|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2020 |
|
|
Resentencing under the Parole Amendment: whole-life terms imposed for two murders involving premeditation, abduction and sexual/sadistic conduct.
Criminal law – murder – resentencing under Parole of Prisoners (Amendment) Ordinance s7 and s6A – whole-life minimum – aggravating factors: multiple murders, substantial premeditation and planning, abduction, sexual or sadistic conduct – forensic DNA and injury evidence – threshold for exceptional mitigating circumstances.
|
11 November 2020 |
| October 2020 |
|
|
Transitional parole eligibility changes do not impose a heavier penalty on the applicant under section 6(4) of the Constitution.
Constitutional law – Retroactivity/Article 7 ECHR – Whether changes to parole eligibility constitute a heavier penalty – Distinction between penalty and execution of sentence – Parole of Prisoners (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 – Transitional re‑sentencing – Life imprisonment.
|
14 October 2020 |
| September 2020 |
|
|
Civil Procedure
|
23 September 2020 |
|
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Foreign receivers by equitable execution may be recognised without domestication, but only on terms including payment of outstanding costs.
Conflict of Laws – Recognition of foreign receivers appointed by way of equitable execution; distinction between equitable execution and enforcement; Perry v Zissis inapplicable to recognition; sufficient connection/situs and forum considerations; officers of foreign court duties (directions, full and frank disclosure); effect of unpaid costs and abuse principle on permission to pursue fresh proceedings.
|
4 September 2020 |
|
Criminal law
|
4 September 2020 |
| July 2020 |
|
|
Court allowed amendment for a misnamed defendant and granted limited pre-action disclosure of specified documents for a contemplated personal injury claim.
Civil procedure — Pre-action disclosure under s.10 CPO and Order 24 r.7A — Misnomer of defendant — Amendment allowed — Relevance and necessity of documents (CCTV, complaint records, first aider report, investigation reports) — Delay and absence of draft pleading not fatal.
|
28 July 2020 |
|
Court refused security for costs where plaintiff's safety-based confidential address and local assets made security unnecessary.
Civil procedure – Security for costs – Discretion under Order 23 – factors: non-residence, assets within jurisdiction, strength of claim, risk of oppression. Non-disclosure of address – justified by personal safety and foreign court confidentiality; non-disclosure not punitive. Assets within jurisdiction – shareholding in local company and company funds may suffice for enforcement. Merits – limited inquiry into strength of claim unless high degree of probable success or failure is shown.
|
17 July 2020 |
|
|
17 July 2020 |
|
Application for security for costs dismissed: defendant failed to prove plaintiff non‑resident or impecunious.
Security for costs – Order 23 r.1(1)(a) – non‑residency is a precondition but not determinative; court’s discretion to order security having regard to all circumstances; Residency – person may be resident in more than one place where property is readily available; Evidence and burden – applicant must prove non‑residency and lack of enforceable assets; Full and frank disclosure – material facts must be provided; Enforcement abroad – presumption of enforceability in Commonwealth/Canada absent evidence to contrary.
|
10 July 2020 |
| June 2020 |
|
|
Regulation permitting Supreme Court sittings abroad is ultra vires to the extent it purports to extend territorial jurisdiction.
Constitutional law – Emergency regulations; Court sittings by video/remote means – limits on Supreme Court territorial jurisdiction; Ultra vires: emergency powers; Separation of powers; Ad hominem legislation; Section 20 (reasonable justification) and Article 7 (necessity, proportionality, urgency).
|
18 June 2020 |
|
Court refused defendant’s costs claim for wasted preparation, finding no unreasonable Crown conduct or prejudice to justify costs.
Criminal procedure – Costs in criminal proceedings – Jurisdiction of superior court to order costs – Supreme Court Ordinance s.3(1); Criminal Procedure Ordinance s.15. Inherent jurisdiction – Exercise sparingly to avoid clear injustice; guidance from English Practice Directions but not automatically adopted absent local rules. Application for judge-only retrial – late concession by Crown does not automatically attract wasted costs unless conduct caused prejudice or was unreasonable.
|
11 June 2020 |
|
Criminal law
|
5 June 2020 |
| May 2020 |
|
|
Claim against a third‑party beneficiary struck out: privity and lack of pleaded liability mean no cause of action.
Contract law – privity and third-party beneficiaries – party to contract v. beneficiary; Civil procedure – strike out under Order 18 r 19(1) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, frivolous or vexatious pleadings; Evidential limits – extrinsic affidavit evidence cannot cure pleading defects on strike-out; Entire agreement clause bars reliance on extrinsic matters; Abuse of process.
|
22 May 2020 |
|
Defendant sentenced to life with a 30-year tariff (less 628 days remand credit) under POPAO for firearm murder.
Criminal law – Murder – Sentencing under Parole of Prisoners (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 – Court must specify tariff before parole; starting point 30 years for murder unless "exceptional" circumstances; aggravating features (firearm, multiple shots, premeditation, public setting, group involvement); full credit for time on remand (628 days).
|
20 May 2020 |
|
Applicants awarded costs on standard basis after variation of restraint order; indemnity costs refused despite respondent’s procedural failings.
Proceeds of Crime Ordinance – restraint orders – variation to allow living and business expenses – costs: ordinary rule that costs follow the event; POCO ss.55,100,114 inapplicable to costs awards – indemnity costs require unreasonable conduct; late service and affidavits criticised but insufficient for indemnity.
|
19 May 2020 |
|
Banking
|
12 May 2020 |
|
|
1 May 2020 |
|
Defendant proved boat-rental set-off; business-licence and work-permit claims failed; net judgment and interest reformulated.
Counterclaim – set-off – loans consolidated; Boat hire – oral agreement, proved on balance of probabilities; Business licence – documentary evidence negates alleged licence arrangement; Work permit – no binding agreement or demonstrated acceptance/reliance; Registrar’s interest calculation set aside and replaced with court-ordered net sum with 6% interest.
|
1 May 2020 |
|
No binding 2008 lease was formed; 2012 lease valid and claim of economic duress dismissed.
Contract formation – necessity of agreement on essential terms and requirement of executed, vetted government lease before binding. Evidence – objective assessment of communications and conduct for intention to create legal relations. Tenancy – possession and rent where no concluded lease creates periodic tenancy. Economic duress – illegitimate pressure, practicable alternatives and bona fides; mere fiscal pressure not actionable. Intimidation and mistake – not established on the facts.
|
1 May 2020 |
| March 2020 |
|
|
|
31 March 2020 |
|
|
31 March 2020 |
|
Costs
|
20 March 2020 |
|
Civil Procedure
|
10 March 2020 |
| February 2020 |
|
|
Criminal law
|
20 February 2020 |
|
Constitutional Interpretation
|
7 February 2020 |
| January 2020 |
|
|
Costs
|
15 January 2020 |