015

The Tribunal made lawful factual findings based on the available evidence and only placed an evidential burden on the applicant; the missing RCC and Drainage plans did not, on the evidence, demonstrate prior approval or deemed approval of the upper roof; the presumption of regularity was not properly raised below and in any event was rebutted by evidence; accordingly the application for judicial review fails and is dismissed.
3 Jan 2013

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHARTER POINT ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHARTER POINT ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA401/2011

Although contemporaneous documentary evidence strongly undermined the defendants' non est factum defence, the judge found the defence not wholly unbelievable on the affidavits alone and therefore granted conditional leave to defend subject to payment into court of the full judgment sum rather than unconditional leave to defend or summary final judgment.
16 Sept 2005

NINA KUNG v. WANG DIN SHIN

Citation

NINA KUNG v. WANG DIN SHIN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV12/2004

On a consolidated evaluation the handwriting evidence was inconclusive and the direct evidence of the attesting witness (Mr Tse) and the appellant's affirmations of provenance were sufficiently cogent on the balance of probabilities; the lower courts erred by imposing a duty on the proponent to dispel speculative suspicious circumstances and by over‑relying on contested expert opinion; accordingly the 1990 document is admitted to probate as the deceased's last will.
23 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. CHAN HUNG CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HUNG CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA551/2001

The learned magistrate's findings that PW1 and PW2 were honest and that they followed procedures ensuring the appellant understood and orally read the statutory declaration were supported by ample evidence; those findings justify the conclusion that the appellant knowingly made a false statutory declaration contrary to s.36(a) Crimes Ordinance, and the appeal must be dismissed.
14 Jan 1998

MAX SHARE LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG YAT CHI

Citation

MAX SHARE LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG YAT CHI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV3/1997

Rule 27(2) is satisfied where counsel has put his manuscript signature to the draft of the Case settled by him and his printed name appears on the copies filed and served; if the manuscript signature was not placed before filing that omission is a curable irregularity that can be remedied by belated signature; accordingly the appellants complied with rule 27(2) and the respondent's summons is dismissed.
29 Dec 1997

CHENG SIU KING v. HKSAR

Citation

CHENG SIU KING v. HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA843/1997

On the evidence the magistrate was entitled to find the appellant was the manager and aware of the restaurant's system permitting mah-jong and charging for space; the gambling authorization was properly produced and the evidence of the officer who obtained it sufficed to invoke the presumption of regularity under s.23(1) so no further proof from the signing superintendent was required; accordingly the convictions stand and the appeal is dismissed.
13 Dec 1995

R. v. NG WAI KUEN

Citation

R. v. NG WAI KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA893/1995

Appeal allowed because there was no evidence that the officer had the written authorisation required by s.86 PHMSO Cap.132; absence of such proof meant the officer was not shown to be acting in execution of his duty and the convictions for obstruction and related criminal intimidation could not stand.
19 May 1994

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA754/1993

A summons issued by the CASEMAN computer system without a signature or seal was not invalid: absence of signature/seal did not affect the substance of the prescribed form and s37(1) preserves such deviations; the presumption of regularity applies and is only displaced by prima facie evidence to the contrary, which was absent; the magistrate erred in holding the summons invalid and in finding no sufficient evidence that the information was properly laid.
31 Mar 1993

SILVER MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

SILVER MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/1992

The Court held the Corporation took all reasonable steps to acquire the properties and there was no statutory or common law duty to consider every conceivable method of implementation (such as rights of way) absent proposals in time or evidence of feasibility; the presumption of regularity was not displaced by the appellants' evidence and the Secretary was entitled to recommend resumption under s.15, so there were no valid grounds for judicial review.