Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory presumption

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2022

CHEN LIANGPING v. 方廷秋 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1166
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2444/2019

Court applied s11(2) using government statistics for demolition workers to fix daily wage at HK$1,196.01 and 22 working days to compute monthly earnings HK$26,312.22; accepted Dr Chiang's joint medical opinion fixing permanent loss of earning capacity at 2.5%; found statutory presumption of total temporary incapacity rebutted and allowed temporary incapacity from 31 May 2019 to 28 Feb 2021 (640 days); allowed medical expenses up to date of joint medical exam 18 Mar 2022 totaling HK$9,180; awarded s9 HK$47,362, s10 HK$427,685.31, s10A HK$9,180, total HK$484,227.31 payable by 1st Respondent wit…
7 Dec 2007

HKSAR v. KONG HING AGENCY LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. KONG HING AGENCY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA144/2006

The Court held the reasonable diligence defence was available to the Appellant shipping agent and on the facts there were no indications that would reasonably have put the Appellant on inquiry; shipping agents do not as a matter of ordinary duty inspect or break seals on containerised cargo and therefore the Appellant satisfied all three limbs of s12(2) and the conviction was set aside.
10 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. CHAN YAT FAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YAT FAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC122/2005

The conviction was quashed because the trial judge's summing-up invoked s47 as a presumption that imposed a persuasive burden on the accused, and the Court of Final Appeal in HKSAR v Hung Chan Wa & Another established that such an invocation was incorrect; accordingly leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed and the conviction quashed with a retrial ordered.
2 Nov 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN KIM FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KIM FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC309/2004

The jury were entitled to accept the undercover officer's evidence and to infer from the surrounding circumstances, including the Applicant's words and possession of the mobile phone, that the Applicant knew and dealt in the dangerous drugs; the summing up was fair and there were no procedural irregularities warranting leave to appeal.
5 May 2005

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF HAU PO MAN STANLEY v. HAU PO FUN IVY

Citation

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF HAU PO MAN STANLEY v. HAU PO FUN IVY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV234/2004

On the facts a majority found the contemporaneous evidence (letters and unchallenged affirmations describing repeated disruptive visits and threats to family ties) established that the bankrupt was influenced by pressure to transfer the share and the car and that such pressure was sufficient to rebut the s50(5) presumption; however the payment of HK$650,000 occurred after a demand/writ and the evidence was insufficient to show it was motivated by the same pressure, so the presumption remained and that payment was subject to set-aside under s50(2).
9 Jan 2004

TOWN PLANNING BOARD v. SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HARBOUR LTD

Citation

TOWN PLANNING BOARD v. SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HARBOUR LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV14/2003

The statutory presumption against reclamation in s.3 is not a mere material consideration; it can only be rebutted by establishing an overriding public need that is compelling and present, for which there is no reasonable alternative and which involves minimum impairment, supported by cogent and convincing evidence; the Board erred in law by applying a simple balancing test and its decisions were quashed and remitted for reconsideration under this legal test.
7 Jun 2002

Law Yim Ming v. Cheung Hang Fook t/a Tung Lok Villa and Another

Citation

Law Yim Ming v. Cheung Hang Fook t/a Tung Lok Villa and Another
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC450/2001

Respondents failed to prove summary dismissal or transfer of the business before the incident and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s5(4) that the accident arising in the course of employment arose out of that employment; accordingly 1st and 2nd respondents (partners) were jointly and severally liable to pay employees compensation, calculated on the adopted monthly wage of $8,000.
24 Sept 2001

Cheng Wai Yin Timothy v. Lung Fung Estate Agency O/B Legend Star Development Ltd.

Citation

Cheng Wai Yin Timothy v. Lung Fung Estate Agency O/B Legend Star Development Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC797/2000

The court held on the balance of probabilities that the assault occurred at the workplace during working hours and thus arose in the course of employment; the statutory presumption in s5(4)(a) applied and was not rebutted by the Respondent's evidence which was found not credible; any purported resignation/agreement did not bar compensation under s31; accordingly the Respondent was liable and the specified sums were awarded with credit for the advance.
27 Feb 2001

LEUNG KWAI LIN CINDY v. WU WING KUEN

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LIN CINDY v. WU WING KUEN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV14/2000

Section 23 embodies the common law presumption of regularity and, read liberally, presumes due execution where the instrument appears on its face to be duly executed and the surrounding circumstances do not rebut that presumption; s.13(1) does not bar proof of title by cogent secondary evidence; on the facts the statutory declarations and documents sufficed to prove the lost power of attorney and vendor showed good title, so appeal is allowed.
13 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. WONG FUNG KEI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG FUNG KEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC144/1999

The judge's summing up, though it omitted reference to the uninvoked statutory presumption in s.55(2) and certain wording in s.55(1), was comprehensive and accurate on possession, custody, control and intent; those omissions did not amount to material misdirection. The definition of custody given was adequate. The 12 year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the large quantity of explosives and nature of the operation. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.