Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to cross-examine

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SIEW YUN LONG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SIEW YUN LONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2917/2015

The court will allow the affidavits/affirmations filed by the Secretary for Justice to stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents provided they attend trial for cross-examination because this promotes efficient administration of justice and does not demonstrably prejudice the respondents, subject to the express proviso that the trial judge may order that the evidence in chief of any particular witness (in whole or in part) be given orally.
16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAI YU SING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAI YU SING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2919/2015

The court exercised case management discretion to permit the Secretary for Justice's affidavits/affirmations to stand as the evidence in chief of deponents, subject to the express proviso that deponents must attend for cross-examination and that the trial judge retain power to direct that the evidence in chief of any particular witness be given orally (in whole or part), because this promotes efficient administration of justice without causing demonstrable prejudice to respondents or compromising fairness.
6 Aug 2013

CHAN YAT SAN v. FUTURE LUCKY (296) LTD

Citation

CHAN YAT SAN v. FUTURE LUCKY (296) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA18/2012

The appeal was allowed because the Presiding Officer, having proceeded in the defendant's absence, failed to adequately investigate and give the defendant an opportunity to call witnesses and to test the claimant's evidence on a central disputed issue (whether the claimant was an employee), such inadequacy rendered the Award unsafe; the judgment below was set aside and the matter remitted for retrial before another presiding officer.
26 Mar 2009

HKSAR v. CHAN KA WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC201/2007

The court held that D1 was not denied the fundamental right to cross-examine because he had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and was forewarned of the contents of the statement; further cross-examination would not have produced material advantage. The court also held that D2's post-sentence, substantial cooperation (multiple statements and key trial testimony leading to convictions of others) justified granting leave out of time, treating the application as an appeal and reducing the sentence from seven to five years imprisonment.
28 Nov 2005

MA ZHUJIANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

MA ZHUJIANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL129/2005

Applicant's attempt to vary the costs order failed because the reasons advanced did not constitute exceptional circumstances or a public interest vindication sufficient to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event; accordingly the costs order nisi was made absolute and costs were awarded to the respondent.
28 Jun 2005

CHEUK FAN MING v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUK FAN MING v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL134/2004

The court held the disciplinary process was overall fair and the applicant suffered no material prejudice from the inability to cross-examine absent witnesses; the Commissioner lawfully relied on evidence already before the tribunal (including the ICAC interview) in assessing culpability and penalty; the Secretary was not required to give reasons in the circumstances; nondisclosure of the final minute was an error but caused no material prejudice; therefore judicial review relief was refused and the decision to retire the applicant with deferred pension was upheld.
25 Oct 2004

HONG KONG KAM LAN KOON LTD v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

HONG KONG KAM LAN KOON LTD v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15824/1999

The court held that the interlocutory order for examination did not automatically satisfy the requirements of Order 38 Rule 9 at trial; the deposition was admissible under Order 38 Rule 9 against the original Plaintiff because the witness was shown to be unfit to attend trial, but the 2nd Defendant by counterclaim was not bound by the earlier order (not a party to it) so the transcript could not be admitted as deposition against him though it could be admitted as hearsay; limited cross-examination by video-link was permitted for fairness and proportionality.
5 Dec 2002

CHUNG MAN CHIU AND ANOTHER v. AD-LINK COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

Citation

CHUNG MAN CHIU AND ANOTHER v. AD-LINK COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA58/2002

The appeal court set aside the Labour Tribunal award because the Presiding Officer accepted pivotal explanations given only in the Claimants' closing submissions without giving the Defendant an opportunity to cross-examine or comment, and failed to make necessary findings on the affiliation/misrepresentation issue; those procedural and factual omissions caused material prejudice requiring retrial.
19 Apr 2002

HKSAR v. CHAN YIK ZEE, ELSIE AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YIK ZEE, ELSIE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC111/2000

Section 70 could not be applied because D4 had not been present at the committal and therefore had no opportunity to cross-examine PW1; furthermore the word 'shall' in s.70 is not mandatory so the court retains a discretion to refuse admission of depositions where admission would be unfair, and even if statutory conditions were met the judge would refuse the application given the circumstances (witness's voluntary flight, credibility issues and risk of unfairness).
11 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. LUNG KAR HING, ROBERT

Citation

HKSAR v. LUNG KAR HING, ROBERT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA680/2000

The court refused the certificate because the applicant's complaints were matters of fact or routine trial procedure already considered on appeal and did not raise a point of law of great and general importance required by section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap.484); there was no basis to disturb the magistrate's factual findings.