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.

BC v MSH (Ancillary Relief) [2024] 1 HKLRD 441

 “The importance of this judgment lies principally in what is said (at paras.66–78) about the disclosure of crypto investments.”

HKSAR v Gurung Shibakumar [2024] 1 HKLRD 491

 “This judgment states, and illustrates the application of: (i) the test by which it is to be decided whether there is a case to answer; and (ii) the principles on which it is to be decided whether jury guilty verdicts are to be considered unreasonable or unsafe.”

Falcon Insurance Co (Hong Kong) Ltd v Lee Zhong Jin [2024] 1 HKLRD 508

 “This determination is important for the reason, among other reasons, there did not appear to the Court to have been a decided case on the point.”

Tang Gang (唐剛) v Wong Sai Chung (汪世忠) [2024] 1 HKLRD 528

 “The importance of this judgment lies in the second holding above.”

Yang Yani (楊亞妮) v Fang Mingyun (方明雲) [2024] 1 HKLRD 632

 “The details appear in the first three holdings. As for the overall position reached, it is stated in the fourth holding.”

Eastrade Holdings Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2024] 1 HKLRD 707

 “Part of this judgment turns on case specific matters; but a considerable part of it turns on the Court’s understanding of general principles and its application of those principles.”

Li Jie v Hong Kong Airport Services Ltd [2024] 1 HKLRD 836

 “The relevant principles are dealt with in the first holding above. Their application is dealt with in the second to eighth holdings above.”