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.

Rinku v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] 2 HKLRD 523

 “This judgment provides a useful illustration of the exercise of the Court of Appeal's discretion to entertain in the interest of justice a ground not directly raised by an appellant in person and to allow the appeal on that ground.”

Rich Engineering Ltd (富裕工程有限公司) v Fire Service Installation Contractors Disciplinary Board [2024] 2 HKLRD 531

 “Apart from dealing with the grounds of appeal as indicated in the foregoing holdings, the Judge ruled at paras.21 to 28 that the Director of Fire Services should not have been joined as a respondent in the appeal.”

Cheung Woon Yiu (張煥堯) v Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (商務及經濟發展局) [2024] 2 HKLRD 652

 “This case turned largely on the division of functions between, on the one hand, the political branches of government and, on the other hand, the judicial branch of government. And that is reflected in the foregoing holdings as to why leave was refused. But the Court, as one sees at paras.31–32 of the judgment, also considered delay to be a problem, though not necessarily a determinative one, for the applicant.”

R v Tam Woon Cheung [2024] 2 HKLRD 801

 “This hitherto unreported case is one of three Court of Appeal cases cited in volume 5 of Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong 2nd ed (2023) in the concluding paragraph (at p.487) under the sub-heading 60.064, “Controlling disproportionate pecuniary resources or property”. The other two cases are the reported cases of Attorney General v Carlyle [1977] HKLR 60 and Attorney General v Wilkinson [1977] HKLR 317. These three cases complement each other in conveying the legal position in regard to exceptional situations in which it is appropriate to impose a suspended sentence rather than an immediate custodial sentence for the offence of controlling and failing to explain the control of, disproportionate pecuniary resources or property. It is unsatisfactory that the case of Tam Woon Cheung remains unreported, especially as it deals with both of the other two cases. Hence this report.”

Chan Chung Sing v Chan Andy Yuan [2024] 2 HKLRD 828

 “The main interest in this judgment lies in the distinction drawn between our rules of court and those of England, which distinction leaves more room, here than there to take it into account in litigants’ favour, when considering application for relief from sanction, that the fault leading to sanction was that of their legal advisers rather than their own.”