New judgments

In 1983, Madam Tang Yin held a Government lease of land in Nam Wai in the New Territories. On 15 November 1983 she granted a sub-lease of the land to Mr To Cheong Lam for a term expiring 14 November 1998, i.e. after the expiry of her Government lease which was due to expire on 27 June 1997. In 1988 the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance (Cap 150) extended the term of Government leases in the New Territories until 2047. On 25 January 1986 Madam Tang executed a Deed of Gift purporting to assign the residue of the Government lease to her adopted son Mr To Shui Ki and herself as joint tenants. In 1990 Madam Tang died and in 1997 Mr To Shui Ki, on the basis that he had taken the Government lease by survivorship, sold the land to W.S. Realty Company Limited, which divided the land into plots and sold them to individual purchasers. Two such purchasers, Yim Tin Fook and Yim Tin Yau, brought these proceedings for possession, claiming title derived from Mr To Shui Ki, but found that Mr To Cheong Lam or his licencees remained in possession. The 1983 sub-lease to Mr To Cheong Lam was registrable under s.2(1) of the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap 128) but was never registered.

We dismissed this application for leave to appeal after hearing counsel for the applicant, indicating that we would hand down our reasons for doing so in due course.

We dismissed this leave application at the hearing and now supply the reasons.

The plaintiff wished to convert RMB 1 million in the Mainland into HKD available in Hong Kong. On 5 June 2016, the plaintiff's brother approached the defendant, who ran a currency exchange business in Hong Kong, and entered into an Exchange Agreement: the plaintiff would deposit RMB 1 million into a designated Mainland bank account (the Kwok account), and the defendant would deposit the equivalent HKD amount into the plaintiff's Hong Kong bank account at an agreed rate of RMB 854.5 to HKD 1,000. Such unlicensed currency exchange transactions were unlawful under Mainland law. On 7 June 2016 the plaintiff deposited the RMB 1 million, but the defendant never paid the HKD equivalent because the funds in the Kwok account were frozen by Mainland authorities in connection with an unrelated pyramid selling investigation. A Mainland court later ordered confiscation of the entire Kwok account balance in proceedings involving eight convicted persons, none of whom were the parties or the account holder; those orders were wholly unconnected with the exchange transaction.

The respondent, a former police officer, was convicted of two counts of committing an act of gross indecency towards a child under 16 and two counts of inciting such a child to commit an act of gross indecency. On a date in 2016, while alone at home with his then 10-year-old autistic son (X), the respondent played an explicit pornographic video and masturbated in front of X, and also asked X to masturbate in front of him. On a subsequent date in 2018, the respondent again made X watch pornographic videos, masturbated in front of X, and threatened X with a rattan cane to force him to masturbate in front of the respondent. The respondent did not testify at trial, his defence being that the events did not happen, and the jury convicted by a majority of 7 to 2.

This is the Plaintiff’s renewed application by Summons of 20 October 2025 (“ Renewed Leave Summons ”) for leave to appeal against the costs order (“ Costs Order ”) made by DHCJ Alan Kwong (“ Judge ”) on 4 August 2025 (“ Costs Decision ”, [2025] HKCFI 3338 ) in relation to the costs of a 6-day trial (the “ Trial ”) which he had presided over.

本案是有關兩宗合併審理的僱員補償案件。在2024 年11 月20 日，區域法院暫委法官李冠雄 (「李法官」) 經審訊後頒下判案書 ( [2024] HKDC 1896 ) (「判案書」)，駁回申請人的申索。

原告人於2026年2 月4 日存檔「提出動議通知書」，內容是「原訴人要求推翻上訴庭在2026 年1 月7 日判決 (「2026 年1 月7 日判決」) ，該判決要求原訴人付訟費HK$33,000 元，俾被告人。」。原告人同日存檔傳票，內容是「原訴人向上訴庭申請CACV328/2024 ，在2026 年1 月7 日訟費HK$33,000 元 ，申請暫緩執行，至本案完結。」

This is a renewed application by the respondents for leave to appeal against the judgment given by District Judge Elaine Liu (“the Judge”) on 31 October 2022 [1] (“the Judgment”).

本案涉及五名被告和十一項控罪。答辯人（原審D3）被控兩項罪名：控罪一「非法集結」 [1] （訴全部五名被告 [2] ）及控罪九「在非法集結中使用蒙面物品」 [3] （只訴答辯人）。經審訊後，區域法院法官葉佐文（「原審法官」）在2021 年 7月9 日裁定答辯人兩項控罪皆不成立。上訴人認為原審法官就兩罪的無罪裁決有悖常情，根據香港法例第336 章《區域法院條例》第84 條，以案件呈述方式提出上訴。