Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prima facie standard

Legal area

Court

26 Oct 2022

TALENT MARK DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KWAN ON U TECH JOINT VENTURE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3277
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1277/2021

The defendants failed to establish a cogent prima facie case that an arbitration agreement existed: the evidence that clause 19 of the GCC was incorporated is speculative, there is no direct evidence from the key witness (Ken Chan), the draft Agreement was unsigned and not shown to bind the parties, and therefore the stay application was dismissed.
7 May 2018

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA490/2017

Where an applicant fails to provide sufficient particulars to show the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie present, the magistrate was entitled to refuse to issue a private summons and that refusal did not amount to a breach of the Article 10 right to a fair and public hearing.
27 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 675
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA561/2017

The magistrates lawfully refused to issue the private summonses for good cause because the informations failed to disclose the essential elements of the alleged assaults and any factual basis for alleging participation or aiding and abetting by the intended defendants; there is no general right to an open/public hearing before a magistrate refuses to issue a private summons.
29 Jan 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA513/2015

The magistrate correctly refused to issue private summonses because the appellant failed to disclose facts establishing how the alleged concealment of CCTV footage or conduct constituting an attempt to pervert the course of public justice occurred, and there was no evidence of bias or breach of the Bill of Rights; the appeals are dismissed.
22 Jun 2009

FAI TAK ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

FAI TAK ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ305/2009

The court held that the 18 May 2005 letter and parties' conduct incorporated the Standard Form of Domestic Subcontract (including clause 18) into the Sub-Contract, that Sui Chong established a good prima facie case of an arbitration agreement, that a real dispute existed as to liability/quantum, and therefore a mandatory stay to arbitration was ordered; the plaintiff's late application to file further evidence was refused for non‑compliance with timetable orders and limited probative value.
30 Sept 2005

SEE CHERK CHING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Citation

SEE CHERK CHING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL4/2005

The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance does not require supporting evidence to be depositions or statements on oath or affirmation nor require translations to be certified on oath; authentication under s.23 is the statutory threshold for admissibility of supporting documents, and on that basis the magistrate's committal was lawful; habeas corpus dismissed.
29 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUK FAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUK FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC141/1998

Even without relying on the statutory presumption in section 55(2), the disclosed documentary and notified evidence, taken as a whole, would permit a reasonable jury to infer the applicant's knowledge of the contents of the boxes; therefore there is a prima facie case and the section 16 discharge application must be dismissed. The court declined to decide the constitutionality of section 55(2) as the issue was unnecessary to the decision and better determined at trial with full evidence.
7 Aug 1992

CHO MING LOK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES

Citation

CHO MING LOK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2980/1991

Magistrate erred by not analyzing charges and defendants separately and by treating multiple intertwined negotiations as a single conspiracy; the U.S. arrest warrants were properly authenticated; a concluded agreement is required for conspiracy and on the evidence there was no prima facie case of the charged conspiracy (Crime 3) against Cho, so Crime 3 must be quashed as to the applicants; joint committal procedure was irregular but not fatal to committal on the properly supported charges against Fung Chuen-kan.
7 Aug 1992

FUNG CHUEN KAN v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES

Citation

FUNG CHUEN KAN v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2836/1991

Warrants of arrest from the U.S. were properly authenticated; the joint warrant of committal was procedurally improper but not fatal; there was no prima facie evidence of the specific conspiracy charged as Crime 3 (agreement beyond negotiation) with respect to Cho and that count was quashed, whereas there was sufficient prima facie evidence to commit Fung Chuen Kan for Crimes 1 and 2.
30 Jul 1992

NG HUNG YIU v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Citation

NG HUNG YIU v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2007/1992

Habeas corpus application refused; magistrate's committal quashed only as to crime 1 for lack of a prima facie case; committal upheld for crimes 2, 3 and 4 because documentary evidence disclosed a prima facie case and the original U.S. indictment was within the limitations period; re-arrest was lawful in circumstances of a new requisition; the Hong Kong Bill of Rights does not confer a right to require attendance and cross-examination of an overseas deponent in extradition committals.