Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Site inspection

Legal area

Court

5 Aug 2014

TO WAI SING v. TO HUNG TAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TO WAI SING v. TO HUNG TAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/2014

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge correctly found there was no exclusive possession or requisite intent by the 1st defendant to establish adverse possession; the 1974 licence was revocable and terminated on devolution of title (1982); the factual findings about residence and credibility were open to the judge and not plainly wrong; refusal of site inspection and refusal to admit new photographs on appeal were proper.
2 Apr 2014

TO WAI SING v. TO HUNG TAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TO WAI SING v. TO HUNG TAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP533/2011

Although the appeal was assessed as barely arguable, the court granted a stay because the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo: there was a real risk of irreversible demolition if execution proceeded and no assurance or urgency from the plaintiff to justify immediate execution; D1 gave an undertaking to prosecute the appeal with expedition, satisfying conditions for a stay pending the July appeal.
28 Feb 2013

GOOD FAITH PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. CIBEAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

Citation

GOOD FAITH PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. CIBEAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS42000/2011

The tribunal found that the parties, by the concession recorded on 1 November 2012, agreed to accept Mr Lai's assessment of the internal condition of the units including the reference unit, and therefore the Tribunal will proceed on that basis without inspecting every unit.
18 Jul 2012

HKSAR v. ALEXANDRE CERVEIRA

Citation

HKSAR v. ALEXANDRE CERVEIRA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA165/2012

The conviction was upheld because the magistrate's findings that the MultaRadar evidence was reliable and that alleged obstructions or procedural delays did not prejudice the appellant were supported by the prosecution's witnesses, expert reports and photographs and were not shown to be unreasonable. The costs order, however, was set aside in part because the magistrate failed to make an adequate inquiry into the appellant's ability to pay taxed costs as required by the governing statute and case law; on reassessment the appellate court fixed the prosecution's costs at HKD 10,000.
11 Jul 2011

THAPA SURENDRA v. E W COX HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THAPA SURENDRA v. E W COX HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI451/2009

The court found the employer negligent for leaving employees to improvise hazardous systems to obtain and transfer heavy water containers, that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, that the joint medical evidence was flawed and overstated the earlier injury, and that the May 23 2005 accident solely caused the claimant's ongoing back condition; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff with assessed damages and interest.
24 Jan 2007

COMMON LUCK INVESTMENTS LTD v. STEPLAND INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

COMMON LUCK INVESTMENTS LTD v. STEPLAND INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1107/2006

Summary judgment was refused because the parties' sworn accounts present opposed assertions on material facts (location and provenance of fencing and availability of access) that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone; cross-examination of witnesses, expert surveying evidence and possibly a site inspection are required, therefore the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend.

Hong Kong Case Law

TO WAI SING v. TO HUNG TAI AND ANOTHER

TO WAI SING v. TO HUNG TAI AND ANOTHER

GOOD FAITH PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. CIBEAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

HKSAR v. ALEXANDRE CERVEIRA

THAPA SURENDRA v. E W COX HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

COMMON LUCK INVESTMENTS LTD v. STEPLAND INVESTMENTS LTD