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.

Re AAR (Wardship: Sequestration) [2022] 5 HKLRD 583

 “This judgment goes to the availability of sequestration for securing compliance with an order for the return to the jurisdiction of a child wrongfully removed from it.”

HKSAR v Lam Tsz Ho [2022] 5 HKLRD 640 

“The danger that jurors will conduct research on their own is increased by the chance of doing so on the Internet. This judgment recognises that risk, and gives guidance on how to cope with it.”

Nuoxi Capital Ltd (諾熙資本有限公司) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd (北大方正集團有限公司) [2022] 5 HKLRD 837 

“Although this judgment turns on well-established principles rather than newly laid down principles, it is valuable in that it illustrates how those well-established principles operate.”

HKSAR v Lau Wing Wing (劉穎穎) [2022] 5 HKLRD 1007 

“The Court of Appeal concluded (at para.42) by stressing (i) that its function was to correct appealable errors at trial and to ensure that no miscarriage of justice had taken place and (ii) that it was not to retry a case.”

Re GW Electronics Co Ltd (弘威電子有限公司) [2022] 5 HKLRD 857 

“Without losing sight of the other points mentioned by the Court of Appeal, it is necessary to bear in mind what they said was by far the most important point, namely that the ad valorem fee, which is on a fixed scale, is mandatory under the law; and there is no power to waive it outside the mechanism for reduction under para.9 of the Companies (Fees and Percentages) Order (Cap.32C, Sub.Leg.).”