Skip to main content

Hong Kong Law Reports and Digest: Recently reported cases, with observations by Mr Justice Bokhary

Content updates

Hong Kong Law Reports and Digest is the only authorised law reporting service in Hong Kong endorsed by the Judiciary. Cases are selected by the Hon Mr Justice Bokhary GBM, NPJ, General Editor, ensuring the most reliable and comprehensive coverage of over 100 years of official case law in Hong Kong.

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

HKSAR v Kofi Frimpong [2021] 4 HKLRD 128

“Particular attention is drawn to the call for an amendment of s.39 of the Criminal Appeal Rules (Cap.221A, Sub.Leg.).”

Director of Social Welfare v YKK [2021] 4 HKLRD 30

“(1) The Judge said in para.62 that it would seem that when making a s.5A application in the Court of First Instance instead of the District Court, the Director has in mind a Convention Adoption and intends once a suitable adopter is identified to pass care and control of the child to a person not residing in Hong Kong. (2) She continued by saying as follows in paras.63–64: The Director’s evidence in a s.5A application should set out clearly the Director’s adoption plans, whether it is for a local adoption or for a Convention Adoption. Section 5A applications made by the Director in the Court of First Instance have sometimes been issued under "HCAD” and sometimes under "HCMP”. Such applications relate to a child’s proposed adoption. They should for consistency sake always be issued under "HCAD”. (3) While the finding that the evidence before the court was insufficient for it to be satisfied that an adoption is in the child’s best interests is necessarily fact-specific and fact-sensitive, the Judge’s reasons as to why the evidence was insufficient provides guidance as to what the Director’s evidence in these applications should address and how. (4) Guidance is also to be had from the observations which the Judge went on to make after saying that it was premature to consider stage two.”

HKSAR v Bolanos (Brudencio Jao) [2021] 4 HKLRD 138

“The Court drew attention (at para.26) to the importance of not overlooking the elementary principle that the facts upon which psychiatrists base their opinions must be proved by admissible evidence.”

Liao Chen Toh v Loyal International Enterprises Co Ltd [2021] 4 HKLRD 202

“While the foregoing holdings sufficiently indicate the reasons for the result in this appeal, the judgment as a whole is of course worth consulting in regard to the subject generally of service on persons residing outside the jurisdiction.”

HKSAR v Hurek Simon [2021] 4 HKLRD 245

“This judgment provides an indication of the range of seriousness in offences of this kind.”

Yuki Kong
By Yuki Kong
Legal Editor

Yuki Kong is Legal Editor of Hong Kong Law Reports and Digest and Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal Reports. She is a qualified solicitor in Hong Kong and England and Wales.

Speak to a consultant

Can't find an answer to your question?
Contact our support team.

Request training

Contact our team to arrange training.

Tell us what you think

We'd love to hear what you think
of our products and support.