Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory defence

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2026

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF SHANGHAI HUAXIN GROUP (HONGKONG) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. CSSC ENERGY (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1780
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP248/2025

The Offset Agreement constituted a transaction at an undervalue: the Company, insolvent at the time, surrendered a US$37,973,767.59 asset without adequate consideration (any replacement claim against Shenzhi was speculative and proved worthless); the Applicants were not precluded by abuse of process from bringing the s265D claim; the Respondent failed to establish the s265D(4) defence of good faith and reasonable grounds to believe the transaction would benefit the Company; the Court should exercise its discretion to restore the Company’s position by reversing the extinguishment and reviving…
1 Aug 2025

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUNG MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 722
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC105/2023

Section 37DA(2) of the Immigration Ordinance falls within the fourth Kulemesin alternative: its conjunctive terms impose an objective element but the subsection should be read as imposing merely an evidential burden on the accused to raise the defence, leaving the prosecution with the persuasive burden; the trial judge failed to properly consider relevant evidence bearing on that statutory defence for both appellants, rendering the convictions unsafe, and therefore the appeals are allowed and convictions quashed.
19 Feb 2021

HKSAR v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA97/2019

The application for a Certificate was refused because the plain wording of section 18 establishes a statutory defence and existing authorities (R v Chargot as applied in HKSAR v Gammon Construction Ltd, together with Hin Lin Yee and Kulemesin) have settled the legal principles so the questions are not reasonably arguable or of great and general importance.
30 Apr 2019

HKSAR v. LAW WING SHING (羅永成) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 16
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC33/2018

The Court held it was not reasonably arguable that the Judge erred: the offence under s17I(1) is properly categorised as strict liability within the Fourth Alternative; the statutory defence in s17I(1A) is inconsistent with and excludes the common law honest and reasonable belief defence on these facts; the definition in s17G(1) permits more than one person (including authorised managers/agents) to be an 'employer' liable under s17I(1); there is no material discrepancy between the Chinese and English texts of s17I(1); accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
5 Jun 2018

香港特別行政區訴鄭保瑜

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA495/2017

Section 17I(1A) of the Immigration Ordinance must be read as imposing only an evidential (production) burden on the accused: once the accused adduces sufficient evidence to raise the statutory defence, the prosecution must disprove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did take all reasonably practicable steps and reasonably concluded the employee could be lawfully employed. Imposing a persuasive burden on the accused fails the proportionality requirement and is not justified on the facts and legislative context of s17I(1A).
23 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. BULLEN, CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

Citation

HKSAR v. BULLEN, CHRISTIAN ANTHONY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA740/2015

Given the undisputed facts (number was affixed, boat was washed ashore in a typhoon, appellant focused on securing seaworthiness, boat was not in use and appellant re-affixed the number when notified), the Magistrate was plainly wrong to characterize the appellant's evidence as inherently improbable and dishonest; on an objective assessment the appellant established a reasonable excuse and the conviction could not stand.
10 Jun 2011

LEE TO NEI v. HKSAR

Citation

LEE TO NEI v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC99/2010

Leave to appeal was granted to all applicants under the point of law limb of s.32(2) because the question whether s.26(4) of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance imposes a persuasive burden or merely an evidential burden is an arguable point of law of great and general importance; leave under the substantial and grave injustice limb was refused.
7 Jun 2011

FU KOR KUEN PATRICK AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

Citation

FU KOR KUEN PATRICK AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC7/2011

The Court certified that the questions concerning the elements of false trading under s.295 SFO and, if it arises, the scope of the statutory defence are arguable and of great and general importance and therefore granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
2 Mar 2011

HKSAR v. FU KOR KUEN, PATRICK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. FU KOR KUEN, PATRICK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2010

The Court declined certification because the trial judge made independent findings of intention and recklessness sufficient to sustain the convictions without reliance on the deeming provision; therefore the availability of the s295(7) defence in circumstances where the deeming provision was not relied upon did not raise a certifiable question of law of great and general importance in this case.
21 Jul 2009

HKSAR v. LAU, CHUNG KWONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU, CHUNG KWONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA216/2009

The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence, found the appellant and his wife not credible, concluded the statutory defence under section 17I was not proved on the balance of probabilities, and therefore the conviction was safe and should be upheld.