Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recklessness standard

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2017

ANDREW EDWARD LEFT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

Citation

ANDREW EDWARD LEFT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3195/2016

The summons for leave was dismissed as it was filed out of time (14 days from the MMT's section 257 orders of 19 October 2016). Alternatively, even if in time, leave was refused because the MMT's factual findings of recklessness/negligence were based on compelling and permissible inferences from proved facts (anonymous provenance of allegations, sensational nature, complexity and locality of accounting rules, the applicant's experience and short selling, and failure to obtain expert advice or approach the company), so the grounds lacked reasonable prospects of success.
31 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. ESTRELLA, HAZIM ANGELINA

Citation

HKSAR v. ESTRELLA, HAZIM ANGELINA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1096/2006

The conviction could not stand because the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the real possibility of mere carelessness or negligence; the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant consciously foresaw the risk of injury or intended to cause it, so the necessary mens rea for wounding under s19 was not established.
17 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. WILLTOO CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. WILLTOO CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1222/2003

Sections 118(6) and (7) of the Copyright Ordinance do not create a different standard or method for satisfying the statutory defence from that required for section 36 of the Import and Export Ordinance; no point of law of great and general importance was established and the application for certification under section 32 was refused.
9 Apr 1991

KA DA WATCH CO LTD v. SKYWORLD AIR EXPRESS LTD

Citation

KA DA WATCH CO LTD v. SKYWORLD AIR EXPRESS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV62/1990

The Court held that the defendant (via its agent) acted recklessly with knowledge that releasing the goods without bank release confirmation would probably cause the plaintiff to lose its D/P security; therefore Article 25 disapplies the Article 22 limits. Clause 24(iii) of the house air waybill, which attempts to limit liability to US$20/kg and does not accommodate Article 25 exceptions, tends to relieve the carrier and is null and void under Article 23(1). Damages for loss of security were assessed at 90% of invoice value = US$9,855 and judgment entered for plaintiff; interest reserved for…

Hong Kong Case Law

ANDREW EDWARD LEFT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. ESTRELLA, HAZIM ANGELINA

HKSAR v. WILLTOO CO LTD

KA DA WATCH CO LTD v. SKYWORLD AIR EXPRESS LTD