Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tacit agreement

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC29/2010

The Court granted leave to the respective applicants and to the prosecution to pursue specified grounds under s.32(2); leave was generally granted under the substantial and grave injustice limb to enable fresh argument on factual misapprehension, admissibility of documents, the proviso, and inferential reasoning, and in Rahman's case also under the point of law limb to challenge any alleged duty of a non‑director to act as a whistle‑blower.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC25/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal selectively under s.32(2) on the substantial and grave injustice limb in most instances and on both limbs for Mr Rahman where a pure point of law was raised; leave was granted to the parties and the prosecution to pursue specified grounds (mistaken factual findings, admission of documents, proviso application, tacit agreement, duty to whistle-blow and related evidential matters) and to have those issues reviewed by the Court of Final Appeal.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC27/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal selectively on the grounds articulated: leave was granted where arguable points of law or potential substantial and grave injustice were shown (including misapplication of the proviso, wrongful admission of documents, failure to review facts, and questions about whistle‑blowing obligations), and the prosecution was granted leave to appeal the quashing of Ms Fan's conviction on Charge 1 to argue consistency between Charge 2 and Charge 1 outcomes.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC26/2010

Leave to appeal was granted selectively because each applicant identified arguable grounds that raised either a point of law under s.32(2) or a real prospect of substantial and grave injustice warranting appellate consideration; the Court did not decide the merits but allowed the issues to be ventilated at full appeal.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC28/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal to the specified applicants largely under the substantial and grave injustice limb of s.32(2), and in one instance also under the point of law limb, because arguable errors existed concerning admitted evidence, factual inferences (including tacit agreement and post‑conspiracy conduct), application of the proviso and a legal point about whistle‑blower obligations for non‑director employees; the grants were for the limited purpose of permitting those issues to be fully argued before the Court of Final Appeal, not to decide guilt or liability at this stage.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC30/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal to the specified applicants predominantly under the substantial and grave injustice limb (and in Rahman's case also on the point of law limb) to permit full consideration of claimed errors: factual mistakes about documentary evidence of the Executive Committee's purpose, wrongful admission of internal bank documents under the co-conspirators rule, incorrect inferences of tacit agreement and guilty knowledge, improper imposition of a whistle-blower duty on a non-director, and misapplication of the proviso; the prosecution was granted leave to appeal the quashi…

Hong Kong Case Law

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR