Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonable apprehension of bias

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2023

WSSA v. SYH

Citation

[2023] HKFC 217
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4633/2020

The judge found each pleaded ground lacked merit: the impugned remarks were case management reasoning, hypothetical or taken in context and did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias to the fair-minded observer; procedural steps (vacating trial, engagement of Official Solicitor, paper disposal requests) were justified by timing and case management needs and did not breach rules; accordingly the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under s.63A and leave to appeal was dismissed with costs and a certificate for one counsel.
5 Jun 2020

朱賽金對 PIZZAEXPRESS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 397
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2731/2018

The judge declined to recuse because the plaintiff's allegations lacked factual foundation and did not establish actual bias; a reasonable, informed observer would not apprehend that the judge was biased merely because the plaintiff lost an earlier appeal or because routine pre-trial directions were made; accordingly the recusal application was dismissed and costs were ordered against the plaintiff.
4 Jun 2020

VITALY ORLOV v. MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1331/2017

The court treated the court-appointed valuer's function in these proceedings as effectively quasi-judicial because the valuation constituted the quantum phase of a split trial, required receipt of submissions on an all-informed basis and produced a final binding reasoned report capable of being made an order of the Court; applying the reasonable apprehension of bias test, the undisclosed prior engagement of the same firm (FTI UK) by Roth in related English proceedings was a material circumstance which would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of b…
4 Jun 2020

MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY ORLOV AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2753/2017

The valuer in the circumstances of this buyout valuation exercise was performing a quasi‑judicial function (conducting the quantum phase, receiving submissions, producing a reasoned, final and binding report to be made an Order of the Court); therefore the reasonable apprehension of bias test applies; the prior undisclosed engagement of the valuer's firm (FTI UK instructed by Roth in related English proceedings) satisfied that test and justified rescission of the appointment of Mr Jon Rowell and FTI; the court replaced the valuer and made a costs order nisi against Roth to pay Orlov's costs o…
11 Jun 2014

GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. TANG CHUNG WAH (ALSO KNOWN AS ALAN TANG) AND ANOTHER

Citation

GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. TANG CHUNG WAH (ALSO KNOWN AS ALAN TANG) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL17/2012

Applying the reasonable apprehension of bias test, the judge found that a fair-minded and well-informed observer would not conclude there was a real possibility of bias because the defendants were given opportunities to be heard, made no contemporaneous complaints, decisions were made under the Rules and Practice Directions, and the later complaint appeared to be disgruntlement with adverse rulings; accordingly the recusal application was dismissed.
1 Aug 2003

DEACONS (a firm) v. WHITE & CASE LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AND OTHERS

Citation

DEACONS (a firm) v. WHITE & CASE LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV23/2003

Leave to appeal was refused because (1) there was no arguable basis that the Court of Appeal had propounded a different test of apparent bias from the accepted reasonable‑apprehension/fair‑minded‑informed‑observer standard, (2) even if there had been any arguable misapplication, the applicants had no prospect of obtaining any practical benefit from setting aside the earlier interlocutory orders, and (3) delay and the risk of prejudice to the plaintiff rendered the grant of leave unjustified.
23 Jul 2003

DEACONS (a firm) v. WHITE & CASE LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AND OTHERS

Citation

DEACONS (a firm) v. WHITE & CASE LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2591/2003

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a matter of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the alleged reasonable apprehension of bias related to fact‑specific points that were unsound and did not justify appellate intervention.
23 Jul 2003

DEACONS (a firm) v. WHITE & CASE LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AND OTHERS

Citation

DEACONS (a firm) v. WHITE & CASE LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV178/2003

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicants failed to identify any matter of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the alleged reasonable apprehension of bias consisted of case-specific and unsound factual points that did not satisfy the statutory threshold.
15 Jul 2003

DEACONS (a firm) v. WHITE & CASE LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AND OTHERS

Citation

DEACONS (a firm) v. WHITE & CASE LTD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2591/2003

Applications for extension of time to appeal were refused and the appeal was dismissed because the applicants were significantly delayed given the speedy-trial timetable and because the asserted ground — that prior interlocutory decisions were automatically void due to the judge's later recusal — failed on its merits: the judge's recusal rested on a post hoc recognition that a person was an equity partner rather than a salaried employee, and there was no basis to treat the earlier relevance and strike-out decisions as tainted by bias; consequently the interlocutory orders stand and no leave t…
23 May 1996

R. v. HA HAU KWAN FONG

Citation

R. v. HA HAU KWAN FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA444/1996

The magistrate's factual findings that the appellant arranged, influenced and directed prostitutes, named prices, ensured satisfaction and received $1,500 closely connected to those prostitution activities established that she was living at least partly on the earnings of prostitution; the magistrate's questioning of a witness did not demonstrate bias sufficient to render the convictions unsafe, therefore the convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.