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.

Tan Shaun Zhi Ming v Euromoney Institutional Investor (Jersey) Ltd [2022] 3 HKLRD 632 

“This case was decided on ordinary principles applied in uncommon circumstances.”

Re YL (a Minor) [2022] 3 HKLRD 699 

“The first two holdings go to jurisdiction; the third holding goes to lack of purpose for the Orders; and the fourth holding goes to the child's best interests. This judgment is of guidance to those dealing with the vexed question of child abduction by a parent.”

Chui Marjorie Che Ying v Appeal Tribunal (Buildings) [2022] 4 HKLRD 5 

“The essence of what was decided as to the proper construction of s.28(3), and therefore, the Manual's inconsistency therewith, are conveyed by the first two holdings above, but the learned Judge's reasoning on those matters should of course be read in its entirety.”

Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero) Pt Pertamina v Trevaskis Ltd [2022] 4 HKLRD 37 

“This judgment illustrates construction by reference to (i) linguistic considerations; (ii) the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant and (iii) purposiveness. The essence of what was decided appears in the foregoing holdings, but the whole of the judgment should of course be read.”

Harjang Singh v Secretary for Security [2022] 4 HKLRD 99 

“The essence of this judgment appears from the foregoing holdings, but the whole of the judgment is to be studied for the full facts of the case and the rival arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. Also, attention should be paid to the applicable principles summarised in para.164(1)-(25) of the judgment.”

Siu Yat Fung Anthony (蕭一峰) v Joint Tribunal of Bar Council and Law Society [2022] 4 HKLRD 276 

“(1) The following can be seen from para.20 of the judgment. At the hearing, the Judge had informed leading counsel on both sides of his provisional view of the Arrangement. They submitted that such a view would be relevant, if at all, only to matters of professional conduct, and ought not to affect or be taken into account in a judicial review of the Determination. The Judge proceeded on that basis. (2) see [2022] 3 HKLRD 443 for the previous Decision of the learned Judge on the issues of amenability of the Determination to judicial review and the proper respondent.”

Arwinder Singh v Secretary for Security [2022] 4 HKLRD 305 

“This case is illustrative of the sort of scrutiny conducted in determining whether prima facie lawful immigration detention pending removal has, by its length, rendered continued detention unlawful.”

Skyline Credit Ltd v Leung Hing Chung [2022] 4 HKLRD 561 

“This judgment illustrates the application of the test for appellate interference with findings of fact, and of the relevant provisions under the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap.163).”

LPC v CKHA (Maintenance Orders) [2022] 4 HKLRD 546 

“This headnote is in the brief terms which are consistent with the broad-brush approach which the Court of Appeal said is to be adopted in applications like these.”

Luck Most Ltd v Good Movement Ltd [2022] 4 HKLRD 845 

“This decision is directed to: (i) what lies within the scope of case management in the Lands Tribunal; and (ii) what valuation reports in compulsory sale applications should address.”

HKSAR v Kelvin YC Leung [2022] 4 HKLRD 903 

“The foregoing holdings account for the result reached. But this judgment is of course also to be studied more generally for the Court of Appeal's observations (at para.6 and elsewhere) on how courts, parties and their legal representatives, though with different roles to play, all share the enormous responsibility of ensuring: (i) that the wheels of criminal justice run in such a way that the public interest is duly served by criminal trials being conducted fairly, efficiently and expeditiously from beginning to conclusion; and (ii) that public confidence in the criminal justice system is not compromised by any shortfall in regard to those requirements.”

Joyful Delight Ltd (悅富有限公司) v Active Access Holdings Ltd (卓達控股有限公司) [2022] 5 HKLRD 1 

“This case offers guidance as to the procedure to be followed in situations of this kind.”

HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen [2022] 5 HKLRD 118 

“This judgment states and explains the way in which the District Court's sentencing jurisdictional limit of 7 years' imprisonment operates.”

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Ltd v Tse Ching [2022] 5 HKLRD 284 

“Close attention is to be paid to what the Court of Appeal said about the CJR underlying objectives.”

Registrar of Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants v Tang Chung Wah [2022] 5 HKLRD 298 

“While some of what is said in this judgment relates only to the accountancy profession, much of it is relevant to all professions.”

By Hong Kong Law Reporting Team

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.