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 Li Cheung Choi [2021] 4 HKLRD 423

“The foregoing holdings reflect the basis on which the Court of Appeal disposed of the present case in the state of the law under a previous decision of theirs from which they felt unable to depart. At paras.131–133 they raised the possibility of a different course open to those not bound by that previous decision of theirs.”

Lau Koon Ying Matthew v Lau Tark Wing (No 2) [2021] 4 HKLRD 535

“(i) The judgment states the principles and illustrates their application. (ii) See also [2020] 1 HKLRD 367 for an earlier appeal by the defendants to the Court of Appeal (Kwan V-P and Yuen JA).”

Join Smart Ltd v Town Planning Board [2021] 4 HKLRD 645

“This judgment indicates and illustrates the approach to a judicial review challenge to a refusal of re-zoning.”

Re STP (Expenses for Surrogacy and Parental Order) [2021] 4 HKLRD 719

“The foregoing holdings sufficiently indicate what the Court decided and why. Nevertheless, what the Judge said about the appropriate checklist and her general observations on approach repay study.”

803 Funds Ltd v Secretary for Education [2021] 4 HKLRD 735

“This judicial review case appears to be the first of its kind.”

PYJ v NKS (Child: Schooling) [2021] 5 HKLRD 1

“While courts have to decide these things when divorced parents cannot agree on them, what the Judge says in this decision shows what great efforts were made to mediate agreement between the parents.”

TO v KO (Divorce: Jurisdiction) [2021] 5 HKLRD 137

“The result of the appeal rested on the foregoing holdings, but attention should be paid to the postscript at paras.68–71.”

HKSAR v Cheung Tze Hong [2021] 5 HKLRD 248

“This judgment provides guidance for future cases in which the judge is not minded to permit a defendant, who has been put in the jury’s charge, to reverse his plea(s) of guilty.”

Yip Kim Po v AIG Insurance Hong Kong Ltd [2021] 5 HKLRD 295

“This judgment deals with: (i) the basis on which a stay pending appeal may properly be granted; and (ii) the importance of context on questions of construction.”

Re Lee Gu Lan Francesca [2021] 5 HKLRD 323

“In addition to drawing attention to the Judge’s observations at paras.23–29 on wider matters, I put this note to the happy use of welcoming Ms Lee and her co-admittees to the family of the law.”

Keung Kin Wah v Law Society of Hong Kong [2021] 5 HKLRD 413

“While refusing leave to apply for judicial review on the ground of failure to exhaust an alternative remedy and on the ground of delay, the Judge recognised in para.46 that the question of whether the SCC ought to give reasons for its decisions was of some general importance.”

Solicitor (529/2018) v Law Society of Hong Kong (No 2) [2021] 5 HKLRD 445

“(1) The Court of Appeal made it clear (at para.24) that this judgment is not to be read as a general relaxation of the Ladd v Marshall conditions. (2) See also [2020] 2 HKLRD 162 for previous related proceedings.”

HKSAR v Chung Yiu Lam (No 2) [2021] 5 HKLRD 614

“(i) The appeal’s success on the first complaint rendered it unnecessary to resolve the points arising under the third complaint, but such resolution may prove necessary in future. (ii) See also [2018] 4 HKLRD 704 for a previous judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lunn V-P, McWalters JA and M Poon J) allowing the defendant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence after trial before Deputy Judge Campbell-Moffat and a jury.”

Re Lee Siu Fung Siegfried [2021] 5 HKLRD 627

“(1) The number of points taken on behalf of the applicants have yielded a corresponding number of propositions laid down by the court in rejection of those points. (2) See also [2017] 1 HKLRD 1155, [2018] 3 HKLRD 765, [2019] 1 HKLRD 961, [2020] 1 HKLRD 694 for previous related proceedings.”

Leung Chi Ching Candy v Yeung Hon Sing [2021] 5 HKLRD 684

“This judgment illustrates the difference between the approach on appeal to, on the one hand, contentions that a trial judge had merely erred and, on the other hand, contentions that the trial judge had not put his mind to the issues and had failed to make an independent judgment.”