Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness summons

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2024

LAU KIN MAN EDWARD 對 TSOI TING CHU JOHN及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2109
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4874/2021

Plaintiff proved only the 2014 leakage incident attributable to 5G (supported by the nuisance notice), but defendants became aware then and undertook remediation within a reasonable time; moreover any claim in respect of the 2014 incident accrued no later than 4 December 2014 and is time‑barred under Limitation Ordinance s4(1); accordingly all claims dismissed and costs ordered against plaintiff.
20 Nov 2024

ZHENG YANQIU 對 NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3736
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI128/2021

The court granted an adjournment to 14 April 2025 and reduced the estimated trial to 3 days after accepting the plaintiff’s medical evidence on balance and exercising discretion to give the plaintiff the benefit of doubt; the pending/decided recusal application was not a ground to refuse the adjournment; consequential timetable directions were set.
12 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN)AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

Applying the balance of probabilities and the authorities, the court found there was a limited, contextual waiver by Ms Chan only in respect of communications and legal advice relating to the ICAC interview under caution; there was no general or full waiver. Accordingly a narrowed documentary summons may issue limited to communications evidencing legal advice sought or given concerning that interview within the appropriate timeframe and scope.
12 Jun 2017

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. NUTANIX HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. NUTANIX HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2017

The Tribunal adopted a confidentiality protocol restricting use of all produced documents to these proceedings (wider protection to guard against collateral use), directed the Applicant to supply lists of documents with a verifying affidavit, set specific timetables (including 12 weeks from provision of lists for third-party discovery applications and for applications on expert evidence), fixed dates for witness summons applications and the next CMC, targeted a substantive hearing period, refused the 3rd Respondent's request for an extended filing period beyond a short extension, and ordered…
14 Apr 2015

WALLBANCK BROTHERS SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHENG WAI KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

WALLBANCK BROTHERS SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHENG WAI KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA1/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the Adjudicator's decisions were discretionary case‑management judgments within the range of reasonable choices, no arguable question of law was identified under s.28(1), and the applicant failed to show the Adjudicator was plainly wrong or that the orders would cause clear injustice or prevent the trial court from carrying out its task.
26 Mar 2012

HKSAR v. WONG CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC203/2010

The application for a certificate was refused because the legal questions raised were not of general importance but depended on the specific facts; correspondence alone does not constitute the offence and, on the facts, the appellant's conduct—including misleading information and unprofessional devices—was manifestly improper and crossed the line into attempting to pervert the course of justice.
28 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. LAW KAI MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAW KAI MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC408/2007

The judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing a further adjournment because the defence witnesses had been duly summonsed but would not attend, the defence elected not to compel them, and the proposed evidence was of marginal relevance that would not undermine the reliable identification of the applicant or the voluntariness of his post‑arrest statement; accordingly the fresh evidence application under s83V was rightly refused and the conviction is safe.
16 Oct 2009

UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS LTD v. CHAN HOI SHUN AND OTHERS t/a C.Y. SUPPLIES CO

Citation

UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS LTD v. CHAN HOI SHUN AND OTHERS t/a C.Y. SUPPLIES CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ724/2008

The application to set aside the witness summons was refused because the subpoena sought documents relevant to the fraud litigation, the Official Receiver cannot be used as a shield to conceal possible fraud, and any objection to disclosure lies with the bankrupt owner who was not consulted; accordingly the Official Receiver must produce documents relevant to the litigation.
22 Dec 1999

RUTH PREVENSLIK v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL [AIS] LTD.

Citation

RUTH PREVENSLIK v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL [AIS] LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA95/1999

Leave to appeal against the Labour Tribunal's refusal to issue witness summonses is refused because neither the Labour Tribunal nor an appellate judge has jurisdiction to inquire into or compel evidence regarding prosecutorial decisions; the proper remedy for challenging a prosecution decision is judicial review, and courts cannot order ICAC or Ombudsman investigations.
3 May 1996

R. v. LAM YIH JIUN MICHAEL

Citation

R. v. LAM YIH JIUN MICHAEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA791/1995

The magistrate who conducted the trial was entitled to deal summarily with a sworn witness under s.21(4) and common‑law contempt powers; the evidence showed the appellant wilfully refused to answer and gave no particularised evidence of duress or threats; the appellant bore the burden to prove just excuse on the balance of probabilities while the magistrate had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that none existed; accordingly the conviction was upheld and the custodial sentence of six weeks was legitimate though suspended for one year in the exercise of discretion.