Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procurement

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2022

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALLWAY GARDENS v. LAM YUEN PUN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 608
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4624/2018

Court found insufficient evidence that the defendant published the 2nd Document; held the 1st and 3rd Words would reasonably be understood as imputing a secret deal and rigged tender (defamatory); defendant failed to discharge burden for justification, failed objective and subjective stages of fair comment because factual basis was unproven and conduct showed malice; qualified privilege defeated by malice; awarded HK$80,000 in damages and costs to plaintiff.
31 Jul 2007

PROSPER OCEAN (HONG KONG) SHIPPING LTD v. LEE SAI WAN AND OTHERS

Citation

PROSPER OCEAN (HONG KONG) SHIPPING LTD v. LEE SAI WAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL24/2006

The claim against the 4th and 5th defendants is struck out because the Minutes do not on their face establish the alleged representations nor sufficient facts to infer knowledge or recklessness; by contrast, the claim against the 3rd defendant must proceed to trial because he signed two documents (Bill of Sale and Protocol) that expressly represented the vessel was unencumbered and the amended pleading raises arguable inferences of his awareness or recklessness such that the matter is not demurrable at interlocutory stage.
21 Apr 1999

HKSAR v. LAM MARILOUS ALIAS MENDOZA MARILOUS T.

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM MARILOUS ALIAS MENDOZA MARILOUS T.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC34/1999

The Court upheld the trial judge's acceptance of the prosecution witness's evidence and the finding that the applicant arranged for phantom employers and thereby aided, abetted, counselled or procured false representations to the Immigration Department; there was no basis to interfere with the convictions.
18 Feb 1997

R. v. LAM YUEN YU

Citation

R. v. LAM YUEN YU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1317/1996

Given the seriousness of offences ordinarily attracting custodial sentences, one month's imprisonment was appropriate; however, because the appellant acted as a nominal employer without benefit, genuinely believed the worker was the other accused's partner, had a clear record, stable employment and a potentially serious medical condition, the custodial sentence was suspended for two years on the grounds of mitigation and low risk of reoffending.
4 Dec 1991

THE QUEEN v. NG KIT FONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG KIT FONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC194/1991

Given the surrounding evidence that the applicant was implicated by co‑accused who were caught with the victim and had made statements implicating her, the judge did not err in explaining that 'target person' meant merely 'suspected' and was not a direction of guilt; the explanation was not prejudicial in context and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALLWAY GARDENS v. LAM YUEN PUN

PROSPER OCEAN (HONG KONG) SHIPPING LTD v. LEE SAI WAN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LAM MARILOUS ALIAS MENDOZA MARILOUS T.

R. v. LAM YUEN YU

THE QUEEN v. NG KIT FONG