Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remittal to lower court

Legal area

Court

2 Jan 2014

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV49/2013

The application for a stay was refused because the prospects of success on an appeal against a finding that a judge ought to have recused himself for apparent bias were assessed as unlikely to be overwhelming, and that assessment, together with the balance of convenience, did not justify granting a stay pending the leave application.
25 Jun 2008

MANDECLY LTD AND ANOTHER v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS

Citation

MANDECLY LTD AND ANOTHER v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/2008

The appeal court set aside the finding/order of contempt because the committal motion was inadequately framed and failed to specify the alleged contempts; the requirement for the defendant to file a purge proposal was improper; and fresh evidence called into question the defendants' ability to comply (shares were charged and some properties could not be transferred), therefore the matter must be remitted to the Court of First Instance to be reheard before a different judge.
27 Apr 2004

HKSAR v. TANG HONG LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG HONG LING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA105/2004

The court held that where the circumstances of a guilty plea or sentencing raise significant doubts or mitigation that were not properly explored, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for trial (1st Appellant) or to adjourn sentencing to obtain probation/background and CSO reports (2nd Appellant); sentencing requires proper consideration of background reports and the availability of community service as a potential alternative to immediate imprisonment.
30 Jul 2002

NG SIU TUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NG SIU TUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2001

The Court refused to appoint representative applicants, held that the Basic Law does not impose a duty on the Director to assist applicants but that discovery and production orders under procedural rules are available; an oral or pro forma representation can create a legitimate expectation; the appeal of Ms Hung Cheung Ching is allowed (removal order quashed and Director directed to reconsider under sections 11,13 and 19(1) of the Immigration Ordinance in accordance with the January Judgment); numerous discrete factual and legal issues (Period 1 Group A status, legitimate expectation facts, a…
12 Oct 1999

BEHRENS NG MO CHEE CINDY ANOTHER v. CREDIT WORLD LTD.

Citation

BEHRENS NG MO CHEE CINDY ANOTHER v. CREDIT WORLD LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/1999

The appeal was allowed: the judge's order framing four preliminary issues was premature and inappropriate because the substantive issues had not been properly joined (no defence filed), the proposed preliminary issues depended on contested factual findings and individual circumstances relevant to remedy, and the discretionary exercise was more appropriately undertaken by a judge of the Court of First Instance; accordingly the summons is remitted to the Court of First Instance to be heard by a judge other than Deputy Judge Li.
8 Sept 1998

LEE TAK CHEONG v. CHAN LEE DIANA

Citation

LEE TAK CHEONG v. CHAN LEE DIANA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV44/1998

The Leung consent order was set aside because both parties operated under a fundamental misapprehension about payment of any government premium for transfer of the flat, such misapprehension invalidated the basis of the order under Barder and Edgar principles, and justice required vacatur and remittal to the Family/District Court for further determination rather than enforcing an order that could not be carried into effect.
28 Nov 1995

R. v. FUNG, PAUL TIMOTHY

Citation

R. v. FUNG, PAUL TIMOTHY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA900/1995

The appeal was allowed because the appellant demonstrated a viable arguable case and ought not to be denied the opportunity to contest the summons on the sole technical ground of failing to provide a mailable address; accordingly the Magistrate's order was reversed and the matter remitted for determination on the merits.
15 Jun 1995

FU HAY KIN v. FU LO LAI LIN

Citation

FU HAY KIN v. FU LO LAI LIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/1994

The appeal was dismissed because the Court was satisfied the trial judge had grasped the essentials of the petitioner's case, the petitioner had shown a total absence of will to pay and had avoided payment of the consent order and costs; accordingly leave under s.12(1) of the Matrimonial Property and Proceedings Ordinance was granted to enforce the consent order as the instalments were more than 12 months in arrears.
12 Mar 1987

LI WAI CHUN v. CITICORP SERVICES INCORPORATED

Citation

LI WAI CHUN v. CITICORP SERVICES INCORPORATED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV7/1987

The Statement of Claim failed to disclose a clear cause of action and the District Court judge could not properly enter judgment where it was not established that the defendant had an obligation to refund; because the record did not clearly show consent or an open and shut right to judgment the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and remitted the matter to the District Court with leave to amend and to file a defence.