Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retrial/remittal

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2018

香港特別行政區訴林勤

Citation

[2018] HKCA 737
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC402/2017

The Court held the trial judge erred by failing to consider defence documentary and messaging evidence of a bank loan approval and by rejecting the loan evidence summarily; because the prosecution had no opportunity at trial to test the late evidence and the conviction was therefore unsafe, the appeal succeeded, conviction was quashed and the case remitted for retrial so prosecution can investigate and, if appropriate, rebut the defence assertions.
12 Apr 2017

YBL v. LWC

Citation

YBL v. LWC
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2015

The Court refused to vary its order nisi on costs and made the no order as to costs absolute because the respondent had not achieved full victory and his conduct (including procuring bail funds and legal fees instead of paying maintenance) justified depriving him of costs; the Court held that bail money paid into court is money standing to the respondent's credit and, absent evidence of a valid trust that overrides the court's power, may be ordered applied to satisfy judgment sums under Order 49 Rule 9(1); leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the questions were not…
23 May 2012

香港特別行政區訴曾耿中

Citation

香港特別行政區訴曾耿中
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA832/2011

The judge's persistent and intrusive participation in the appellant's cross‑examination, including curtailing lines of inquiry and interrogating the appellant, created a real and objectively ascertainable danger of unfairness; therefore the conviction was unsafe and was quashed, sentence was set aside and a retrial ordered after balancing the public interest and prejudice to the appellant.
2 May 2007

KIN SHING ENGINEERING (H.K.) CO., LTD. v. VINSON ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

KIN SHING ENGINEERING (H.K.) CO., LTD. v. VINSON ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV224/2006

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge permissibly accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence which was unchallenged, correctly found waiver of clause 3.2 by the defendant's conduct, the defendant failed to seek an adjournment or properly challenge evidence at trial, and there was no proper basis for a retrial.
20 Sept 2006

PANG HONG v. PRO-CENTRIC GROUP LTD

Citation

PANG HONG v. PRO-CENTRIC GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA85/2005

The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for retrial because the Presiding Officer erred in law and fact by failing to determine whether the Employment Contract or prior PCLH terms governed the claimant's duties after transfer, by not investigating whether the claimant's outside directorships, failure to account for emoluments, negotiation/signing of the Extension Agreement and refusal to remit US$900,000 amounted to breaches justifying summary dismissal, and thus could not properly conclude summary dismissal was unjustified without a full inquiry.
16 Jan 2004

NG CHIU KOW AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SAU LIN t/a PANG LEE TRANSPORTATION CO

Citation

NG CHIU KOW AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SAU LIN t/a PANG LEE TRANSPORTATION CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA65/2003

Wage period means the period in respect of which wages are payable; parties may, in a genuine agreement, define the circumstances or timing when wages are payable (including built-in time elements for computation), but agreements that merely postpone the time wages become due in contravention of sections 22, 23 and 70 are void; the Labour Tribunal failed to make sufficient findings on what agreement, if any, governed when wages became payable, so the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for retrial.
28 Nov 2002

SUBIANTO WINDAYANI v. HON WAI SHAN JESSICA

Citation

SUBIANTO WINDAYANI v. HON WAI SHAN JESSICA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA102/2001

The appeal is allowed and the Labour Tribunal award set aside because the Presiding Officer mistakenly treated the Defendant as having given evidence when she had not; given the centrality of credibility in the case and the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the Defendant, the mistakes could have caused material prejudice and therefore the matter must be remitted for retrial before another Presiding Officer.
17 Oct 2001

SUAPERO, GLORIA POTESTADES v. HON LAI PING, LISA

Citation

SUAPERO, GLORIA POTESTADES v. HON LAI PING, LISA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA24/2001

The Presiding Officer did not adequately investigate material inconsistencies surrounding Exhibit D1 (differences in signature, incorrect date, and inadequate questioning of the Police Officer) such that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude injustice may have resulted; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a retrial before another Presiding Officer.
14 Sept 2001

TING KWOK KEUNG v. TAM DICK YUEN t/a TAM DICK YUEN ENGINEERING AND OTHERS

Citation

TING KWOK KEUNG v. TAM DICK YUEN t/a TAM DICK YUEN ENGINEERING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV751/2000

The Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because it was sufficiently uneasy that the Court of Appeal may have substituted its own view of the evidence rather than applying the correct test (that the judge was plainly wrong), combined with the absence of usefulness in ordering a retrial and the award amount being close to the statutory threshold, so that the interests of justice required granting leave.
22 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA509/2001

The conviction was unsafe because the learned deputy magistrate failed to address the statutory defence under Regulation 38H which had been at least arguably raised; that omission, given the circumstances, required quashing the conviction, setting aside the fine and remitting the case for retrial so the defence can be fully and properly considered with appropriate evidence.