The following cases were reported by the Hon Mr Justice Bokhary in the first quarter of 2022. See below for His Lordship’s remarks and observations by way of Editor’s Notes.

Chairman, Preliminary Investigation Committee, Medical Council of Hong Kong v Hospital Authority [2022] 1 HKLRD 16

“Procedure often engages fundamental rights and freedoms. This case is an illustration of that.”

HKSAR v A [2022] 1 HKLRD 31

“The Court of Appeal went on, in paras.25–27 of the judgment, to make some general observations on the role of informers.”

HKSAR v NWC (Taxation of Criminal Costs) [2022] 1 HKLRD 39

“Attention is drawn to the fact that NWC was not legally represented and to what the Court of Appeal said in paras.72–73 as to why they made an order nisi that there be no order as to the costs of the appeal.”

Bar Council v Sutherland (No 2) [2022] 1 HKLRD 58

“(i) Such is the nature and seriousness of the allegation that it is readily understandable that the Court of Appeal would wish to have all the evidence needed satisfactorily either to accept it or to dismiss it on the merits. (ii) See also [2019] 4 HKLRD 294 for an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan V-P and Chu JA) dismissing the respondent’s application for stay of execution of an order of the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal pending appeal.”

HKSAR v Tsang Cheung Yan [2022] 1 HKLRD 167

“While the general principles involved are not controversial, the present case is worthy of notice as an illustration of how they operate.”

Biozeal LLC v Nature’s Story Co Ltd (No 2) [2022] 1 HKLRD 191

“Attention is drawn to paras.32–60 in which the Judge helpfully set out for the appellate court’s benefit his unfavourable view of the grounds other than the jurisdiction-related ground which led him to grant leave to appeal.”

T v B (Arbitration) [2022] 1 HKLRD 279

“Attention is drawn to the reference in para.22(5) to bringing Hong Kong in line with the other arbitration communities.”

HKSAR v Chu Ho Wa [2022] 1 HKLRD 359

“This judgment states, and illustrates the operation of, the sentencing approach to: (i) the starting point for trafficking in a vast quantity of dangerous drugs; (ii) the sentencing discount for giving evidence pivotal to the conviction of the organiser of a major drug trafficking operation; and (iii) respect on appeal for an exercise of sentencing discretion exercised by a sentencing judge.”

RV v AA (Child Relocation) [2022] 1 HKLRD 593

“This case shows the importance of dealing with things in the appropriate sequence. That emerges from the fourth holding above and from how the Court of Appeal dealt with costs in para.34.”

HKSAR v Sit Yan Yi [2022] 1 HKLRD 748

“This judgment neatly states the principle and clearly illustrates its application.”

Santa Monica Equity Inc v Nzololo [2022] 1 HKLRD 752

“This judgment was delivered with the promptitude which shows commendable fidelity to the sadly often forgotten truth that justice delayed is justice denied.”

Wong Wing Wah v Collector of Stamp Revenue [2022] 1 HKLRD 926

“Attention is drawn to paras.6–7 in regard to why this case was treated as exceptional so that judicial review was appropriate even though there was an avenue of appeal which was available but not resorted to.”

HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2022] 1 HKLRD 1090

“This judgment deals in depth with the obligation on the part of judges in regard to putting the defence case to the jury when summing up. In this connection, it is worth remembering the following guidance given by the Appeal Committee in Chow Wai Choi v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 623 at para.6. After final speeches have concluded and before the summing-up begins, a trial judge is entitled, if he feels that it would assist him in giving the accused a fair trial, to call upon defence counsel to provide him with a list of the points made for the defence in final speech. This is — and should be approached and carried out in the spirit of — a co-operative exercise between Bench and Bar in the pursuit of justice.”

HKSAR v Castillo Caicedo Teresa [2022] 1 HKLRD 1230

“In addition to dealing with what was an understandable choice by counsel having regard to the law on Father Wotherspoon’s campaign at the time of such choice, this judgment: (i) reiterates the general approach to grounds of appeals based on allegations of incompetence on the part of lawyers; and (ii) sounds a warning against advancing such grounds, whether expressly or impliedly, simply on the basis that things should or could have been done differently.”

Re AB (Letter of Request) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1259

“It is to be observed that the proceedings concerned was held to be civil even though there was power to impose a monetary penalty. If the question were to arise again, it might be necessary to have regard to the case of Koon Wing Yee v Insider Dealing Tribunal (2008) 11 HKCFAR 170 in which it was held that the Insider Dealing Tribunal’s power to impose a monetary penalty, if such power stood, would render its proceedings criminal rather than civil.”