Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tribunal procedure

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2023

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. GRAY LINE TOURS OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCT 3
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2022

Rule 30(1) permits representation by counsel, by solicitors with CFI rights, or by other persons with leave, but for trials the Tribunal should follow CFI practice where only barristers or solicitors with higher rights ordinarily conduct trials; accordingly leave for a solicitor without higher rights to conduct the trial was refused and the application dismissed.
11 Aug 2021

RE MOHAMMAD SHAHID

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2248
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1899/2018

Applicant's leave application and subsequent appeal were refused because he failed to establish good reason for substantial delay (about four months for leave, five weeks for appeal), failed to return the SCF and to pursue or substantiate his claim, and the intended judicial review lacked merit; on that basis extension of time and leave were denied and the adjudicator's decision was upheld.
30 Apr 2019

CHENG CHAK NGOK v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 17
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV125/2018

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal had correctly identified the real issue — that the Tribunal had applied a criminal standard rather than the civil balance of probabilities — there was no unresolved question of law requiring determination by the Court of Final Appeal, and the remitter to a differently constituted Tribunal was appropriate as the Court of Appeal's judgment will not preclude a fair rehearing.
8 May 2014

LONGEST PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

LONGEST PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV60/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions posed were not of great general or public importance on the facts: the appeal was decided on the Applicant's failure to show good cause at the Preliminary Hearing and the Tribunal was not wrong to refuse the oral evidence in the circumstances; no exceptional circumstances existed to grant leave under the discretionary limb.
29 Jan 2014

吳文演 AND ANOTHER v. 人事登記審裁處

Citation

吳文演 AND ANOTHER v. 人事登記審裁處
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL72/2011

Article 10 was engaged because the Tribunal determined issues affecting applicants' civil right of abode; however there was no contravention because this court, sitting in judicial review, had full jurisdiction to deal with the matters complained of and provided the necessary public scrutiny; accordingly the Tribunal's preliminary determinations stood (private hearing did not breach Article 10 in the facts, refusal of discovery was not unfair given absence of relevance or evidence, and civil standard of proof applied), and the judicial review application was dismissed.
29 Aug 2013

DAY BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF WONGBING (DECEASED）AND OTHERS

Citation

DAY BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF WONGBING (DECEASED）AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS16000/2012

Recusal dismissed because the relationship between Member Pang and the valuation expert was limited to casual professional acquaintance without personal friendship or substantial private dealings, the trial was not contested with competing expert evidence, and a fair‑minded informed observer would not conclude there was a real possibility of bias impairing Member Pang's ability to decide objectively.
22 Apr 2009

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. NAM TAI TRADING CO LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. NAM TAI TRADING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC4250/2008

Leave to appeal was granted because the intended appeal disclosed an arguable case with a reasonable (not fanciful) prospect of success on key constitutional and statutory issues, and general leave was appropriate without restriction of grounds.
18 Mar 2008

CHAN KIN SHING SONNY v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KIN SHING SONNY v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV20/2007

The Court held that because s.23(1)(c) authorized a punitive and potentially severe penalty (treble disgorgement) the Tribunal proceedings were in substance criminal for purposes of arts 10 and 11 BOR; consequently the direct use of compelled answers under s.33 SFCO and compulsion under s.17 SIDO infringed the privilege against self-incrimination and the Tribunal should have applied the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; remedially the appropriate course was to declare s.23(1)(c) invalid and restore the Tribunal's findings and remaining orders under ss.23(1)(a),(b) and 27.
29 Jun 2006

THREE WEEKLY LTD v. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

THREE WEEKLY LTD v. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL42/2003

The Court held the Tribunal acted within statutory remit: it lawfully considered the Article as a whole (including index/contents) and properly took context and manner of publication into account under s10 when assessing dominant effect and honest purpose; classification proceedings are administrative (not criminal) so criminal standards of proof and strict evidentiary rules do not apply; classification is not conclusive in subsequent criminal determination and Section 33 only provides conclusive proof of the fact of classification where required; the statutory appeal and judicial review mech…
9 May 2006

NG KAR LEE v. EASTERN GLOBAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

NG KAR LEE v. EASTERN GLOBAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA78/2005

Even assuming the presiding officer has inherent jurisdiction to grant a right of audience to a person not falling within the statutory categories, on the evidence Mr Kwok Wing did not have authority to represent the defendant at the August hearing and the presiding officer did not err in refusing him audience; therefore the appeal fails.