Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness interference

Legal area

Court

28 Jun 2024

RE PAN SUTONG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV261/2022

The Court dismissed the appeals and applications: the alleged Overall Agreement did not raise a bona fide dispute of the debt on substantial grounds because it conflicted with contemporaneous documents and contractual terms and Peng's evidence was not sufficiently credible or material; the Hong Kong court's jurisdictional thresholds to wind up Silver Starlight were satisfied; the late evidence and Oaktree term sheet were speculative and insufficient to justify postponement; prior adverse rulings and abuse/estoppel principles precluded re-litigation; accordingly the winding up and bankruptcy o…
28 Jun 2024

CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, TIANJIN BRANCH AND OTHERS v. SILVER STARLIGHT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV265/2022

The Court held that (1) the alleged Overall Agreement was not credible and did not raise a bona fide dispute of the debt on substantial grounds; (2) the trial judge did not err in refusing to admit the late evidence relating to Peng and the alleged interference because it was late, insufficiently particularised and would unfairly prejudice the Banks; (3) prior interlocutory decisions (injunction and statutory demand rulings) and the Turner principle barred re‑litigation in the petition/winding up context absent materially new and cogent evidence; (4) the statutory thresholds for exercising wi…
28 Jun 2024

RE PAN SUTONG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2022

The Court held that the disputed 'Overall Agreement' allegation lacked credibility and did not raise a bona fide dispute of the debt on substantial grounds; the late and unconvincing Peng evidence and recorded calls did not justify re-opening issues already decided and did not satisfy standards for fresh evidence; issue estoppel/abuse of process (Turner principle) barred re-litigation; jurisdiction to wind up Silver Starlight was properly established and the bankruptcy and winding up orders were correctly made; the proposed Oaktree financing was non-binding and insufficient to merit postponem…
28 Jun 2024

CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, TIANJIN BRANCH AND OTHERS v. SILVER STARLIGHT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP294/2022

The Court of Appeal held that (1) the late evidence alleging witness interference was properly excluded because of delay, lack of credibility and prejudice to the Banks; (2) prior judicial determinations and the Turner/principle against re‑litigation barred re‑opening issues already decided on the injunction and statutory demand applications absent material new evidence, which did not exist here; (3) even on the merits the alleged Overall Agreement was unsupported, contradicted by contemporaneous documents and not a bona fide dispute of the debt; (4) the Oaktree term sheet was non‑binding and…
10 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD, QASIM

Citation

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD, QASIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP161/2017

Independent, untampered CCTV footage showing the applicant (or a person closely resembling him) in Yuen Long at the time of the Hung Hom assault materially undermined the strength of the prosecution identification evidence; prosecution failed to show substantial grounds under CPO s9G to believe the applicant would fail to surrender or interfere with witnesses; accordingly bail was granted subject to conditions.
20 Jun 2016

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1405/2016

The court held that the Defendant's settlement term conditioning settlement on the witness refraining from giving a witness statement to the Plaintiff was an unambiguous impropriety that abused the without prejudice occasion; consequently the without prejudice privilege did not protect that evidence and the material referring to the offer of 26 November 2015 was admissible at trial. The Judge below erred in refusing admission.
20 May 2016

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HOTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HOTRADE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA109/2014

The three letters were sent in the context of genuine without prejudice settlement negotiations and thus attracted without prejudice privilege; the material did not disclose clear or unambiguous impropriety (no established attempt to pervert the course of justice nor contempt) and was not shown to be relevant to the trial such that the without prejudice veil should be lifted, therefore the objected contents must be struck out/expunged from the witness statement.
1 Dec 1995

R. v. NG CHUN MING

Citation

R. v. NG CHUN MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA910/1995

Convictions were upheld; the aggregate sentence of 30 months was excessive for low‑grade, low‑key attempts to dissuade a witness and was reduced to 6 months for each offence to be served consecutively, producing a total sentence of 12 months.